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).