36. The Nāradasmriti

Volume I: Part I pp. 467–483

36. The Nāradasmriti

36. The Nāradasmṛti

There are two versions of Nārada on Vyavahāra, a smaller and a larger one. The smaller version was translated by Dr. Jolly in 1876 (Trübner & Co., London). The text of the liotheca Indica series (1885) and was translated by him in the Sacred Books of the East Series (vol. 33). The edition of the text is accompanied up to verse 21 of the 5th title ‘abhyu-petyāśuśrūṣā’ by extracts from the commentary of Asahāya as revised by Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa, who was encouraged in the task of revision by Keśavabhaṭṭa.

From verse 22 of the same title the printed text is the same as the smaller versioṇ A verse quoted as Nārada’s by Ksirasvāmin is not found in the larger version but is found in the smaller versioṇ¹ An ancient Mṣ of Nārada from Nepal dated 1407 A. D. contains two additional chapters on theft and ordealṣ Dr. Jolly includes the first as an appendix and omits that on ordeals on the ground that it is not authentic. One of the colophons of the Nepalese Mṣ describes it as ‘iti Mānava-dharmasāstre Nāradaproktāyām samhitāyām &c. This corroborates what was said above (pp. 149, 156) as to the close connection between Manu and Nārada.

Nārada is not mentioned by Yājñavalkya in the list of ancient writers on dharma, nor does Parāśara mention hiṃ Viśvarūpa, however, quotes a verse of Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya (on Yāj. I. 4-5), where Nārada is the first among ten expounders of dharma enumerated thereiṇ ‘Nārada is a very ancient name. The Manusmṛti (I. 35) mentions Nārada as one of the ten primeval Prajāpatiṣ In the Mahābhārata sage Nārada figures frequently. In Udyogaparva (49. 22) he is said to have told the Vṛṣṇis to do their duties (tasmāt-kar-maiva kartavyam--iti hovāca Nāradaḥ। etad-hi sarvamācaṣṭa Vṛṣṇicakrasya vedavit). Śānti (30.6) says that Nārada was the maternal uncle of Parvata. In Śāntiparva 29. 13 ff it is stated that Nārada comforted Yudhisthira on the death of his many relatives and warriors by dilating upon the stories of sixteen ancient kings and heroes who had also similar sorrowṣ In Śalyaparva, Nārada is said to have informed Balarāma that his his two disciples Bhīma and Duryodhana were going to fight with maceṣ There Nārada is described as holding a fine Vīṇā as an expert in dance and song and as stirring up feuds and always fond of quarrels (prakarṭā- kalahānām ca nityam ca kalahapriyaḥ) in chap. 54. 18–20. According to the Mahābhāṣya on Vārtika 15 on Pāṇ. (VIII. 1. 15, Kielhorn eḍ III. p. 371), Nārada and Parvata may be spoken of as ‘dvandvam Nāradaparvatau as they are a famous pair that is ‘atyantasahacarita’ (not even Yudhiṣṭhira and Arjuna are so).

The printed Nārada contains three introductory chapters on the principles of judicial procedure ( Vyavahāra-mātr̥kā ) and on the judicial assembly ( sabhā ). Then the following titles of law are dealt with with one after another :— r̥ṇādāna ( recovery of debts ), upanidhi ( deposit, lending,—bailment ), sambhūya-samutthāna ( partnership ), dattaprādānika ( gifts and resumption thereof ), abhyupetya-aśuśrūṣa ( breach of contract of service ), vetanasya-anapākarma ( non-payment of wages ), asvāmivikraya ( sale without ownership ), vikriyā- sampradāna ( non-delivery after sale ), krītānuśaya ( rescis- sion of purchase ), samayasya-anapākarma ( violation of conven- tions of corporations, guilds &c. ); sīmābandha ( settlement of boundaries ); strīpuṁyoga ( marital relation ); dāyabhāga ( partition and inheritance ); sāhasāh ( offences in which force is the principal element ), such as homicide, robbery, rape &c. ; vākpārusya ( defamation and abuse ) and daṇḍapārusya ( hurt of various kinds ); prakīrṇaka ( miscellaneous wrongs ). The appendix deals with theft ; a few remarks are made on that topic under the title of ‘sāhasa’.

It will be noticed that Nārada follows the Manusmr̥ti to a considerable extent in the nomenclature and the arrange- ment of the eighteen titleṣ Some of the titles are differently named by Nārada, e. g. he speaks of upanidhi, while Manu employs the word nikṣepa. Nārada seems to have included the ‘svāmipālāvivāda’ of Manu in ‘vetanasya-anapākarma’. He makes one title of dyūta and samāhvaya. Nārada includes strīsamgrahaṇa under sāhasa and adds three titles, viz. abhyupetya-aśuśrūṣa, vikriyāsampradāna and prakīrṇaka. The Smr̥ticandrikā expressly² says that it follows the work of Nārada in preference to that of Manu as regards the nomenclature and the sequence of the titles of law. Nārada follows Manu in speaking of witnesses in the section on rṇādāna and in treating of theft after the eighteen titles have been dealt with ( vide Manu IX. 256 ff. ).

The printed Nārada contains 1028 verses (including 61 on theft in the appendix). About seven hundred of these verses occur in various nibandhas as quotationṣ Up to the 21st verse of the section ‘abhyupetyāśuśrūṣā’ the commen- tary of Asahāya furnishes a valuable check for the authenticity of the text. For the remaining portion, there are important data as to its authenticity, sequence and readingṣ Viśvarūpa, who belongs to the first half of the 9th century, quotes about fifty verses of Nārada (generally by name). The text that he had before him was essentially the same as that of the printed edition except in a very few caseṣ Out of the seven verses of Nārada on ‘samayasya-anapākarma’ Viśvarūpa quotes five (on Yāj. II. 190 and 196) and expressly states that Nārada wound up his chapter on that topic with the verse ‘dosavat karaṇam &c.’ as the printed text doeṣ On Yāj. II. 226 Viśvarūpa distinctly says that the verse ‘yameva hyativarteran’ &c. is followed immediately by ‘malā hyete manuṣyeṣu’. This is the case with the printed text also (dyūtasamāhvaya, verses 13–14). On Yāj. III.252 Viśvarūpa quotes a verse of Nārada about the three kinds of wealth, viz. śukla, śabala and kṛṣṇa, which does not occur in that form in Nārada, though the latter contains similar dicta.³ Viśvarūpa contains no quotation from Nārada on the topics of ācāra or prāyaścitta. The same is the case with Medhā- tithi and the Mitākṣarā. Medhātithi somewhat inaccurately summarises the introductory words (in prose) of Nārada (vide note 269 above). Medhātithi frequently quotes Nārada particularly from the sections on rṇādāna (vide on Manu 8. 47, 155, 149) and dāyabhāga (on Manu 8, 28, 29, and 207, 209 and 143). On Manu 8, 349 he quotes Nārada on partnership (verse 10), on 8. 216 he quotes Nārada (vetanasya-anapā- karma, verse 5). In some cases Medhātithi cites Nārada’s verses without naming him e. g. on Manu 9. 76 he quotes the well-known verse ‘naṣṭe mṛte pravrajite &c.’ (Nārada on marital relation, verse 97) as ‘smṛtyantara’. It was shown above (p. 172) that the vyavahāra section of the Agnipurāṇa contains thirty verses of the extant Nāradasmṛti, viz. Agni 253. 1b-9a = Nārada (vyavahāra-mātṛkā chap. I. 8-15); Agni 253. 9b-12 = Nārada (vyavahāra-mātṛkā chap. I. 26-29a); Agni 253. 13-30 are the verses defining the eighteen titles from ṛṇādāna to prakīrṇaka contained in Nārada and occur in the same order in both. The readings preserved in the Agni- purāṇa deserve some discussioṇ Agni (253. 3-4) reads ‘dharmaśca vyavahāraśca...uttaraḥ pūrvasādhakaḥ’ while Nārada has ‘pūrvabādhakaḥ.’ Agni reads ‘caritraṁ saṁ- grave puṁsāṁ rājñājñāyāṁ tu sādhanam’ (253.5), while Nārada has ‘caritraṁ pustakaraṇe rājājñāyāṁ tu śāsanaṃ’ Agni (253.15) reads ‘dattvādravyam ca samyag-yaḥ,’ while Nārada (dattāpradānika I) reads ‘dattvā dravyamasamyag- yaḥ.’ The Agni (253. 11) reads ‘śaṅkā sadbhīṣṭu saṁsargāt tattvaṁ śodhabhidarśanāt’ and avoids the rare word ‘hoḍ- hābhi-’ in Nārada ‘śaṅkāsatāṁ tu saṁsargāt tattvaṁ hoḍhā- bhidarśanāt’ (Vyavahāramātṛkā I. 27). For Nārada’s ‘ak- ṣarādhnasalākādyair &c.’ (dyūtasamāhvaya I) Agni reads ‘Akṣavajra &c.’ (253. 29). The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 199) and Vir. (p. 718) follow printed Nārada in the last case and also in the other caseṣ The Mit. quotes more than 240 verses of Nārada, sometimes in large groupṣ For example, it quotes over eleven verses in its Introduction to Yāj. II. 182, nine verses more on Yāj. II. 182 itself and seven verses in introducing the topic of Sāhasa in Yāj. II. 230. In the Smṛtican- drikā, Hemādri, Parāśaramādhavīya and other later niban- dhas numerous verses of Nārada are quoted on topics of ācāra śrāddha, prāyaścitta. For example, Hemādri (caturvarga°, vol. III. part 2, pp. 159, 183, 185, 223, 235) quotes several verses of Nārada on Ekādaśī and a verse of Nārada about the astrological yoga called padmaka. The Smṛticandrikā (I. pp. 198–199) quotes 26 verses on the worship of Nārāyaṇa, the last of which is the well-known verse ‘dhyeyaḥ sadā savitṛmaṇḍala-madhyavartī &c.’ and the same work (on śrāddha p. 354) quotes a verse of Nārada in which Sunday and Saṁkrānti are mentioneḍ The question arises whether these quotations of Nārada on ācāra and prāyaścitta and alli- ed topics are the work of the same Nārada that wrote on Vyavahāra. From the fact that early writers like Viśvarūpa, Medhātithi and Vijñāneśvara do not contain a single quota- tion of Nārada on topics other than that of vyavahāra, it appears probable that the quotations on ācāra and prāyaś- citta belong to a later date than the Nāradasmṛti on vyava- hāra and either did not exist in the days of Viśvarūpa and Medhātithi or had not attained canonical authority in those dayṣ There is in the India Office Library a mṣ of Nārada- smṛti in three chapters and 322 verses dealing exclusively with ācāra and prāyaścitta (vide Jolly's Introduction p. 5 to edition of text ).

The Nāradasmṛti, excluding the introductory passage in prose about the successive abridgments of the original work of Manu by Nārada, Mārkaṇḍeya and Sumati Bhārgava, is written in the śloka metre except in the case of two verses (verse 38 of the 2nd chap. of vyavahāra-mātṛkā and the last verse of the chapter on sabhā ). Nārada himself is mentioned by name in connection with the ordeals ( ṛṇādāna verse 253 ).⁴ The first person also occurs in ‘ataḥ param prava- kṣyāmi’ ( ṛṇādāna 343 ). Ācāryas are cited in ‘dattāpradā- nikā’ (verse 5). Dharmaśāstra and Arthaśāstra are mentioned ( Vyavahāramātṛkā, chap. I, 37 and 39 ) and Nārada lays down the rule as in Yaj. ( II. 21 ) that in a conflict between the two the former should furnish the rule of conduct.⁵ Nārada refers to Vasiṣṭha's rule about interest ( ṛṇādāna 99 ). Two verses are quoted from a Purāṇa.⁶ Manu is named in several places (ṛṇādāna verses 250, 251, 326 ).⁷ The first passage about Manu is quoted by Viśvarūpa on Yāj. ( II. 98 ) and corresponds closely with the teaching of Manu ( 8. 113 ). But the other passages crediting Manu with dividing ordeals into five kinds and giving his view about poison ordeal have no corresponding passage in the extant Manu. Therefore, Nārada had a version of Manu before him that was somewhat different in certain respects from our Manu or Nārada may be referring to Vṛddha or Bṛhat Manu. Besides this, there is one remarkable fact to be noted about the relation of Manu and Nārada. There are about 50 verses that are common to Manu and Nārada. Manu 8. 12–14 and 18–19 are Nārada ( sabhā, verses 8–10 and 12–13 in a different order ), Manu 8. 140–141 =N. ( ṛṇādāna 99–100), Manu 8. 148–149=N. ( ṛṇādāna 80–81), M. 8. 143=N. ( ṛṇ. 129, M. 8. 64=N. ( r. 177), M. 8. 72=N. ( r. 189 ), M. 8. 93 and 113=N. (r. 199, 201 ), M.98–99 = N(r. 208, 209 and Udyogaparva 35. 33–34 ), M. 8. 89=N. ( r. 225 ), M. 8. 186–187, 189 191=N. ( upanidhi 10–13 ), M. 8. 232–233, 235=N. ( vetanasya-anapākarmā 14–16 in a diffe rent order ), M. 9. 47=N. ( marital relation, verse 28 ), M. 8. 224–225=N. ( marital-relation, 33–34 ), M. 9. 357–358=N. ( marital relation, 65–66 in reverse order ), M. 9.3=N. ( dāya bhāga 31 ), M. 9. 216=N. ( dāyabhāga 44), M. 8. 267–269=N. ( vākpāruṣya 15–17 ), M. 9. 270–272=N. ( vākpāruṣya 22–24 ), M. 8. 281–284=N. ( daṇḍa-pāruṣya (26–29 ), M. 4. 87=N ( prakirṇaka 44 ).

Nārada, ṛṇādāna 158, ‘śrotriyās-tapasā vṛddhā ye ca pravrajitā narāḥ | asākṣinas-te vacanān nātra heturudāhṛtāḥ’ has probably Manu 8.65 in view where we read ‘na sākṣi...na śrotriyo na liṅgastho na saṅgebhyo vinirgataḥ’.

Besides these, there are several cases where Nārada closely agrees with Manu though the verses are not identical, e. g. Nārada ( sāhasa 19 ) may be compared with Manu 9. 271 and Nārada ( appendix on theft, verses 1–4 ) may be compared with Manu ( 9. 256–260 ). These facts establish that Nārada is based on a version of Manu that was essentially the same as the extant text of Manu, though there was some difference here and there. Nārada contains several verses that occur in the Mahābhārata. For example, Śānti III. 66=N. ( vyavahāra mātṛkā 72 ),⁸ Udyoga 35.58=N. ( sabhā, verse 18 ), Udyoga 35.31–32=N. (r. 202-203). The well-known verse of the Mahā- bhārata on the greatness of speaking the truth (Śānti, 162.26) occurs in Nārada, verse 211 on p. 104 (SBE Vol. 33 p. 93 ). There are several cases where the text of Kauṭilya agrees with Nārada.⁹ In some of these cases the agree- ment is almost word for worḍ¹⁰ A half verse on poison-ordeal (viz. 'Tvam viṣa...vyavasthitaḥ') is the same in both Yaj. II. 110 and Nārada IV. 325 p. 124 (SBE. vol. 33 pp. 115–116 ).

Though Nārada is based on Manu, he differs in several essential matters from Manu. We have seen the difference between them in the nomenclature of the titles of law. Manu only casually mentions the ordeals of fire and water (8.114 ), while Nārada enumerates five kinds of ordeals, describes them at length and adds two more viz. taṇḍula-bhakṣaṇa and taptamāṣa (rṇādāna, verses 259–348 ). He allows Niyoga (marital relation, verses 80–88 ), while Manu strongly con- demns it. He allows remarriage of women (Nārada, marital relation, 97), while Manu is against it. Manu men- tions seven kinds of slaves (8. 415), while Nārada raises their number to fifteen (abhyupetyāśuśrūṣā, verses 26–28) ; Manu condemns gambling outright (9, 221–228 ), while Nārada allows it under state control and as a source of re- venue; Nārada is further far more systematic than Manu and is full of divisions and sub-divisions; for example, he divides property into three kinds, each of which is again subdivided into seven varieties (rṇādāna 44–47); Nārada divides the law of gifts into four sections, which are further subdivided into 32; he subdivides the eighteen titles into 132 (vyavahāra- mātṛkā I. 25 ).

There are a few points which are almost peculiar to Nārada such as the fourteen kinds of impotent persons (stri- puṁsayoga 11–13 ), the three kinds of punarbhūs and four kinds of svairiṇīs (ibiḍ verses 45–52 ). Nārada is probably later than Yājñavalkya. Yāj. mentions only five kinds of ordeals, while Nārada knows seven and the former's treatment of them is not so exhaustive as Nārada'ṣ The rules of judicial procedure in Nārada are more systematic and exhaustive than those of Yāj. Nārada is more conservative than Yāj. For example, Nārada nowhere recognises the right of the widow to succeed to her deceased husbanḍ Nārada cites more definitions than Yāj. In some respects, however, Nārada is more reticent than Yāj. ; Nārada gives no rules about the succession of gotrajas and bandhus as Yāj. doeṣ In a few res-pects Nārada agrees with the views of Manu instead of with Yāj., such as allowing a brāhmaṇa to marry a śūdra womaṇ Nārada regards sexual intercourse with a pravrajitā (female ascetic) as a mortal sin (stripumsayoga 74-75), while both Manu (8. 363) and Yāj. (II. 293) treat it lightly. Taking all these things into consideration it may be said that Nārada flourished nearly at the same time as or somewhat later than Yāj.

It may be noted that in an Inscription from Campā dated about śaka 1092 (i. e. 1170 A. D.) a king is described as ' versed in all the Dharmaśāstras, notably the Nāradīya and Bhārgavīya'; vide Dr. R. C. Majumdar's ' Ancient Indian Colonies', vol. I at end p. 199 No. 81.

Nārada contains several rare words such as “hodha” (in vyavahāramātṛkā I.27, meaning ‘one’s property when lost or stolen’). He gives expression to certain principles of law and politics, such as that a man is master of his own house, in other words, a man's house is his castle; ¹¹ he highly eulogises the office of the king, almost assigning it a divine origin and exhorts the people to obey and honour even a weak and undeserving king.¹² Mr. Jayasval sees in this and in the fact that Nārada speaks of dināra while the Mṛcchakaṭika speaks of nāṇaka indications that Nārada belongs to the fourth cen-tury, is later than the drama, is propping up the authority of a new dynasty and flourished under the Imperial Guptas (C. W. N. vol. 17, p. CCLXXXV). He regards a person as minor till the sixteenth year.¹³ This limit was probably first fixed by Nārada. Nārada further boldly says that in case of conflict between dharmaśāstra and usages, the latter have to be followed, as they are directly observeḍ¹⁴

As Nārada’s is regarded as an authoritative smṛti by Viś- varūpa, Medhātithi and other later writers and as Asahāya, who is mentioned by name in the commentary of Viśvarūpa, wrote a comment on Nārada, the Nāradasmṛti must be older by some centuries than the 8th century, the latest date to which Asahāya can be assigneḍ Bāṇa in his Kādambarī com- pares the royal palace to Nāradīya.¹⁵ Ordinarily Nāradīya standing by itself would denote the Nāradapurāṇa (compare Viṣṇu-purāṇa 3.6. 21 where we have the form Nāradīya for the purāṇa). The Nārada-purāṇa (Venkateśvara Press edition, Bombay) contains, however, no treatment of rājadharma. Bāṇa may have intended a violent pun, meaning ‘the palace where the duties of kings were being expounded (āvarṇya- māna ), like the Nāradīya in which rājadharma has not been set forth (avarṇyamāna ).’ European scholars like Dr. Jolly and Bühler hold that Bāṇa refers to the extant Nāradasmṛti. But on this explanation also the difficulty is not entirely got over. The extant Nārada can hardly be described as a treatise on rājadharma. It deals only in an indirect way with one aspect of the king’s duties and is rather concerned with vya- vahāra and the duties of the subjects towards each other from the strictly legal point of view. If we turn to the Mahābhā- rata and other works, we shall find that rājadharma meant something different from what is treated of in the Nārada- smṛti. Therefore Bāṇa’s reference to the Nāradīya is of a doubtful character. The Rājanīti-ratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara frequently quotes Nārada on politics (pp. 3, 13, 79). These quotations are not traced in the printed Nārada. Therefore it is highly probable that Bāṇa refers to a distinct work of Nārada on politics which has not yet been recovereḍ From the Rājanītiratnākara of Cāṇḍeśvara published for the BORS of Patna (1924) by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal it appears that Cāṇḍeśvara knew a work of Nārada on Rājāadharma. On p. 3¹⁶ of that work Nārada on Rājanīti is cited for dilating upon three grades of rulers viz. Samrāṭ (an emperor to whom other kings pay tribute) also called 'cakravartin' and 'Śakara' and 'akara' rulerṣ On p. 75 Cāṇḍeśvara quotes the words of Hārita and Nārada to the effect that a king should transmit his kingdom to the eldest son after providing for the maintenance of other sons if he has several sonṣ The Vṛddha Hārita-smṛti¹⁷ in the Ānandāśrama collection of Smṛtis (1905 A. D.) says that Kātyāyana, Manu, Yājñavalkya and Nārada described at length the rājadharmas which he himself dealt with.

The Vyavahāramātṛkā of Jīmūtavāhana and the Parā- śara-Mādhavīya (vol. III, part I, p. 203) quote a verse from Nārada, the latter half of which is the same as the latter half of a verse in the Vikramorvaśīya.¹⁸ The doctrine attributed to Nārada is found in Yāj. (II. 20) and the Viṣṇudharma- sūtra (6. 22) but not in the same wordṣ Unfortunately the date of Kālidāsa is far from being universally accepted, but the fourth or first half of the 5th century is often accepted as the probable date. There is further difficulty in the fact that the text of the Vikramorvaśīya has been largely tampered with. If the verse is a genuine part of the drama, it seems natural to suppose that Kālidāsa turns a well-known legal maxim to a somewhat humorous use. It is hard to suppose that Nārada would borrow the words of a dramatist for sett- ing forth a legal maxiṃ This would push back the date of Nārada far beyond the 5th century. Nārada in two places uses the word “dināra,” ¹⁹ once in the sense of a golden orna- ment and again as a coin or unit of value also called “suvarna.” In this last case he says that “dināra is equal to 48 kārṣā- paṇas or twelve dhānakaṣ” Jolly ( R. u. S. p. 23 ) thinks that Indian dināras can scarcely be older than the 2nd century A. D., although in the times of the Indo-Scythian kings coins of the weight of dināra occur. Therefore Jolly is of opinion that Nārada is later than 300 A. D. Winternitz ( History of Indian Literature, vol. II. p. 216 ṇ 4 ) follows him in this assumption that all Sanskrit works in which the word dīnāra occurs must be later than the 2nd or 3rd century A. D. It may be that the golden dināras most numerously found in India belong to the 2nd and 3rd centuries A. D. But as Keith points out ( J. R. A. S. 1915 p. 504 ) Jolly’s assumption is wrong and the introduction of dināras into India need not be later than the beginning of the Christian era. Golden dināras were first coined in Rome in 207 B. C. and the oldest Indian pieces corresponding in weight to the Roman Denarius were struck by Indo-Scythian kings who reigned from the first century B. C. ( W. B. p. 44 ). Therefore there is nothing to prevent us from holding that Nārada flourished in the first centuries of the Christian era, i. e. between 100 and 300 A. D. Mr. Jayasval assigns him to the 4th century A. D. and after the Mṛcchakaṭikā. Most scholars would not be prepared to assign to the Mṛcchakaṭikā so early a date as the 3rd century A. D. Besides Mr. Jayasval builds his theory on very slend- er foundationṣ Because the drama employs the word nānaka and Nārada speaks of dināra only, no chronological conclusion as to the priority of the one to the other can be drawṇ After both words became current in the language, one author, though later, may employ one word, while another, though earlier, may employ the other.

While the first volume was in the Press, an edition of the Nāradīya Manu-saṃhitā with the bhāṣya of Bhavasvāmin was published in 1929 in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, edited by K. Sambasiva Sastri (based on four Mss). The work claims to be a version of the Manusmṛti by Nārada. Prof. T. R. Chintamani contributed a lengthy paper on this version of the Nāradasmṛti to the Kunhan Raja Presentation volume, published by the Adyar Library, Madras (in 1946) pp. 153–196. He points out that the main differences between the longer and shorter versions of Nārada published by Prof. Jolly are these: the shorter text omits the section on thefts, does not cite the verses on ordeals in a separate chapter and omits the chapter on legal procedure. The longer version has 1028 verses including an appendix on thefts (of 61 verses). The shorter version has 870 verses and the text on which Bhavasvāmin comments has 877½ verseṣ The edition with Bhavasvāmibhāṣya has at the end a chapter on five ordeals dealt with in 46½ verses (the five being Dhata, Agni, Udaka, Viṣa and Kośa). There are many variations between the Smṛti as published by Dr. Jolly and that published with Bhavasvāmin’s bhāṣya. On pp. 159–193 Prof. Chintamani sets out the numerous (nearly a thousand) differences (small and also large) in the Smṛti as published by Dr. Jolly and as found in the Nāradīya Manusarhitā. And on pp. 193–196 Prof. Chintamani prints the text of the 2nd Appendix (on five ordeals with 46 verses) in the Nepalese Ms held to be spurious by Jolly and contained in the version of Bhavasvāmin after the section called Prakirņaka.

The editor of Bhavasvāmin’s bhāṣya surmises (on p. 4 of his English Introduction) from the fact that all the Msṣ of the bhāṣya were found only in the Kerala country and the fact that many of the brāhmaṇas that officiate as sacrificial priests in central Kerala bear the name Bhavasvāmin, that the bhāṣyakāra of Nārada was a brāhmaṇa from Kerala. North India suffered greatly from the ravages of foreign invasions from the early centuries of the Christian era onwards by Hūņas and others for several centuries, while South India was much better off during those centurieṣ Therefore, the Msṣ of the works of comparatively early writers of the North are often not found in North India but only in South India (Bhāmaha’s work on Poetics being a well-known instance). Prof. Chintamani cites passages where Bhavasvāmin refers to transactions at Mathurā and Kānyakubja.²⁰ On prakīrṇaka verse 116 Bhavasvāmin refers to the fact that Kārṣāpaṇa is current in Draviḍa country while here (i. e. where he resided) transactions are carried on with dīnāraṣ It appears from verse 5, he refers to the changes in the price of saffroṇ These passages indicate that Bhavasvāmin was familiar with Mathurā and Kanoj and also knew transactions in Kashmir and was acquainted with dīnāras as coins there. The Amara- kośa refers to both dīnāra and niṣka ( Dinārepi ca niṣkostri ). The Rājataraṅgiṇī (VII. 950)²¹ refers, to dīnāras of gold, silver and copper. In the ‘Indische studied’, vol. XVIII pp. 289–412 a mṣ of Lokaprakāśa of Kṣemendra (latter half of 11th century A.D.) is discussed in which the word dīnāra is frequently used (e. g. on pp. 339, 391 ) and we have a formula forward- ing a ‘dīnāra-huṇḍikā’ (on p. 342 ). Huṇḍikā stands for ‘Huṇḍi’ used by travellerṣ

The time when Bhavasvāmin flourished is not free from doubt. Prof. Chintamani concludes (on p. 157 of Kunhan Raja volume) that Bhavasvāmin flourished in the early centuries of the Christian era. I demur to this conclusion which is based mainly on Dr. Altekar’s view quoted in a note on p. 157 that ‘it is very unlikely that gold dīnāras were in circulation after 600 A. D. in the Mathurā and Kanoj area.’ But it is clear that in the 11th century gold coins called Dīnāras were current in Kashmir and if Bhavasvāmin was a Kashmir- ian or had travelled and stayed there for some time he would easily have known them and referred to theṃ Therefore, Dr. Altekar’s opinion about Bhavasvāmin’s date is worth little.

Bhavasvāmin refers several times to other explanations of Nārada’s verses with the words ‘anya āha’ as on ‘rṇādāna’ v. 195, ‘Stripuṃsayoga’ v. 30, Dāyavibhāga verses 13, 14, prakīrṇaka v. 80. He refers here and there to different read- ings in Nārada as on Rṇādāna verses 67, 153, Vikriyāsampradāna, verse 12, Stripuṃsayoga, verses 2, 3, 15, 16, 29, 83. He quotes about two dozen verses of Manu. His commentary ex- plains the words of Nārada’s verses, is generally concise, and makes no show of learning. He cites a few sūtras of Pāṇini a few passages as Śruti (as on rṇādāna 53, 97). It is remarkable that he cites (on rṇādāna 190 ) ‘nāputrasya lokostiti’ as Smṛti, which is really Ait. Br. (VII. 3). He quotes Vaṣ Dharmasūtra on rṇādāna verse 94 and on Vāg- Daṇḍapārusya verse 20. It is noteworthy that he speaks of the present Manusmṛti as Bhṛgu-Saṃhitā²² or Bhārgavi- saṃhitā; for example, on Stripumsayoga verse 111 he quotes Manu X. 19 as Bhārgavi-saṃhitā and on Manu VIII. 274 as Bhrgusamhitā on ‘Vāgdandapārusya’²³ v. 20. He quotes Vālmiki and Vyāsa on Rṇādāna ²³ verse 32. He quotes a Śārdūlavikrīdita verse on ‘krodha’ (anger) and a verse on ‘unmāda’ (delirium, or madness) due to five causes on Dattāpradanika 8–10. On Rṇādāna verse 31 he quotes an ārya on the importance of Gāṇita. On ‘Rṇādāna verse 72 Bhavasvāmin quotes a verse of Vararuci explaining the meaning of the words ‘pogaṇḍa, kuṇi’ and ‘paṅgu’.²⁴

As in Bhavasvāmin’s day various readings had already arisen in the Nāradasmṛti and as he refers several times to the explanations of previous commentators, Bhavasvāmin would have to be placed ( conjecturally ) some centuries after Nārada i. e. between 700 and 1000 A. D.

The late Prof. Rangaswami Aiyangar in his Introduction to Bṛhaspati assigns Bhavasvāmin to the 8th century A. D. and in the footnote 4 on that page he asserts ‘Bhavasvāmin, like Mādhavasvāmin and Skandasvāmin, belongs to a period long anterior to Viśvarūpa ( circa A. D. 800 ) and refers in support to Journal of Oriental Research V. 325’. The reference to the journal appears to be wrong.

It may be noted that Viśvarūpa quotes hardly any verses of Nārada on two epics not pertaining to Vyavahāra except one verse on Yāj. I. 34 where he speaks of three kinds of ‘ṛtviks’. But the same cannot be said about the Mitākṣarā. A few verses not strictly related to Vyavahāra topics are mentioned by it as occurring in Nārada’s work. For example, on Yāj. III. 39 the Mit. quotes a verse of Nārada that allows a brāhmaṇa to sell sesame in exchange of food-grains for securing medicine when he is ill or for the purpose of a Yajña. This occurs in the section on Rṇādāna ( 66 ). Aparārka also quotes this verse (p. 933). Probably it was part of the king’s duty to remind a brāhmaṇa of the restrictions laid down on him by śāstra. Aparārka ( p. 29 ) cites 2½ verses on the actions that are comprehended under iṣṭa and pūrta. But the Smṛticandrikā quotes from Nārada at least 50 verses on āhnika and at least 16 on śrāddha-kāṇḍa, one of which refers to Sunday and Saṅkrānti and on the selection of Ekādaśī for a fast when joined to the 10th or 12th tithi.

It is likely that non-Vyavahāra topics came to be added as Nārada's a century or two before 1000 A. D., since the Smṛticandrikā (1150–1225) A. D. contains numerous verses of Nārada on non-Vyavahāra matterṣ²⁵

It is difficult to say anything as to the home of Nārada. In the appendix on theft Nārada in one place says that in the south a silver kārṣāpaṇa is current, that in the east it is equal to twenty paṇas and that he does not follow the standard of kārṣāpaṇa current in the land of the five riverṣ²⁶ From these data and from the fact that the oldest msṣ of Nārada and that an old commentary on Nārada in Newārī was composed in Nepal, Dr. Jolly conjectures that Nārada's home was to be sought in Nepal. This is all pure guess-work. There is no reason why Nārada could not have hailed from Central India. The places where the oldest and best msṣ of a work are found can hardly ever be indications common consent a Kashmirian writer on Poetics, but most of the msṣ of his work so far found come from Southern India.

Prof D. R. Bhandarkar (Carmichael Lectures 1918, p. 90), probably following the Nāyacandrikā, hazards the conjecture that the writer called Piśuna cited in the Kauṭiliya is another name of Nārada. Beyond the bare fact that Nārada is often credited in the Purāṇas with the role of instigating feuds and quarrels and that the word piśuna means “wicked, back-biter”, there is nothing to support this identificatioṇ

A Jyotir-Nārada is quoted by Bhaṭṭoji in his commentary on the Caturvimśatīmata (p. 11). A Bṛhan-Nārada is quoted by Raghunandana and a Laghu-Nārada by the Nirņaya- sindhu and the Saṁskāra-Kaustubha.

In the Mahābhārata several opinions are attributed to Nārada. One of them condemns the eating of flesh.²⁷ The first half of the last verse is the same as Manu 5.52. Nārada is credited with having divided utpātas (portents) into three varietieṣ²⁸ Nārada is said to have held the view that one must always be active.²⁹ It appears that all these views are probably taken from some work or works from Nārada. The first is probably taken from Nārada’s version of the Manusmṛti of which the purāṇas speak as stated above (note 270).

The Introductory prose passages of the Nāradasmṛti (I. 1–5) are interesting and are therefore set out in the note below.³⁰

For Asahāya, the commentator of Nārada, vide section 59 below.