DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.52359#0035
INTRODUCTION.
xxxi
zzuitic editor from modern Smrztis, either for the sake
of completeness, or in order to make up the required
number of chapters. 6. All the passages hitherto men-
tioned are such as have no parallel in other ancient Smrztis.
But the Vishzzuitic editor did evidently not confine himself
to the introduction of new matter into the ancient Dharma-
sutra. That he did not refrain, occasionally, from altering
the original text, has been conjectured above with regard to
his readings of some of those Vlokas, which are found in the
code of Manu as well ; and it can be proved quite clearly
by comparing his version of the Vrz'shotsarga ceremony
(LXXXVI) with the analogous chapter of the Kanaka
Grzhya-sutra. In one case (LI, 64; cf. XXIII, 50 =M. V,
131) he has replaced the words, which refer the authorship
of the Sloka in question to Manu, by an unmeaning term.
The superior antiquity of Manu’s reading (V, 41) is
vouched for by the recurrence of the same passage in the
Grzhya-sutra of Sarikhayana (II, 16, 1) and in the Vasish//^a-
smrzti (IV, 6), and the reference to Manu has no doubt
been removed by the Vishzzuitic editor, because it would
have been out of place in a speech of Vishzzu. References
to sayings of Manu and other teachers and direct quotations
from Vedic works are more or less common in all Dharma-
sutras, and their entire absence in this work is apparently
due to their systematical removal by the editor. On the
other hand, the lists of Vedic and other works to be studied
or recited may have been enlarged in one or two cases by
him or by another interpolator, namely, XXX, 37 (cf.V, 191),
where theAtharva-veda is mentioned after the other Vedas by
the name of‘ Atharva/za’ (not Atharvahgirasas, as in the code
of Manu and most other ancient works), and LXXXIII, 7,
where Vydkara/za, ‘ Grammar,’ i. e. according to the Com-
mentary the grammars of Pazzini and others, is mentioned
as distinct from the Vedarigas. The antiquity of the former
passage might indeed be defended by the example of Apa-
stamba, who, though referring like this work to the ‘three
Vedas’ both separately and collectively, mentions in an-
other place the ‘Atharvazza-veda1.’ Besides the above works,
1 See Buhler, Introduction to Apastamba, p. xxiv.
xxxi
zzuitic editor from modern Smrztis, either for the sake
of completeness, or in order to make up the required
number of chapters. 6. All the passages hitherto men-
tioned are such as have no parallel in other ancient Smrztis.
But the Vishzzuitic editor did evidently not confine himself
to the introduction of new matter into the ancient Dharma-
sutra. That he did not refrain, occasionally, from altering
the original text, has been conjectured above with regard to
his readings of some of those Vlokas, which are found in the
code of Manu as well ; and it can be proved quite clearly
by comparing his version of the Vrz'shotsarga ceremony
(LXXXVI) with the analogous chapter of the Kanaka
Grzhya-sutra. In one case (LI, 64; cf. XXIII, 50 =M. V,
131) he has replaced the words, which refer the authorship
of the Sloka in question to Manu, by an unmeaning term.
The superior antiquity of Manu’s reading (V, 41) is
vouched for by the recurrence of the same passage in the
Grzhya-sutra of Sarikhayana (II, 16, 1) and in the Vasish//^a-
smrzti (IV, 6), and the reference to Manu has no doubt
been removed by the Vishzzuitic editor, because it would
have been out of place in a speech of Vishzzu. References
to sayings of Manu and other teachers and direct quotations
from Vedic works are more or less common in all Dharma-
sutras, and their entire absence in this work is apparently
due to their systematical removal by the editor. On the
other hand, the lists of Vedic and other works to be studied
or recited may have been enlarged in one or two cases by
him or by another interpolator, namely, XXX, 37 (cf.V, 191),
where theAtharva-veda is mentioned after the other Vedas by
the name of‘ Atharva/za’ (not Atharvahgirasas, as in the code
of Manu and most other ancient works), and LXXXIII, 7,
where Vydkara/za, ‘ Grammar,’ i. e. according to the Com-
mentary the grammars of Pazzini and others, is mentioned
as distinct from the Vedarigas. The antiquity of the former
passage might indeed be defended by the example of Apa-
stamba, who, though referring like this work to the ‘three
Vedas’ both separately and collectively, mentions in an-
other place the ‘Atharvazza-veda1.’ Besides the above works,
1 See Buhler, Introduction to Apastamba, p. xxiv.