The Laws of Manu — SBE Vol. 25 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1886)
English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler·567 passages
The text · part 1 of 27
THE
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST
[25] a
Zondon HENRY FROWDE
OxrorD UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE
AMEN CorRNER, E.C,
THE
SACRED BOOKS OF THE EAST
TRANSLATED BY VARIOUS ORIENTAL SCHOLARS
AND EDITED BY
F. MAX MULLER
VOL. XXV
@rford AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
p. 1886
[Ad rights reserved }
PLIolo 23 Vi25
THE LAWS OF MAN”
TRANSLATED
WITH EXTRACTS FROM SEVEN COMMENTARLES
BY
G. BUHLER
@rford
AT THE CLARENDON PRESS
p. 1886
[ AM rights reserved }
226 3G ovs” N%%es i ae
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION.
PAGE
I. The origin of the Manu-smriti according to the Hindus. —_—xi The Manu-smriti based on a Dharma-siittra of the Mfanavas_. . . . . : . . Xvili
II. The M&nava Dh. S. converted into a metrical Smriti by a special school of lawyers . . . . . xiv The Manava Dh. S. chosen for conversion on account of the myths current regarding Manu. . . Wi Old and new parts of the work . . . . Ixvi The sources of the additions made by the editor of. the metrical version’ . - . . . . Ixxiv The position of Bhrigu’s Samhita among the various metrical recensions . . . . . xcii The probable date of Bhrigu’s Samhitd re
III. The commentaries of Manu and principles of translation cxviii
Sraddhas . Mode of Subsistence Rules for a Snftaka Veda-Study
Rules for a Snataka Lawful and Forbidden Food . Impurity .
Purification
Duties of Women . Hermits in the Forest Ascetics .
The King
Civil and Criminal Law :— Titles of . Judicial Procedure Recovery of Debts . Witnesses . Weights of Gold, &c. Recovery of Debts . Deposits . . . Sale without Ownership . Concerns among Partners Subtraction of Gifts Non-payment of Wages . Non-performance of Agreement Rescission of Sale and Purchase Masters and Herdsmen Disputes concerning Boundaries Defamation Assault and Hurt Theft. Violence (Sahasa) Adultery .
Duties of Husband and Wife . Inheritance and Partition Gambling and Betting Miscellaneous Rules
Times of Distress :— Mixed Castes . . Occupations and Livelihood Gifts. Sacrifices Necessity of Penances Classification of Crimes . Penances Transmigration Supreme Bliss : . . Doubtful Points of Law Conclusion . . . . .
APPENDIX :-— Quotations from Manu in the translated Law-Books Synopsis of Parallel Passages .
InpEx . . . . . .
Additions and Corrections
Sacrifices Necessity of Penances Classification of Crimes . Penances Transmigration Supreme Bliss : . . Doubtful Points of Law Conclusion . . . . .
APPENDIX :-— Quotations from Manu in the translated Law-Books Synopsis of Parallel Passages .
InpEx . . . . . .
Additions and Corrections
Transliteration of Oriental Alphabets adopted for the Translations of the Sacred Books of the East .
PAGE 321
327 345 380 382
40or 41g 430 432 439 44 445 483 502 508 511
515 533
583 613
p. 617
INTRODUCTION.
I.
DIFFICULT as the historical problems are which the Dharma-sitras translated in vols. ii and xiv of this Series offer, they are infinitely less complicated than those connected with the metrical law-books and especially with the Manu-smriti, or, to speak more exactly, with Bhrigu’s version of the Institutes of the Sacred Law proclaimed by Manu. Though mostly the materials available for the inquiry into the history of the Dharma-sitras are scanty, and in part at least belong to the floating traditions which are generally current among the learned, but of uncertain origin, they not only exhibit no extravagancies, but agree fully with the facts known from strictly historical sources. Moreover, and this is the most important point, though the text of the Dharma-sitras has not always been preserved with perfect purity, they have evidently retained their original character. They do not pretend to be anything more than the compositions of ordinary mortals, based on the teaching of the Vedas, on the decisions of those who are acquainted with the law, and on the customs of virtuous Aryas. In some cases their authors say as much in plain words. Thus Apastamba repeatedly laments the sinfulness and the weakness of ‘the men of later times,’ and Gautama warns against an imitation of the irregular conduct of the ancients whose great ‘lustre’ preserved them from falling. It is, further, still possible to recognise, even on a superficial examination, for what purpose the Dharmasitras were originally composed. Nobody can doubt for a moment that they are manuals written by the teachers of the Vedic schools for the guidance of their pupils, that at first they were held to be authoritative in restricted circles, and that they were later only acknowledged as sources of xii LAWS OF MANU.
the sacred law applicable to all Aryas. This fact is fully acknowledged by the Hindu tradition, even in cases where the Dharma-sitras no longer are the property of particular Vedic schools.
the sacred law applicable to all Aryas. This fact is fully acknowledged by the Hindu tradition, even in cases where the Dharma-sitras no longer are the property of particular Vedic schools.
The metrical Smvitis, on the other hand, are surrounded by clearly fictitious traditions, by mythological legends which either may have grown up spontaneously, because the real origin had been forgotten, or may have been fabricated intentionally in order to show that these works possess divine authority and, hence, have a claim to implicit obedience on the part of all Aryas. Nay, what is more, such legends or portions of them have been introduced into the text, and obscure the real character of the Smritis. These peculiarities are particularly marked in the M4nava Dharmasdstra, where the whole first chapter is devoted to the purpose of showing the mighty scope of the book, and of setting forth its divine origin as well as the manner in which it was revealed to mankind. Its opening verses narrate how the great sages approached Manu, the descendant of self-existent Brahman, and asked him to explain the sacred law. Manu agrees to their request, and gives to them an account of the creation as well as of his own origin from Brahman. After mentioning that he learnt ‘these Institutes of the Sacred Law’ from the creator who himself produced them, and that he taught them to the ten sages whom he created in the beginning, he transfers the work of expounding them to Bhvzgu, one of his ten mindborn sons. The latter begins his task by completing, as the commentators call it, Manu’s account of the creation. First he gives the theory of the seven Manvantaras, the Yugas, and other divisions of time, as well as an incidental description of the order of the creation. Next he briefly describes the duties of the four principal castes, passes then to an encomium of the Brahmaaas and of the Institutes of Manu, and winds up with an enumeration of the contents of all the twelve chapters of the work, which he promises to expound ‘exactly as it was revealed to him.’ In the following chapters we find frequent allusions to the situation which the first describes. In about forty passages a new
INTRODUCTION. xiii
topic is introduced by a prefatory verse which contains phrases like ‘such and such a matter has been explained to you, now listen to,’ &c., or ‘I will next declare,’ &c.
In about forty passages a new
INTRODUCTION. xiii
topic is introduced by a prefatory verse which contains phrases like ‘such and such a matter has been explained to you, now listen to,’ &c., or ‘I will next declare,’ &c.
Twice (V, 1-3 and XII, 1-2) the sages are represented as interrupting Bhyigu’s discourse and expressing their desire to be instructed on particular points, and on both occasions Bhyigu is again named as the narrator. Moreover in a number of verses! Manu is particularly mentioned as the author of certain rules, and II, 7 the authoritativeness of Manu’s teaching is emphatically asserted, ‘ because he was omniscient.’ In two other passages Manu appears, however, in different characters. VII, 42 he is enumerated among the kings who gained sovereignty by their humility, and XII, 123 he is identified with the supreme Brahman.
This account of the origin of our Manu-smriti would have to be slightly modified by those who accept as genuine the verse? which stands at the beginning of the Smriti according to the commentators Govindar4ga, NarAyama, and RaghavAnanda, as well as according to the Kasmir copy and other MSS. As this verse contains an invocation of the selfexistent Brahman, and a promise to explain the laws which Manu taught, it indicates, as Govindaraga says', that ‘some pupil of Bhryigu recites the work which had descended to him through an unbroken line of teachers.’ According to this version we have, therefore, a triple exordium instead of a double one, and our Manu-smriti does not contain the original words of Bhvigu, but a recension of his recension such as it had been handed down among his pupils. The additional verse is apparently intended to make the story more plausible.
The remarks which the commentators make on this narrative are scanty, and, though they are meant to support its credibility, they are, partly at least, calculated to discredit it. Medhatithi states in his remarks on Manu I,1, that the Pragapati Manu was ‘a particular individual, perfect
1 See the index s. v. Manu. ® See note on Manu I, 1.
> ge epyfgre: afaefaferwatacranreparareeaterenne lt xiv LAWS OF MANU.
Medhatithi states in his remarks on Manu I,1, that the Pragapati Manu was ‘a particular individual, perfect
1 See the index s. v. Manu. ® See note on Manu I, 1.
> ge epyfgre: afaefaferwatacranreparareeaterenne lt xiv LAWS OF MANU.
in the study of many branches of the Veda, in the knowledge (of its meaning) and in the performance (of its precepts), and known through the sacred tradition which has been handed down in regular succession!’ Govindaraga closely agrees, and says that Manu is ‘a great sage, who received his name on account of his acquaintance with the meaning of the whole Veda, who is known to all learned men through the tradition handed down in regular succession, and who is entrusted with causing the creation, preservation, and destruction (of the world)®.” Kullfka, on the other hand, though he agrees with respect to the etymology and explanation of Manu’s name, deriving it from man, ‘to know (the meaning of the Veda), and though he admits the human character of his SAstra, somewhat differs in the description of the person. Referring to XII, 123, he declares Manu to be a manifestation or incarnation of the supreme Soul. Further, Medhatithi and Kullika adduce in their remarks on the same verse various passages from the Sruti and the Smriti, tending to prove the authoritativeness of the Manu-smzzti. Both quote slightly varying versions of the famous Vedic passage which declares that ‘ All Manu said is medicine.’ Medhatithi adds only one more anonymous verse, to the effect that ‘the Vedas were proclaimed by the great sages, but the Smarta or traditional lore by Manu®.’ Kulldka gives two other passages, one from the Brihaspati-smriti which places Manu’s Sastra at the head of all works of the same class, and another from the Mahabharata which declares that ‘the Purdzas, Manu’s laws, the Vedas, and the medical works must not be opposed by (adverse) reasoning.’ Both commentators mention also that the pre-eminence of Manu’s teaching is admitted in other passages of the Vedas, the Purazas, the wiqcmnfag: 0 taqia weffamtertea menqds ermicmn waste. reaaiehy: wifeafarsrarcafuga: nu
PAT ayfe ania wat wraturs 81 welding was one J aquaraty 0
INTRODUCTION. , XV
reaaiehy: wifeafarsrarcafuga: nu
PAT ayfe ania wat wraturs 81 welding was one J aquaraty 0
INTRODUCTION. , XV
Itihd4sas, and the Smritis. Finally, in the notes on Manu I, 58, they discuss the question, how the Smriti can be called the Manava Dharmasdstra, though, as is admitted in the work itself, Brahman was its real author. Medhatithi offers two explanations. First he contends that Brahman produced only ‘the multitude of injunctions and prohibitions,’ while the work itself was composed by Manu. Next he says that, according to others, the SAstra may be called Manu’s, even if it were first composed by Brahman. In proof of this assertion he points to the analogous case of the river Ganges, which, though originating elsewhere, i.e. in heaven, is called Haimavatt, because it is first seen in the Himavat or Himalaya, and to that of the K4thaka S4kha, which, though studied and taught by many others, is named after Katha. In conclusion, he adds, ‘ Narada also records, “This work, consisting of one hundred thousand verses, was composed by Pragdapati (Brahman); it was successively abridged by Manu and others!.”’ Kulldka, who gives a somewhat insufficient abstract of Medhatithi’s discussion, refers to the same passage of Narada, and bases on it his own explanation of I, 58, according to which it means that Brahman first composed the law-book, and that Manu condensed its contents in his own language and taught it in that form to his pupils.
This is, as far as I know, all that the commentaries say about Manu and the history of the Manava DharmasAstra, and their remarks contain also the substance of all that has been brought forward in other discussions on the same subject, with which we meet elsewhere, Important as they may appear to a Hindu who views the question of the origin of the Manu-smrtti with the eye of faith, they are of little value for the historical student who stands outside the circle of the Brahmanical doctrines. The statements regarding the person of Manu can, at the best, only furnish materials
Dare wcfa i aaaeat oer waafen aa a Aeanfefie: waa dfan efan
? See e.g. the passages translated in Professor Max Miiller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 87-94.
Xvi LAWS OF MANU.
The statements regarding the person of Manu can, at the best, only furnish materials
Dare wcfa i aaaeat oer waafen aa a Aeanfefie: waa dfan efan
? See e.g. the passages translated in Professor Max Miiller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 87-94.
Xvi LAWS OF MANU.
for mythological research. The arguments in support of the authenticity and authoritativeness of the Manu-smrti are extremely weak. For the Vedic passage which the commentators adduce is, strictly speaking, a misquotation. It occurs in four slightly differing versions in three Samhit4s and in one Brahmaza?. But in all the four places it refers, in the first instance, to Vedic Mantras which Manu is said to have revealed or seen. As, however, the assertion of the wholesomeness of Manu’s teaching is couched in general terms, it may probably be inferred that many sayings, attributed to the father of mankind, were known to the authors of the four Vedic works, and it is not improbable that legal maxims were included amongst them*. But MedhAtithi’s and Kullika’s assumption that our Manu-smriti is meant in the passages quoted would require very strong special proof, as its language and part of its doctrines by no means agree with those of the Vedic times. Of course, no such proof is offered, and it is not probable that it ever will be offered. The quotations made by the commentators from the Mahabharata and from the Brzhaspati-smriti, as well as their well-founded assertion that in the Purazas and in many Smritis Manu is frequently referred to as an authority on the sacred law, are of greater importance. It is undoubtedly true that the two works mentioned by Kulldka refer to a particular Dharmasdstra attributed to Manu, and the same remark holds good with respect to those passages of the Purdsas and of the Smrttis where, in enumerations of the authors of Dharmas4stras, Manu is placed at the head of the list. Yet even this evidence is of little use, because on the one hand the antiquity of many of the works in which Manu’s name occurs is extremely doubtful, and on the other hand the existence of several recensions of Manu’s laws is admitted, and can be shown to have been a fact. Hence a reference to a Manu-smrtti in a
1 Kashaka XI, 5 (apparently quoted by Medh&tithi); Maitrayaty4 Samhita I, 1,5; Taittiriy4 Samhita II, 2, 10,2; and Tasdya Brahmanxa XXIII, 16, 7 (quoted by Kullfka).
3 I would not infer with Professor Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p. 364, that a legal work ascribed to a Manu was known to the authors of the four works; see also below, p. Ix.
INTRODUCTION. Xvii
3 I would not infer with Professor Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p. 364, that a legal work ascribed to a Manu was known to the authors of the four works; see also below, p. Ix.
INTRODUCTION. Xvii
Puréza or a Smriti does not prove much for Bhrigu’s Samhita, if, at the same time, it is not made evident that the latter is really meant, and that the work in which it is contained really has a claim to be considered ancient. In illustration of this point it may suffice to remark here that the Brzhaspati-smriti, which Kulldka adduces as a witness, is by no means an ancient work, but considerably later than the beginning of our era, because it gives a definition of golden dinaras, an Indian coin struck in imitation of and called after the Roman denarii'. Regarding Manu and the Mahabh4rata more will be said below. Medhatithi’s quotation from Narada is very unlucky ; for it is inexact, and worded in such a manner as to veil the serious discrepancy which exists between the stories told in the Manava Dharmasdstra and in the N§arada-smriti. The introduction to the latter, as read in the MSS. of the vulgata, does not state that the original law-book of one hundred thousand verses was composed by Pragdpati and abridged by Manu and others, but alleges that its author was Manu Pragdapati, and that Narada and Sumati the son of Bhzzgu summarised it?. The text of Narada, which is accompanied by Kaly4zabhatta’s edition of Asahaya’s commentary, names one more sage, M4rkandeya, who also tried his hand at Manu Pragdpati’s enormous work. Whichever of the two versions may be the original one, it is evident that Medhatithi’s representation of Niérada’s statement is inexact, and that the latter differs considerably from the story in our Manu-smriti, which asserts that it is the original work composed by Brahman, and revealed by Manu to Bhvigu, who explains it to the great sages ‘exactly as he received it.’ Hence Narada’s story discredits the details of the account given in the M4anava Dharmasdstra. It might, at the best, be only quoted to prove the existence of the general belief that Manu was the first lawgiver of India. These remarks will
1 West and Biibler, Digest, p. 48, third edition.
2 See Jolly, Narada, p. 2, and Tagore Lectures of 1883, p. 6 My conjecture that the introduction to Narada belongs to Asahfya, not to the Smrtti itself (West and Biihler, Digest, p. 49), is not tenable.
[25]
xviii LAWS OF MANU.
48, third edition.
2 See Jolly, Narada, p. 2, and Tagore Lectures of 1883, p. 6 My conjecture that the introduction to Narada belongs to Asahfya, not to the Smrtti itself (West and Biihler, Digest, p. 49), is not tenable.
[25]
xviii LAWS OF MANU.
suffice to show that the explanatory notes offered by the Indian commentators on the origin and history of the Manu-smr?ti are not suited to furnish a basis for a critical discussion of these questions, and that hence they have been deservedly set aside by most modern Sanskritists who have written on the subject. As regards the theories of the latter, it would be useless to enumerate those preceding Professor Max Miiller’s now generally accepted view, according to which our Manu-sm~‘ti is based on, or is in fact a recast of anancient Dharma-sfitra. But, well known as are his hypotheses and the later discoveries confirming them, an introduction to the laws of Manu would, I think, be incomplete without a full restatement of his arguments and of their additional supports furnished by others.
The considerations on which Professor Max Miiller based his explanation of the origin of the Manu-smzti may be briefly stated as follows!. The systematic cultivation of the sacred sciences of the Brahmans began and for a long time had its centre in the ancient Sdtrakarazas, the schools which first collected the fragmentary doctrines, scattered in the older Vedic works, and arranged them for the convenience of oral instruction in Sdtras or strings of aphorisms. To the subjects which these schools chiefly cultivated, be- -longs besides the ritual, grammar, phonetics, and the other so-called Angas of the Veda, the sacred lawalso. The latter includes not only the precepts for the moral duties of all Aryas, but also the special rules regarding the conduct of kings and the administration of justice. The Sitra treatises on law thus cover the whole range of topics, contained in the metrical Smritis attributed to Manu, Y4giiavalkya, and other sages. Though only one Dharma-sitra, that of the Apastambiyas, actually remains connected with the aphorisms on the ritual and other sacred subjects, the existence of the Dharmasdstras of Gautama, Vasish¢/a, and Vishau, which are likewise composed in Sitras, proves that formerly
1 See his letter to Mr. Morley, reprinted in Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. ix-xi, and Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 132-134. Compare also the analogous views formed independently by Professors Weber and Stenzler, Indische Studien, vol. i, pp. 69, 143, 243-4.
INTRODUCTION. xix
Morley, reprinted in Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. ix-xi, and Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 132-134. Compare also the analogous views formed independently by Professors Weber and Stenzler, Indische Studien, vol. i, pp. 69, 143, 243-4.
INTRODUCTION. xix
they were more numerous. The perfectly credible tradition of the MimAmsa school, which declares that originally each Vedic school or Karama possessed a peculiar work on Dharma, confirms this assumption. While the Dharmasitras possess a considerable antiquity, dating between 600- 200 B.C., the metrical Smzztis cannot be equally ancient, because there is much in their form that is modern, and especially because tlfe epic Anush¢ubh Sloka, in which they are written, was not used for continuous composition during the Stra period. As the metrical Smvtis are later than the Dharma-sitras, it is, under the circumstances stated, very probable that each of them is based ona particular Dharmasitra, The Manava Dharmasdstra in particular may be considered as a recast and versification of the Dharma-s(tra of the Manava Satrakarama, a subdivision of the Maitrayantya school, which adheres to a redaction of the Black Yagur-veda.
Considering the state of our knowledge of Vedic literature thirty years ago, the enunciation of this hypothesis was certainly a bold step. The facts on which it rested were few, and the want of important links in the premises laid it open to weighty objections. No proof was or could be furnished that the Sitras of Gautama, Vasish/sha, and Vishnu originally were manuals of Vedic schools, not codes promulgated for the guidance of all Aryas, as the Hindu tradition, then known, asserted. The assumption that it was so, rested solely on the resemblance of their form and contents to those of the Apastambiya Dharma-stitra. No trace of a Manava Dharma-sitra could be shown, nor could any connexion between the Manava DharmasAstra and the school of the MAnavas, except through their titles, be established. The assertion that the Brahmans had turned older Sfitras, and especially Dharma-sitras, into metrical works, written in epic Slokas, had to be left without any illustration, and no cause was assigned which would explain this remarkable change. As a set off against these undeniable weaknesses, Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis possessed two strong points which secured for it from the outset a favourable reception on the part of all Sanskritists of the historical school. First, it substituted a rational theory b2
XX LAWS OF MANU.
As a set off against these undeniable weaknesses, Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis possessed two strong points which secured for it from the outset a favourable reception on the part of all Sanskritists of the historical school. First, it substituted a rational theory b2
XX LAWS OF MANU.
of historical development for the fantastic fables of the Hindu tradition and for the hopeless uncertainty which characterised the earlier speculations of European scholars concerning the origin of the so-called Indian codes of law. Secondly, it fully agreed with many facts which the beginning exploration of Vedic literature had brought to light, and which, taken as a whole, forced on all serious students the conviction that the systematic cultifation of all the Indian SAstras had begun in the Vedic schools. Subsequent events have shown that Professor Max Miiller was right to rely on these two leading ideas, and that his fellow Sanskritists did well to follow him, instead of taking umbrage at the minor flaws. Slowly but steadily a great number of the missing links in the chain of evidence has been brought to light by subsequent investigations. We now know that the Satra works of other schools than the Apastambiyas included or still include treatises on the sacred law. The Dharma-s(itra of the Baudhdyantyas, the oldest Sftra- Rarana of the Taittirtya Veda, has been recovered. Though the connexion between the several parts of the great body of Sfitras has been severed, it is yet possible to recognise that it once was closely joined to the Grzhya-sitra'. The recovery of the entire collection of Hirazyakesi-sftras has proved that these too include a Dharma-siatra, which in this instance has been borrowed from the earlier Apastambiyas?. The mystery which surrounded the position of the Dharmasdstras of Gautama, Vishvu, and Vasish¢/a has been cleared up. To the assertion that they were composed by ancient Rishis for the welfare of mankind, we can at present oppose another tradition according to which they were at first studied and recognised as authoritative by particular schools only, adhering respectively to the Sama-veda, Black- Yagur-veda, and the Rig-veda*. Internal evidence confirming this tradition has been found in the case of Gautama’s Dharmasdstra and of the Vishvzu-smriti, or, more correctly,
1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxi.
? Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii.
® Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xlv—xlviii; vol. vii, pp. x-xvi; vol. xiv, pp. xl-xlv,
INTRODUCTION, Xxi
xiv, p. xxxi.
? Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii.
® Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xlv—xlviii; vol. vii, pp. x-xvi; vol. xiv, pp. xl-xlv,
INTRODUCTION, Xxi
of the Kazaka Sitras. These latter discoveries are of particularly great importance, because they fully establish the truth of the assumption, underlying Professor Max Miiller’s theory, that in post-Vedic times the Brahmans did not hesitate to change the character of ancient school-books and to convert them into generally binding law-codes, either by simply taking them out of their connexion with the Srauta and Grihya-sitras or by adding besides matter which, in the eyes of orthodox Hindus, must greatly increase the sentiment of reverence felt for them. It is especially the case of the so-called Vishvu-smriti, which deserves the most careful attention. The beginning and the end of the work distinctly characterise it as a revelation of the god Vishnu. Vishvu, Vaishvava worship and philosophy are on various occasions praised and recommended in the course of the discussions. Yet the difference in the style of the introductory and concluding chapters leaves no doubt that they are later additions, and the perfectly credible tradition of the Pandits of Puma and Benares, the occurrence of particular sacred texts known to the K4z#akas alone, as well as the special resemblance of its contents to those of the Katkaka Grthya-sitra, make it perfectly certain that the work is only a Vaishvava recast of the Katsaka Dharmasitra!. We thus obtain in this case the confirmation of almost every fact which the conversion of the Dharma-sitra of the MAnavas into the revealed code of the Pragdpati Manu presupposes, with the sole exception of the substitution of epic Slokas for aphoristic prose. With respect to the last point, the further exploration of the Smriti literature has furnished numerous analogies. As an instance to the point we can now cite the fragments of the so-called Brihat Sankha Dharmasastra, which, as the quotations show, must
1 A quotation in Govindaraga’s Smrrtimafgart, fol.12>, 1. 8 (India Office Collection, No. 1736), contains a very small portion of this work. When explaining the penance for the murder of a Brahmama, mentioned Manu XI, 74, Govindaraga says, WHIT MSTA MTV A [F] | ASAP TAIT sETATT xfau wt [rreart: | gafeat Tera ll The quotation shows that the
Dharma-s(tra of the Ka¢has mentioned the fanciful expiations ending in death, which are given in all the ancient law-books, but omitted in the Vishzu-smriti.
XXii LAWS OF MANU.
XXii LAWS OF MANU.
formerly have consisted of prose and verse, while the available MSS. show Sftras and Anush¢ubhs in one chapter only, and Slokas alone in the remainder!. There are, further, such works like the two Asvalayana Smritis and the Saunaka-smriti, evidently versifications of the corresponding Grthya-sitras, with or without the additions of extraneous matter?. In short, among all the general propositions concerning the origin of the metrical Smritis, which Professor Max Miiller advanced, only one, the assertion that during the Sdtra period of 600-200 B.C. works written in continuous epic verse were unknown, has proved untenable in its fullextent. It seems no longer advisable to limit the production of Satras to so short and so late a period as 600-200 B.C., and the existence of metrical school-manuals at a much earlier date has been clearly demonstrated*. It is now evident that the use of the heroic metre for such works did not begin all of asudden and ata certain given date. But it seems, nevertheless, indisputable that the use of aphoristic prose was adopted earlier than that of verse. For in all known cases a Sitra, not a metrical Samgraha, Varttika, or Ka4rika, stands at the head of each series of school-books, and some of the most salient peculiarities of the Sdtra style reappear in that of the metrical manuals*. With respect to the conjectures specially affecting the M4nava Dharmasdstra, the former existence of a Manava Dharmasfitra, consisting of prose mixed with verses in several metres, has been established by the discovery of some quotations in the Vasish¢za Dharma-sfitra, and their contents show that the work known to the author of the latter Sastra was closely related to our Manu-smriti. As regards the connexion of this Dharma-sftra, and consequently of our Manu-smr?ti with the Sitragaraza of the Manavas, the results of the late researches have not been equally satisfactory. The recovery of the writings of the MAnavas has not only not furnished any facts in support of the supposed connexion, but, on the contrary, has raised difficulties, as it
1 West and Biihler, Digest of H. L. p. 40, third edition. ? West and Biihler, loc. cit. p. 51.
5 Goldstiicker, Manavakalpa-sitra, p. 78.
* West and Biihler, loc. cit. pp. 42. 44.
INTRODUCTION. XXili
L. p. 40, third edition. ? West and Biihler, loc. cit. p. 51.
5 Goldstiicker, Manavakalpa-sitra, p. 78.
* West and Biihler, loc. cit. pp. 42. 44.
INTRODUCTION. XXili
appears that the doctrines of the Manava Grthya-sitra differ very considerably from those of our Manava Dharmasdastra. All that has been brought forward in substantiation of this portion of Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis is that as close an affinity exists between the Vishzusmriti, the modern recension of the Kas#aka Dharma-sitra, and our Manusmriti, as is found between the K4thaka and Manava Grthya-sitras and between the KAaskaka and MA4nava Samhitds, and that hence the Vedic original of the Manusmriti may be supposed to have belonged to the Manava school', The conclusive force of this argument is no doubt somewhat weakened, as Dr. von Bradke has pointed out, by the fact that the Vishzu-smrtti is not the original Katsaka Dharma-sitra. But to reject it altogether on account of this circumstance would be going too far. For the agreement between the Smritis of Manu and Vishzu extends to many subjects where the latter shows no traces of recasting, and may be reasonably supposed to faithfully represent the original Dharma-sitra. Nevertheless a full reconsideration of this point is indispensable. Before we proceed to that, it will, however, be advisable first to supplement Professor Max Miiller’s arguments against the antiquity of our Manusmriti by the discussion of some of its passages which clearly admit an acquaintance with a large body of older legal literature and particularly with Dharma-s@tras, and, secondly, to re-examine and complete the proof for the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra and for its having been the precursor of the metrical law-book. Among the passages of the Manu-smriti which disprove the claim, set up by its author, to be the first legislator, and which show that he had many predecessors, the first place must be allotted to its statements regarding controversies and conflicting decisions on certain points of the ritual and of the law. Such cases are by no means rare. Thus the observances of ‘some,’ with respect to the order of the several ceremonies at a Sraddha? and to the disposal
1 Professor Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, pp. xxvi-xxvii; and Dr. von Bradke, Jour. Germ. Or. Soc. vol. xxxii, pp. 438-441.
* The same difference of opinion is mentioned in Sankh4yana Grihya-sitra IV, 1, 10.
XXiV LAWS OF MANU.
and to the disposal
1 Professor Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, pp. xxvi-xxvii; and Dr. von Bradke, Jour. Germ. Or. Soc. vol. xxxii, pp. 438-441.
* The same difference of opinion is mentioned in Sankh4yana Grihya-sitra IV, 1, 10.
XXiV LAWS OF MANU.
of the funeral cakes, are mentioned Manu III, 261. Discussions of the ancient sages, exactly resembling those met with in the Dharma-sitras', are given IX, 31-55 regarding the long-disputed question whether a son begotten on a wife by a stranger, but with the husband’s consent, belongs to the natural parent or to ‘the owner of the soil.’ In the same chapter it is stated, just as in Gautama’s Dharma-sfitra*, that ‘some’ permit the procreation of a second son with an appointed widow. Manu X, 70-71, we find a decision on the question whether, as ‘some’ assert, the seed be more important, or, as ‘others’ state, the soil, or, as ‘again others’ maintain, the seed and the soil have equal importance, and, XI, 45, we are told that the sages, i. e. all sages, are convinced of the efficacy of penances for atoning unintentional offences, while ‘some’ declare that they even destroy the guilt of him who sinned intentionally. The latter point is discussed in exactly the same manner Gaut. XIX, 3-6. In other cases the author is less explicit. He merely places conflicting opinions side by side without indicating that they belong to different authorities, and hence he has mostly succeeded in misleading the commentators as to his real meaning. Thus we read Manu II, 145, that the teacher is less venerable than the father and the mother, while the next following verses teach exactly the contrary doctrine. The commentators are much perplexed by this contradiction. But if we turn to Gautama II, 50-51, where it is said, ‘ The teacher is chief among all Gurus; some say (that) the mother (holds the first place),’ it is not doubtful that the Manu-smriti gives in the first verse the opinion of Gautama’s ‘some’ as the pirvapaksha, and adduces the following one in order to prove its incorrectness. A similar case occurs Manu III, 23-25, where three opinions regarding the permissibility of certain marriage-rites are enumerated, the last of which is the siddh4nta or the author’s own view.
It might be contended that these passages, the list of
1 See especially Vas. XVII, 6-9, where one of the verses of the Manu-smrtti occurs,
+ Gaut. XVIII, 8.
INTRODUCTION. . XXV
It might be contended that these passages, the list of
1 See especially Vas. XVII, 6-9, where one of the verses of the Manu-smrtti occurs,
+ Gaut. XVIII, 8.
INTRODUCTION. . XXV
which might be considerably enlarged, do not necessarily force on us the conviction that they refer to actual lawbooks which preceded our Manu-smriti. If they stood by themselves, they might possibly be explained as showing nothing more than that legal and ritual questions had long engaged the attention of the learned. But this subterfuge becomes impossible, as we find in other verses the explicit confession that the author of the Manu-smriti knew Dharmasdstras. Three passages allude to their existence in general terms. The first occurs in the definition of the terms Sruti and Smriti, Manu II, 10, ‘ But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law.’ In the text the last word, dharmasAstram, stands in the singular. But it must doubtlessly be taken, as Kulldka! and Narayana? indicate, in a collective sense. Another mention of law-books is found Manu XII, 111, where a dharmapahaka, ‘ one who recites (the Institutes of) the sacred law,’ is named among the members of a parishad or assembly entitled to decide difficult points of law. The commentators are unanimous in explaining dharma, literally ‘ the sacred law,’ by ‘the Institutes of the sacred law’ or ‘the Smritis of Manu and others,’ and it is indeed impossible to take the word in any other sense than that of ‘law-books®.’ The third passage is perfectly explicit, as the word Dharmasastra is used in the plural. It occurs in the section on funeral sacrifices, Manu III, 232, ‘ At a (sacrifice in honour) of the manes he must let (his guests) hear the Veda, the Institutes of the sacred law (dharmasdstrai), &c.* Here the existence of many earlier law-books is plainly acknowledged. The character of the Institutes of the sacred law, known to the author of our Manu, may be inferred of this passage will be shown below, p. lii. * See also Professor Stenzler in the Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 245; Dr. Johinntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 76.
1 ararfeged ofa: u
* witgred arerata | Tarqyreatd Weta |
* Medh, WATCTSm HeaTfeRTfagreqrareaiay nu Gov. arpa waaay i Kull. QTaqrfewatgrregaet i Nand. WAYTETANSR: tt The full significance
XXVvi LAWS OF MANU.
arpa waaay i Kull. QTaqrfewatgrregaet i Nand. WAYTETANSR: tt The full significance of this passage will be shown below, p. lii. * See also Professor Stenzler in the Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 245; Dr. Johinntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 76.
XXVvi LAWS OF MANU.
from some other passages which reveal an acquaintance with the Angas of the Veda’. Manu II, 141, and IV, 98, these auxiliary sciences are mentioned in a general way. From Manu III, 185, where it is said that a Brahmaza who knows the six Angas sanctifies the company at a Sraddha dinner, we learn that their number, as known to our author, did not differ from that mentioned in all Vedic works. Further, the name of the first Anga, the Kalpa, occurs III, 185, and the mention of a Nairukta among the members of a parishad shows that the fourth, the Nirukta, was also known. With the latter and the remaining four, which the author of the Manu-smr‘ti in all probability also knew, we are not immediately concerned. But the first, the Kalpa, possesses a very great interest for our purposes. This term, as is well known, denotes collectively those Sitras of the Vedic schools which teach the performance of the Srauta sacrifices, the rites especially described in the Sruti. Hence both Srauta-sdtras and, of course, also Sitrakaranas must have preceded the Manu-smriti. If it is now borne in mind that according to the Hindu tradition, mentioned above, all Sidtrakarazas formerly possessed Dharma-sftras, and that in some existing Kalpas the Dharma-sitras are closely connected with the Srauta-sdtras, it becomes exceedingly probable, nay, certain, that our Manava Dharmasdstra is later than some of the Dharmasitras. This conclusion is further corroborated by those passages of the Manu-smriti where the author quotes the opinions of individual predecessors. Manu III, 16 we read, ‘According to Atri and (Gautama) the son of Utathya? he who weds a SQdra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sadra female alone).’ Under the above explanation, which is adopted by the majority of the commentators,
1 See also Professor Stenzler, loc. cit.; Dr. Johinntgen, loc. cit. p. 74.
? The form Utathya is a corruption of the Vedic Uéathya, and shows the substitution of a dental for a palatal, which is not uncommon in the Prakrit dialects. Hence it possesses a certain value as an additional proof for the post- Vedic origin of the Manu-smriti.
INTRODUCTION. XXVil
cit. p. 74.
? The form Utathya is a corruption of the Vedic Uéathya, and shows the substitution of a dental for a palatal, which is not uncommon in the Prakrit dialects. Hence it possesses a certain value as an additional proof for the post- Vedic origin of the Manu-smriti.
INTRODUCTION. XXVil
and is confirmed by an analogous passage of the aphoristic Dharmasdstra of Usanas!, the author adduces there the opinions of four older authorities, all of which are credited by the Hindu tradition with the revelation of law-books. We still possess several Smritis attributed to Atri, Saunaka, and to Gautama, as well as one said to belong to Bhrigu. With the exception of the aphoristic Gautamiya Dharmasistra all these works are modern, some being metrical recensions of older Sdtras, and some of very doubtful origin. It is, therefore, impossible that any of the existing Dharmasastras, Atri, Saunaka, and Bhyzgu, can be referred to by Manu, and, as a matter of fact, the opinions quoted cannot be traced in them. But if we turn to Gautama’s Sdtra we find among those persons who defile the company at a Sraddha dinner, and who are thus excluded from the community of the virtuous, the sddrapati, literally ‘the husband of a Sadra female?.’ The real signification of the compound seems, however, to be, as Haradatta suggests, ‘he whose only wife or dharmapatni is a Sddra.’ As it appears from Manu III, 17-19, that the opinion attributed to the son Utathya was the same, it is not at all unlikely that the Manu-smr‘ti actually quotes the still existing Sdtra of Gautama. Another reference to a lost Satra occurs at Manu VI, 21, where it is said of the hermit in the forest, ‘Or he may constantly subsist on flowers, roots, and fruit alone......, following the rule of the (Institutes) of Vikhanas.’ The original Sanskrit of the participial clause is ‘ vaikhanasamate sthita#,’ and means literally ‘abiding by the Vaikhanasa opinion.’ The commentators, with the exception of Nardyawza, are unanimous in declaring that
' Us. Dharmasastra, chap. IIT, feat Faesvatn: | at aaa | ATAT ST wafaferraratqyae yar weraife afew ere i wafa a onatin See yweat umedtia erecta: 8 warareranntin etre: 0 yea: uaatta min: = Though Usanas’ statements regarding the opinions of the ancient lawyers do not agree with those of the Manu-sm~r‘ti, except in the case of Saunaka, they are yet important, because they show that differences of opinion regarding the effects of a marriage with a S{Qdr4 did occur. See also
Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. §3. 3 Gautama XV, 18; Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. 255.
XXVIIi LAWS OF MANU.
See also
Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. §3. 3 Gautama XV, 18; Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. 255.
XXVIIi LAWS OF MANU.
the word Vaikhanasa here denotes a SAstra or Sdtra promulgated by Vikhanas, in which the duties of hermits were described at length!. The correctness of this opinion seems to me indisputable. For the word mata, ‘opinion,’ in Manu’s verse, requires that the preceding part of the compound should denote either a person, or a school, or a work. If we take vaikh4nasa in the sense of hermit in the forest, we obtain the meaningless translation, ‘a hermit may subsist on flowers, &c., following the opinion of hermits.’ It is, therefore, necessary to interpret vaikhanasa with the commentators in the sense of vaikhanasa sAstra, and to refer it to a particular work which taught the duties of hermits. The existence of such a book is attested not only by Manu’s commentators, but also by other ancient and modern authors. Baudhdyana mentions it explicitly’, and seems to give a short summary of its contents in the third chapter of the third Prasna of his Dharmasdstra. Haradatta, the commentator of Apastamba and Gautama, also appears to have known it. In his notes on Gautama ITI, 2, he gives the derivation of vaikh4nasa, a hermit in the forest, saying, ‘The vanaprastha is called vaikhanasa, because he lives according to the rule promulgated by Vikhanas,’ and adds, ‘For that (sage) chiefly taught that order’’ If the statements made to me by Indian Pazzdits are to be trusted, we may even hope to recover the work in course of time. It must be an exceedingly ancient book, as the secondary meaning of vaikhanasa, a hermit, which can have arisen only in the manner suggested by Haradatta‘, occurs in the
1 Medh, SRTAR ATH Wee TT Ataneren wah fafemarai aa Ferm 0 Gov. SATAMR AAMATNTATHA feat: uw Kull. Farzal wwe! Weadufarreagreaega fem: 0 Nand. terlet]zant frele}eer whe ae [5] we fe srrencter qotude: fat n Nar. teraeat STAMETAT Nt
2 Baudh. Dharma, II, 11,14; Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 259.
* Qaraat wane | feeaar wher mig sia sfa ta fe a Brae: MraTatay wfwarfed: W
* The double vviddhi in vaikh4nasa is according to the analogy of the words enumerated in the akriti-gava anusatikadi, Pas. VII, 3, 20.
INTRODUCTION. xxix
oldest known Dharma-sftra. Under these circumstances it is not advisable to assume that it had any connexion with the Vaikhanasa S(tra#arama, a subdivision of the Taittiriyas, which seems to have been one of the youngest schools adhering to the Black Yagur-veda!, But it is evident that the ancient Vaikhanasa Sdtra, which treated of an important portion of the sacred law, preceded our Manuv-smriti.
Another reference to the opinion of a person who is the reputed author of a still existing Dharma-sitra is found at Manu VIII, 140, where the rate of legal interest on secured loans is thus described : ‘A money-lender may stipulate, as an increase on his capital, for the interest allowed by Vasish¢ha, and take monthly the eightieth part of a hundred.’ If we turn to the Vasish#4a Dharmasdstra, we read, III, 51%,‘ Hear the interest for a money-lender, declared by Vasishtha, five mdshas (may be taken every month) for twenty (karshapazas).’ Though the wording of the Manusmriti differs from that adopted in the VAsish¢#4a DharmasAstra, the meaning of both passages is the same. The eightieth part of one hundred is one and a quarter per cent, and the same rate is obtained if five mashas are charged for twenty karshapavas, i.e. for four hundred mashas*. Both law-books, therefore, evidently refer to the same rule of Vasish¢ha. But the correctness of the further inference that the author of the Manu-smriti used the VAsish¢#a DharmasAstra is not so easily demonstrable as might seem from the extracts given above. For Vas. III, 51 itself is a quotation, marked as such by its final iti (left untranslated) and the phrase, ‘Now they quote also,’ which is prefixed to Satra 48. Hence it.might be argued that the agreement of the
1 See Professor Max Miiller, Anc. Sansk. Lit. p. 199; Professor Weber, Indische Studien, vol.i, p. 83. A portion of the Vaikhanasa Srauta-s(itra is preserved in the modern transcripts, belonging to the Bombay University and the Munich Royal Libraries, which Professor Haug had made from a Baroda MS.
? Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 16 ; according to Dr. Fiihrer’s edition, Vas. III, so.
3 Gagannatha, in Col. Dig. I, 25, gives a somewhat different calculation.
But the general sense remains the same. I follow Krishsapamdita and Haradatta on Gautama XII, 29.
XXX LAWS OF MANU.
? Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. 16 ; according to Dr. Fiihrer’s edition, Vas. III, so.
3 Gagannatha, in Col. Dig. I, 25, gives a somewhat different calculation.
But the general sense remains the same. I follow Krishsapamdita and Haradatta on Gautama XII, 29.
XXX LAWS OF MANU.
two passages furnishes no stringent proof for the posteriority of the Manu-smrizti to that which bears Vasishz/a’s name, that, on the contrary, it perhaps merely indicates the dependence of both works on a common source, be it on some older work or on the tradition current in the Brahmazical schools. Such an objection would in most similar cases be perfectly legitimate, but in the present one it is, I think, barred by some peculiar circumstances. From the abovementioned Hindu tradition, preserved by Govindasvamin’, we learn that the Vasish#la Dharmasastra originally belonged to a school of Rig-vedins who ascribed the settlement of their laws to the famous Vedic Rishi Vasish¢ha. The rule limiting the monthly interest on secured loans to one and a quarter per cent is found also in Gautama’s Dharma-sitra XII, 29, a work which, as has been shown elsewhere’, is older than the Vasish‘4a-smvzti. But neither there nor in any other work where it occurs? is its enunciation attributed to Vasish¢za. Hence it is most probable that this addition was made by those who attributed their laws to Vasishzka, and who, therefore, had an interest in vindicating the invention of an important legal maxim for their spiritual head. If their law-book gives the rule in the form of a quotation, they probably do not mean to indicate that an older verse ascribing it to Vasish/#a existed, but that the rule itself was an ancient one, and had been taken from a law-book or from the tradition of the Brahmazical schools. With this explanation the mention of Vasishzha’s name, made in Manu VIII, 140, still remains an indication that its author knew and referred to the existing Vasishtha Dharmasastra.
These passages are far too numerous to be set aside as possibly later interpolations, and there is, indeed, no circumstance connected with any of them which could lead to such a supposition. We must, therefore, admit that they clearly disprove the claim of the Manu-smriti to the first
1 See above, p. xx. ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. liii, liv.
3 See e. g. Yaga. II, 37, and the texts of Brihaspati and Vy4sa quoted in Col. Dig. I, 26-27.
INTRODUCTION. XXxi
place among Indian law-books which the first chapter sets up, and that they furnish a strong support to the view according to which the Manu-smriti belongs toa later stage of literary development than the Dharma-satras.
Dig. I, 26-27.
INTRODUCTION. XXxi
place among Indian law-books which the first chapter sets up, and that they furnish a strong support to the view according to which the Manu-smriti belongs toa later stage of literary development than the Dharma-satras.
In turning to the second point of our supplement, it will be advisable to reconsider in detail the passages of the Vasishtha-smriti, which prove the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra, and which, as the preceding discussion has established the priority of the Vasish¢/a-smriti to our Manu, possess a particularly great importance. The chief passage occurs Vasish¢/a IV, 5-81, where we read:
5. The MAnava (Satra states), ‘Only when worshipping the manes and the gods, or when honouring guests, he may certainly do injury to animals.’
6. ‘On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed.’
7. ‘Meat can never be obtained without injury to living beings, and injury to living beings does not procure heavenly bliss: hence (the sages declare) the slaughter (of beasts) at a sacrifice not (to be) slaughter (in the ordinary sense of the word).’
8. ‘Now he may also cook a full-grown ox or a fullgrown he-goat for a Brahmavza or a Kshatriya guest; in this manner they offer hospitality to such (a man),’
As has been stated in the introduction to Vasish¢/a?, all the four Sitras must be taken as a quotation, because the particle iti, ‘thus,’ occurs at the end of IV, 8, and because the identity of Sdtra 6 with Manu V, 41, as well as the close resemblance of Sdtra7 to Manu V, 48, shows that the quotation is not finished with Satra 5. If we accept this explanation
‘ fayeerfafagaramta oy feanfefe array wun aye 4 WR foytaredfa wa «ay feererrte aeterg: ven angen wifeat feat aiageret af a fer: arderen- Gr alee: non wate areas aT TATA THaPTATA AeteTT
WT Rest at Teta eafrad Btaratie t
? Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, pp. xviii-xix,
XXXil LAWS OF MANU.
Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, pp. xviii-xix,
XXXil LAWS OF MANU.
we have in our passage the usual arrangement followed in the Dharma-sitras. First comes the prose rule, next the verses which confirm it, and finally a Vedic passage on which both the rule and the verses rest. It may be added that the explanation of the passage given by Krishnapandita Dharmadhik4rin in his commentary on Vasishéha, according to which the word Manavam, explained above by ‘the Manava (Satra),’ is to mean ‘the (opinion) of Manu’ (manumatam), cannot be upheld, for several reasons. First, the wording of the text of Sdtra 5 looks like a real quotation, not like a summary of Manu’s views by Vasishtha. This becomes quite clear, if we compare Vasishtha I, 17, where undoubtedly a rule of Manu, corresponding to Manava Dh. VII, 203, and VIII, 41, is given in Vasish¢ha’s words, ‘Manu has declared (that) the (peculiar) laws of countries, castes, and families (may be followed) in the absence of (rules of) the revealed texts?.’ Secondly, the great differences between several other passages, quoted by Vasishzka as Manu’s, and the corresponding passages of the text of our Manu-smriti, as well as the fact that the latter, as we have seen, refers to the Vasish#a Dharmasastra, do not permit us to assume, with Krishnapandita, that Vasishtha knew and referred to our Manu.
If it is thus necessary to admit that Vasish¢a’s quotation is taken from a Manava Dharma-sitra, the agreement of the doctrine taught in the quotation and of a portion of the text with those of our Manu-smrzti show further that this Dharma-sitra must have been the forerunner of our metrical law-book. An examination of the other quotations from Manu, which occur in the Vasish¢/a-smriti, will show that this agreement was, though pretty close, not complete. The identity of the view, ascribed to Manu by Vasishzka I, 17, with the contents of Manu VII, 203, and VIII, 41, has already been mentioned. Vasish¢ka III, 2, a Manava Sloka is quoted which agrees literally with Manu II, 168. The same remark applies to the quotation at Vasishtha XX, 18, which is found Manu XI, 152. Another passage,
Tate fety es ware aE AAT ATG: 0
INTRODUCTION.” XXXili
Vasish¢ka III, 2, a Manava Sloka is quoted which agrees literally with Manu II, 168. The same remark applies to the quotation at Vasishtha XX, 18, which is found Manu XI, 152. Another passage,
Tate fety es ware aE AAT ATG: 0
INTRODUCTION.” XXXili
Vas. XIII, 16, shows considerable verbal differences. According to Vasishta, Manu’s verse is: ‘Be it fruit, or water, or sesamum, or food, or whatever be (the gift) at a Sraddha, let him not, having just accepted it, recite the Veda; for it is declared in the Smviti that the hands of - Brahmanas are their mouths,’ while we read Manu IV, 117, ‘Be it an animal or a thing inanimate, whatever be the (gift) at a SrAddha, let him not, having just accepted it, recite the Veda; for it is declared in the Smriti that the hand of a Brahmana is his mouth". The last quotation which occurs Vas. XIX, 37, and refers to the sulka, (exemptions from) taxes and duties’, is in the Trishtubh metre, and, hence, cannot have a place in our Manu-smriti. But it is remarkable that the latter does not even show a corresponding Anush¢ubh verse, and that the contents of the quotation do not quite agree with the teaching of our Manu. The latter mentions the exemption of a sum less than a kaérshapaaa incidentally X,120. It agrees also with Manu’s doctrines that Srotriyas, ascetics, alms, and sacrifices should not be taxed. But there are no indications that infants, messengers, and ambassadors, or the remnant left to-a plundered trader, should go free. With respect to those living by arts (silpa), our Manu teaches, VII, 138, and X, 120, just like most other ancient authors, that artisans are to do monthly one piece of work for the king. Though this corvée amounts to a pretty severe tax, it is, of course, possible to contend that Manu’s rule does not exactly contradict that quoted by Vasishéka. Besides these passages, there are some other verses® which contain the well-known phrase, ‘ manur abravit, thus Manu spoke,’
1 Vas, RTA WA whegerecta | Gararafersrargrrereangfark wag wfeperanara: were ate: eye eft W | Mans, wife a afe wife afeifqegifak tq aerearTeTe: Uwren fe few: oA: 4
? “No duty (is paid) on a sum less than a karshapama, there is no tax on a livelihood gained by arts, nor on an infant, nor on a messenger, nor on what has been received as alms, nor on the remnants of property left after a robbery, nor on a Srotriya, nor on an ascetic, nor on a sacrifice.’ * Vas. XI, 23; XII, 16; XXIIL, 43; XXVI, 8.