कल्पान्तरे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

484

Brhaspati Brbaspati as a sūtra writer on politics has been dealt with above ( section 26 ). In this section Brhaspati the jurist will be spoken of. The complete smrti of Bșhaspati on law has not yet been discovered. It will be, when discovered, a very precious monument of ancient India, exhibiting the high water mark of Indian acumen in strictly legal principles and definitions. Dr. Fūbrer collected together 84 verses ascribed to Brhaspati in the legal treatises of Aparārka and others with German translation and notes ( Leipzig, 1879 ) and Dr. Jolly collected about 711 verses of Brhaspati on law and translated them in the Sacred Books of the East (vol. 33 ).

Yāj. (I. 4-5 ) enumerates Brhaspati among the writers on dharma, but he is probably referring to Brlaspati’s work on politics. The com. on the Nitivākyrimpta (p. 7) quotes the first verse of Brhaspati’s Nitiśastra.

We saw above how Bihaspati closely follows the extant Manusmrti, how he pointedly refers to the text of Manu ( notes 345-349) and therefore might by analogy be styled a vārtikakāra of Manu. In many places Brhaspati explains and illustrates the laconic treatment of Manu. Manu (8. 153 ) speaks of four varieties of interest (Cakra, Kāla, Kārita, and Kāyika ), but does not explain these terms. Brhaspati ex plains them clearly.534 Manu (8.49 ) enumerates five modes of recovering a debt (dharma, vyavahira, chala, ācarita, bala ) but leaves them unexplained ; Brhaspati devotes several verses to the explanation of these terms ( vide Kullūka on Manu 8. 49). Bșhaspati gives elaborate rules regarding partnership. Brhaspati enumerates nine ordeals ( of fire, water, poison, balance, kosa, taptamāsa, tundulas, dharmadharma, phala ); while Manu barely alludes to two. Manu devotes only three verses to samvidvyatikrama (8. 219-221 ), but Brhaspati must have devoted at least a score of verses to this topic, as Aparārka alone quotes 17 verses of Bphaspati on this title.

The order in which the topics of law appeard in Brhaspati can be settled with tolerable certainty from the quotations in Aparārka, Vivādaratnākara, Viramitrodaya and other works.

POON4

834

Vide $on #9 8. 153 : giet FAETATE Letla: 1 after संयुक्ता मासग्राह्या च कालिका । वृद्धवृद्धिश्चक्रवृद्धिः कारिता ऋणिना कृता

Brhaspati

485

It was as follows:–the four stages of a law-suit, proof (kriyā, human of three sorts and divine ), witnesses (of 12 kinds ), documents ( ten kinds ), bhukti ( possession ), ordeals (nine), 18 titles, rnadana, niksepa, asvamivikraya, sambhuya-samu tthāna, dattāpradānika, abbyupetyā-suśrūṣā, vetanasya anapakarma, svāmipalavivada, samvid-vyatikrama, vikriya sampradāna, sīmāvivāda, pārusya ( of two kinds ), sāhasa ( of three kinds), strisamgrahana, stripumdharma, vibhaya, dyuta samāhvaya, prakirnaka ( otherwise called ’nrpasraya vyava hāra’, wrongs for which proceedings are set on foot by the king).

Bṛhaspati was probably the first jurist to make a clear distinction between civil and criminal justice.636 He divided the eighteen titles into two groups, those springing from wealth ( 14 titles ) and those springing from injury to beings (4 titles). This distinction was probably dimly perceived by even Gautama, when he says that in disputes based on injury there is no hard and fast rule about witnesses (i. e. about their interest in the subject of dispute ).538 Bihaspati, like Narada lays down the rule that a legal decision should not be arrived at merely on the basis of śāstra and that when a decision is devoid of reasoning, there is loss of dharma, for even a good man may be held to be a bad one or what is good may be held to be sinful iv a judicial proceeding, just as Māndavya was held to be a thief on a decision without thoughtful reasoning. 637

535 तदाह बृहस्पतिः । द्विपदो व्यवहारश्च धनहिंसासमुद्भवः । द्विसप्तधार्थमूलश्च हिंसा

मूलश्चतुर्विधः ॥ व्यवहारमातृका of जीमूत. p. 277; vide also स्मृतिच० (व्य. p.9) ‘पारुण्ये द्वे वधश्चैव परस्त्रीसंग्रहस्तथा । हिंसोद्भवानि चत्वारि

पदान्याह बृहस्पतिः’. 538 न पीडाकृते निबन्धः । गौ. ध. सू. 13.9 on which हरदत्त says ‘पीडाकरणे

हिंसाविषये । साक्षिणां निबन्धो न निरूप्यः । अथेसंबन्धादि न किंचिदपि दूषणं

भवति.।’ 637 केवलं शास्त्रमाश्रित्य न कर्तव्यो हि निर्णयः । युक्तिहीने विचारे तु धर्महानिः

प्रजायते ॥ चौरोऽचोरो साध्वसाधु जायेत व्यवहारतः । युक्तिं विना विचारेण माण्डव्यश्चौरतां गतः ॥ quoted by अपरार्क on याज्ञ. II. 1 ; compare नारद ( व्यवहारमातृका chap. 1. 42 ) : यात्यचौरोपि चोरत्वं चौरश्चायात्यचौरतामा अचौरश्चौरता प्राप्तो माण्डव्यो व्यवहारतः ॥ For the story of माण्डव्य who kept silent, vide Ādiparva 107.

( Continued on the next page)

FOUNI

191

Hary

486

Bphaspati gives such elaborate definitions and rules about procedure from the filing of the plaint to the passing of the decree that he can very well stand comparison with modern legislators on the same subjects.

Nārada and Bșhaspati agree very closely in several res pects. For example, both speak of three kinds of proof, four parts of a judicial proceeding, almost the same defects of plaints, four kinds of answer, four divisions of the law of gift and their sub-divisions, five modes of recovering debts, four kinds of sāhasa.

We have seen that Nārada departs from Manu in several essential matters. On the other hand Bșhaspati follows Manu very closely. But he too differs on some points from Manu, for example, we saw above how Brbaspati dissents from Manu on the question of the divisibility of clothes &c. (uote 348 ). He appears to differ from Manu as to the maximum interest allowed on corn, fruit, wool and beasts of burden.588 Manu and Nārada are both silent as to the widow’s right to succeed to her deceased husband’s estate. But Bphaspati agreeing with Yājñavalkya makes her the first heir of her sonless

( Continued from the previous page ) The story of Mānda vya occurs also in Adiparva 63. 92–93 aod is also mentioned in the Arthasāstra of Kautilya, IV. 8. 12. The story in the epic differs from that stated in Arthasāstra which says: दृश्यते ह्यचोरोपि चोरमार्गे यदृच्छया संनिपाते चोरवेषशस्त्रभाण्डसामान्येन गृह्यमाणः चोरभाण्डस्थोपवासेन वा, यथाणिमाण्डव्यः कर्मक्लेशभयादचोरः ‘akit sa gator: 1 In the epic, there is no mention of the fear of torture as in the Kauṭiliya. “Ani’ means ‘gūlāgra’. The Ādi parva ( 63. 92 ) has not sta garapenak 1 3TATUSOH Tea falera: # HERFETT: 11. Ādiparva 107 gives further details. Thie. vos kept booty in his dwelling and concealed themselves. The king’s offloors asked him what way the thieves wet. Mandavya remained silent and the king’a officers found out the thieves and the booty. So the officers reported the thieves and the sage and the king or dered that all be killed and so Māndarya was was impaled. The story of Māndarya is again roforrod to in Anuśasana parva

46-50. 538 हिरण्ये द्विगुणा वृद्धिस्त्रिगुणा वस्त्रकुप्यके । धान्ये चतुर्गुणा प्रोक्ता शंदे चाहो वेषु

all qatna quoted by 34021on 777. II. 39 : compare a lot

FOUNDED

1917

Brhaspati

487

husband.580 Br. says ’those who say that clothes and the like are not liable to partition have not bestowed proper thought (on that matter), as rich people might, have wealth largely consisting of clothes and ornaments. This is really a criticism of the Manusmrti but out of deference for Manu, the reference is impersonal. Aparārka p. 726 (five verses ) explains from Bphaspati how to partition these.

These considerations make it clear that Bṛhaspati is cer tainly later than Manu and Yāj. It is difficult to state his exact relationship to Nārada. He agrees more closely with Manu than Nārada does, but in some respects such as defini tions and the rights of women he shows great advance over Nārada. So he is probably a contemporary of or not much later than Nārada. He employs the word nāṇaka 640 He de fines a dīnāra, also called “suvarṇa”, as equal to twelve dhānakas and says that a Jhānaka was equal to four andikās, an andikā being a copper paṇa weighing a karṣa and bearing a stamp.541 This agrees with what Nārada says about dināra. Dr. Jolly (S. B. E. vol. 33 p. 276 ) assigns Brhaspati to the 6th or 7th century A. D. But this is much later by several centuries than the evidence warrants. Kātyāyana was looked upon as an authoritative writer along with Nārada and Brhas pati by Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi. This position he could not have attained in a century or two. So he cannot be plac ed later than the 6th century. Kātyāyana in several places quotes Bṛhaspati as an authority. Aparārka quotes Kātya yana as saying that, according to Bșhaspati, pastures, ways,

539 ST wastaa alatt a HTS: ISTRITTE ETT Hryf guargaan.

फले समा ॥ यस्य नोपरता भार्या देहाधं तस्य जीवति । जीवत्यर्धशरीरेथे कथमन्यः समाप्नुयात् ॥ सकुल्यैर्विद्यमानस्तु पितृभ्रातृसनाभिभिः । असुतस्य CATER T TATTETRUTT Il leta quoted by 34727* on 77.

II, 135. The Mit, has the last verse. 540 paquet: sistafurahia: 1 39987* on 1779. II. 269; fat. c.

p. 711 and at p. 383. 541 Vide note 522 above. At gay raga: wifeft: qur: 1

चाण्डिका प्रोक्ता ताश्चतस्रस्तु धानका ॥ ता द्वादश सुवर्णस्तु दीनाराख्यः स पर

I TE quoted in Fifcato p. 99, fā. T. p. 667. Pretra is quoted op same page by the ta for a similar definition.

371:.

Ahond

488

clothes that are worn on the body, debts, (or books for use, according to others ) and what is set apart for religious pur poses should not be partitioned.642 Kātyāyana says that, according to Brhaspati, that wealth which a man acquires by means of his learning after refuting an opponent in a contest with a stake for the winner is styled “vidyādhana” and is not liable to partition 543; and what is acquired through valour &c. by persons that were taught in the family or learnt under their father should be partitioned among the brothers, accord ing to Bṛhaspati. If a man falsely denies his liability and if only a part of the claim is brought home to him, then he should be made to pay the whole.544 That the statement of a witness may be relied upon on a matter under his direct per ception owing to his being near the plaintiff and the defendant and not otherwise; so says Bphaspati.645 The foregoing exa mples show that Kātyāyana looked upon Brhaspati as an authority who must therefore have flourished several centu ries before. Therefore Bșhaspati cannot be placed later than the 4th century A. D. As he knew the extant Manusmrti, was later than Yāj. and probably than Nūrada, Bphaspati must have flourished between 200 and 400 A. D. This conclusion is strengthened by the fact that Viśvarūpa quotes, without making any difference, prose and verse passages of Bșhaspati and thereby shows that in his opinion the jurist Brhaspati (in verse ) was identical with the political writer Bșhaspati and was a very ancient writer in his day. Medhātithi (on Manu 9. 153 ) quotes the verse“ na pratigrahabhūr” (ascrib ed to Brhaspati by others ) as Smṛtyantara. Bṛhaspati is

542 गोप्रचारश्च रथ्या च वस्त्रं यच्चाङ्गयोजितम् । प्रयोज्यं न विभज्येत धर्मार्थं च

garra: sā. I. p. 505 and 37777# on 13. 11. 119 and Kalpa

taru on Vyavabāra p. 680. 543 परं निरस्य यल्लब्धं विद्यातो यूतपूर्वकम् । विद्याधनं तु तद्विद्यान्न विभाज्यं

बृहस्पतिः : quoted by अपराक on या. II. 119; परा. मा. III. 2. p. 559 ; in Kalpataru ( Vyavao ) p. 677 groot fanitaraarat sagut पितृतोपि वा । शौर्यप्राप्तं तु यद्वित्तं’ विभाज्यं तबृहस्पीतः ॥ ( कल्पतरु०

p. 681 ). 644 सर्वापलापं यः कृत्वा मिथ्याल्पमपि संवदेत् । सर्वमेव तु दाप्यं स्यादिति युक्तो

arta: 11 EGGERTATELFT of stato p. 311. 545 अर्थिप्रत्यर्थिसांनिध्याननुभूत तु यद्भवेत् । तद्ग्राह्यं साक्षिणो वाध्यमन्यवाह

TEFTA: Il quoted in the 249€TCHTTEI of Finesto p. 21Z ♡

FOUNDED

Brhaspati

489

cited in a few cases as referring to his own views in the third person 848 ; sometimes he uses the first person also.547 Nothing can be said about his country at present. In a well-known passage Byhaspati refers to the usages of the southern people, of the people in the Madhyadeśa, of the eastern and northern people.648 In a striking and beautiful passage Brhaspati compares vyavahare with yajna,549_the king with Viṣṇu, the successful party with the sacrificer and the defeated party with the victim, the plaint and the reply to food and the pratijna to the sacrificial offering (prepared from food ), the sāstras to the three Vedas and the subhyas to the priests in a sacrifice. Brhaspati seems to have been very fond of such long-drawn metaphors.sh0

The Smṛticandrika quotes about seventy verses of Bṛbas pati in the Ahnika portion and about forty on Srāddha. In the later works like the Parisara-Madhaviya, the Nirnaye. sindhu and Sarnskara-Kaustubha, the number of verses quot ed from Brhaspati is much larger than even those quoted by the Smṛticandrikā. Those verses are quoted on such sams karas as pumsa.vana, namakarana, caula, upanayana. vivaha. and also ou āsauca and purification of dravyas. Even the Mitākṣarī quotes several verses of Bphaspati on matters

548 ताडनं बन्धनं चैव तथैव च विडनकम् । एष दण्डो हि शूद्रस्य नार्थदण्डो

बृहस्पतिः ।। परा. मा. III. 1. p. 212 ; स्मृति १०. 547 एष दण्डः समाख्यातः पुरुषापेक्षया मया । quoted by अपरार्क on याश.

II. 211. 548 उदुह्यते दाक्षिणात्यैर्मातुलस्य सुता द्विजैः । मध्यदेशे कर्मकराः शिल्पिनश्च

गवाशिनः ॥ मत्स्यादाश्च नराः पूर्वे व्यभिचाररताः स्त्रियः । उत्तरे मद्यपा नार्य, स्पृश्या नृणां रजस्वलाः स्मृतिचंद्रिका (आह्निक p. 10, Gharpure ),

व्यवहारनिर्णय p. 16 वीर. p. 29, व्य. म. &c. 549 यज्ञे संपूज्यते विष्णुर्व्यवहारे महीपतिः । जयी तु यजमानोत्र जितः पशुरुदाहृतः ॥

पूर्वपक्षोत्तरावाद्यं प्रतिज्ञा च हविः स्मृता । त्रयो शास्त्राणि सभ्यास्तु ऋत्विजो

दक्षिणादने | quoted in व्य. मा. p. 284. 550 8. g. विप्रो धर्मद्रुमस्यादिः स्कन्दशाखे महीपतिः । सचिवाः पत्रपुष्पाणि फळ

न्यायेन पालनम् ॥ यशो वित्तं फलरसो भौगोपग्रहपूजनम् । अजेयत्वं लोकसंक्तिः खर्गे स्थानं च शाश्वतम् ॥ वीर० p. 14. Compare नारद (व्य. मा. in for the second v

ASTI

191

37 नाग

490

other than those of vyavahiirit. For example, the Mit. on Yāj. I. 210 quotes a verse of Brhaspati that a nivartana ( of land ) is equal to 30 dandas in area (danda being seven cubits in length) and ten nivartanas are equal to a gocarma.851 On Yāj. III. 17 the Mit. quotes two verses of Bṛhaspati about impurity on birth or death &c. On Yāj. III. 21 the Mit. cites the definition of leśāntara given by Brhaspati.562 On Yāj. III. 24 the Mit quotes Brhaspati’s opinion that the period of mourning on the death of one’s maternal grandfather, ācārya or srctriya is three days. On Yāj. III. 253 the Mit. quotes Brhaspati’s rule as to prāyaścitta for consciously drinking wine.868 Vide also Mit. on Yāj. III. 30, 250, 254, 260, 290 for other quotations from Brhaspati

The foregoing, therefore, establishes, that Bphaspati was known at least to the Mit. and later writers as an expounder in verge not only of vyavahāra but also of other topics of dbarma as well. As over a thousand verses of Bșhaspati (including about 800 on Vyavahāra ) are quoted it appears that his work must have been an extensive one comprising several thousand verses. Such a work of Bphaspati has yet to be recovered.

The Mit. on Yāj. III. 261 quotes a Vrddha-Bphaspati on the nine varieties of saṁkara.664 Kulluka on Manu (9. 181 ) cites a verse of Vșddha-Bphaspati about the eleven subsidiary

561 सप्तहस्तेन दण्डेन त्रिंशद् दण्डा निवर्तनम् । दश तान्येव गोचर्म दत्त्वा स्वर्गे

महीयते ॥ A similar verse occurs in the बृहस्पतिस्मृति (Jivananda,

part I. p. 645 where the reading is careata ). 52 महानद्यन्तरं यत्र गिरिर्वा व्यवधायकः । वाचो यत्र विभिद्यन्ते तद् देशान्तर

मुच्यते ॥ देशान्तरं वदन्येके षष्टियोजनमायतम् । चत्वारिंशद्वदन्त्यन्ये त्रिंशदन्ये

nga 711 563 सुरापाने कामकृते ज्वलन्तीं तो विनिक्षिपेत् । मुखे तया विनिर्दग्धे मृतः

शुद्धिमवाप्नुयात् ॥ 564 यथाह वृद्धबृहस्पतिः । एकशय्यासनं पद्धिर्भाण्डपतयन्नमिश्रणम् । याजनाध्यापने

योनिस्तथा च सह भोजनम् । नवधा सङ्करः प्रोक्तो न कर्तव्योऽधमैः सह ॥ * These are ascribed to Vrddha-Brhaspati by Mit, on Yaj. 14. BOR by Aparārka on p. 1086 ( with slight variations ) and batin candrikā (Āhnika p. 10, Gbarpure ) and Gr. R. p. 687 ( 13 Beiden pati’s ).

Brhaspati

491

sons ( vide note 346 above, where the verse is ascribed to Bṛhaspati ). Hemādri ( Caturvarga, vol. III, part 2, p. 472 ) quotes a Jyotir-Bșhaspati on the prohibition of a sraddha on the thirteenth tithi of the dark half. A parārka on Yāj. II. 3-4 quotes three verses from Vrddha–Brhasiati about the deriva tion of the word “prāų-vivāka’ and one on the punishment for sabhyas who take bribes. Three of these verses are ascrib ed to Brhaspati in the Parāsara-Mādhaviya and other work. and one of them to Katyayana in the Vyavahira-mītrkā.

After the publication of the first volume of the History of Dharmaśāstra in 1930’ and the publication in 1933 by the present author in a book-form of the verses of Katyāyana (with English translation and notes ) on law and judicial procedure (originally contributed to a Journal on Hindu Law ), the late Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar came to me in 1934, when I gave him a copy of the reconstruction of Kātyāyana. He asked me to attempt a similar reconstruction of Bfhaspati As I had by that time decided to bring out a large history of Dharmaśāstra, I refused to undertake what he suggested and asked him to make the attempt himself. He undertook the work of reconstructing Bṛhaspati’s Smrti and published it in 1941 in the well-known Gaekwad’s Oriental Series ( Baroda ). That is a bulky volume in 732 pages. He not only collected the verses attributed to Bșhaspati on law and judicial procedure but also on other subjects. He arranged them in seven parts:(1) on Vyavahara in pp. 1-228 arranged in 29 chapters, ( 2 )on Samskāra (pp. 231-308 ), (3) Acāra (pp. 309-325), ( 4 ) Srāddha (pp. 326-351 ); ( 5 ) Asa uca (pp. 352-364 ); ( 6 ) Āpad-dharma pp. 365-372 ), ; (7) Prāyascitta (pp. 373-386). Besides a Preface, a list of Sans krit works drawn upon or referred to in the footnotes, an Index in Sanskrit of the topics dealt with (pp. 17-69 ), he contributed a learned and exhaustive Euglish Introduction (pp. 71-186 ) and an alphabetical (Sanskrit ) Index of quarters of the verses included in the section on Vyavahāra (pp. 387-459 ) and another Index of half-verses on sections other than Vyavahāra (pp. 460-492); he also gives a list of additional texts found after the work was sent to the Press Up. 493-499 ), a list of authors and works cited if the text of Brhaspati), additions to footnotes (pp. 502-536 and lastly a comparative statement of verses translated from Dr. Jolly (in SBE Vol. 33, 1889 ) and in the work that he

492

collected and edited. This work is a laborious performance. It should have been accompanied by an English translation and notes on difficult passages. I have, however, to differ from it in some places and am further obliged to say that, in spite of all the labour he bestows, he some how failed to notice some verges and prose passages of Byhaspati as having been men tioned by Viśvarūpa and others. Dr. Jolly (in S. B. E. vol. 33 ) collected and translated 717 verses of Brhaspati on

Vyavahāra’.

Prof. Aiyangar on p. 73 of his Introduction states that Dr. Jolly published an English rendering of 697 Slokas on Vyavahāra attributed to Brhaspati. To me it is not clear how he arrived at the smaller figure of 097. Probably there is some mistake in making the total of the verses in the 27 Bections of the translation. Prof. Aiyangar further says (on p. 73 of the Introduction) that the number of Slokas (includ. ing under the term a few passages in prose) dealing with Vyavahāra is 1372, nearly double the number collected by Dr. Jolly,

Dr. Jolly rightly says at the beginning of his Introduc tion to the translation of Brhaspati’s verses ’the fragments of Bphaspati’ are among the most precious relics of the early legal literature of India.

Aparārka (on Yāj. II. 151 pp. 761-62), Kalpataru (on Vyavahāra on pp. 450-51 ) and Smrticandrika ( Vyavahāra, p. 234, Gharpure) contain 8 or 9 verses of Bṛhaspati about the loss or gain of lands by the change in the courses of rivers or when a king grants lands from one village as situated in another.

The Vyavahāranirṇaya of Varadarāja cites a verse (on p. 132 ) as Bphaspati’s in the work called Pancādhyāyi’ and again ( on p. 357 ) simply a verse in ‘Pascādhyāyī.’ It is possible that Pascadhyāyi is an independent work in which Bphaspati was quoted or it may be that Pañcūdhyāyi is the name of the work of Brhaspati himself. 666

*——-

………..——-

…….

555

The faal. on . I, 210 states that oftar HITELI सप्तहस्तेन दण्डेन त्रिंशद्दण्डं निवर्तनम् । दश तान्येव गोचर्म दत्त्वा स्वर्गे महीयते । इति । ; अपरार्क quotes ( on p. 336 ) from the मत्स्यपुराण दण्डर सप्तहस्तेन त्रिंशद्दण्डा निवर्तनम् । विभागहीनं गोचर्म मानमाह प्रजापिता ॥

( Continued on the next payje )

FOUNDED

Brhaspati

498

Prof. Aiyangar says ( on p. 493 of his reconstructed Brhaspati) that certain passages ( both nir. prose and verse ) attributed to Bșhaspati in different Nibandbas were noticed by him after the text had been sent to the press and then gets out only two passages in prose from Viśvarūpa’s Bālakrida The commentary of Viśvarūpa was published at Trivandrum in two parts, the first in 1922 ( on Yāj. I and II, ācāra and vyavahara) and the 2nd in 1924 (on Prayascitta). He began to collect materials for the reconstruction of Brhaspati after 1934. Therefore, he could have secured many more prose passages attributed to Brhaspati by Viśvarūpa. I set out a few more prose passages of Brhaspati from Viśvarūpa’s com mentary alone. They are ten in all, most of which refer to Vyavahāra.b58 Viśvaripa also quotes five verses of Brhaspati,

, —

( Continued from the previous page ) This is quoted by अपरार्क on p. 1225 from मत्स्य पुराण and on the same page the quotos बृहस्पति as ‘दशहस्तेन शेन दशवंशाः समन्ततः । पञ्च चाभ्यधिकस्तदेतद्गोचर्मलक्षणम् ॥ – Prof. Aiyangar (quotes Homa. dri first and it is not clear why he does not mention tho Mit. and Anarārka first and why he should not have made & roforonce to the Nerses of Yāj. instond of referring to pages of some edition which many roaders might not be ablo to get. 3780 qarTTGI बृहस्पतिः । त्रिवर्षे भुज्यते येन समक्षं भूरवादिता । तस्य सा नापहर्तव्या क्षमालिङ्गं न चेद्वदेत् ॥ चतुष्पाद्धनधान्यादि वर्षाद्धानिमवाप्नुयात् ॥ व्यव. नि. p, 132; पञ्चाध्याय्याम् ज्ञातिसामन्तधनिकाः ज्ञाते तात्कालिकाः स्मृताः । दशाहाद्यास्तु ते सर्वे केतुर्विक्रतुरेव च । ज्ञात्यादिगामी तत्क्षेत्र विक्रेतुर्मूल्यकार्प

णात् ॥ व्यव. नि. p. 357. 556 (1) चोरापहृतं तु सर्वेभ्योऽन्विष्यार्पणीयम् । अलाभे स्वकोशाद्वा । अददच्चोर

किल्बिषी स्यात् ॥ on या. II. 38 ; (2) धनस्त्रीहारिपुत्राणां पूर्वाभावे यथोत्तर. माधमये तदभावे क्रमशोन्येषां रिक्थभाजाम् । on या. II. 47: (3) पादोपच यात् क्रमेणेतरेषाम् । on या II. 39 ; ( 4 ) उपस्थाप्य विपत्तावुपस्थाप्यस्य पुनः प्रतिभूर्दाप्यः । on या. II. 55; (5) अनन्वयिनः सर्व राजा हरेत्तदनुज्ञया वाऽ वरोधज इत्येके । on या. II. 138 ; (8) कामतः शूद्रावरोधजस्य भ्रातुरंशं संमानमात्रं प्रेते पितरि दयुः शुश्रूषुश्चेत् ॥ on या. II. 139 ; (7) राजा क्षेत्र दत्वा चातुर्वैयवणिग्वारिकसर्वग्रामीणतन्महत्तरस्वामि पुरुषाधिष्ठितं परिनित न्यात् । शासनं वा कुर्यात् । on या. II. 154 ; (8) यदि शूद्रो नेता स्यात ..

( Continued on the neat page)

494

which have been noticed by Prof. Aiyangar. He, it appears, regards the quotations in prose and verse as belonging to the same author. In one proge quotation Brhaspati is mentioned by name as stating a certain proposition. It is possible that Viśvarūpa regarded that all quotations (both prose and in verse) are to be attributed to oue author. One cannot dogma tise on such a point. But it is quite likely that the author of the verses was different from the author of the Sūtras quoted by Viśvarūpa.

Prof. Louis Renou of Paris contributed to volume VI (1962) of the Indo-Iranian Journal ( Publishers, Moulton and Co., the Hague ) pp. 81-102 a learned paper (in French ) on the edition of the fragments of Brhaspati (collected ) by Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar. It is not possible to mention here for reasons of space even the most salient points of his criticisms against Prof. Aiyangar’s edition of Bșhas pati. On p. 83 note 2 he observes that Prof. Aiyangar has not made use of P. V. Kane’s learned edition of the fragments of Kātyāyana with translations and points out that the word ’nāsṭika’ which is explained in H. of Dh. Vol. III pp. 464-5 and the incidents of the sale by a finder of an article lost by the owner (in Kātyāyana 622-623 ) are not set out by Prof. Aiyangar. It is unnecessary for the present author to dwell on the omissions pointed out by Prof. Reuou in Prof. Aiyangar’s work, which latter simply collects passages with enormous details about the works and pages where the verses of Bṛhaspati occur with hardly a word of explanation anywhere.

An interesting point, with reference to the collections of verses quoted as from Brhaspati or Kātyāyana, the original Smṛtis of which are not now available, is the confusion

( Continued from the previous page) क्लैब्येनालङ्कारेणालंकृत्य शवं भस्मना मुखं विलिप्यामेयस्य पशोऽशोणितेन पञ्चाङ्गलानि कृत्वा ग्रीवायामान्त्राणि प्रतिमुच्य सव्येन पाणिना सीमालोष्टं मूर्ति Errā i on AL. II. 156 ; (9) TFT afecarcarrera 7751

UTAHI | FITTI I on IT. II. 204; (10) TTTSI 92 TOJIETT: 1 षड्रात्रं वा यावकाहारो गोष्ठे वसेत् । देशकालशक्त्यनुरूपं वा भवेत् । म व नखाद्यपनयनं कृत्वा ब्राह्मणान् प्रणिपत्यानुज्ञातोऽन्ते गां वृष वा तद्वय ददाता ATT TT7 311afercar prefera terata: 1 11. VII. 202. W

FOUNDED

1917

Brhaspati

495

caused by the same verse being cited as from Brhaspati or Kātyāyana or Nārada or Manu ( both the latter Smrtis beiug available in printed editions ). A few striking examples are cited (in the footnote). Some verses are attributed to both

Brhaspati and Kityayana ( and sometimes to three viz. Nar., Br., Kat., or Manu, Br. and Kat. ).557

557 (1) प्रतिज्ञादोषनिर्मुक्तं साध्यं सत्कारणान्वितम् । निश्चितं लोकसिद्धं च पक्षं

पक्षविदो विदुः ॥ विश्वरूप cites without name on Yaj. II. 6 ; व्यव. मा. p. 291, कल्पतरु (व्यवहार p. 8t ascribes to बृह. and कात्या.. अपराके p. 810, स्मृतिच. (व्य. p. 40) and परा. मा. III. p. 81 ascribe to बृहस्पति. (2) तपग्विनां तु कार्याणि विथैरेव कारयेत् । मायायोगविदां चैव न स्वयं कोपकारणात् ॥ व्य. मा. p. 281 ascribes to both बृहस्पति and कात्या०. and वीर p. 30 to बृह० ; व्यव. नि. p. 12 to बृह. It occurs in कौटिलीय I. 19. 32. (3) लेख्यदोषास्तु ये केचित्सा क्षणां चैव ये स्मृताः । वादकाले तु वक्तव्याः पश्चादुक्तान द्वषयेत् ॥ स्मृतिच. ( व्य. p. 83 ) ascribes to कात्या. ; अपरार्क p. 872, वीर. p. 184, व्य. म. p. 39 ( to बृह० ). (4) अर्थिना संनियुक्तो वा प्रत्यर्थिप्रहितोपि वा । यो यस्यार्थे विवदने तयोर्जय पराजयौ ॥ अपरार्क p. 639 ascribes to कात्या., व्य. मा. p. 287 to नारद and कात्या. (6) अनुपस्थापयन्मूलं क्रयं वाप्यशोधयन् । यथाभियोगं धनिने धनं दाप्यो दम च सः । मिता. on या. II. ( 170 ascribes to Manu ) ; स्मृतिच. ( व्यव. ) p. 216, वि. र. p. 108, व्य. म. p. 197, वीर• p. 381 ascribes to कात्या, (8) योगाधमनविक्रीतं योगदानप्रतिग्रहम् । यस्य वाप्युपधिं पश्येत्तत्सर्व विनि वर्तयेत् ।। अपरार्क p. 783 ascribes to कात्या ; स. वि. (सरस्वतीविलास p. 287 to नारद. This is मनु 8. 165. (7) आहूय साक्षिणः पृच्छेनियम्य शपथैभृशम् । समस्तान्विदिताचारान्विज्ञा तार्थान्पृथक् पृथक् ।। मिता. on या. II. 73 ascribes to कात्या० ; अपरार्क ascribes to नारद. (8) साहसस्तेयपारुष्यगोभिशापे तथा च ये। भूमौ च पादपे क्षिप्रमकालेपि बृहस्पतिः ॥ कल्पतरु (व्यव. p. 67) ascribes to both कात्या. and बृह., and परा. मा. III p. 17t ascribes to बृह. (9) सानिध्येपि पितुः पुत्रैऋणं देय विभावितम् । जात्यन्धपनितोन्मत्त क्षयश्वित्रा. दिरोगिणः ॥ कात्या. act. to अपरार्क. p. 650 वि. र. p. 51, वि. चि, p. 18, परा. मा. III. p. 263. In the Introduction to my edition of ENT reconstruction of Katyāyana I have (on pp. VIII-X) pointed out many verses that are common to Katyāyana, Brhaspati, Nārada. and Manu.