रूपमण्डन एवं देवमूर्त्ति-प्रकरणम् (मण्डन सूत्रधार - प्राचीन मूर्तिकला एवं देव-प्रतिमा लक्षण सटीक)

[ 29 ]
along is being drawn through the flood by the fish, there takes
place between him and Viṣṇu, incarnated as a fish, a conversa-
tion which forms the substance of the Purāṇa. Creation is treated
in detail, then follow the genealogies...Neither are the usual
geographical, astronomical and chronological sections absent, and
according to V. A. Smith....the lists of kings in this Purāṇa are
particularly reliable for the Andhra dynasty. It has very much
in common with the Mahābhārata and the Harivaṁśa :...and there
is often literal agreement. There are, however, very numerous later
additions and interpolations. For instance...,ceremonies at the
building of a house (chapts. 252—257), the erection and dedication
of statues of deities, temples and palaces (chapts. 258—270)...etc.
“As far as the religious content is concerned, the Matsya-
Purāṇa might be called Śivaite with just as much reason as it is
classed as Viṣṇuite. Religious festivals of the Vaiṣṇavas are
described side by side with those of the Śaivas, and both Viṣṇu
and Śiva legends are related. In chapter 13 Devi (“the Goddess”,
Śiva’s wife Gauri) enumerates to Dakṣa the one hundred and
eight names by which she wishes to be glorified. It is obvious
that both sects used the work as a sacred book.”⁸¹

81. “Regarding the Matsya-Purāṇa, Professor H. H. Wilson writes :—
    ‘The Matsya-Purāṇa, it will be seen,...from...its contents, is a miscella-
    neous compilation, but including, in its contents, the elements of a genuine
    Purāṇa. At the same time, it is of too mixed a character to be considered
    as a genuine work of the Paurāṇik class ; and, upon examining it carefully,
    it may be suspected that it is indebted to various works, not only for its
    matter, but for its words.
    Although a Śaiva work, it is not exclusively so and it has not such
    sectarian absurdities as the Kūrma and Liṅga. It is a composition of con-
    siderable interest ; but, if it has extracted its materials from the Padma,—
    which it also quotes on one occasion, the specification of the Upapurāṇas—
    it is subsequent to that work and not very ancient.’
    But modern scholars consider this Purāṇa as one of the oldest, in fact
    the Padma-Purāṇa seems to have borrowed from the Matsya and not the
    reverse. (Vide Vincent Smith's Early History of India. 3rd Ed., pp. 11,
    21—23).