DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0082
SMRITI FRAGMENTS. 67
of the same authors. Under these circumstances we are Lecture
left to ascertain the comparative age of the supposed several m-
recensions of each Smriti through internal evidence alone,
and internal evidence certainly points to their being in
reality entirely independent from each other, and com-
posed at different times by different authors. The authors
to whose name an epithet is added are, however, generally
more recent than those without an epithet. In some
cases, these names may never have belonged to com-
plete works. Thus when the Smritichandrika, Vivada-
taiidava and other Digests attribute to Vridda-Yajnavalkya
a verse which corresponds very nearly to a passage of t^he
current version of Yajnavalkya (II. 149), it may be pre-
sumed that it was precisely the existing slight difference
of reading which caused them to qualify the name of
Yajnavalkya in this case by adding the epithet Vriddha.
The number of quotations from Vriddha or Brihad Yajna-
valkya is so small that the former existence of a complete
work attributed to that author is more than doubtful.
3. Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha, Baudhayana and Metrical
Vishnu are quoted as the writers of metrical texts not attributed
found in those works. This might be taken to prove to the
that their Dharmasutras have not been preserved entire,
But the thoroughly modern appearance of most of those sutras
metrical passages renders it highly improbable that they
should ever have formed part of a Dharmasutra. The
limited number of Clokas which, though attributed to Manu And to
and Yajnavalkya in some Digests, do not occur in the anTyajna-
Smritis composed by these authors, are either spurious, or vaikya.
have been attributed to these authors by mistake.
4. The origin of the rather numerous texts, which are 4. Ano-
quoted as Smritis without the names of their authors t^sous
being given, is difficult to determine. In some cases the
author’s name is missing in one Digest, but supplied in
another. The loss of the author’s name»might be equally
attributed to carelesness in the other cases. But it is more
probable that most of the anonymous Smritis represent
sayings current in the more recent law-schools of India
and comparable to the law proverbs of other nations. As
an instance of an anonymous Smriti exhibiting specially
clear marks of recent composition, I may refer to the
long text concerning obsolete laws, which has been trans-
lated in the General Note to Sir W. Jones’s version of Manu.
The immense number and variety of the fragments
of the same authors. Under these circumstances we are Lecture
left to ascertain the comparative age of the supposed several m-
recensions of each Smriti through internal evidence alone,
and internal evidence certainly points to their being in
reality entirely independent from each other, and com-
posed at different times by different authors. The authors
to whose name an epithet is added are, however, generally
more recent than those without an epithet. In some
cases, these names may never have belonged to com-
plete works. Thus when the Smritichandrika, Vivada-
taiidava and other Digests attribute to Vridda-Yajnavalkya
a verse which corresponds very nearly to a passage of t^he
current version of Yajnavalkya (II. 149), it may be pre-
sumed that it was precisely the existing slight difference
of reading which caused them to qualify the name of
Yajnavalkya in this case by adding the epithet Vriddha.
The number of quotations from Vriddha or Brihad Yajna-
valkya is so small that the former existence of a complete
work attributed to that author is more than doubtful.
3. Apastamba, Gautama, Vasishtha, Baudhayana and Metrical
Vishnu are quoted as the writers of metrical texts not attributed
found in those works. This might be taken to prove to the
that their Dharmasutras have not been preserved entire,
But the thoroughly modern appearance of most of those sutras
metrical passages renders it highly improbable that they
should ever have formed part of a Dharmasutra. The
limited number of Clokas which, though attributed to Manu And to
and Yajnavalkya in some Digests, do not occur in the anTyajna-
Smritis composed by these authors, are either spurious, or vaikya.
have been attributed to these authors by mistake.
4. The origin of the rather numerous texts, which are 4. Ano-
quoted as Smritis without the names of their authors t^sous
being given, is difficult to determine. In some cases the
author’s name is missing in one Digest, but supplied in
another. The loss of the author’s name»might be equally
attributed to carelesness in the other cases. But it is more
probable that most of the anonymous Smritis represent
sayings current in the more recent law-schools of India
and comparable to the law proverbs of other nations. As
an instance of an anonymous Smriti exhibiting specially
clear marks of recent composition, I may refer to the
long text concerning obsolete laws, which has been trans-
lated in the General Note to Sir W. Jones’s version of Manu.
The immense number and variety of the fragments