{"collection":"Hinduism","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/hin/sbe02/sbe0202.htm","path":"hin/sbe02/sbe0202.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe02/sbe0202.htm","text":"FOR all students of Sanskrit philology and Indian history \u00c2pastamba's aphorisms on the sacred law of the Aryan Hindus possess a special interest beyond that attaching to other works of the same class. Their discovery enabled Professor Max M\u00fcller, forty-seven years ago, to dispose finally of the Brahmanical legend according to which Hindu society was supposed to be governed by the codes of ancient sages, compiled for the express purpose of tying down each individual to his station, and of strictly regulating even the smallest acts of his daily life 1. It enabled\nhim not only to arrive at this negative result, but also to substitute a sounder theory the truth of which subsequent investigations have further confirmed, and to show that the sacred law of the Hindus has its source in the teaching of the Vedic schools, and that the so-called revealed law codes are, in most cases, but improved metrical editions of older\nprose works which latter, in the first instance, were destined to be committed to memory by the young Aryan students, and to teach them their duties. This circumstance, as well as the fact that \u00c2pastamba's work is free from any suspicion of having been tampered with by sectarians or modern editors, and that its intimate connection with the manuals teaching the performance of the great and small sacrifices, the Srauta and Grihya-s\u00fbtras, which are attributed to the same author, is perfectly clear and indisputable, entitle it, in spite of its comparatively late origin, to the first place in a collection of Dharma-s\u00fbtras.\nThe \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya Dharma-s\u00fbtra forms part of an enormous Kalpa-s\u00fbtra or body of aphorisms, which digests the teaching of the Veda and of the ancient Rishis regarding the performance of sacrifices and the duties of twice-born men, Br\u00e2hmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, and which, being chiefly based on the second of the four Vedas, the Yagur-veda in the Taittir\u00eeya recension, is primarily intended for the benefit of the Adhvaryu priests in whose families the study of the Yagur-veda is hereditary.\nThe entire Kalpa-s\u00fbtra of \u00c2pastamba is divided into\nthirty sections, called Prasnas, literally questions 1. The first twenty-four of these teach the performance of the so-called Srauta or Vait\u00e2nika sacrifices, for which several sacred fires are required, beginning with the simplest rites, the new and full moon offerings, and ending with the complicated Sattras or sacrificial sessions, which last a whole year or even longer 2. The twenty-fifth Prasna contains the Paribh\u00e2sh\u00e2s or general rules of interpretation 3, which are valid for the whole Kalpa-s\u00fbtra, the Pravara-khanda, the chapter enumerating the patriarchs of the various Brahmanical tribes, and finally the Hautraka, prayers to be recited by the Hotraka priests. The twenty-sixth section gives the Mantras or Vedic prayers and formulas for the Grihya rites, the ceremonies for which the sacred domestic or Grihya fire is required, and the twenty-seventh the rules for the performance of the latter 4. The aphorisms on the sacred law fill the next two Prasnas; and the Sulva-s\u00fbtra 5, teaching the geometrical principles, according to which the altars necessary for the Srauta sacrifices must be constructed, concludes the work with the thirtieth Prasna.\nThe position of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra in the middle of the collection at once raises the presumption that it originally formed an integral portion of the body of S\u00fbtras and that it is not a later addition. Had it been added later, it would either stand at the end of the thirty Prasnas or altogether outside the collection, as is the case with some other treatises attributed to \u00c2pastamba 6. The Hindus are, no doubt, unscrupulous in adding to the works of famous teachers. But such additions, if of considerable extent, are usually not embodied in the works themselves which they are intended to supplement. They are mostly given\nas seshas or parisishtas, tacked on at the end, and generally marked as such in the MSS.\nIn the case of the \u00c2pastamba Dharma-s\u00fbtra it is, however, not necessary to rely on its position alone, in order to ascertain its genuineness. There are unmistakable indications that it is the work of the same author who wrote the remainder of the Kalpa-s\u00fbtra. One important argument in favour of this view is furnished by the fact that Prasna XXVII, the section on the Grihya ceremonies has evidently been made very short and concise with the intention of saving matter for the subsequent sections on the sacred law. The \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya Grihya-s\u00fbtra contains nothing beyond a bare outline of the domestic ceremonies, while most of the other Grihya-s\u00fbtras, e.g. those of \u00c2sval\u00e2yana, S\u00e2\u1e45kh\u00e2yana, Gobhila, and P\u00e2raskara, include a great many rules which bear indirectly only on the performance of the offerings in the sacred domestic fire. Thus on the occasion of the description of the initiation of Aryan students, \u00c2sval\u00e2yana inserts directions regarding the dress and girdle to be worn, the length of the studentship, the manner of begging, the disposal of the alms collected, and other similar questions 1. The exclusion of such incidental remarks on subjects that are not immediately connected with the chief aim of the work, is almost complete in \u00c2pastamba's Grihya-s\u00fbtra, and reduces its size to less than one half of the extent of the shorter ones among the works enumerated above. It seems impossible to explain this restriction of the scope of Prasna XXVII otherwise than by assuming that \u00c2pastamba wished to reserve all rules bearing rather on the duties of men than on the performance of the domestic offerings, for his sections on the sacred law.\nA second and no less important argument for the unity of the whole Kalpa-s\u00fbtra may be drawn from the cross-references which occur in several Prasnas. In the Dharma-s\u00fbtra we find that on various occasions, where the performance\nof a ceremony is prescribed, the expressions yathoktam, 'as has been stated,' yathopadesam, 'according to the injunction,' or yath\u00e2 purast\u00e2t, 'as above,' are added. In four of these passages, Dh. I, 1, 4, 16; II, 2, 3, 17; 2, 5, 4; and 7, 17, 16, the Grihya-s\u00fbtra is doubtlessly referred to, and the commentator Haradatta has pointed out this fact. On the other hand, the Grihya-S\u00fbtra refers to the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, employing the same expressions which have been quoted from the latter. Thus we read in the beginning of the chapter on funeral oblations, Grihya-s\u00fbtra VIII, 21, 1, m\u00e2sisr\u00e2ddhasy\u00e2parapakshe yathopadesam k\u00e2l\u00e2h, 'the times for the monthly funeral sacrifice (fall) in the latter (dark) half of the month according to the injunction.' Now as neither the Grihya-s\u00fbtra itself nor any preceding portion of the Kalpa-s\u00fbtra contains any injunction on this point, it, follows that the long passage on this subject which occurs in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra II, 7, 16, 4-22 is referred to. The expression yathopadesam is also found in other passages of the Grihya-s\u00fbtra, and must be explained there in a like manner 1. There are further a certain number of S\u00fbtras which occur in the same words both in the Prasna on domestic rites, and in that on the sacred law, e.g. Dh. I, 1, A; I, 1, 2, 38; I, 1, 4, 14. It seems that the author wished to call special attention to these rules by repeating them. Their recurrence and literal agreement may be considered an additional proof of the intimate connection of the two sections.\nThrough a similar repetition of, at least, one S\u00fbtra it is possible to trace the connection of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra with the Srauta-s\u00fbtra. The rule ritve v\u00e2 g\u00e2y\u00e2m, 'or (he may have conjugal intercourse) with his wife in the proper season', is given, Dh. II, 2, 5, 17, with reference to a householder who teaches the Veda. In the Srauta-s\u00fbtra it occurs twice, in the sections on the new and full moon sacrifices III, 17, 8, and again in connection with the K\u00e2turm\u00e2sya offerings, VIII, 4, 6, and it refers both times\nto the sacrificer. In the first passage the verb, upey\u00e2t, is added, which the sense requires; in the second it has the abbreviated form, which the best MSS. of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra offer. The occurrence of the irregular word, ritve for ritvye, in all the three passages, proves clearly that we have to deal with a self-quotation of the same author. If the Dharma-s\u00fbtra were the production of a different person and a later addition, the Pseudo-\u00c2pastamba would most probably not have hit on this peculiar irregular form. Finally, the Grihya-s\u00fbtra, too, contains several cross-references to the Srauta-s\u00fbtra, and the close agreement of the S\u00fbtras on the Vedic sacrifices, on the domestic rites, and on the sacred, both in language and style, conclusively prove that they are the compositions of one author 1.\nWho this author really was, is a problem which cannot be solved for the present, and which probably will. always remain unsolved, because we know his family name only. For the form of the word itself shows that the name \u00c2pastamba, just like those of most founders of Vedic schools, e.g. Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga, \u00c2sval\u00e2yana, Gautama, is a patronymic. This circumstance is, of course, fatal to all attempts at an identification of the individual who holds so prominent a place among the teachers of the Black Yagur-veda.\nBut we are placed in a somewhat better position with respect to the history of the school which has been named after \u00c2pastamba and of the works ascribed to him. Regarding both, some information has been preserved by tradition, and a little more can be obtained from inscriptions and later works, while some interesting details regarding the time when, and the place where the S\u00fbtras were composed, may be elicited from the latter themselves. The data, obtainable from these sources, it is true, do not enable us to determine with certainty the year when the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school was founded, and when its S\u00fbtras were composed. But they make it possible to ascertain the position of the school and of its S\u00fbtras in Vedic literature,\ntheir relative priority or posteriority as compared with other Vedic schools and works, to show with some amount of probability in which part of India they had their origin, and to venture, at least, a not altogether unsupported conjecture as to their probable antiquity.\nAs regards the first point, the Karanavy\u00fbha, a supplement of the White Yagur-veda which gives the lists of the Vedic schools, informs us that the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school formed one of the five branches of the Kh\u00e2ndik\u00eeya school, which in its turn was a subdivision of the Taittir\u00eeyas, one of the ancient sections of Br\u00e2hmanas who study, the Black Yagur-veda. Owing to the very unsatisfactory condition of the text of the Karanavy\u00fbha it is unfortunately not possible to ascertain what place that work really assigns to the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas among the five branches of the, Kh\u00e2ndik\u00eeyas. Some MSS. name them first, and others, last. They give either the following list, 1. K\u00e2leyas (K\u00e2letas), 2. S\u00e2ty\u00e2vanins, 3. Hiranyakesins, 4. Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2gins, and 5. \u00c2pastambins, or, 1. \u00c2pastambins, 2. Baudh\u00e2yanins or Bodh\u00e2yanins, 3. Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dhins, 4. Hiranyakesins, 5. Aukheyas 1. But this defect is remedied to, a certain extent by the now generally current, and probably ancient tradition that the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas are younger than, the school of Baudh\u00e2yana, and. older than that of Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin. Baudh\u00e2yana, it is alleged, composed the first set of S\u00fbtras connected with the Black Yagur-Veda, which bore the special title 'pravakana,' and he was succeeded by Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga, \u00c2pastamba, and Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin, who all founded schools which bear their names 2.\nThis tradition has preserved two important pieces of in-formation. First, the \u00c2pastamba school is what Professor Max M\u00fcller appropriately calls a S\u00fbtrakarana, i.e. a school whose founder did not pretend to have received a revelation of Vedic Mantras or of a Br\u00e2hmana text, but merely gave a new systematic arrangement of the precepts regarding sacrifices and the sacred law. Secondly, the S\u00fbtras of \u00c2pastamba occupy an intermediate position between the works of Baudh\u00e2yana and Hiranyakesin. Both these statements are perfectly true, and capable of being supported by proofs, drawn from \u00c2pastamba's own and from other works.\nAs regards the first point, Professor Max M\u00fcller has already pointed 1 out that, though we sometimes find a Br\u00e2hmana of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas mentioned, the title \u00c2pastamba-br\u00e2hmana is nothing but another name of the Taittir\u00eeya-br\u00e2hmana, and that this Br\u00e2hmana, in reality, is always attributed to Tittiri or to the pupils of Vaisamp\u00e2yana, who are said to have picked up the Black Yagur-veda in the shape of partridges (tittiri). The same remark applies to the collection of the Mantras of the Black Yagur-veda, which, likewise, is sometimes named \u00c2pastamba-Samhit\u00e2. The Karanavy\u00fbha states explicitly that the five branches of the Kh\u00e2nd\u00eek\u00eeya school, to which the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas belong, possess one and the same recension of the revealed texts, consisting of 7 K\u00e2ndas, 44 Prasnas, 651 Anuv\u00e2kas, 2198 Pann\u00e2s\u00ees, 19290 Padas 2, and 253,868 syllables, and indicates thereby that all these five schools were S\u00fbtrakaranas.\nIf we now turn to \u00c2pastamba's own works, we find still\nclearer proof that he laid no claim to the title Rishi, or inspired seer of Vedic texts. For (Dharma-s\u00fbtra I, 2, 5, 4-5 says distinctly that on account of the prevalent transgression of the rules of studentship no Rishis are born, among the Avaras, the men of later ages or of modern times, but that some, by virtue of a residue of the merit which they acquired in former lives, become similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda. A man who speaks in this manner, shows that he considers the holy ages during which the great saints saw with their mind's eye the uncreated and eternal texts of the Veda to be past, and that all he claims is a thorough acquaintance with the scriptures which had been handed down to him. The same spirit which dictated this passage is also observable in other portions of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. For \u00c2pastamba repeatedly contrasts the weakness and sinfulness of the Avaras, the men of his own times, with the holiness of the ancient sages, who, owing to the greatness of their 'lustre,' were able to commit various forbidden acts without diminishing their spiritual merit 1. These utterances prove that \u00c2pastamba considered himself a child of the Kali Yuga, the age of sin, during which, according to Hindu notions, no Rishis can be born. If, therefore, in spite of this explicit disclaimer, the Samhit\u00e2 and the Br\u00e2hmana of the Black Yagur-veda are sometimes called \u00c2pastamba or \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya, i.e. belonging to \u00c2pastamba, the meaning of this expression can only be, that they were and are studied and handed down by the school of \u00c2pastamba, not that its founder was their author, or, as the Hindus would say, saw them.\nThe fact that \u00c2pastamba confined his activity to the composition of S\u00fbtras is highly important for the determination of the period to which he belonged. It clearly shows that in his time the tertiary or S\u00fbtra period of the Yagur-veda had begun. Whether we assume, with Professor Max M\u00fcller, that the S\u00fbtra period was one and the same for all the four Vedas, and fix its limits with him\nbetween 600-200 B.C., or whether we believe, as I am inclined to do, that the date of the S\u00fbtra period differed for each Veda, still the incontestable conclusion is that the origin of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school cannot be placed in the early times of the Vedic period, and probably falls in the last six or seven centuries before the beginning of the Christian era.\nThe correctness of the traditional statement that \u00c2pastamba is younger than Baudh\u00e2yana may be made very probable by the following considerations. First, Baudh\u00e2yana's and \u00c2pastamba's works on Dharma have a considerable number of S\u00fbtras in common. Thus in the chapter on Penances not less than seven consecutive S\u00fbtras, prescribing the manner in which outcasts are to live and to obtain readmission into the Brahmanical community for their children, occur in both treatises 1. Besides this passage, there are a number of single S\u00fbtras 2 which agree literally. Taken by itself this agreement does not prove much, as it may be explained in various ways. It may show either that Baudh\u00e2yana is older than \u00c2pastamba, and that the latter borrowed from the former, or that the reverse was the case. It may also indicate that both authors drew from one common source. But if it is taken together with two other facts, it gains a considerable importance. First, \u00c2pastamba holds in several cases doctrines which are of a later origin than those held by Baudh\u00e2yana. With respect to this point the puritan opinions which \u00c2pastamba puts forward regarding the substitutes for legitimate sons and regarding the appointment of widows (niyoga), and his restriction of the number of marriage-rites, may be adduced as examples. Like many other ancient teachers, Baudh\u00e2yana permits childless \u00c2ryans to satisfy their craving for representatives bearing their name, and to allay their fears of falling after death into the regions of torment through a failure of the funeral oblations, by the affiliation\nof-eleven kinds of substitutes for a legitimate son. Illegitimate sons, the illegitimate sons of wives, the legitimate -and illegitimate offspring of daughters, and the children of relatives, or even of strangers who may be solemnly adopted, or received as members of the family without any ceremony, or be acquired by purchase, are all allowed to take the place and the rights of legitimate sons 1. \u00c2pastamba declares his dissent from this doctrine. He allows legitimate sons alone to inherit their father's estate and to follow the occupations of his caste, and he explicitly forbids the sale and gift of children 2.\nIn like manner he protests against the custom of making over childless widows to brothers-in-law or other near relatives in order to obtain sons who are to offer the funeral oblations to the deceased husband's manes, while Baudh\u00e2yana has as yet no scruple on the subject 3. Finally, he omits from his list of the marriage-rites the Pais\u00e2ka viv\u00e2ha, where the bride is obtained by fraud 4; though it is reluctantly admitted by Baudh\u00e2yana and other ancient teachers. There can be no doubt that the law which placed the regular continuance of the funeral oblations above all other considerations, and which allowed, in order to secure this object, even a violation of the sanctity of the marriage-tie and other breaches of the principles of morality, belongs to an older order of ideas than the stricter views of \u00c2pastamba. It is true that, according to Baudh\u00e2yana's own statement 5, before his time an ancient sage named Aupaga\u1e45ghani, who is also mentioned in the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana, had opposed the old practice of taking substitute's for a legitimate son. It is also very probable that for a long time the opinions of the Br\u00e2hmana teachers, who lived in different parts of India and belonged to different schools, may have been divided on this subject. Still it seems very improbable that of two authors who both belong to the same Veda and to the same school, the\nearlier one should hold the later doctrine, and the later one the earlier opinion. The contrary appears the more probable assumption. The same remarks apply to the cases of the Niyoga and of the Pais\u00e2ka marriage 1.\nThe second fact, which bears on the question how the identity of so many S\u00fbtras in the two Dharma-s\u00fbtras is to be explained, affords a still stronger proof of \u00c2pastamba's posteriority to Baudh\u00e2yana. For on several occasions, it appears, \u00c2pastamba controverts opinions which Baudh\u00e2yana holds, or which may be defended with the help of the latter's S\u00fbtras. The clearest case of this kind occurs in the chapter on Inheritance, where the treatment of the eldest son on the division of the estate by the father is discussed. There \u00c2pastamba gives it as his own opinion that the father should make an equal division of his property 'after having gladdened the eldest son by some (choice portion of his) wealth,' i.e. after making him a present which should have some value, but should not be so valuable as to materially affect the equality of the shares 2. Further on he notices the opinions of other teachers on this subject, and states that the practice advocated by some, of allowing the eldest alone to inherit, as well as the custom prevailing in some countries, of allotting to the eldest all the father's gold, or the black cows, or the black iron and grain, is not in accordance with the precepts of the Vedas. In order to prove the latter assertion he quotes a passage of the Taittir\u00eeya Samhit\u00e2, in which it is declared that 'Manu divided his wealth among his sons,' and no difference in the treatment of the eldest son is prescribed. He adds that a second passage occurs in the same Veda, which declares that 'they distinguish the eldest son by (a larger portion of) the heritage,' and which thus apparently countenances the partiality for the first-born. But this second passage, he contends, appealing to the\nopinion of the M\u00eem\u00e2msists, is, like many similar ones, merely a statement of a fact which has not the authority of an injunction 1. If we now turn to Baudh\u00e2yana, we find that he allows of three different methods for the distribution of the paternal estate. According to him, either an equal share may be given to each son, or the eldest may receive the best part of the wealth, or, also, a preferential share of one tenth of the whole property. He further alleges that the cows, horses, goats, and sheep respectively go to the eldest sons of Br\u00e2hmanas, Kshatriyas, Vaisyas and S\u00fbdras. As authority for the equal division he gives the first of the two Vedic passages quoted above; and for the doctrine that the eldest is to receive the best part of the estate, he quotes the second passage which \u00c2pastamba considers to be without the force of an injunction 2. The fact that the two authors' opinions clash is manifest, and the manner in which \u00c2pastamba tries to show that the second Vedic passage possesses no authority, clearly indicates that before his time it had been held to contain an injunction. As no other author of a Dharma-s\u00fbtra but Baudh\u00e2yana is known to have quoted it, the conclusion is that \u00c2pastamba's remarks are directed against him. If \u00c2pastamba does not mention Baudh\u00e2yana by name, the reason probably is that in olden times, just as in the present day, the Brahmanical etiquette forbad a direct opposition against doctrines propounded by an older teacher who belongs to the same spiritual family (vidy\u00e2vamsa) as oneself.\nA similar case occurs in the chapter on Studentship 3 where \u00c2pastamba, again appealing to the M\u00eem\u00e2msists, combats the doctrine that pupils may eat forbidden food, such as honey, meat, and pungent condiments, if it is given to them as leavings by their teacher. Baudh\u00e2yana gives no explicit rule on this point, but the wording of his S\u00fbtras is not opposed to the doctrine and practice, to which \u00c2pastamba objects. Baudh\u00e2yana says that students\nshall avoid honey, meat, pungent condiments, &c.; he further enjoins that pupils are to obey their teachers except when ordered to commit crimes which cause loss of caste (patan\u00eeya); and he finally directs them to eat the fragments of food given to them by their teachers. As the eating of honey and other forbidden substances is not a crime causing loss of caste, it is possible that Baudh\u00e2yana himself may have considered it the duty of a pupil to eat any kind of food given by the teacher, even honey and meat. At all events the practice and doctrine which \u00c2pastamba blames, may have been defended by the wording of Baudh\u00e2yana's rules 1.\nThe three points which have been just discussed, viz. the identity of a number of S\u00fbtras in the works of the two authors, the fact that \u00c2pastamba advocates on some points more refined or puritan opinions, and, especially, that he labours to controvert doctrines contained in Baudh\u00e2yana's S\u00fbtras, give a powerful support to the traditional statement that he is younger than that teacher. It is, however, difficult to say how great the distance between the two really is. Mah\u00e2deva, as stated above, places between them only Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga, the author of a set of S\u00fbtras, which as yet have not been completely recovered. But it seems to me not likely that the latter was his immediate predecessor in the vidy\u00e2vamsa or spiritual family to which both belonged. For it cannot be expected that two successive heads of the school should each have composed a S\u00fbtra and thus founded a new branch-school. It is\nmore probable that Baudh\u00e2yana and Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga, as well as the latter and \u00c2pastamba, were separated by several intervening generations of teachers, who contented themselves with explaining the works of their predecessors. The distance in years between the first and the last of the three S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras must, therefore, I think, be measured rather by centuries than by decades 1.\nAs regards the priority of \u00c2pastamba to the school of Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin, there can be no doubt about the correctness of this statement. For either Hiranyakesin himself, or, at least, his immediate successors have appropriated \u00c2pastamba's Dharma-s\u00fbtra and have inserted it with slight modifications in their own collection. The alterations consist chiefly in some not very important additions, and in the substitution of more intelligible and more modern expressions for difficult and antiquated words 2. But they do not extend so far as to make the language of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra fully agree with that of the other sections of the collection, especially with the Grihya-s\u00fbtra. Numerous discrepancies between these two parts are observable. Thus we read in the Hiranyakesi\n[paragraph continues] Grihya-s\u00fbtra that a Br\u00e2hmana must, ordinarily, be initiated in his seventh year, while the rule of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, which is identical with \u00c2p. Dh. I, 1, 1, 18, prescribes that the ceremony shall take place in the eighth year after conception. The commentators, M\u00e2tridatta on the Grihya-s\u00fbtra and Mah\u00e2deva on the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, both state that the rule of the Grihya-s\u00fbtra refers to the seventh year after birth, and, therefore, in substance agrees with the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. They are no doubt right. But the difference in the wording shows that the two sections do not belong to the same author. The same inference may be drawn from the fact that the Hiranyakesi Grihya-s\u00fbtra, which is much longer than \u00c2pastamba's, includes a considerable amount of matter which refers to the sacred law, and which is repeated in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. According to a statement which I have heard from several learned Br\u00e2hmanas, the followers of Hiranyakesin, when pronouncing the samkalpa or solemn pledge to perform a ceremony, declare themselves to be members of the Hiranyakesi school that forms a subdivision of \u00c2pastamba's (\u00e2pastamb\u00e2ntargatahiranyakesis\u00e2kh\u00e2dhy\u00e2y\u00ee . . . aham). But I have not been able to find these words in the books treating of the ritual of the Hiranyakesins, such as the Mahesabhatt\u00ee. If this assertion could be further corroborated, it would be an additional strong proof of the priority of \u00c2pastamba, which, however, even without it may be accepted as a fact 1. The distance in time between the two teachers is probably not so great as that between \u00c2pastamba and Baudh\u00e2yana, as Mah\u00e2deva mentions no intermediate S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ra between them. Still it is probably not less than 100, or 150 years.\nThe results of the above investigation which show that the origin of the \u00c2pastamba school falls in the middle of the S\u00fbtra period of the Black Yagur-veda, and that its S\u00fbtras belong to the later, though not to the latest products of Vedic literature, are fully confirmed by an\nexamination of the quotations from and references to Vedic and other books contained in \u00c2pastamba's S\u00fbtras, and especially in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. We find that all the four Vedas are quoted or referred to. The three old ones, the Rik, Yagus, and S\u00e2man, are mentioned both separately and collectively by the name tray\u00ee vidy\u00e2, i.e. threefold sacred science, and the fourth is called not Atharv\u00e2\u1e45girasah, as is done in most ancient S\u00fbtras, but Atharva-veda 1. The quotations from the Rik and S\u00e2man are not very numerous. But a passage from the ninth Mandala of the former, which is referred to Dh. I, 1, 2, 2, is of some extent, and shows that the recension which \u00c2pastamba knew, did not differ from that which still exists. As \u00c2pastamba was an adherent of the Black Yagur-veda, he quotes it, especially in the Srauta-s\u00fbtra, very frequently, and he adduces not only texts from the Mantra-Samhit\u00e2, but also from the Taittir\u00eeya-Br\u00e2hmana and \u00c2ranyaka. The most important quotations from the latter work occur Dh. II, 2, 3, 16-II, 2, 4, 9, where all the Mantras to be recited during the performance of the Bali-offerings are enumerated. Their order agrees exactly with that in which they stand in the sixty-seventh Anuv\u00e2ka of the tenth Prap\u00e2thaka of the recension of the \u00c2ranyaka which is current among the \u00c2ndhra Br\u00e2hmanas 2. This last point is of considerable importance, both for the history of the text of that book and, as we shall see further on, for the history of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school.\nThe White Yagur-veda, too, is quoted frequently in the Srauta-s\u00fbtra and once in the section on Dharma by the title V\u00e2gasaneyaka, while twice its Br\u00e2hmana, the V\u00e2gasaneyi-br\u00e2hmana, is cited. The longer one of the two passages, taken from the latter work, Dh. I, 4, 12, 3, does, however, not fully agree with the published text of the M\u00e2dhyandina recension. Its wording possesses just sufficient resemblance to allow us to identify the passage which \u00c2pastamba meant, but differs from the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana\nin many details 1. The cause of these discrepancies remains doubtful for the present 2. As regards the Atharva-veda, \u00c2pastamba gives, besides the reference mentioned above and a second to the \u00c2\u1e45girasa-pavitra 3, an abstract of a long passage from Atharva-veda XV, 10-13, regarding the treatment of a Vr\u00e2tya, i.e. a learned mendicant Br\u00e2hmana, who really deserves the title of an atithi, or guest 4. It is true that \u00c2pastamba, in the passage referred to, does not say that his rule is based on the Atharva-veda. He merely says that a Br\u00e2hmana is his authority. But it seems, nevertheless, certain that by the expression a Br\u00e2hmana, the Br\u00e2hmana-like fifteenth book of the Atharva-veda is meant, as the sentences to be addressed by the host to his guest agree literally with those which the Atharva-veda prescribes for the reception of a Vr\u00e2tya. Haradatta too, in his commentary, expresses the same opinion. Actual quotations from the Atharva-veda are not frequent in Vedic literature, and the fact that \u00c2pastamba's Dharma-s\u00fbtra contains one, is, therefore, of some interest.\nBesides these Vedic texts 5, \u00c2pastamba mentions, also, the A\u1e45gas or auxiliary works, and enumerates six classes, viz. treatises on the ritual of the sacrifices, on grammar, astronomy, etymology, recitation of the Veda, and metrics 6. The number is the same as that which is considered the correct one in our days 7.\nAs the Dharma-s\u00fbtra names no less than nine teachers in connection with various topics of the sacred law, and frequently appeals to the opinion of some (eke), it follows that a great many such auxiliary treatises must have existed in \u00c2pastamba's time. The \u00c2k\u00e2ryas mentioned are Eka, Kanva, K\u00e2nva, Kunika, Kutsa, Kautsa, Pushkaras\u00e2di,\n[paragraph continues] V\u00e2rshy\u00e2yani, Svetaketu, and H\u00e2rita 1. Some of these persons, like H\u00e2rita and K\u00e2nva, are known to have composed S\u00fbtras on the sacred law, and fragments or modified versions of their works are still in existence, while K\u00e2nva, Kautsa, Pushkaras\u00e2di or Paushkaras\u00e2di, as the grammatically correct form of the name is, and V\u00e2rshy\u00e2yani are quoted in the Nirukta, the Pr\u00e2tis\u00e2khyas, and the V\u00e2rttikas on P\u00e2nini as authorities on phonetics, etymology, and grammar 2. K\u00e2nva, finally, is considered the author of the still existing Kalpa-s\u00fbtras of the K\u00e2nva school connected with the White Yagur-veda. It seems not improbable that most of these teachers were authors of complete sets of A\u1e45gas. Their position in Vedic literature, however, except as far as K\u00e2nva, H\u00e2rita, and Svetaketu are concerned, is difficult to define, and the occurrence of their names throws less light on the antiquity of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school than might be expected. Regarding H\u00e2rita it must, however, be noticed that he is one of the oldest authors of S\u00fbtras, that he was an adherent of the Maitr\u00e2yan\u00eeya S\u00e2kh\u00e2 3, and that he is quoted by Baudh\u00e2yana, \u00c2pastamba's predecessor. The bearing of the occurrence of Svetaketu's name will be discussed below.\nOf even greater interest than the names of the teachers are the indications which \u00c2pastamba gives, that he knew two of the philosophical schools which still exist in India, viz. the P\u00fbrv\u00e2 or Karma M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2 and the Ved\u00e2nta. As regards the former, he mentions it by its ancient name, Ny\u00e2ya, which in later times and at present is usually applied to the doctrine of Gautama Akshap\u00e2da. In two passages 4 he settles contested points on the authority of those who know the Ny\u00e2ya, i.e. the P\u00fbrv\u00e2 M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2, and\nin several other cases he adopts a line of reasoning which fully agrees with that followed in Gaimini's M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2-s\u00fbtras. Thus the arguments 1, that 'a revealed text has greater weight than a custom from which a revealed text may be inferred,' and that 'no text can be inferred from a custom for which a worldly motive is apparent,' exactly correspond with the teaching of Gaimini's M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2-s\u00fbtras I, 3, 3-4. The wording of the passages in the two works does not agree so closely that the one could be called a quotation of the other. But it is evident, that if \u00c2pastamba did not know the M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2-s\u00fbtras of Gaimini, he must have possessed some other very similar work. As to the Ved\u00e2nta, \u00c2pastamba does not mention the name of the school. But Khandas 22, 23 of the first Patala of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra unmistakably contain the chief tenets of the Ved\u00e2ntists, and recommend the acquisition of the knowledge of the \u00c2tman as the best means for purifying the souls of sinners. Though these two Khandas are chiefly filled with quotations, which, as the commentator states, are taken from an Upanishad, still the manner of their selection, as well as \u00c2pastamba's own words in the introductory and concluding S\u00fbtras, indicates that he knew not merely the unsystematic speculations contained in the Upanishads and \u00c2ranyakas, but a well-defined system of Ved\u00e2ntic philosophy identical with that of B\u00e2dar\u00e2yana's Brahma-s\u00fbtras. The fact that \u00c2pastamba's Dharma-s\u00fbtra contains indications of the existence of these two schools of philosophy, is significant as the P\u00fbrv\u00e2 M\u00eem\u00e2ms\u00e2 occurs in one other Dharma-s\u00fbtra only, that attributed to Vasishtha, and as the name of the Ved\u00e2nta school is not found in any of the prose treatises on the sacred law.\nOf non-Vedic works \u00c2pastamba mentions the Pur\u00e2na. The Dharma-s\u00fbtra not only several times quotes passages from 'a Pur\u00e2na' as authorities for its rules 2, but names in one case the Bhavishyat-pur\u00e2na as the particular Pur\u00e2na from which the quotation is taken 3. References to the\n[paragraph continues] Pur\u00e2na in general are not unfrequent in other S\u00fbtras on the sacred law, and even in older Vedic works. But \u00c2pastamba, as far as I know, is the only S\u00fbrak\u00e2ra who specifies the title of a particular Pur\u00e2na, and names one which is nearly or quite identical with that of a work existing in the present day, and he is the only one, whose quotations can be shown to be, at least in part, genuine Paur\u00e2nic utterances.\nAmong the so-called Upa-pur\u00e2nas we find one of considerable extent which bears the title Bhavishya-pur\u00e2na or also Bhavishyat-pur\u00e2na 1. It is true that the passage quoted in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra from the Bhavishyat-pur\u00e2na is not to be found in the copy of the Bhavishya-pur\u00e2na which I have seen. It is, therefore, not possible to assert positively that \u00c2pastamba knew the present homonymous work. Still, considering the close resemblance of the two titles, and taking into account the generally admitted fact that most if not all Pur\u00e2nas have been remodelled and recast 2, it seems to me not unlikely that \u00c2pastamba's\nauthority was the original on which the existing Upa-pur\u00e2na is based. And in favour of this view it may be urged that passages, similar to \u00c2pastamba's quotation, actually occur in our Paur\u00e2nic texts. In the Gyotishprak\u00e2ra section of several of the chief Pur\u00e2nas we find, in connection with the description of the Path of the Manes (pitriy\u00e2na) 1, the assertion that the pious sages, who had offspring and performed the Agnihotra, reside there until the general destruction of created things (\u00e2 bh\u00fbtasamplav\u00e2t), as well as, that in the beginning of each new creation they are the propagators of the world (lokasya samt\u00e2nakar\u00e2h) and, being re-born, re-establish the sacred law. Though the wording differs, these passages fully agree in sense with \u00c2pastamba's Bhavishyat-pur\u00e2na which says, 'They (the ancestors) live in heaven until the (next) general destruction of created things. At the new creation (of the world) they become the seed.' In other passages of the Pur\u00e2nas, which refer to the successive creations, we find even the identical terms used in the quotation. Thus the V\u00e2yup., Adhy. 8, 23, declares that those beings, which have gone to the Ganaloka, 'become the seed at the new creation' (punah sarge . . . b\u00eeg\u00e2rtham t\u00e2 bhavanti hi).\nThese facts prove at all events that \u00c2pastamba took his quotation from a real Pur\u00e2na, similar to those existing. If it is literal and exact, it shows, also, that the Pur\u00e2nas of his time contained both prose and verse.\nFurther, it is possible. to trace yet another of \u00c2pastamba's quotations from 'a Pur\u00e2na.' The three Pur\u00e2nas, mentioned above, give, immediately after the passages referred to, enlarged versions of the two verses 2 regarding the sages, who begot offspring and obtained 'burial-grounds,' and\nregarding those who, remaining chaste, gained immortality 1. In this case \u00c2pastamba's quotation can be restored almost completely, if certain interpolations are cut out. And it is evident that \u00c2pastamba has preserved genuine Paur\u00e2nic verses in their ancient form. A closer study of the unfortunately much neglected Pur\u00e2nas, no doubt, will lead to further identifications of other quotations, which will be of considerable interest for the history of Indian literature.\nThere is yet another point on which \u00c2pastamba shows a remarkable agreement with a theory which is prevalent in later Sanskrit literature. He says (Dh. II, 11, 29, 11-12), 'The knowledge which S\u00fbdras and women possess, is the completion of all study,' and 'they declare that this knowledge is a supplement of the Atharva-veda.' The commentator remarks with reference to these two S\u00fbtras, that 'the knowledge which S\u00fbdras and women possess,' is the knowledge of dancing, acting, music, and other branches of the so-called Arthas\u00e2stra, the science of useful arts and of trades, and that the object of the S\u00fbtras is to forbid the study of such matters before the acquisition of sacred learning. His interpretation is, without doubt, correct, as similar sentiments are expressed by other teachers in parallel passages. But, if it is accepted, \u00c2pastamba's remark that 'the knowledge of S\u00fbdras and women is a supplement of the Atharva-veda,' proves that he knew the division of Hindu learning which is taught in Madhus\u00fbdana Sarasvat\u00ee's Prasth\u00e2nabheda 2. For Madhus\u00fbdana allots to each Veda an Upa-veda or supplementary Veda, and asserts that the Upa-veda of the Atharva-veda is the Arthas\u00e2stra. The agreement of \u00c2pastamba with the modern writers on this point, furnishes, I think, an additional argument that he belongs to the later Vedic schoolmen.\nIn addition to this information regarding the relative position of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school in ancient Sanskrit literature, we possess some further statements as to the\npart of India to which it belongs, and these, as it happens, are of great importance for fixing approximately the period in which the school arose. According to the Brahmanical tradition, which is supported by a hint contained in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra and by, information derivable from inscriptions and the actual state of things in modern India, the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas belong to Southern India and their founder probably was a native of or resided in the \u00c2ndhra country. The existence of this tradition, which to the present day prevails among the learned Brahmans of Western India and Benares, may be substantiated by a passage from the above-mentioned commentary of the Karanavy\u00fbha 1,which,\nthough written in barbarous Sanskrit, and of quite modern origin, possesses great interest, because its description of the geographical distribution of the Vedas and Vedic schools is not mentioned elsewhere. The verses from a work entitled Mah\u00e2rnava, which are quoted there, state that the earth, i.e. India, is divided into two equal halves by the river Narmad\u00e2 (Nerbudda). and that the school of \u00c2pastamba prevails in the southern half (ver. 2). It is further alleged (ver. 6) that the Yagur-veda of Tittiri and the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school are established in the \u00c2ndhra country and other parts of the south and south-east up to the mouth of the God\u00e2var\u00ee (god\u00e2s\u00e2gara-\u00e2vadhi). According to the Mah\u00e2rnava the latter river marks, therefore, the northern frontier of the territory occupied by the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas. which comprises the Mar\u00e2tha and K\u00e2nara districts of the Bombay Presidency, the greater part of the Niz\u00e2m's dominions, Berar, and the Madras Presidency with the exception of the northern Sirk\u00e2rs and the western coast. This assertion agrees, on the whole, with the actual facts which have fallen under my observation. A great number of the Desastha-br\u00e2hmanas in the N\u00e2sik, Puna, Ahmadnagar, S\u00e2t\u00e2r\u00e2, Shol\u00e2pur, and Kolh\u00e2pur districts, and of the K\u00e2nar\u00e2 or Karn\u00e2taka-br\u00e2hmanas in the Belg\u00e2m, Dh\u00e2rv\u00e2d, Kal\u00e2dgh\u00ee, and Karv\u00e2d collectorates, as well as a smaller number among the Kittap\u00e2vanas of the Ko\u1e45kana are \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas. Of the Niz\u00e2m's dominions and the Madras Presidency I possess no local knowledge. But I can say that I have met many followers of \u00c2pastamba among the Teli\u1e45gana-br\u00e2hmanas settled in Bombay, and that the frequent occurrence of MSS. containing the S\u00fbtras of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school in the Madras Presidency proves that the Karana there must count many adherents. On the other hand, I have never met with any \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas among the ancient indigenous subdivisions of the Brahmanical community dwelling north of the Mar\u00e2th\u00e2 country and north of the Narmad\u00e2. A few Br\u00e2hmanas of this school, no doubt, are scattered over Gugar\u00e2t and Central India, and others are found in the great places of\npilgrimage in Hindustan proper. The former mostly have immigrated during the last century, following the Mar\u00e2th\u00e2 chieftains who conquered large portions of those countries, or have been imported in the present century by the Mar\u00e2th\u00e2 rulers of Gwalior, Indor, and Baroda. The settlers in Benares, Mathur\u00e2, and other sacred cities also, have chiefly come in modern times, and not unfrequently live on the bounty of the Mar\u00e2th\u00e2 princes. But all of them consider themselves and are considered by the Br\u00e2hmanas, who are indigenous in those districts and towns, as aliens, with whom intermarriage and commensality are not permitted. The indigenous sections of the Br\u00e2hmanas of Gugar\u00e2t, such as the N\u00e2garas, Khed\u00e2vals, Bh\u00e2rgavas, Kapilas, and Mot\u00e2l\u00e2s, belong, if they are adherents of the Yagur-veda, to the M\u00e2dhyandina or K\u00e2nva schools of the White Yagur-veda. The same is the case with the Br\u00e2hmanas of Ragput\u00e2na, Hindustan, and the Pa\u00f1gab. In Central India, too, the White Yagur-veda prevails; but, besides the two schools mentioned above, there are still some colonies of Maitr\u00e2yan\u00eeyas or M\u00e2navas 1. It seems, also, that the restriction of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school to the south of India, or rather to those subdivisions of the Brahmanical community which for a long time have been settled in the south and are generally considered as natives of the south, is not of recent date. For it is a significant fact that the numerous ancient landgrants which have been found all over India indicate exactly the same state of things. I am not aware that in any grant issued by a king of a northern dynasty to Br\u00e2hmanas who are natives of the northern half of India, an \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya is mentioned as donee. But among the southern landgrants there are several on which the name of the school appears. Thus in a s\u00e2sana of king Harihara of Vidy\u00e2nagara, dated Sakasamvat 1317 or 1395 A.D., one of the recipients of the royal bounty is 'the learned Ananta D\u00eekshita, son of R\u00e2mabhatta, chief\nof the \u00c2pastambya (read \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya) s\u00e2kh\u00e2, a scion of the Vasishtha gotra 1.' Further, the eastern K\u00e2lukya king Vigay\u00e2ditya II 2, who ruled, according to Dr. Fleet, from A-D. 799-843, presented a village to six students of the Hiranyakesi-s\u00fbtra and to eighteen students of the \u00c2pastamba, recte the \u00c2pastamba-s\u00fbtra. Again, in the abovementioned earlier grant of the Pallava king Nandivarman, there are forty-two students of the \u00c2pastamba-s\u00fbtra 3 among the 108 sharers of the village of Udayakandrama\u1e45galam. Finally, on an ancient set of plates written in the characters which usually are called cave-characters, and issued by the Pallava king Simhavarman II, we find among the donees five \u00c2pastambh\u00eeya Br\u00e2hmanas, who, together with a Hairanyakesa, a V\u00e2gasaneya, and a S\u00e2ma-ved\u00ee, received the village of Ma\u1e45gad\u00fbr, in Ve\u1e45g\u014fr\u00e2shtra 4. This inscription is, to judge from the characters, thirteen to fourteen hundred years old, and on this account a very important witness for the early existence of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas in Southern India.\nUnder the circumstances just mentioned, a casual remark made by \u00c2pastamba, in describing the Sr\u00e2ddhas or funeral oblations, acquires considerable importance. He says (Dh. II, 7, 17, 17) that the custom of pouring water into the hands of Br\u00e2hmanas invited to a Sr\u00e2ddha prevails among the northerners, and he indicates thereby that he himself does not belong to the north of India. If this statement is taken together with the above-stated facts, which tend to show that the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas were and are restricted to the south of India, the most probable construction which can be put on it is that \u00c2pastamba declares himself to be a southerner. There is yet another indication to the same effect contained in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. It has been pointed\nout above that the recension of the Taittir\u00eeya \u00c2ranyaka which \u00c2pastamba recognises is that called the \u00c2ndhra text or the version current in the \u00c2ndhra country, by which term the districts in the south-east of India between the God\u00e2var\u00ee and the Krishn\u00e2 have to be understood 1. Now it seems exceedingly improbable that a Vedic teacher would accept as authoritative any other version of a sacred work except that which was current in his native country. it would therefore follow, from the adoption of an \u00c2ndhra text by \u00c2pastamba, that he was born in that country, or, at least, had resided there so long as to have become naturalised in it. With respect to this conclusion it must also be kept in mind that the above-quoted passage from the Mah\u00e2rnava particularly specifies the \u00c2ndhra country (\u00e2ndhr\u00e2di) as the seat of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas. It may be that this is due to an accident. But it seems to me more probable that the author of the Mah\u00e2rnava wished to mark the \u00c2ndhra territory as the chief and perhaps as the original residence of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas.\nThis discovery has, also, a most important bearing on the question of the antiquity of the school of \u00c2pastamba. It fully confirms the result of the preceding enquiry, viz. that the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas are one of the later Karanas. For the south of India and the nations inhabiting it, such as Kali\u1e45gas, Dravidas, Andhras, Kolas, and P\u00e2ndyas, do not play any important part in the ancient Brahmanical traditions and in the earliest history of India, the centre of both of which lies in the north-west or at least north of the Vindhya range. Hitherto it has not been shown that the south and the southern nations are mentioned in any of the Vedic Samhit\u00e2s. In the Br\u00e2hmanas and in the S\u00fbtras they do occur, though they are named rarely and in a not complimentary manner. Thus the Aitareya-br\u00e2hmana gives the names of certain degraded, barbarous tribes, and among them that of the Andhras 2, in whose country, as\nhas been shown, the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas probably originated. Again, Baudh\u00e2yana, in his Dharma-s\u00fbtra I, i, quotes song verses in which it is said that he who visits the Kali\u1e45gas must purify himself by the performance of certain sacrifices in order to become fit for again associating with Aryans. The same author, also, mentions distinctive forbidden practices (\u00e2k\u00e2ra) prevailing in the south (loc. cit.). Further, P\u00e2nini's grammatical S\u00fbtras and K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana's V\u00e2rttikas thereon contain rules regarding several words which presuppose an acquaintance with the south and the kingdoms which flourished there. Thus P\u00e2nini, IV, 2, 98, teaches the formation of d\u00e2kshin\u00e2tya in the sense of 'belonging to or living in the south or the Dekhan,' and a V\u00e2rttika of K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana on P\u00e2nini, IV, 1, 175, states that the words Kola and P\u00e2ndya are used as names of the princes ruling over the Kola and P\u00e2ndya countries, which, as is known from history, were situated in the extreme south of India. The other southern nations and a fuller description of the south occur first in the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2rata 1. While an acquaintance with the south can thus be proved only by a few books belonging to the later stages of Vedic literature, several of the southern kingdoms are named already in the oldest historical documents. Asoka in his edicts 2, which date from the second half of the third century B.C., calls the Kolas, P\u00e2ndyas, and the Keralaputra or Ketalaputra his pratyantas (prakant\u00e2) or neighbours. The same monarch informs us also that he conquered the province of Kali\u1e45ga and annexed it to his kingdom 3, and his remarks on the condition of the province show that it was thoroughly imbued with the Aryan civilisation. 4. The same fact is attested still more clearly by the annals of the Keta king of Kali\u1e45ga, whose thirteenth year fell in the 165th year of the Maurya era, or about 150 B.C. 5 The early\nspread of the Aryan civilisation to the eastern coast-districts between the God\u00e2var\u00ee and the Krishn\u00e2 is proved by the inscriptions on the Bhattiprolu relic caskets, which probably belong to the period of 200 B.C. 1 Numerous inscriptions in the Buddhist caves of Western India 2, as well as coins, prove the existence during the last centuries before, and the first centuries after, the beginning of our era of a powerful empire of the Andhras, the capital of which was probably situated near the modern Amar\u00e2vati an the lower Krishn\u00e2. The princes of the latter kingdom, though great patrons of the Buddhist monks, appear to have been Brahmanists or adherents of the ancient orthodox faith which is founded on the Vedas. For one of them is called Vedisiri (vedisr\u00ee), 'he whose glory is the Vedi,' and another Ya\u00f1asiri (yag\u00f1asr\u00ee), 'he whose glory is the sacrifice,' and a very remarkable inscription on the N\u00e2n\u00e2gh\u00e2t 3 contains a curious catalogue of sacrificial fees paid to priests (dakshin\u00e2) for the performance of Srauta sacrifices. For the third and the later centuries of our era the information regarding Southern India becomes fuller and fuller. Very numerous inscriptions, the accounts of the Buddhist chroniclers of Ceylon, of the Greek geographers, and of the Chinese pilgrims, reveal the existence and give fragments, at least, of the history of many kingdoms in the south, and show that their civilisation was an advanced one, and did not differ materially from that of Northern India.\nThere can be no doubt that the south of India has been conquered by the Aryans, and has been brought within the pale of Brahmanical civilisation much later than India north of the Vindhya range. During which century precisely that conquest took place, cannot be determined for the present. But it would seem that it happened a considerable time before the Vedic period came to an end, and it certainly was an accomplished fact, long before the\nauthentic history of India begins, about 500 B.C., with the Persian conquest of the Pa\u00f1gab and Sindh. It may be added that a not inconsiderable period must have elapsed after the conquest of the south, before the Aryan civilisation had so far taken root in the conquered territory, that, in its turn, it could become a centre of Brahmanical activity, and that it could produce new Vedic schools.\nThese remarks will suffice to show that a Vedic Karana which had its origin in the south, cannot rival in antiquity those whose seat is in the north, and that all southern schools must belong to a comparatively recent period of Vedic history. For this reason, and because the name of \u00c2pastamba and of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeyas is not mentioned in any Vedic work, not even in a Kalpa-s\u00fbtra, and its occurrence in the older grammatical books, written before the beginning of our era, is doubtful 1, it might be thought advisable to fix the terminus a quo for the composition of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya-s\u00fbtras about or shortly before the beginning of the era, when the Brahmanist \u00c2ndhra kings held the greater part of the south under their sway. It seems to me, however, that such a hypothesis is not tenable, as there are several points which indicate that the school and its writings possess a much higher antiquity. For, first, the Dharma-s\u00fbtra contains a remarkable passage in which its author states that Svetaketu, one of the Vedic teachers who is mentioned in the Satapatha-Br\u00e2hmana and in the Kh\u00e2ndogya Upanishad, belongs to the Avaras, to the men of later, i.e. of his own times. The passage referred to, Dh. I, 2, 5, 4-6, has been partly quoted above in order to show that \u00c2pastamba laid no claim to the title Rishi, or seer of revealed texts. It has been stated that according to S\u00fbtra 4, 'No Rishis are born among the Avaras, the men of later ages, on account of the prevailing transgression of the rules of studentship;' and that according to S\u00fbtra 5,\n[paragraph continues] 'Some in their new birth become similar to Rishis by their knowledge of the Veda (srutarshi) through a residue of merit acquired in former existences.' In order to give an illustration of the latter case, the author adds in S\u00fbtra 6, 'Like Svetaketu.' The natural, and in my opinion, the only admissible interpretation of these words is that \u00c2pastamba considers Svetaketu to be one of the Avaras, who by virtue of a residue of merit became a Srutarshi. This is also the view of the commentator Haradatta, who, in elucidation of S\u00fbtra 6, quotes the following passage from the Kh\u00e2ndogya Upanishad (VI, 1, 1-2):\n'1. Verily, there lived Svetaketu, a descendant of Aruna. His father spake unto him, \"O Svetaketu, dwell as a student (with a, teacher); for, verily, dear child, no one in our family must neglect the study of the Veda and become, as it were, a Br\u00e2hmana in name only.\"\n'Verily, he (Svetaketu) was initiated at the age of twelve years, and when twenty-four years old be had learned all the Vedas; he thought highly of himself and was vain of his learning and arrogant.'\nThere can be no doubt that this is the person and the story referred to in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. For the fact which the Upanishad mentions, that Svetaketu learned all the Vedas in twelve years, while, the Smritis declare forty-eight years to be necessary for the accomplishment of that task, makes \u00c2pastamba's illustration intelligible and appropriate. A good deal more is told in the Kh\u00e2ndogya Upanishad about this Svetaketu, who is said to have been the son of Udd\u00e2laka and the grandson of Aruna (\u00e2runeya). The same person is also frequently mentioned in the Satapatha-Br\u00e2hmana. In one passage of the latter work, which has been translated by Professor Max M\u00fcller 1, it is alleged that he was a contemporary of Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya, the promulgator of the White Yagur-veda, and of the learned king Ganaka of Videha, who asked him about the meaning of the Agnihotra sacrifice, Now, as has been shown above, \u00c2pastamba knew and quotes the White Yagur-veda and\nthe Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana. The passage of the latter work, which he quotes, is even taken from the same book in which the story about Svetaketu and Ganaka occurs. The fact, therefore, that \u00c2pastamba places a teacher whom he must have considered as a contemporary of the promulgator of the White Yagur-veda among the Avaras, is highly interesting and of some importance for the history of Vedic literature. On the one hand it indicates that \u00c2pastamba cannot have considered the White Yagur-veda, such as it has been handed down in the schools of the K\u00e2nvas and M\u00e2dhyandinas, to belong to a remote antiquity. On the other hand it makes the inference which otherwise might be drawn from the southern origin of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school and from the non-occurrence: of its name in the early grammatical writings, viz. that its founder lived not long before the beginning of our era, extremely improbable. For even if the term Avara is not interpreted very strictly and allowed to mean not exactly a contemporary, but a person of comparatively recent times, it will not be possible to place between Svetaketu and \u00c2pastamba a longer interval than, at the utmost, two or three hundred years. Svetaketu and Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya would accordingly, at the best, find their places in the fourth or fifth century B.C., and the Satapatha-Br\u00e2hmana as well as all other Vedic works, which narrate incidents from their lives, must have been composed or at least edited still later. Though little is known regarding the history of the Vedic texts, still it happens that we possess some information regarding the texts in question. For we know from a statement made by K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana in a V\u00e2rttika on P\u00e2nini IV, 3, 105, and from Pata\u00f1gali's commentary on his words that the Br\u00e2hmana proclaimed by Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya, i.e. the Satapatha-br\u00e2hmana of the White Yagur-veda, was considered to have been promulgated by one of the Ancients, in the times of these two writers, i.e. probably in the fourth and second centuries B.C. 1\nThese considerations will show that it is necessary to allow for \u00c2pastamba a much higher antiquity than the first century B.C.\nThe same inference may also be drawn from another series of facts, viz. the peculiarities of the language of his S\u00fbtras. The latter are very considerable and very remarkable. They may be classed under four heads. In the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya Dharma-s\u00fbtra we have, first, archaic words and forms either occurring in other Vedic writings or formed according to the analogy of Vedic usage; secondly, ancient forms and words specially prescribed by P\u00e2nini, which have not been traced except in \u00c2pastamba's S\u00fbtras; thirdly, words and forms which are both against Vedic usage and against P\u00e2nini's rules, and which sometimes find their analogies in the ancient Prakrits; and fourthly, anomalies in the construction of sentences. To the first class belong, kravy\u00e2das, I, 7, 21, 15, carnivorous, formed according to the analogy of ris\u00e2das; the frequent use of the singular d\u00e2ra, e.g. II, 1, 1, 17-18, a wife, instead of the plural d\u00e2r\u00e2h; sal\u00e2vrik\u00ee, I, 3, 10, 19, for s\u00e2lavrik\u00ee; the substitution of l for r in ple\u1e45kha, I, 11, 31, 14; occasional\noffences against the rules of internal and external Sandhi, e.g. in agrihyam\u00e2nak\u00e2ranah, I, 4, 12, 8; in skuptv\u00e2, I, 11, 31, 22, the irregular absolutive of skubh or of sku; in p\u00e2d\u00fbna, I, 1, 2, 13; in adh\u00e2sanas\u00e2yin, I, 19, 2, 21 and in sarvatopeta, I, 6, 19, 8; the neglect of the rule requiring vriddhi in the first syllable of the name Pushkaras\u00e2di, I, 10, 28, 1; the irregular instrumentals vidy\u00e2, I, 11, 30, 3, for vidyay\u00e2, and nihsreyas\u00e2, II, 7, 16, 2, for nihsreyasena; the nominatives dual \u00e2vam, I, 7, 20, 6, for \u00e2v\u00e2m, and kru\u00f1kakrau\u00f1ka, I, 5, 17, 36 for \u00b0krau\u00f1kau; and the potentials in \u00eeta, such as praksh\u00e2lay\u00eeta, I, 1, 2, 28; abhipras\u00e2ray\u00eeta, I, 25 6, 3, &c.\nAmong the words mentioned by P\u00e2nini, but not traced except in the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, may be enumerated the verb strih, to do damage, I, 11, 31, 9; the verb sri\u1e45kh, to sneeze, from which sri\u1e45kh\u00e2nik\u00e2, I, 5, 16, 14, and nihsri\u1e45khana, II, 2, 5, 9, are derived; and the noun ved\u00e2dhy\u00e2ya, I, 9, 24, 6; II, 4, 8, 5, in the sense of a student of the Veda. Words offending against rules given by P\u00e2nini, without being either archaic or Prakritic, are e.g. sarv\u00e2nnin, I, 6, 18, 33, one who eats anybody's food, which, according to P\u00e2nini V, 2, 9, should be sarv\u00e2nn\u00eena; sarpas\u00eershin, I, 5, 17, 39; annasamskartri, a cook, II, 3, 6, 16; dh\u00e2rmya, righteous, for dharmya, I, 2, 7, 21, and elsewhere; d\u00eevitri, a gambler, II, 10, 2, 5, 13, for devitri, the very remarkable form pr\u00e2s\u00f1\u00e2ti, I, 1, 4, 1, for pr\u00e2sn\u00e2ti, finds an analogy in the Vedic snyaptre for snaptre 1 and in Pali, pa\u00f1ha from pras\u00f1a for prasna; and the curious compounds av\u00e2\u1e45gagra, I, 1, 2, 38, par\u00e2\u1e45g\u00e2vritta, II, 5, 10, 11, where the first parts show the forms of the nominative instead of the base, and pratis\u00fbryamatsyah, I, 3, 11, 31, which as a copulative compound is wrong, though not without analogies in Prakrit and in later Sanskrit 2. The irregular forms caused by the same tendencies as those which effected the formation of the\n[paragraph continues] Prakrit languages, are, aviprakramina, II, 2, 5, 2, for aviprakramana, where an a standing in thesi has been changed to i; s\u00e2mvrittih, II, 3, 6, 13, s\u00e2mvartete, II, 5, 11, 20, and pary\u00e2nta, I, 3, 9, 21, and I, 3, 11, 33 (compare Mar\u00e2thi \u00e2mt for antah), in each of which a standing before a nasal has been lengthened; anika, I, 6, 19, 1, the initial a of which stands for ri, if it really has the meaning of rinika, as some commentators asserted; anulepana, I, 3, 11, 13; I, 11, 32, 5, with the Prakritic change of na to na; vyupag\u00e2va, I, 2, 8, 15, with va for pa; ritve for ritvye, where y seems to have been absorbed by the following e; apassay\u00eeta, I, 11, 32, 16, for ap\u00e2srayita, and bhatrivyatikrama, I, 10, 28, 20, where r has been assimilated to the preceding, or has been lost before the following consonant. The irregularities in the construction are less frequent. But in two S\u00fbtras, I, 3, 10, 2, and I, 3, 11, 31, some words which ought to stand in the locative case have the terminations of the nominative, and it looks as if the author had changed his mind about the construction which he meant to use. In a third passage II, 10, 26, 20, sisnakkhedanam savrishanasya, the adjective which is intended to qualify the noun sisna has been placed in the genitive case, though the noun has been made the first part of a compound.\nThe occurrence of so many irregularities 1 in so small a treatise as the Dharma-s\u00fbtra is, proves clearly that the author did not follow P\u00e2nini's grammar, and makes it very unlikely that he knew it at all. If the anomalous forms used by \u00c2pastamba all agreed with the usage of the other S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras, known to us, it might be contended that, though acquainted with the rules of the great grammarian, he had elected to adopt by preference the language of the Vedic schools. But this is by no means the case. The majority of the irregular forms are peculiar to \u00c2pastamba. As it is thus not probable that \u00c2pastamba employed his peculiar expressions- in obedience to the tradition of the\n[paragraph continues] Vedic schools or of his particular school, he must have either been unacquainted with P\u00e2nini or have considered his teachings of no great importance. In other words, he must either have lived earlier than P\u00e2nini or before P\u00e2nini's grammar had acquired general fame throughout India, and become the standard authority for Sanskrit authors. In either case so late a date as 150 B. C. or the first century B.C. would not fit. For Pata\u00f1gali's Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya furnishes abundant proof that at the time of its composition, in the second century B.C., P\u00e2nini's grammar occupied a position similar to that which it holds now, and has held since the beginning of our era in the estimation of the learned of India. On linguistic grounds it seems to me \u00c2pastamba cannot be placed later than the third century B.C., and if his statement regarding Svetaketu is taken into account, the lower limit for the composition of his S\u00fbtras must be put further back by 150-200 years.\nBut sufficient space has already been allotted to these attempts to assign a date to the founder of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya school, the result of which, in the present state of our knowledge of the ancient history of India, must remain, I fear, less certain and less precise than is desirable. It now is necessary to say, in conclusion, a few words about the history of the text of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, and about its commentary, the Uggval\u00e2 Vritti of Haradatta. The oldest writer with a known date who quotes the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya Dharma-s\u00fbtra is Sa\u1e45kar\u00e2k\u00e2rya 1, c. 800 A.D. Even somewhat earlier Kum\u00e2rila, c. 750, refers repeatedly to a law-book by \u00c2pastamba 2. But it is improbable that he had our Dharma-s\u00fbtra before him. For he says, p. 138, that \u00c2pastamba expressly sanctions local usages, opposed to the teaching of the Vedas, for the natives of those districts where they had prevailed since ancient times. Now, that is just an opinion, which our Dharma-s\u00fbtra declares to be wrong and refutes repeatedly 3. As it seems\nhazardous to impute to a man, like Kum\u00e2rila, ignorance or spite against \u00c2pastamba, I am inclined to assume that the great M\u00eem\u00e2msaka refers to some other work, attributed to \u00c2pastamba, perhaps the metrical \u00c2pastamba-smriti which Apar\u00e2rka quotes very frequently 1. Among the commentators on Smritis the oldest, who quote the Dharma-s\u00fbtra, are Medh\u00e2tithi, the author of the Manubh\u00e2shya, and Vig\u00f1\u00e2nesvara, who composed the Mit\u00e2kshar\u00e2, the well-known commentary on Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya's Dharma-s\u00e2stra during the reign of the K\u00e2lukya king Vikram\u00e2ditya VI, of K\u00e2lukya towards the end of the eleventh century. From that time downwards \u00c2pastamba is quoted by almost every writer on law. But the whole text, such as it is given in my edition 2, is vouched for only by the commentator Haradatta, who wrote his Uggval\u00e2 Vritti, at the latest, in the fifteenth century A.D. or possibly 100 years earlier 3 . Haradatta was, however, not the first commentator of the Dharma-s\u00fbtra. He frequently quotes the opinions of several predecessors whom he designates by the general expressions anyah or aparah, i.e. another (writer). The fact that the Uggval\u00e2 was preceded by earlier commentaries which protected the text from corruption, also speaks in favour of the authenticity of the latter, which is further attested by the close agreement of the Hiranyakesi Dharma-s\u00fbtra, mentioned above.\nAs regards the value of the Uggval\u00e2 for the explanation of \u00c2pastamba's text, it certainly belongs to the best commentaries\nexisting. Haradatta possessed in the older Vrittis abundant and good materials on which he could draw; he himself apparently was, well versed in Hindu law and in Sanskrit grammar, and distinguished by sobriety and freedom from that vanity which induces many Indian commentators to load their works with endless and useless quotations. His explanations, therefore, can mostly be followed without hesitation, and, even when they appear unacceptable, they deserve careful consideration.\nix:1 Max M\u00fcller, History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p. 133 seq.\nThe following letter, addressed to the late W. H. Morley, and published by him in his Digest of Indian Cases, 1850, may be of interest as connected with the first discovery of the \u00c2pastamba-s\u00fbtras:--\n9, Park Place, Oxford, July 29, 1849.\nMY DEAR MORLEY,--I have been looking again at the law literature, in order to write you a note on the sources of Manu. I have treated the subject fully in my introduction to the Veda, where I have given an outline of the different periods of Vaidik literature, and analysed the peculiarities in the style and language of each class of Vaidik works. A hat I consider to be the sources of the M\u00e2nava-dharma-s\u00e2stra, the so-called Laws of Manu, are the S\u00fbtras. These are works which presuppose the development of the prose literature of the Br\u00e2hmanas (like the Aitareya-br\u00e2hmana, Taittirtya-br\u00e2hmana, &c.) These Br\u00e2hmanas, again, presuppose, not only the existence, but the collection and arrangement of the old hymns of the four Samhit\u00e2s. The S\u00fbtras are therefore later than both these classes of Vaidik works, but they must be considered as belonging to the Vaidik period of literature, not only on account of their intimate connection with Vaidik subjects, but also because they still exhibit the irregularities of the old Vaidik language. They form indeed the last branch of Vaidik literature; and it will perhaps be possible to fix some of these works chronologically, as they are contemporary with the first spreading of Buddhism in India.\nAgain, in the whole of Vaidik literature there is no work written (like the M\u00e2nava-dharma-s\u00e2stra) in the regular epic Sloka, and the continuous employment of this metre is a characteristic mark of post-Vaidik writings.\nOne of the principal classes of S\u00fbtras is known by the name of Kalpa-s\u00fbtras, p. x or rules of ceremonies. These are avowedly composed by human authors, while, according to Indian orthodox theology, both the hymns and Br\u00e2hmanas are to be considered as revelation. The S\u00fbtras generally bear the name of their authors, like the S\u00fbtras of \u00c2sval\u00e2yana, K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana, &c., or the name of the family to which the S\u00fbtras belonged. The great number of these writings is to be accounted for by the fact that there was not one body of Kalpa-s\u00fbtras binding on all Brahmanic families, but that different old families had each their own Kalpa-s\u00fbtras. These works are still very frequent in our libraries, yet there is no doubt that many of them have been lost. S\u00fbtras are quoted which do not exist in Europe, and the loss of some is acknowledged by the Brahmans themselves. There are, however, lists of the old Brahmanic families which were in possession of their own redaction of Vaidik hymns (Samhit\u00e2s), of Br\u00e2hmanas, and of S\u00fbtras. Some-of these families followed the Rig-veda, some the Yagur-veda, the S\u00e2ma-veda, and Atharva-veda; and thus the whole Vaidik literature becomes divided into four great classes of Br\u00e2hmanas and S\u00fbtras, belonging to one or the other of the four principal Vedas.\nNow one of the families following the Yagur-veda was that of the M\u00e2navas (cf. Karanavy\u00fbha). There can be no doubt that that family, too, had its own S\u00fbtras. Quotations from M\u00e2nava-s\u00fbtras are to be met with in commentaries on other S\u00fbtras; and I have found, not long ago, a MS. which contains the text of the M\u00e2nava-srauta-s\u00fbtras, though in a very fragmentary state. But these S\u00fbtras, the Srauta-s\u00fbtras, treat only of a certain branch of ceremonies connected with the great sacrifices. Complete S\u00fbtra works are divided into three parts: 1. the first (Srauta), treating on the great sacrifices; 2. the second (Grihya), treating on the Samsk\u00e2ras, or the purificatory sacraments; 3. the third, (S\u00e2may\u00e2k\u00e2rika or Dharma-s\u00fbtras), treating on temporal duties, customs, and punishments. The last two classes of S\u00fbtras seem to be lost in the M\u00e2nava-s\u00fbtra. This loss is. however, not so great with regard to tracing the sources of the M\u00e2nava-dharma-s\u00e2stra, because whenever we have an opportunity of comparing S\u00fbtras belonging to different families, but following the same Veda, and treating on the same subjects, the differences appear to be very slight, and only refer to less important niceties of the ceremonial. In the absence, therefore, of the M\u00e2nava- s\u00e2may\u00e2k\u00e2rika-s\u00fbtras, I have taken another collection of S\u00fbtras, equally belonging to the Yagur-veda, the S\u00fbtras of \u00c2pastamba. In his family we have not only a Br\u00e2hmana, but also \u00c2pastamba Srauta, Grihya, and S\u00e2may\u00e2k\u00e2rika-s\u00fbtras. Now it is, of course, the third class of S\u00fbtras, on temporal duties, which are most likely to contain the sources of the later metrical Codes of Law, written in the classical Sloka. On a comparison of different subjects, such as the duties of a Brahmak\u00e2rin, a Grihastha, laws of inheritance, duties of a king, forbidden fruit, &c., I find that the S\u00fbtras contain generally almost the same words which have been brought into verse by the compiler of the M\u00e2nava-dharma-s\u00fbtra. p. xi I consider, therefore, the S\u00fbtras as the principal source of the metrical Smritis, such as the M\u00e2nava-dharma-s\u00e2stra, Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya-dharma-s\u00e2stra, &c., though there are also many other verses in these works which may be traced to different sources. They are paraphrases of verses of the Samhit\u00e2s, or of passages of the Br\u00e2hmanas, often retaining the same old words and archaic constructions which were in the original. This is indeed acknowledged by the author of the M\u00e2nava-dharma-s\u00e2stra, when he says (B. II, v. 6), 'The roots of the Law are the whole Veda (Samhit\u00e2s and Br\u00e2hmanas), the customs and traditions of those who knew the Veda (as laid down in the S\u00fbtras), the conduct of good men, and one's own satisfaction.' The M\u00e2nava-dharma-s\u00e2stra may thus be considered as the last redaction of the laws of the M\u00e2navas. Quite different is the question as to the old Manu from whom the family probably derived its origin, and who is said to have been the author of some very characteristic hymns in the Rig-veda-samhit\u00e2. He certainly cannot be considered as the author of a M\u00e2nava-dharma-s\u00fbtra, nor is there even any reason to suppose the author of this work to have had the same name. It is evident that the author of the metrical Code of Laws speaks of the old Manu as of a person different from himself, when he says (B. X, v. 63), 'Not to kill, not to lie, not to steal, to keep the body clean, and to restrain the senses, this was the short law which Manu proclaimed amongst the four castes.'--Yours truly, M. M.\nxii:1 Burnell, Indian Antiquary, 1, 5 seq.\nxii:2 The Srauta-s\u00fbtra, Pr. I-XV, has been edited by Professor R. Garbe in the Bibliotheca Indica, and the remainder is in the press.\nxii:3 See Professor Max M\u00fcller's Translation in S. B. E., vol. xxx.\nxii:4 The Grihya-s\u00fbtra has been edited by Dr. Winternitz, Vienna, 1887.\nxii:5 On the Sulva-s\u00fbtras see G. Thibaut in 'the Pandit,' 1875, p. 292.\nxii:6 Burnell, loc. cit.\nxiii:1 \u00c2sval\u00e2yana Grihya-s\u00fbtra I, 19, ed. Stenzler.\nxiv:1 See the details, given by Dr. Wintemitz in his essay, Das altindische Hochzeitsrituell, p. 5 (Denkschr. Wiener Akademie, Bd. 40).\nxv:1 See Dr. Winternitz, loc. cit\nxvi:1 Max M\u00fcller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit, p. 371. A MS. of the Karanavy\u00fbha, with an anonymous commentary, in my possession, has the following passage:\nxvi:2 Max M\u00fcller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 194. These statements occur in the introduction of Mah\u00e2deva's commentary on the Srauta-s\u00fbtra of Hiranyakesin (Weber, Hist. Sansk. Lit., p. 110, 2nd ed.) and, in an interpolated: passage of Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2g\u00e2's Grihya-s\u00fbtra (Winternitz, op. cit., p. 8, note i), as well as, with the omission of Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2g\u00e2's name, in interpolated passages of p. xvii Baudh\u00e2yana's Dharma-s\u00fbtra (II, 5, 9, 14) and of the same author's Grihya-s\u00fbtra (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi, note 1). Adherents of a Pravakana-s\u00fbtra, no doubt identical with that of Baudh\u00e2yana, the Pravakanakart\u00e2 (Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxvi), are mentioned in a land grant, originally issued by the Pallava king Nandivarman in the beginning of the eighth century A.D., see Hultzsch, South Indian Inscriptions, vol. ii, p. 361 seqq.; see also Weber, Hist Sansk. Lit., p. 110, 2nd ed.\nxvii:1 Max M\u00fcller, op. cit., p. 195.\nxvii:2 See also Weber, Ind. Lit., p. 98, 2nd ed.\nxviii:1 Dharma-s\u00fbtra II, 6, x 3, 1-10; II, 10, 27, 4.\nxix:1 Baudh. Dh. II, 1, 2, 18-23 = \u00c2p. Dh. I, 10, 29, 8-14.\nxix:2 E.g. \u00c2p. Dh. I, 1, 2, 30; I, 2, 6, 8-9; I, 5, 15, 8 correspond respectively to Baudh. Dh. I, 2, 3, 39-40; I, 2, 3, 38; II, 21 3, 29.\nxx:1 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 17 seqq.\nxx:2 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 5, 13, 1-2, 11.\nxx:3 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 10, 27, 2-7.\nxx:4 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 5, 11 and 12.\nxx:5 Baudh. Dh. II, 21 3, 33.\nxxi:1 For another case, the rules, referring to the composition for homicide, regarding which \u00c2pastamba holds later views than Baudh\u00e2yana, see the Festgruss an R. von Roth, pp. 47-48.\nxxi:2 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 6, 13, 13, and II, 6, 14, 1\nxxii:1 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 6,14, 6-13.\nxxii:2 Baudh. Dh. II, 2, 3, 2-7.\nxxii:3 \u00c2p. Dh. I, 1, 4, 5-7.\nxxiii:1 Cases, in which \u00c2pastamba's Grihya-s\u00fbtra appears to refer to, or to controvert, Baudh\u00e2yana's Grihya-s\u00fbtra, have been collected by Dr. Wintemitz, op. cit., p. 8. Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 34, too, considers Baudh\u00e2yana to be older than \u00c2pastamba, because his style is so much simpler. With this remark may be compared Dr. Winternitz's very true assertion that Baudh\u00e2yana's style resembles sometimes, especially in the discussion of disputed points, that of the Br\u00e2hmanas. On the other hand, Dr. R. G. Bh\u00e2nd\u00e2rkar, Second Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., p. 34, believes Baudh\u00e2yana to be later than \u00c2pastamba and Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga, because he teaches other developments of sacrificial rites, unknown to the other two S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras. This may be true, but it must not be forgotten that every portion of Baudh\u00e2yana's S\u00fbtras, which has been subjected to a critical enquiry, has turned out to be much interpolated and enlarged by later hands.\nxxiv:1 The subjoined pedigree of the S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras of the Black Yagur-veda will perhaps make the above remarks and my interpretation of the statements of Mah\u00e2deva and the other authorities mentioned above more intelligible:--\nBaudh\u00e2yana, Pravakanakart\u00e2, i.e. 1st S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ra, and founder of Baudh\u00e2yana-karana.\n (Successors of Baudh\u00e2yana down to fellow-pupil of Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga, number unknown.)\n (Successors of Baudh\u00e2yana after the schism down to the present day.)\nBh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga, 2nd S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ra, and founder of Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga-karana.\n (Successors of Bh\u00e2radv\u00e2ga down to fellow-pupil of \u00c2pastamba, number unknown.)\n (Successors after the schism down to the present day.)\n\u00c2pastamba, 3rd S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ra, and founder of \u00c2pastamba-karana.\n (Successors of \u00c2pastamba down to fellow-pupil of Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin, number unknown.)\n (successors of \u00c2pastamba down to the present day.)\nSaty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin, 4th S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ra, and founder of Hiranyakesi-karana.\n (Successors of Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin down to the present day.)\nAfter the schism of Saty\u00e2sh\u00e2dha Hiranyakesin the pedigree has not been continued, though Mah\u00e2deva asserts that several other S\u00fbtrak\u00e2ras arose. But to work it out further would be useless.\nxxiv:2 See Appendix II to Part I of my second edition of \u00c2pastamba's Dharma-s\u00fbtra, p. 117 seqq.\nxxv:1 Compare also Dr. Winternitz's remarks on the dependence of the Grihya-s\u00fbtra of the Hiranyakesins on \u00c2pastamba's, op. cit., p. 6 seqq., and the second edition of the \u00c2p. Dh., Part 1, p. xi.\nxxvi:1 \u00c2p. II, 29, 12.\nxxvi:2 The Taittir\u00eeya \u00c2ranyaka exists in three recensions, the Karn\u00e2ta, Dr\u00e2vida, and the \u00c2ndhra, the first of which has been commented on by S\u00e2yana.\nxxvii:1 Compare on this point Professor Eggeling's remarks in Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. xxxix seqq.\nxxvii:2 See the passage from the Karanavy\u00fbhabh\u00e2shya given below, ver. 10.\nxxvii:3 \u00c2p. Dh. I, 2, 2.\nxxvii:4 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 3, 7, 12-17.\nxxvii:5 Some more are quoted in the Srauta-s\u00fbtra, see Professor Garbe in the Gurup\u00fbg\u00e2kaumud\u00ee, p. 33 seqq.\nxxvii:6 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 4, 8, 10.\nxxvii:7 See also Max M\u00fcller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 111.\nxxviii:1 p. Dh. I, 6, 19, 3-8; I, 10, 2 8, 1-2; I, 4, 13, 10; I, 6, 18, 2; I, 6, 19, 12; I, 10, 28, 5, 16; I, 10, 29, 12-16.\nxxviii:2 Max M\u00fcller, loc. cit., p. 142.\nxxviii:3 A Dharma-s\u00fbtra, ascribed to this teacher, has been recovered of late, by Mr. V\u00e2man Sh\u00e2str\u00ee Isl\u00e2mpurkar. Though it is an ancient work, it does not contain \u00c2pastamba's quotations, see Grundriss d. Indo-Ar. Phil. und Altertumsk, II, 8, 8.\nxxviii:4 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 4, 8, 13; II, 6, 14, 13.\nxxix:1 \u00c2p. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10.\nxxix:2 \u00c2p. Dh, I, 6, 19, 13; I, 10, 29, 7.\nxxix:3 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 9, 24, 6.\nxxx:1 Aufrecht, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 400.\nxxx:2 Max M\u00fcller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 40-42. Weber, Literaturgeschichte, pp. 206-208. Though I fully subscribe to the opinion, held by the most illustrious Sanskritists, that, in general, the existing Pur\u00e2nas are not identical with the works designated by that title in Vedic works, still I cannot believe that they are altogether independent of the latter. Nor can I agree to the assertion that the Pur\u00e2nas known to us, one and all, are not older than the tenth or eleventh century A.D. That is inadmissible, because B\u00ear\u00fbn\u00ee (India, I, 131) enumerates them as canonical books. And his frequent quotations from them prove that in 1030 A. D. they did not differ materially from those known to us (see Indian Antiquary, 19, 382 seqq.). Another important fact bearing on this point may be mentioned here, viz. that the poet B\u00e2na, who wrote shortly after 600 A.D., in the Sr\u00eehatshakarita, orders his Paur\u00e2nika to recite the Pavanaprokta-pur\u00e2na, i.e. the V\u00e2yu-pur\u00e2na (Harshakarita, p. 61, Calcutta ed.). Dr. Hall, the discoverer of the life of Harsha, read in his copy Yavanaprokta-pur\u00e2na, a title which, as he remarks, might suggest the idea that B\u00e2na knew the Greek epic poetry. But a comparison of the excellent Ahmad\u00e2b\u00e2d and Benares Devan\u00e2gar\u00ee MSS. and of the Kasm\u00eer S\u00e2rad\u00e2 copies shows that the correct reading is the one given above. The earlier history of the Pur\u00e2nas, which as yet is a mystery, will only be cleared up when a real history of the orthodox Hindu sects, especially of the Sivites and Vishnuites, has been written. It will, then, probably become apparent that the origin of these sects reaches back far beyond the rise of Buddhism and Jainism. It will also be proved p. xxxi that the orthodox sects used Pur\u00e2nas as text books for popular readings, the Pur\u00e2nap\u00e2thana of our days, and that some, at least, of the now existing Pur\u00e2nas are the latest recensions of those mentioned in Vedic books.\nxxxi:1 V\u00e2yup., Adhy. .50, 208 seqq.; Matsyap., Adhy. 123, 96 seqq.; Vishnup. II, 8. 86-89; H. H. Wilson, Vishnup., vol. ii, pp. 263-268 (ed. Hall).\nxxxi:2 \u00c2p. Dh. II, 9, 23,4-5.\nxxxii:1 An abbreviated version of the same verses, ascribed to the Paur\u00e2nikas, occurs in Sa\u1e45kar\u00e2k\u00e2rya's Comm. on the Kh\u00e2ndogya Up., p. 336 (Bibl. Ind.).\nxxxii:2 Weber, Ind. Stud. I, 1-24.\nxxxiii:1 Karanavy\u00fbhabh\u00e2shya, fol. 15a, 1- 4 seqq.:--\nxxxv:1 See Bh\u00e2\u00fb D\u00e2g\u00ee, Journ. Bombay Br. Roy. As. Soc. X, 40. Regarding the Maitr\u00e2yan\u00eeyas in Gugar\u00e2t, of whom the Karanavy\u00fbha speaks, compare my Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1879-80, p. 3.\nxxxvi:1 Colebrooke, Essays, II, p. 264, ver. 24 (Madras ed.).\nxxxvi:2 See Hultzsch, South Indian Inscriptions, vol. i, p. 31 seqq., and Indian Antiquary, vol. xx, p. 414 seqq.\nxxxvi:3 \u00c2pastambha may be a mistake for \u00c2pastamba. But the form with the aspirate occurs also in the earlier Pallava grant and in Devap\u00e2la's commentary on the Kathaka Grihya-s\u00fbtra.\nxxxvi:4 Ind. Ant. V, 133.\nxxxvii:1 See Cunningham, Geography, p. 527 seqq.; Burnell, South Ind. Pal., p. 14, note 2.\nxxxvii:2 Aitareya-br\u00e2hmana VII, 18.\nxxxviii:1 Lassen, Ind. Alterthumskunde, I. 684, 2nd ed.\nxxxviii:2 Edict II, Epigraphia Indica, vol. ii, pp. 449-450, 466.\nxxxviii:3 Edict XIII, op. cit., pp. 462-465, 470-472.\nxxxviii:4 See also Indian Antiquary, Vol. xxiii, p. 246.\nxxxviii:5 Actes du 6i\u00e8me Congr\u00e8s Int. d. Orient., vol. iii, 2, 135 seqq., where, however, the beginning of the Maurya era is placed wrongly in the eighth year of Asoka.\nxxxix:1 Epigraphia Indica., vol. ii, p. 323 seqq.\nxxxix:2 See Burgess, Arch. Surv. Reports, West India, vol. iv, pp. 104-114 and vol. v, p. 75 seqq.\nxxxix:3 Op. cit., vol. v, p. 69 seqq. Its date probably falls between 150-140 B.C.\nxl:1 The name \u00c2pastamba occurs only in the gana vid\u00e2di, which belongs to P\u00e2nini IV, 1, 104, and the text of this gana is certain only for the times of the K\u00e2sik\u00e2, about 690 A.D. The Srauta-s\u00fbtra of \u00c2pastamba is mentioned in the nearly contemporaneous commentary of Bhartrihari on the Mah\u00e2bh\u00e2shya, see Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xxxvi, p. 654.\nxli:1 Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., p. 421 seq.\nxlii:1 This famous V\u00e2rttika has been interpreted in various ways; see Max M\u00fcller, Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit., pp. 360-364; Goldst\u00fccker, P\u00e2nini, pp. 132-140; Weber, p. xliii Ind. Stud. V, 65-74; XIII, 443, 444. As regards the explanation of K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana's and Pata\u00f1gali's words, I side with Kaiyata and Professor Goldst\u00fccker. But I am unable to follow the latter in the inferences which he draws from the fact, that K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana and Pata\u00f1gali declare Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya and other sages to be as ancient as those whose Br\u00e2hmanas and Kalpas are designated by the plural of adjectives formed by the addition of the affix in to the names of the promulgators. Though P\u00e2nini asserts, IV, 3, 105, that only those Br\u00e2hmanas which are known by appellations like Bh\u00e2llavinah, Kaush\u00eetakinah, &c, have been proclaimed by ancient sages, and though K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana and the author of the Great Commentary add that this rule does not hold good in the case of the work called Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalk\u00e2ni Br\u00e2hman\u00e2ni, it does not necessarily follow, as Professor Goldst\u00fccker thinks, that an extraordinarily long interval lies between P\u00e2nini and K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana-so long a period that what P\u00e2nini considered to be recent had become ancient in K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana's time. Professor Weber has rightly objected to this reasoning. The difference between the statements of the two grammarians may have been caused by different traditions prevailing in different schools, or by an oversight on the part of P\u00e2nini, which, as the scene of Y\u00e2g\u00f1avalkya's activity seems to have been Videha in eastern India, while P\u00e2nini belonged to the extreme north-west, is not at all improbable. As regards the two dates, I place, following, with Professor Max M\u00fcller, the native tradition, K\u00e2ty\u00e2yana in the fourth century B.C., and Pata\u00f1gali, with Professors Goldst\u00fccker, Kern, and Bh\u00e2ndarkar, between 178-140 B.C.\nxliv:1 Wackernagel, Altindische Grammatik, vol. i, p. xxxiii.\nxliv:2 See Zeitschr. d. Deutschen Morg. Ges., vol. xl, p. 539 seq.; Epigraphia Indica, vol. i, p. 3.\nxlv:1 Many more may be collected from the other divisions of the body of S\u00fbtras. See Winternitz, op. cit., p. 13 seqq.; Gurup\u00fbg\u00e2kaumud\u00ee, p. 34 seq.\nxlvi:1 See Deussen, Ved\u00e2nta, p. 35.\nxlvi:2 Tantrav\u00e2rttika, pp. 138, 139, 142, 174,175, 179, Benares ed.\nxlvi:3 \u00c2p. Dh. I, 1, 14, 8, 9-10; II, 6, 14, 10-13; II, 6, 15, I.\nxlvii:1 \u00c2p. Dh., Introd., p. x.\nxlvii:2 \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya Dharma-s\u00fbtram, second edition, Part i, Bombay, 1892; Part ii, Bombay, 1894.\nxlvii:3 It seems not doubtful that Haradatta, the author of the Uggval\u00e2, is the same person who wrote the An\u00e2kula Vritti on the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya Grihya-s\u00fbtra, an explanation of the \u00c2pastamb\u00eeya Grihya-mantras (see Burnell, Ind. Ant. I, 6), and the Mit\u00e2kshar\u00e2 Vritti on the Dharma-s\u00fbtra of Gautama. From the occurrence in the latter work of Tamil words, added in explanation of Sanskrit expressions, it follows that Haradatta was a native of the south of India. I am not in a position to decide if our author also wrote the Padama\u00f1gar\u00ee Vritti on the K\u00e2sik\u00e2 of V\u00e2mana and Gay\u00e2ditya. This is Professor Aufrecht's opinion, Catalogus Catalogorum, p. 715 seq. See also my remarks in the Introd. to the second ed., p. viii.","title":"SBE 2: Introduction to \u00c2pastamba","type":"page"}