DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52359#0028
XXIV
VISH2VU.
has proved to have been converted into AnushZubh Slokas
by Mann (II, 114, 115, 144) and Manu seems to have
taken the substance of his three Slokas from this work
more immediately, because both he (II, 144) and Vishzzu
(XXX, 47) have the reading avzznoti for atnnatti, which
truly Vedic form is employed both by VasishVza and Yaska.
The relative antiquity of Vishzzu’s prose rules, as compared
to the numerous corresponding Xlokas of Manu, may be
proved by arguments precisely similar to those which I
have adduced above in speaking of the Ya^navalkya-smrz’ti.
As regards those points in the code of Manu, which are
usually considered as marks of the comparatively late date
of its composition, it will suffice to mention, that the Vishzzu-
sutra nowhere refers to South Indian nations such as the
Draviffas and Andhras, or to the Yavanas; that it shows no
distinct traces of an acquaintance with the tenets of any other
school of philosophy except the Yoga and Sankhya systems;
that it does not mention female ascetics disparagingly, and in
particular does not contain Manu’s rule (VIII, 363) regarding
the comparatively light punishment to be inflicted for vio-
lation of (Buddhist and other) female ascetics ; and that it
does not inveigh (see XV, 3), like Manu (IX, 64-68), against
the custom of Niyoga or appointment of a widow to raise
offspring to her deceased husband. It is true, on the other
hand, that in many cases Vishzzu’s rules have a less archaic
character than the corresponding precepts of Manu, not
only in the Xlokas, but in the Sutra part as well. Thus
written documents and ordeals are barely mentioned in the
code of Manu (VIII, 114, 115, 168; IX, 232); Vishzzu on
the other hand, besides referring in divers places to royal
grants and edicts, to written receipts and other private
documents, and to books, devotes to writings (lekhya) an
entire chapter, in which he makes mention of the caste of
Kayasthas, ‘scribes,’ and he lays down elaborate rules for the
performance of five species of ordeals, to which recourse
should be had, according to him, in all suits of some import-
ance. But in nearly all such cases the antiquity ofVishzzu’s
1 Introduction to Bombay Digest, I, p. xxviii seq.
VISH2VU.
has proved to have been converted into AnushZubh Slokas
by Mann (II, 114, 115, 144) and Manu seems to have
taken the substance of his three Slokas from this work
more immediately, because both he (II, 144) and Vishzzu
(XXX, 47) have the reading avzznoti for atnnatti, which
truly Vedic form is employed both by VasishVza and Yaska.
The relative antiquity of Vishzzu’s prose rules, as compared
to the numerous corresponding Xlokas of Manu, may be
proved by arguments precisely similar to those which I
have adduced above in speaking of the Ya^navalkya-smrz’ti.
As regards those points in the code of Manu, which are
usually considered as marks of the comparatively late date
of its composition, it will suffice to mention, that the Vishzzu-
sutra nowhere refers to South Indian nations such as the
Draviffas and Andhras, or to the Yavanas; that it shows no
distinct traces of an acquaintance with the tenets of any other
school of philosophy except the Yoga and Sankhya systems;
that it does not mention female ascetics disparagingly, and in
particular does not contain Manu’s rule (VIII, 363) regarding
the comparatively light punishment to be inflicted for vio-
lation of (Buddhist and other) female ascetics ; and that it
does not inveigh (see XV, 3), like Manu (IX, 64-68), against
the custom of Niyoga or appointment of a widow to raise
offspring to her deceased husband. It is true, on the other
hand, that in many cases Vishzzu’s rules have a less archaic
character than the corresponding precepts of Manu, not
only in the Xlokas, but in the Sutra part as well. Thus
written documents and ordeals are barely mentioned in the
code of Manu (VIII, 114, 115, 168; IX, 232); Vishzzu on
the other hand, besides referring in divers places to royal
grants and edicts, to written receipts and other private
documents, and to books, devotes to writings (lekhya) an
entire chapter, in which he makes mention of the caste of
Kayasthas, ‘scribes,’ and he lays down elaborate rules for the
performance of five species of ordeals, to which recourse
should be had, according to him, in all suits of some import-
ance. But in nearly all such cases the antiquity ofVishzzu’s
1 Introduction to Bombay Digest, I, p. xxviii seq.