Indian Antiquary Vol 11

Author(s): Jas Burgess
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 69

FEBRUARY, 1882.)
BOOK NOTICE.
55
I need not go into further details to support expressed, that the authority of Smriti texts the assertion I have made, that this translation results only from their being based on the Vedas. falls very far short indeed of just expectations. This brings us to the suggestion made in more The defects I have shown, and they are only a few than one place by our author, that the Smritis record out of those I have observed, will, I think, bear the customary law of the people (see pp. xxvi, out that assertion. They seem to fall into four xliii, lix). If this is so, it is difficult to underclasses. We have words inserted in the translation stand in what sense the authority of the Smritis which are not in the original, and are not always rests on the Vedas. Again in speaking of YAjnanecessary for understanding it, and which too are valkya (p. xl), our author speaks of the penances not always denoted as translator's additions. We prescribed by him as being "now merely nominal have words in the original which are not re- caricatures of an ideal society which probably presented at all in the translation. We have had no existence at any period beyond the mind renderings which involve quite unnecessary devia of the writer of that digest, but which is certainly tions from the original. And lastly, we have entirely inapplicable to the Aryan society as it renderings which are based on positive misconcep- exists at the present day." This sentence is not tions of the text. Before closing this branch of the particularly lucid or precise, but it seems to say that subject, I have only to add, that there are sundry | Yajnavalkya's rules were never the actual governpassages where some note by the translator in ex. ing rules of any existing society. These passages planation of the text was desirable. The passages taken together leave a very vague and unsatisat p. 73, 1. 30f. or p. 74, 1. 20. may be referred factory impression as to what is our author's to among other instances.
precise view about the Smritis. Two distinct lines This examination of the translation of the of thought seem to be indicated which are not Mayúkha has occupied so much space already, anywhere brought into harmony. In one place, that I am unwilling to embark here upon a similar it is suggested, "that each Smriti refers to a examination of that of the Yajnaralkya Smriti. separate SAkhA." This is not a very precise ex. And for more than one reason such an examina- pression, but I understand it to mean that each tion is not necessary. I will, therefore, proceed now Smriti records the practices of one śAkh or to make a few remarks on what is the more original another. I do not know of any sufficient authority portion of the volume before us, namely, the for this view; and the passage from the Nirnaya Introduction and the Appendices. The former Sindhu referred to as such appears to me rather mostly deals with the sources of Hindu Law. to point the other way. Passing over minor matters, on which some- We next come to the Purdnas. Our author's thing might perhaps be fairly said by way of language here is rather misleading. For after enucriticism of the author's positions, we come to the merating the eighteen Puranas and Upapurdnas discussion of the Smriti literature. In addition he goes on to add that "the Puranas are distinctly to a very considerable body of interesting and alluded to in the Vedas." One not familiar with useful information regarding this, we have an the facts on this point is likely to carry away attempt made to fix the chronological positions of from this sentence the impression, that the Purdnas several of the principal Smriti writers, As that "alluded to in the Vedas" are the eighteen attempt is based merely upon the quotations in mentioned. But I cannot think that our author each Smriti, and as the critical accuracy of these intended to convey so entirely erroneous an im. Smritis is not above suspicion, these chronological pression. At the same time I must point out, conclusions must necessarily be taken as provi. that the note on the passage above cited refers sional only. I do not, however, clearly under- to and sets out the Bhashya of Sayaņa, which stand what our author means by saying (p. xxvi.) specifically mentions the Brahma Purana as that the mention of ancient rishis or sages in the one of those referred to. If our author really Rigveda as pathikritah (indicators of the right thinks that the Brahma Purdna, &o., were those path) would be an argument in favour of the alluded in the passage cited by him, I think it antiquity of Smritis; because no works on Dhar. desirable to point out, that in the comments on the masdstra are ascribed to rishis except Sutrds passage from the Taittiriya Aranyaka also cited and Smritis." If it is meant that the "indication by him, Sayana gives a different interpretation, of the right path" was given in Smritis, the argu. and what is, perhape, of more importance, that ment proves too much; for these Smritis, if any in the Brihadiranyaka Upanishad where Puranas guch ever existed, must have been older than the are mentioned in the same way as in the Taittirfya Vedas. Besides being unlikely, this conclusion Brahmana, that is to say in company with the is inconsistent with the Sanskrit Preface (or four Vedas and Itihasa, Sankaracharya interpreta Upodghata), where the old orthodox view is the word to mean something very different from