The Laws of Manu — SBE Vol. 25 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1886)
English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler·567 passages
The text · part 3 of 27
5 Nirukta XII, 33-34. ® RV. I, 80, 16; I, 113, 16, &c.
T Taitt. Samh. III, 1, 9, 4.
® Sat. Br. I, 8,1; Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, p. 216, ‘In the moming they bronght to Manu water for washing, just as they (are wont to) bring (water) for washing the hands.’
Iviii LAWS OF MANU.
indicated in general terms only. In the Rig-veda he is . repeatedly called ‘Father Manu?.’ In other passages we meet frequently with the assertion that ‘the five tribes,’ or ‘these created beings,’ or ‘ the races of men’ are his offspring*. But in the famous legend of the flood, given by the Satapatha-brahmaza %, we have a circumstantial account of the manner in which he produced the human race. According to that Brahmaza, Manu alone was saved by the advice of a fish from a great flood which destroyed all created beings. Being desirous of offspring he engaged in worshipping and in performing austerities. “During this time he offered a Paka-yagita. His oblations produced a woman, Id4 or I/4, a personification of the id4 ceremony and of ‘ the blessing of the sacrifice.’ Though solicited by Mitra and Varuva to become theirs, she acknowledged herself Manu’s daughter, and stayed with him. ‘ With her,’ the Brahmaza concludes in somewhat ambiguous terms, ‘he went on worshipping and performing austerities. Through her he generated this race, which is called the race of Manu.’ Though this legend is alluded to in another Brahmaza‘*, and repeated in later Sanskrit works, it may be reasonably doubted whether it contains the original version of the production of mankind through Manu. It seems more probable that an older myth ascribed to him not a reproduction, but the first creation or procreation of the human race.
Being the father of mankind, Manu is naturally considered as the founder of social and moral order, as a ruler of men, and as a Ashi to whom sacred texts were revealed, as the inventor of sacrificial rites, and the author of legal maxims. We find, therefore, passages which assert that he was a king °, which speak of his coronation, or make him
1 RV. I, 80, 16; I, 124, 2; II, 33, 13, &c.
2 RV. III, 24, 3; Taitt. Samh.I,5,1,3; 1,5, 6,1; II, 4,22; II, 4, 3,7; VI, 1, 5,6, &c.; Sat. Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3.
* Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, pp. 216-219.
* Weber, Indische Streifen, vol. i, p. 11, note 3.
5 See e.g. Satapatha-brahmavza XIII, 4, 3, 3, and RV. I, 112, 8. In the iatter passage the epithet s(ira, the hero, characterises Manu asa royal personage,
INTRODUCTION. lix
Br. XIII, 4, 3, 3.
* Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, pp. 216-219.
* Weber, Indische Streifen, vol. i, p. 11, note 3.
5 See e.g. Satapatha-brahmavza XIII, 4, 3, 3, and RV. I, 112, 8. In the iatter passage the epithet s(ira, the hero, characterises Manu asa royal personage,
INTRODUCTION. lix
the ancestor of kings. Thus a Mantra, recited at the Abhisheka of a king', asserts that Pragdpati formerly anointed Indra, Soma, Varuza, Yama, and Manu, and among the mythical kings Sary4ta is called Manu’s son ?, while Purdravas is the offspring of Manu’s daughter, Ida or IA. In later:times this ancient idea, which makes Manu the first king of men and the ancestor of kings, has led to his being placed at the head of mythical and of partly historical genealogies. From him springs IkshvAku, the first king of the solar dynasty and the historical Kalukya, and Xola kings name Manu as the founder of their families.
Much more frequently the Veda alludes to, or explicitly mentions, Manu as the inventor of sacrificial rites. The Rig-veda contains a very large number of passages‘ which | speak of Manu’s sacrifices, and of his having kindled the sacred fire, or invoked the gods to accept the offerings of the ishis just as they accepted those of Manu. The same assertions are repeated in the Yagur-veda5, and the Satapatha-brahmama (I, 5, 1-7) says very explicitly, ‘ Manu, indeed, worshipped with sacrifices in the beginning ; imitating that, this progeny (of his now) sacrifices.’ In addition to the fire-worship, Manu is also said to have invented the Sraddhas or funeral sacrifices. The chief passage bearing on this point occurs in Apastamba’s Dharma-sitra II, 18, 1, where it is stated that the gods went to heaven in reward of their sacrifices, and that Manu, seeing men left behind, ‘revealed this ceremony, which is designated by the word Sraddha.’ Though this passage is not marked as a quotation, its style clearly shows that it has either been borrowed from a Brahmaaa, or that it gives a summary of
1 Ait. Br. VIII, 8,1.
2 Sat. Br. 1V,1, 5,2; compare also Ait. Br. IV, 32; VIII, 21, where the name is Saryata.
2 RV. I, 31,43 X, 95; and Sat. Br. XI,5,1,1. In the first passage I take manave in the sense of mfnavaya.
* See Bergaigne, Religion Védique, I, 62-70, where, it seems to me, a great many difficult passages have been explained more successfully than in the translations of other Vedists, who take the word manu too freely in the sense of man.
5 See e.g. Taitt. Samh. I, 7, 1,3; II, 5,9, 1; IIL, 3, 2,15 V, 4, 10, 5.
Ix LAWS OF MANU.
5 See e.g. Taitt. Samh. I, 7, 1,3; II, 5,9, 1; IIL, 3, 2,15 V, 4, 10, 5.
Ix LAWS OF MANU.
a longer story contained in such a work". It is probably on account of this legend that ‘Manu, the offspring of the Sun,’ receives in the Mahabharata? the epithet Sraddhadeva, which may be rendered either ‘the deity of the Srdddha,’ or, perhaps better, ‘he whose deity is the Sraddha, i. e. the Sraddha-worshipper.’ Closely connected with Manv’s position as inventor of sacrifices is the ancient myth, mentioned above, which makes him the father of Id4; and from the same idea spring probably the legends regarding his bull, whose voice destroyed the demons, and regarding the sacrifice of his wife, Manavi?.
That Manu was credited with the revelation of Mantras has been stated above* in the remarks on the passages from the three redactions of the Yagur-veda and of the Tandya-brahmana. The older works, however, nowhere attribute to him entire hymns, but mostly small numbers of verses only. The same is the case in the Index of the Rishis of the White Yagur-veda, while the Sarvanukramami of the Rig-veda ascribes five entire Sdktas, VIII, 27-31, to Manu Vaivasvata, as well as a few verses to Manu Apsava and to Manu Samvaramza. An interesting passage in the beginning of the last section of the K/4ndogyopanishad® informs us that that work was revealed by Brahma (Hiranyagarbha) to Pragdpati (Kasyapa), by Pragapati to Manu, and by Manu to mankind. This legend proves that the ancient Vedic schools believed Manu to have taught more than a few verses and hymns. It also helps us to understand better the phrase of the four Vedic books quoted, ‘All
1 If Professor Max Miiller, India, What can it teach us? pp. 234-235 and 365, thinks that Apastamba’s passage betrays a consciousness of the later origin of the Sraddha rites, Iam unable to follow him. It seems to me more probable that it is only intended to explain the holiness and efficacy of the funeral sacrifices, and why they secure heaven for the worshipper and the worshipped ancestor. In the Brahmasas similar introductions, in which the Devas play the part of Manu, are prefixed to the descriptions of most sacrifices. As the Sraddhas specially concern men, the father of mankind is very appropriately represented as their inventor.
3 Mah. XII, 121, 29.
® Sacred Books of the East, vol. xii, pp. 29-30; see also the passages and essays quoted there in note I.
* See p. xvi.
* Sacred Books of the East, vol. i, p. 144.
INTRODUCTION. Ixi
Manu said is medicine.’ As has been pointed out above, the assertion contained in this sentence is so general that it makes us suspect the existence of many sayings of Manu on religious subjects. Though the X44ndogya is probably not as ancient as the Samhitds of the Yagur-veda, or even as the TAzdya, and though it hence would be more than hazardous to assume that this very passage is alluded to in
_ 3 Ido not share Professor von Roth’s misgivings (Nirukta, Notes, pp. 24-26) regarding the genuineness of this verse, and of the whole legal discussion in sections 4-6 of the third book of the Nirukta. We know now that the views of the ancient authors on the succession of daughters differed very considerably. Hence the incidental discussion of this vexed question in the Nirukta need not raise any suspicion. Similar digressions are not uncommon in other Vedic works, The difficulty with respect to the compound sikslokabhyam, in the words introducing the verse, disappears if it is taken as a Dvandva, and not, as Professor von Roth seems to do, as a Karmadhfraya,
Ixii LAWS OF MANU.
Similar digressions are not uncommon in other Vedic works, The difficulty with respect to the compound sikslokabhyam, in the words introducing the verse, disappears if it is taken as a Dvandva, and not, as Professor von Roth seems to do, as a Karmadhfraya,
Ixii LAWS OF MANU.
from a work of the former class. It probably belongs to one of the lost accented Brahmamas. That it did not form part of the Manava Dharma-sitra follows, not only from the use of the accents, but also from its contents. Its doctrine does not agree with that of our Manu-smrtti, which, with respect to the greater part of the rules on inheritance, may be considered as a faithful representative of the original Dharma-sitra. Though Manu IX, 131-139 strongly insists on the right of an appointed daughter, and, indeed, of every daughter who has no brothers, to succeed to the paternal estate, he nowhere lays down the rule, which, according to Y4ska, is taught in our verse, that daughters under all circumstances share equally with sons. To daughters who have brothers Manu allots one-fourth of a share.
In the Dharma-sAtras the verses which contain the phrase ‘manur abravit, thus Manu has said,’ or equivalents thereof, become more frequent. The passages of Vasishzka and of S4nkh4yana in which it occurs have been discussed above. Two verses of this description are found in Baudhayana’s Dharma-satra (IV, 1, 13; 2, 15), anda considerable number in Usanas’ aphoristic Dharmasdstra!. In the Mahabhérata?, in our Manu-smriti itself, in the Narada-smriti®, and in other secondary law-books it is also of common occurrence. Its real meaning is, as Professor Hopkins (loc. cit.) has pointed out, no other than that the rule to which it is appended was thought to be ancient and indisputable. Hence it is sometimes used vicariously for appeals to the teaching of the Veda‘ and of Pragdpati. That the cause of
1 Instances of this kind occur, especially in the Sraddhakalpa, chapter IV, wate wa wR: aeTgqarrEtem: afrarerqurdty (sic) w -—=— waarrarrans afafrefaare 2 wey ganararat afermroeryCa (sic) Wand in chapter VI, WW: QUaerrre arifa aforerar) wager mererfar aq: sergctanin n wypATatfa Yestha WraTaT: pt ari wcqrafaqerat atsart Aquat -—--~eAtTe wT YrreuetwaqrTaty u
? Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October, 1883, p. xix.
3 J. Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 46.
* Compare e. g. Vas. XVII, 10-11, and Manu IX, 182-3.
INTRODUCTION. Lxili
its adoption was not the existence of a primeval Manava Dharma-sitra or SAstra, but the belief in the revelation of the law by Manu is proved also by the wide divergence of the doctrines attributed to the father of mankind from each other and from the teaching of the Manu-smriti.
Lxili
its adoption was not the existence of a primeval Manava Dharma-sitra or SAstra, but the belief in the revelation of the law by Manu is proved also by the wide divergence of the doctrines attributed to the father of mankind from each other and from the teaching of the Manu-smriti.
These legends and mythological conceptions are amply sufficient to show why the special law schools should have directed their attention to the Manava Dharma-sitra, and should have chosen that in preference to other similar works as the basis of one of their text-books. Even if the author of the Sftra, who in the tradition of the M4navas! is sometimes called Manvaéarya and sometimes M4nava£arya, really was a historical personage named after the progenitor of men, and was considered as such by the adherents of his own school, yet a confusion between him and his mythical namesake was in course of time inevitable. Even Apastamba, who himself claims to be no more than a common sinful mortal, has not escaped the fate of being turned into a half-divine being by the authors of the Mahabharata? and of the Purdzas,
All I can adduce regarding the tradition of the Manavas is found in some not very clear verses of the Mangalalaramas, prefixed to the two books of Ash/avakra’s commentary on the Grihya-sitra. In the beginning of the prathamapurushabhashya he says, according to Professor Haug’s MS. (Munich
Roy. Lib. Sansk. MSS,, No. 51), TAY ATOPRTET |] ATTATAT AT AA: | ETT: Warerergar wewreagine (7) aq wcerqramnfa (2) at a: ag WTA tl My MS, omits the invocation of the Bhashyakara and of Manava- Aarya and reads in the last line ATA ALATA RATIY ATW The dvittyapurushabhashya begins, according to my MS., ACTA: Raa atagrargc
AAT ATS: VCORE USA: NAN weTseD Taq at gE y (2) acethy | at US y Tt fefqaifee vgn aretha wt Vat WRT Se MTA HT UTET ATR [ Verwrerge ?] TERA TTT U gH
In the first line of the second verse I propose to read WeTaeU aq ‘Or Ty acer and to translate, ‘As the venerable MAnavakérya composed this (Sitra) by the favour of Sarasvatt, (even so) the (commentary) called Pfrana was carefully written by Ash/avakradeva after he had pleased Sarasvat!, when one hundred years (of the Lokakala) were completed, in the season called the dewy one.’ These verses seem to indicate that, according to the tradition of the Manavas, a historical Manavaéarya or Manvaéarya composed the Grihyasfitra, which was also called Bréhaddharma, by the special favour of the goddess Sarasvatt. 3 See Mah. XIII, 66, 12.
xiv LAWS OF MANU.
A Manu who composed a treatise on the sacred law which gained some notoriety was, therefore, sure of divine honours. As soon as the identification of the author of the Sitra with the father of mankind was made, it was a matter of course that the Manu-smriti obtained a particularly high position, and was accepted as the paramount authority on the sacred law.
As soon as the identification of the author of the Sitra with the father of mankind was made, it was a matter of course that the Manu-smriti obtained a particularly high position, and was accepted as the paramount authority on the sacred law.
The legends given above render us yet another service. They explain the origin of the seemingly contradictory statements of the Smriti regarding Manu. When he is represented there as a descendant of self-existent Brahman and a Pragdpati who takes a prominent part in the creation, or as identical with the supreme Brahman?, and on the other hand as a Xishi and as a king of the remotest antiquity, it is now patent that these conceptions have been taken over from Vedic literature and that, different as they are, they have all grown out of the one fundamental idea which makes the first man and progenitor a half-divine and half-human being, an assistant in the work of creation, and the founder of moral and social order among men. Some of the remaining elements of the myth of Manu, as told in the Smriti, are likewise clearly developments of Vedic ideas. Thus the interposition of the androgynous Virdg in Manu’s genealogy (I, 32-33) is foreshadowed by a curious passage of the Atharva-veda, VIII, 10, where the female Virag is said to have been ‘in the beginning this (whole world), and to have yielded blessings to various classes of beings. According to verse 24, ‘Manu, the son of Vivasvat, was her calf ?, when Prithi Vainya milked from her agriculture and grain-bearing plants.’ It would, therefore, seem that Virag, who repeatedly plays a part in Vedic cosmogony, was already there connected with Manu. Further, the substitution of seven or more Manus for one, has probably been caused, as the Petersburg Dictionary (s. v. manu) suggests, by the diversity of the genealogies found in the various Vedic passages. It is even not improbable that the Vedic schools believed, when K&ty4-
1 The same identification occurs Mah. I, 1, 32. ? This statement alludes to the fact that Indian cows do not allow themselves to be milked, except when their calves stand by.
INTRODUCTION. Ixv
yana composed his Sarvanukramanika of the Rig-veda, in the existence of several distinct Manus. Finally, the association of the ten great sages whom Manu Svayambhuva created, and who in turn created other Manus (I, 34-36), in the work of creation, rests on such passages as those quoted by Apastamba II, 24, 3-6, 13, where successive destructions of the world are mentioned, and ‘this creation is declared to be the work of PragApati and of the sages.’ But the complete development of the myth of Manu belongs to the schools of the Paurdzikas and Aitih4sikas, and we find in the Purdzas and in the Mahabharata many legends which are partly identical with or closely related to that told in our Smriti?.
The third problem, to say how the conversion of the Manava Dharma-sitra into our Manu-smriti was effected, presents very considerable difficulties, and admits of an approximative solution only. It involves the consideration of three questions. First, which portions of our Manusmrzti are ancient and which are later additions? secondly, whence have the additions been derived? and thirdly, whether they have been added at one time or successively ? In our attempts to distinguish between the old and the modern elements in our Manu-samhitd we must be guided, except where we have quotations from the old Dharma-sitra, by the analogies which the other existing Dharma-sitras furnish, For it may be assumed as a general maxim, that rules and other statements of our Manu, which find counterparts in the critically unsuspicious portions of the Sftras of Gautama, Baudh4yana, Apastamba, and Vasish¢ha, probably occurred also in the Manava Dharma-sitra. Single exceptions are, of course, possible, because, though the Dharma-sftras show a very decided class-affinity, they yet differ in the details. The one devotes greater attention to one subject, and the other to others. Hence it may be, that occasionally a rule which is found in the Dharma-sitras, nevertheless did not occur in the MAanava-s(itra, but was added on its
1 See H. H. Wilson, Vishsru-purasa, vol. i, pp. 104-5 (ed. Hall); Professor Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xi, pp. 247-256.
(25) e
Ixvi LAWS OF MANU.
H. Wilson, Vishsru-purasa, vol. i, pp. 104-5 (ed. Hall); Professor Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xi, pp. 247-256.
(25) e
Ixvi LAWS OF MANU.
revision. Toa certain extent we may also avail ourselves of the Vishzu-smriti for the same purpose. But a greater degree of caution will be necessary, as this work, though in the main a representative of the Kassaka Dharma-sitra, contains also an admixture of modern elements. On the other hand, those rules and discussions which cannot be traced in one of the old Sftras, are at least suspicious, and require careful consideration. The ultimate decision, if such passages have indeed to be considered as additions, must depend on various collateral circumstances. The safest criterion will always be the character of the ideas which they express. If these are entirely foreign to the Sftras or to Vedic literature, they may be confidently rejected as interpolations. A good deal depends also on their position and on the manner in which they fit into the context. Numerous cases will, however, remain doubtful. If we examine Manu’s text according to these principles, the more important results will be as follows :—The whole first chapter must be considered as a later addition. No Dharma-sitra begins with a description of its own origin, much less with an account of the creation. The former, which would be absurd in a Dharma-sitra, has been added in order to give authority to a remodelled version. The latter has been dragged in, because the myths connected with Manu presented a good opportunity ‘to show the greatness of the scope of the work,’ as Medhatithi says. The table of contents, given at the end of chapter I, was, of course, also foreign to the original Sdtra. Chapters II-VI, on the other hand, seem to represent with tolerable faithfulness the contents of the corresponding sections of the Manava Dharma-sitra. Nearly all the rules are found in the other Dharma-sitras and in the Vishzu-sm7iti, and more than three-fourths of the verses find counterparts in the aphorisms and verses of the older law-books. Nevertheless, the hand of the remodeller is not rarely visible. There are, besides the verses which announce the transition from one subject to the other, a considerable number of smaller and some
1 These verses probably mark the subdivisions of the Adhyayas, the Kanaikas or Khasdas of the ancient Sftra.
INTRODUCTION. Ixvii
There are, besides the verses which announce the transition from one subject to the other, a considerable number of smaller and some
1 These verses probably mark the subdivisions of the Adhyayas, the Kanaikas or Khasdas of the ancient Sftra.
INTRODUCTION. Ixvii
larger interpolations. To the latter belong, in the second chapter, vv. I-11 and wv. 88-100. The first passage gives a philosophical account of the origin of actions (1-5), such as is not found in any older law-book ; further, a verse (v. 6) stating the sources of the sacred law, which is unnecessary on account of v. 12, and suspicious on account of the double description of the third source of the law, by the synonymous terms sila and 4#4ra’. The contents of the remaining verses, the praise of the Manu-smriti(v. 7), the advice how the different authorities are to be studied (v. 8), the declaration of the reward for obedience to the revealed texts (v. 9), the definition of the terms Sruti and Smr‘ti, and the declaration of their authoritativeness, are likewise superfluous, and clearly later enlargements. The second passage (vv. 88-100), which enumerates the organs of sensation and action and teaches the necessity of controlling them, interrupts the continuity of the text very needlessly, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter treated of. Among the smaller interpolations in this chapter, vv. 13, 16, 27, 28, 142, 143, 213-215, 221, and 239 must certainly be reckoned. It also seems probable that the passage on the importance of the syllable Om, of the Vy4hritis, and of the Savitri (vv. 76-87), as well as that on the humility and meekness required of a Brahmana (vv. 160-163), and that on the worship due to parents and a teacher (vv. 225-237), have been enlarged, though in each case something of the kind may have occurred in the Dharma-sfitra. Inthe third chapter, there is one longer passage (vv. 192-201) which, beyond all doubt, has been added by a later hand. For the classification of the Manes, which it contains, is in this form foreign to Vedic literature. More doubtful are the discussions on the duty of conjugal intercourse (vv. 46-50), on the honour due to women (vv. 55-60), on the excellence of the order of householders (vv. 79-80), and on the results of inviting sinners and men of bad conduct to Sraddhas (vv. 169-182). Possibly the ancient Sdtra contained hints on some of these subjects, but it is most improbable that it
1 See note to the translation, e€2
Ixviii LAWS OF MANU.
79-80), and on the results of inviting sinners and men of bad conduct to Sraddhas (vv. 169-182). Possibly the ancient Sdtra contained hints on some of these subjects, but it is most improbable that it
1 See note to the translation, e€2
Ixviii LAWS OF MANU.
should have entered into all the details which our text gives. The passage on the householders has probably been placed wrongly. Most of its verses ought to stand in the discussion on the relative importance of the orders at the end of chapter VI. Inthe fourth chapter the first section on the means by which a Brahmawa may subsist (vv. 1-24) is exceedingly suspicious. The Dharma-sitras, e.g. Vasishtha XII, 2-4, no doubt sometimes prefix brief hints on the manner in which a Sna4taka may support himself, to the rules regarding his behaviour. But they do not mention the curious classification of the means of subsistence, Rita, Amrita, Mrita, Pramrita, and Svavritti (vv. 5, 6), which, though common in the Puradzas and other later works, is unknown in Vedic literature. As, moreover, Vasish¢ha’s rules, which enumerate the persons by whom a Snataka may be supported, occur further on (IV, 33-34), it is not improbable that the whole section consisting of the first twenty-four verses is a later addition. With still greater certainty the same may be said of vv. 85-91, which describe the heinousness of the offence committed by him who accepts gifts from a royal usurper and other wicked persons, and enumerate the twenty-one hells which will be the offender’s portion. For it is not doubtful that, even if the Sitrak4ras were acquainted with a classification of the regions of punishment, their enumeration ought not to stand here, but, as in the Vishzu-smriti, at the beginning of the section on crimes and penances. Other probable interpolations are vv. 172-174 on the results of sin, vv. 180-185 on the reasons why quarrels with near relatives should be avoided, vv. 238-243 on the reasons why spiritual merit should be accumulated. Finally, the section on gifts and the acceptance of gifts (vv. 186-197) seems to be strongly mixed with modern elements. The next following two chapters present fewer suspicious passages. Nevertheless, the preamble to the section on forbidden food, V, 1-4, the verses 19-21, which prescribe the penances for eating mushrooms, onions, leeks, and so forth, must be certainly rejected. For the former belong to the artificial framework which has been placed round the old Sftra,and the latter ought to stand in chapter XI. From the quotation in
INTRODUCTION. Ixix
For the former belong to the artificial framework which has been placed round the old Sftra,and the latter ought to stand in chapter XI. From the quotation in
INTRODUCTION. Ixix
Vasishtha IV, 5-8, it is further evident that the rules on the permissibility of meat have been much altered and enlarged in accordance with the growing repugnance against the slaughter of animals. The last section of the same chapter, on the duties of women, has probably had the same fate. The example of the V4sishtha Dharmasdstra shows that some of the old Sdtrak4ras treated the duties of women in two separate sections’. But it also proves that they did not, as our Manu-smrti does, go twice over the same matter. It is evident that either here or in the beginning of the ninth chapter the same verses have been needlessly repeated by the author of the remodelled version. In the sixth chapter there is only one passage, vv. 61-82, which goes beyond the range of the Dharma-sitras. None of the latter enters into such details regarding the meditations to which an ascetic must give himself up in order to attain salvation. The subject naturally tempted the remodeller of the Smriti to expand the shorter notes of the original. Very different is the case of the next three chapters, VII-IX, which treat of the duties of a king, and of civil and criminal law. These sections probably bear only a faint resemblance to the corresponding portions of the original work. Among the 226 verses of the seventh chapter there are only fifty-four to which passages of the Dharma-sitras and the Vishzusmriti correspond. If one pays attention to the rules regarding the king’s duties, given in the Dharma-sitras of Gautama, Apastamba, and Vasishtha, as well as to the references to the opinions of the Manavas and of Manu, made in the Kamandakiya Nitis4ra?, it would seem probable that the contents of this section of the Manava DharmasQtra cannot have differed very much from those of the third chapter of Vishnu, and that about two-thirds of the seventh Adhydya of our Manu-smriti have been added _ when it was recast. With respect to the eighth chapter and the first 224 verses of the ninth, which give the rules regarding the eighteen titles of the law, the remodeller seems to have been equally active. We must ascribe to
1 See Vas. V and XVII, 55-80. § See above, p. xxxvi.
Ixx’ LAWS OF MANU.
With respect to the eighth chapter and the first 224 verses of the ninth, which give the rules regarding the eighteen titles of the law, the remodeller seems to have been equally active. We must ascribe to
1 See Vas. V and XVII, 55-80. § See above, p. xxxvi.
Ixx’ LAWS OF MANU.
him the systematic arrangement of the legal rules, which is not found in any of the ancient Dharma-sitras, and is even neglected in the Vishzu-smviti. He is most probably also responsible for more than one-half of the verses of these chapters. In the eighth Adhydya only three-sevenths of the rules of our Manu can be traced in the Dharma-sitras or in the Vishvu-smriti, which latter, as far as these topics are concerned, may be considered a faithful representative of the Kashaka Dharma-sitra!. Two of Manu’s titles, concerns among partners? and the resumption of gifts, are not mentioned in the older works ; and the rules under a third, rescission of purchase and sale, have no resemblance - to those of Vishzu. In the ninth chapter the chief topics, treated under the head, duties of husband and wife, are discussed or at least touched on in the Satras. But the latter place them differently, and give them much more con- | cisely. The notes tothe translation showthat only one-fourth of Manu’s verses corresponds to utterances of the ancient teachers. The section on inheritance has probably suffered much less, since upwards of eighty verses out of one hundred and seventeen agree with the teaching of the Sitras, and since among those, the contents of which are not represented in the older works, only eleven, vv. 108-110, 128-129, 133, 138, 147, 184, 215, and 217, are really suspicious or clearly interpolated. Most of these latter contain clumsy repetitions of matters discussed in other places, and v. 217 gives a supplementary rule which but ill agrees with the spirit pervading the remainder of the section. Some of the other, apparently unsuspicious, verses may, of course, possibly be interpolations. But their contents are in harmony with the spirit of the Dharma-sitras, and with the eliminations, proposed above, Manu’s theory of inheritance and partition is selfconsistent. The views, expressed under the eighteenth title, on gambling and betting, agree with those of Gautama and Baudhayana, who both strongly disapprove of these prac-
* To this conclusion points the absence of systematic arrangement in Vish#u III-v.
3 Manv’s rules on this subject have probably been borrowed from a Srautasfitra, where the distribution of the sacrificial fees is usually explained.
INTRODUCTION. xxi
3 Manv’s rules on this subject have probably been borrowed from a Srautasfitra, where the distribution of the sacrificial fees is usually explained.
INTRODUCTION. xxi
tices. The former enumerates the gambler among the men who defile the company at a Sraddha, and the latter names gambling among the crimes which render men impure. Though Apastamba and Vishzu are less puritanical, and permit gambling under royal, i.e. police-supervision, or provide only punishments for cheating (Vishzu V, 134-135), the teaching of our Smriti is, nevertheless, probably ancient. But the section has been enlarged by the addition of miscellaneous rules and by the allusion to the evil results of gambling ‘in former ages,’ i.e. to those exemplified by the fate of Yudhish¢/ira and Nala. The last 106 verses of the ninth chapter which, according to the table of contents in the first chapter, teach the removal of (men nocuous like) thorns (kan¢akoddharaaa), correspond to a part of the prakirzaka or miscellaneous rules of Yagfavalkya and Narada. This section seems to have grown out of those legal rules in the Manava Dharma-sitra which did not fit into the system of the eighteen titles. But, as very few verses only correspond to rules of the Dharma-sitras, its ancient portion is probably small. The greater part of its contents is made up of repetitions and additions inserted by the author of the remodelled version.
The rules on times of distress, given in chapter X, differ considerably from those of the Dharma-sitras, as they include also the theory of the descent of the mixed castes. The older works treat this subject either in connexion with the law of marriage or with the rules of inheritance. Considering the great inequality which the Sdtras show in the arrangement of the various topics, it is, however, not impossible that the Manava Dharma-sdtra placed the section on the mixed castes just before the 4paddharmas, and that the author of the metrical version combined both in one chapter and gave them a common title. But it is not in the least doubtful that the treatment of the subject in the former work must have been very different from that which it receives in vv. 1-74. The Dharma-sitras enumerate either one or two sets of mixed castes, briefly indicating their origin, and, sometimes, their modes of life. They also add a few verses or rules regarding the changes to be xxii LAWS OF MANU.
1-74. The Dharma-sitras enumerate either one or two sets of mixed castes, briefly indicating their origin, and, sometimes, their modes of life. They also add a few verses or rules regarding the changes to be xxii LAWS OF MANU.
attained in successive generations, as well as regarding the manner in which men of low descent may be detected. Our Manu-smriti, on the other hand, is much more minute in its details, and introduces a good many new names of which the Sdtras know nothing. These additions have probably expanded the section to three times its original extent. The immediately following rules, vv. 75-100, on the occupations of the castes and their manner of subsisting in times of distress, agree, in the main, with the Sdtras, and seem to have been changed very little. But the supplementary notes on the same subject, vv. 101-131, are probably additions made on the revision of the work. The few ancient rules which they contain are partly repetitions of matters already discussed (e. g. vv. 113-114) and partly misplaced (e. g. vv. 111, 115-117, 119)}.
The eleventh chapter is again, like chapters II-VI, in all probability a faithful representative of the corresponding portion of the Manava Dharma-sdtra. We find here again that the great majority of the rules corresponds to those of the Dharma-satras and of the Vishzu-smriti. The agreement with the latter is particularly close, and appears especially in the classification of crimes, the enumeration of the diseases caused by offences committed in a former life, and in many details referring to penances. Curious and against the practice of the older works is the combination of the rules on gifts and the performance of sacrifices, vv. 1-43, with the section on penances. The excuses which the commentators offer for this anomaly? are, I fear, insufficient to explain it. It seems more probable that here, as in the preceding chapter, two separate sections of the original work have been welded together into one Adhydya. In favour of this view it may be pointed out that in Gautama’s Dharma-sitra, XVIII, 28-32, a number of rules, corresponding to Manu XI, 11-23, stand just before the Prayaskittakanda. A passage of the Mahabharata, which will be
‘ A characteristic sign of the great changes which chapters VII-X have undergone consists in the allusions to legends famous in the Purfsas and the Mahabharata ; see also below, p. Ixxix.
7 See note on Manu XI, 1.
INTRODUCTION. xxiii
discussed below, shows exactly the same combination as our Smriti.
Ixxix.
7 See note on Manu XI, 1.
INTRODUCTION. xxiii
discussed below, shows exactly the same combination as our Smriti.
The twelfth chapter, finally, is certainly almost entirely due to the author of the metrical version. Its contents are partly foreign to the Dharma-sitras and partly repetitions. The classification of actions and existences as sattvika, ragasa, and tamasa, i. e. as modified by the three qualities of Goodness, Activity, and Darkness, finds no place in the older law-books. It is based on the doctrines which are taught in the Samkhya, Yoga, and Vedanta systems, and some traces of which are found in the Maitrayasabrahmanopanishad?, Equally or similarly minute details are, however, to be met with only in the Purdzas, the Mahabharata, and some of the metrical Smritis, which blend philosophical ideas with the sacred law. The next following discussion on the karmavipdka, the results of sinful acts in future births, vv. 51-81, is altogether wrongly placed. It evidently ought to stand in the beginning of the section on penances, where Vishzu and Y4gfavalkya have a number of corresponding Sdtras and verses. As it is found in the Manusmriti in a different position, it is most probably an addition made on the revision of the work. The section on the means of attaining supreme bliss, vv. 82-104, returns to the questions which have already been discussed in the fourth and sixth chapters, and adds nothing that is new. The long peroration at the end, wv. 116-126, cannot have formed part of the Dharma-sitra, as it again refers to the myth concerning the origin of the SAstra, narrated in the spurious first chapter. But the small piece on the manner of deciding doubtful legal questions, vv. 105-115, belonged probably to the original work. To this conclusion point its close agreement with the rules of the Dharma-sitras, and the circumstance that Gautama also places the corresponding Sftras just at the end of his work.
If thus it is extremely probable that the contents of more than half the verses in our Manu-smr#ti cannot have been derived from the ancient Manava Dharma-sitra, we
+ Maitr. Up. III, 3, 5,6; compare Manu XII, xii, 32-33.
Ixxiv LAWS OF MANU.
If thus it is extremely probable that the contents of more than half the verses in our Manu-smr#ti cannot have been derived from the ancient Manava Dharma-sitra, we
+ Maitr. Up. III, 3, 5,6; compare Manu XII, xii, 32-33.
Ixxiv LAWS OF MANU.
have now to face the question whence this large amount of additional matter has been taken. A clue to the solution of this problem is furnished by the peculiar relation of the Manu-smriti to the Mahabharata, which undoubtedly is one of the most ancient metrical works of Indian literature, and the great storehouse of the earliest forms of post-Vedic mythology and doctrine. The connexion existing between these two works, and its importance for the history of the Institutes of Manu, has been recognised by most Sanskritists who have directed their attention to the investigation of the origin of the secondary Smvritis. Many years ago Professor Weber! pointed out that the Mahabharata contains not only a number of quotations from Manu, some of which are found either with or without variations in the existing Smriti, while others are not traceable, but also a considerable number of verses, not attributed to Manu, which, nevertheless, are included in the Dharmasdstra. He inferred from these facts that the existing Manu-smriti cannot have been extant in its present shape even at the period to which the later portions of the Mahabharata belong, and that the author or authors of the latter work must have known and used an older redaction of Manu’s law-book. Another conclusion, based on the agreement of numerous Slokas, especially in the twelfth and thirteenth Parvans of the great epic with verses of the Manu-smriti, has been drawn by Rao Saheb V. N. Mamdlik?, who is convinced that the editor of the latter has drawn, to a large extent, on the former work. Of late Professor Hopkins® has made a careful analysis of the quotations from Manu found in the Mahabh4rata. According to him, their number is thirty-three, among which seventeen are traceable, five being verbal quotations, the rest agreeing in doctrine only. His explanation for the untraceable quotations is not that they have been taken from an older recension of the Manu-smrtti, but that a floating mass of
: History of Indian Literature, p. 279 ; compare also Professor Stenzler in the Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 245.
? The May(kha and YAgfavalkya, introd. to Yag&. p. xlvii.
* Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October, 1883, pp. xix-xx, and now Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xi, p. 257 seqq-
INTRODUCTION.: Ixxv
unwritten sayings of Manu existed, some of which were incorporated with the Dharma-sitra of the Manavas in its revision, while others were not. He also notices the fact that our Manu-smviti contains many verses which occur also in the Mahabhérata without being attributed to Manu, as well as some which are ascribed to other authorities.
He also notices the fact that our Manu-smviti contains many verses which occur also in the Mahabhérata without being attributed to Manu, as well as some which are ascribed to other authorities.
These somewhat divergent results of my predecessors show very clearly that the Mahabharata may be expected to render some assistance for the solution of our problem. But they indicate also that the utilisation of the facts which it offers requires some caution.
In resuming the enquiry into the relation of the two works and its bearing on the history of our Manu text, the first point to be ascertained is, whether the Mahabhfrata really mentions a law-book of Manu, and whether this work is identical either with the ancient Dharma-s@tra or with the existing Smriti, or if it differed from both. According to what has been said above! regarding the ancient belief ascribing the settlement of social and religious institutions to the Father of mankind, and the real meaning of the phrase ‘thus Manu has spoken, it is evident that Professor Hopkins has correctly distinguished between sayings of Manu on religious and legal matters, and law-books attributed to him, and that he is right in refusing to recognise in every mention of Manu’s name a reference to a Smriti of his. Hence the number of passages useful for comparison is very much restricted. Those only which explicitly mention a Sastra of Manu are really indisputable evidence. The estimation of the value of the remainder must depend on collateral circumstances. Quotations of the former kind are not numerous in the Mahabharata. Nevertheless, some do occur in the twelfth and thirteenth Parvans, and they clearly prove that the authors of these books knew a Manava Dharmas4stra not identical but closely connected with our Smrti. Thus we read, Mah. XII, 56, 23-25, where the power of Brahmawas is being described, ‘ Highminded Manu likewise, O king of kings, sang two Slokas in his Laws (sveshu dharmeshu), those, O descendant of Kuru,
1 See p. Ix.
Ixxvi LAWS OF MANU.
Thus we read, Mah. XII, 56, 23-25, where the power of Brahmawas is being described, ‘ Highminded Manu likewise, O king of kings, sang two Slokas in his Laws (sveshu dharmeshu), those, O descendant of Kuru,
1 See p. Ix.
Ixxvi LAWS OF MANU.
thou shouldst keep in thy heart (23). Fire sprang from water, Kshatriyas from Brahmazas, iron from stone, the all-penetrating power of these (three) has no effect on that whence they were produced (24). When iron strikes stone, when fire meets water, when a Kshatriya shows hostility to a Brahmaaa, then these (three assailants) perish.’ Again, Mah. XIII, 46, 30-36, in a discussion on the prerogatives of a Brahmama’s Bréhmamt wife who, we are told, is alone entitled to attend her husband and to assist him in the performance of his religious duties, the conclusion runs as follows: ‘And in those Institutes which Manu proclaimed (manunabhihitam sastram), O great king, descended from Kuru, this same eternal law is found (35). Now if (a man) out of love acts differently, O Yudhish¢4ira, he is declared to be (as despicable as) a K4nd4la (sprung from the) Brahmaza (caste 36).’ Nothing can be clearer than these two passages. The second speaks plainly of a SAstra proclaimed by Manu, and the first of his DharmaZ, a word in the plural, very commonly used to denote a book on the sacred law. Moreover, the second is clearly a paraphrase of Manu IX, 87, and reproduces its second line to the letter. Of the two verses quoted in the first, one agrees with Manu IX, 321, but the other one is not traceable. While these two quotations would seem to indicate a very close connexion between the Manava S4stra of the Mahabhérata and our Smriti, a third from the Ragadharmas of Manu Praketasa—i. e. from the section on the duties of kings belonging to the Manava'!—reveals a greater dis-
1 Though I will not deny that some show of argument might be made for the supposition that the Ragadharmas of Manu Pragetasa were a separate work, different from the SAstra referred to in the preceding quotations, because the epithet Praketasa is here added to Manu’s name, and because at Mah. XII, 38, 2, we find Manu Praéetasa named as the author of a Ragasdstra in company with Brthaspati and Usanas, to whom separate Nitisdstras were attributed, I yet hold this to be improbable. For the legends regarding the descent of the lawgiver Manu vary in the Mahabharata. He is in other passages sometimes called Svayambhuva, and sometimes (e. g. XII, 349, 51) Vaivasvata. Further, a separate Nitiséstra of Manu is not quoted elsewhere. On the other hand, the section on the duties of kings bears in every law-book the separate title Ragadharmah, and the commentators of our Manu-smriti call its seventh chapter expressly by this name.
INTRODUCTION. Ixxvii
Further, a separate Nitiséstra of Manu is not quoted elsewhere. On the other hand, the section on the duties of kings bears in every law-book the separate title Ragadharmah, and the commentators of our Manu-smriti call its seventh chapter expressly by this name.
INTRODUCTION. Ixxvii
crepancy. We read, Mah. XII, 57, 43-45, ‘And the following two verses are pronounced! by Manu Praketasa in the Law of kings, listen to them attentively, O lord of kings! (43.) A man should abandon, like a leaky ship in the ocean, the following six persons,—a teacher who does not instruct, a priest unable to recite the Veda, a king who affords no protection, a quarrelsome wife, a herdsman who loves to stay in the village, and a barber who seeks the forest.’ Neither of these verses is found in our Manu, though the latter inveighs against kings who do not protect their subjects (VII, 143-144).
If we turn to the passages in which Manu—not his Sastra—is named as an authority, I know only of one that may be confidently considered to contain a reference to a law-book. In the Sakuntalopakhydna, Mah. I, 73, 8-13, king Dushyanta tries to persuade the reluctant object of his affections to consent to a Gandharva union by a discussion of the law of marriage. He first briefly mentions the number of the marriage-rites (v. 8*) and their names (vv. 8%-9*) in the same order as Manu, and then goes on, ‘Learn that among these (rites), as Manu Svayambhuva has formerly declared, the first four are lawful and recommended for a Brahmaza; know, O blameless one, that six, according to their order, are lawful for a Kshatriya (9-10). But the Rakshasa rite also is ordained for men of the royal caste, and the Asura rite is prescribed for Vaisyas and Sfdras. But among the (last) five, three are declared lawful and two unlawful (v. 11). The Paisdéa and Asura (rites) must never be used. According to this rule (marriages) must be concluded, this is the path of duty ' (v.12). Do not question the legality of the Gandharva and Rakshasa (rites) for Kshatriyas. Without a doubt they may be used, be it separate or mixed’ (v. 13).
The close verbal agreement of this passage with Manu III, 20-26, on the one hand, and its serious discrepancy with respect to a portion of the doctrine, make it, I think, very probable that it is a paraphrase or adaptation of a part
' The original has udabritau, which is ambiguous and may also mean * quoted.’
Ixxvili LAWS OF MANU.
of a Manava Dharmasastra which closely resembled, but was not quite identical with, the existing text. Verse 8>g9* agrees literally with Manu III, 21; and wv. 11°-13 come close to Manu III, 25-26. But vv. 9°-11%, though they have a certain affinity to Manu ITI, 23-24, show, nevertheless, a considerable difference in doctrine. For Manu declares (v. 23) the first six rites to be lawful for a Brahmama, the four following ones for a Kshatriya, and the same four, with the exception of the R4kshasa rite, for Sddras and Vaisyas, while v. 24 says that the first four rites are recommended, and that the Rakshasa rite alone is permissible to Kshatriyas, and the Asura to the two lowest classes. According to the Mah4bhfrata, on the other hand, Manu approved of the first four rites in the case of Brahmamas, and of the first six in case of Kshatriyas. To the latter he allowed also the seventh, the RAkshasa rite, and confined Vaisyas and Sfdras to the purchase of their brides, the Asura rite. The most probable explanation of this contradiction seems to me the assumption that the text of Manu, known to the author of the Up4khyAna, slightly differed from that which we find at present.
Another passage is more doubtful. Mah. XIII, 61, 34-35, various opinions are enumerated with respect to the question how large a share of the guilt incurred by illprotected and ill-governed subjects falls on the king’. The decision is that, according to the teaching of Manu, the negligent ruler is loaded with a fourth share. This doctrine, which is found also in other passages of the Mahabharata, contradicts that taught in our Manu-smriti as well as in the older Dharma-sitras, where a sixth part of the sins committed by subjects is said to fall on their lord. The circumstance that several opinions are contrasted may be used as an argument for the opinion that here, too, an individual law-book of Manu’s is referred to. If that were so, the passage would reveal another remarkable discrepancy between the older and the present texts. But to my mind wage wer cree cram feefa rem nade ware: WAST yaretata free: 1 eye ares aat: rT NTTAT UI
INTRODUCTION. Ixxix
it seems, just because the teaching of our Manu agrees with the Dharma-sitras, more probable that the author of the Mahabharata makes here, as in other cases, a random appeal to Manu’s name merely in order to give weight to his peculiar opinion.
There are two other longer pieces in the Mahabharata which are ascribed to Manu. In one case it is perfectly evident that there exists no connexion with our Smriti. The philosophical conversation between Manu and Brthaspati, which fills chapters 200-206 of Mah. XII, has neither any distinctive doctrines nor any verses in common with the Manava Dharmasastra. On the contrary, it shows a leaning towards the Vaishvava creed.
The philosophical conversation between Manu and Brthaspati, which fills chapters 200-206 of Mah. XII, has neither any distinctive doctrines nor any verses in common with the Manava Dharmasastra. On the contrary, it shows a leaning towards the Vaishvava creed.
With respect to the second passage, Mah. XII, 36, 3-50, a doubt is at least possible. It contains an ‘ancient legend’ (pur4sa itihdsa), narrating how Manu revealed in the beginning to the sages the law regarding food, and some miscellaneous rules concerning worthy recipients, gifts, Veda-study, and penances. Manu’s speech consists of forty-five verses, among which two agree fully and five partly with Slokas of our Smriti!. But one of the fully agreeing verses (v. 46) occurs also in two Dharma-sitras, and belongs, therefore, to the traditional lore of the Vedic schools. Though the remainder is not traceable in the older works, the faintness of the resemblance makes it, I think, more probable that the Mahabharata accidentally attributes to Manu verses now read in his Smriti, than that its author extracted them and the whole piece from a Manava SAstra.
But whatever may be the correct interpretation of the mention of Manu in these passages, it remains indisputable that the author or authors of the first, twelfth, and thirteenth Parvans of the MahAbharata knew a MAanava Dharmasdstra which was closely connected, but not identical with the existing text. The latter must, therefore, as Professor Weber has pointed out, be considered later than
1 Mah. XII, 36, 27= ManulIV, 218; first pada of ver. 28° = first pada of Manu IV, 220; ver. 28°= Manu IV, 217; first pada of ver. 29*=first pada of Manu IV, 210%; ver. 46 = Manu II, 157; ver. 478 = Manu II, 1584.
Ixxx LAWS OF MANU.
these ‘latest portions of the epic.’ The latter conclusion is, it seems to me, confirmed by some indications in the Smriti which point to an acquaintance with the Mahabharata. The warning regarding the consequences of gambling, Manu IX, 227, certainly presupposes a knowledge of the legend of the Kurus and Pazdavas. When it is stated there that ‘in a former Kalpa the vice of gambling has been seen to cause great enmity, this assertion can only point in the first instance to the match played between Yudhishthira and Duryodhana, which was the immediate cause of the great war. It may also contain, as some commentators think, an allusion to the fate of king Nala, but that can only be a secondary meaning, because war was not the result of his gambling. More significant than this passage is the fact that in chapters VII-X of the Manu-smriti a number of legends are quoted in illustration or in support of rules which, as the commentators repeatedly assert’, are taken from the Mah4bhérata, and that in one case just those which are mentioned in one verse of Manu (IX, 314) are found close together in the same chapter of the Mahabharata.
This relative position of the two works might induce us to assume with Rao Saheb V.N. Mazdlik that the Mahabharata had a direct influence on the final redaction of the Manut smriti, and that the author of the latter appropriated from the former the very large number of identical verses which in the Mahabharata are not ascribed to Manu.
Tempting as the hypothesis of the dependence of the Smriti on the epic is, because it would account for the adoption of the Anush¢éubh metre in the latter, a careful examination of the corresponding passages leads toa very different result. On going over the third, twelfth, and thirteenth Parvans of the Mahabh4rata I have succeeded in identifying upwards of 260 verses or portions of verses, not attributed to Manu, with Slokas of the Manu-smrtti. This number, which corresponds to about one-tenth of the bulk of the latter work, would no doubt be considerably swelled by a comparison of the remaining portions of the epic, and
1 See notes to VII, 41; VIII, 110; IX, 23, 129, 314-315, &c.
INTRODUCTION. Ixxxi
it may be that even in the Parvans examined some identical pieces have escaped my notice. The number of the verses which has to be compared is so enormous that mistakes are easily possible; but the identifications made are amply sufficient for the purpose of illustrating the relation between the two works. The corresponding passages vary considerably in extent, from a single pada or a single line to sections of twenty to forty verses. Where larger sections agree, it is rare that more than half-a-dozen verses stand in the same order in both works, and it happens not rarely that a series of identical Slokas is interrupted by the expansion of one verse into two, or by a contraction of two into one. Further, the purpose which an identical line or verse is made to serve sometimes differs, and sometimes a various reading alters its sense entirely. The various readings are exceedingly numerous, and the better one is sometimes found in the Mahabhérata and sometimes in Manu. If we enter on a more detailed analysis of the corresponding passages, there are three cases in which one or two consecutive chapters of the Mahabharata contain from twenty to forty verses which occur in our Manu. Mah. XII, 232-233 include the greater portion of Bhrzgu’s account of the creation and some of the verses, said to have been enunciated by Manu himself on the same subject, i. e. Manu I, 18%, 20, 28-29, 64-78, 81-86.
Further, Mah. XIII, 48, 14-44 gives a portion of Manu’s definitions of and rules regarding the mixed castes, and contains the verses X, 27-32, 335 34-37; 38, 39-49, 59, 52”, 58-60, and 62, mostly with considerable variations, and Slokas resembling Manu X, 42-43 are found Mah. XIII, 33, 21-22, and 35, 17-18.