DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52359#0029
INTRODUCTION.
XXV
rules is warranted to a certain extent by corresponding
rules occurring in the Smrztis of Yagmavalkya and Narada ;
and the evidence for the modifications and entire trans-
formations, which the code of Manu must have undergone
in a number of successive periods, is so abundant, that the
archaic character of many of its rules cannot be considered
to constitute a sufficient proof of the priority of the whole
code before other codes which contain some rules of a com-
paratively modern character. To this it must be added
that the Narada-smrzti, though taken as a whole it is deci-
dedly posterior to the code of Manu1, is designated by tra-
dition as an epitome from another and more bulky recension
of the code of Manu than the one which we now possess ;
and if this statement may be credited, which is indeed
rather doubtful, the very particular resemblance between
both works in the law of evidence and in the rules re-
garding property (see LVIII) can only tend to corroborate
the assumption that the Vishzzu-sutra and the Manu-smrzti
must have been closely connected from the first.
This view is capable of further confirmation still by a
different set of arguments. The so-called code of Manu
is universally assumed now to be an improved metrical
edition of the ancient Dharma-sutra of the (Maitrayazziya-)
Manavas, a school studying the Black Ya^ur-veda ; and it
has been shown above that the ancient stock of the Vishzzu-
sutra, in which all the parts hitherto discussed may be
included, represents in the main the Dharma-sutra of the
□Yarayazziya-ka/Zzas, another school studying the Black
Ya^ur-veda. Now these two schools do not only belong
both to that Veda, but to the same branch of it, as may be
seen from the Varazzavyuha, which work classes both the
Kaz'/zas and Zfiarayazziyas on the one hand, and the Manavas
1 See the evidence collected in the Preface to my Institutes of Narada
(London, 1876), to which the important fact may be added that Narada uses
the word dinara, the Roman denarius. It occurs in a large fragment discovered
by Dr. Buhler of a more bulky and apparently older recension of that work
than the one which I have translated ; and I may be allowed to mention,
incidentally, that this discovery has caused me to abandon my design of publish-
ing the Sanskrit text of the shorter recension, as it may be hoped that the
whole text of the original work will soon come to light.
XXV
rules is warranted to a certain extent by corresponding
rules occurring in the Smrztis of Yagmavalkya and Narada ;
and the evidence for the modifications and entire trans-
formations, which the code of Manu must have undergone
in a number of successive periods, is so abundant, that the
archaic character of many of its rules cannot be considered
to constitute a sufficient proof of the priority of the whole
code before other codes which contain some rules of a com-
paratively modern character. To this it must be added
that the Narada-smrzti, though taken as a whole it is deci-
dedly posterior to the code of Manu1, is designated by tra-
dition as an epitome from another and more bulky recension
of the code of Manu than the one which we now possess ;
and if this statement may be credited, which is indeed
rather doubtful, the very particular resemblance between
both works in the law of evidence and in the rules re-
garding property (see LVIII) can only tend to corroborate
the assumption that the Vishzzu-sutra and the Manu-smrzti
must have been closely connected from the first.
This view is capable of further confirmation still by a
different set of arguments. The so-called code of Manu
is universally assumed now to be an improved metrical
edition of the ancient Dharma-sutra of the (Maitrayazziya-)
Manavas, a school studying the Black Ya^ur-veda ; and it
has been shown above that the ancient stock of the Vishzzu-
sutra, in which all the parts hitherto discussed may be
included, represents in the main the Dharma-sutra of the
□Yarayazziya-ka/Zzas, another school studying the Black
Ya^ur-veda. Now these two schools do not only belong
both to that Veda, but to the same branch of it, as may be
seen from the Varazzavyuha, which work classes both the
Kaz'/zas and Zfiarayazziyas on the one hand, and the Manavas
1 See the evidence collected in the Preface to my Institutes of Narada
(London, 1876), to which the important fact may be added that Narada uses
the word dinara, the Roman denarius. It occurs in a large fragment discovered
by Dr. Buhler of a more bulky and apparently older recension of that work
than the one which I have translated ; and I may be allowed to mention,
incidentally, that this discovery has caused me to abandon my design of publish-
ing the Sanskrit text of the shorter recension, as it may be hoped that the
whole text of the original work will soon come to light.