The Laws of Manu — SBE Vol. 25 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1886)
English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler·567 passages
The text · part 4 of 27
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.
Finally, Mah. XII, 165, which treats of gifts, sacrifices, and penances much in the same manner as the eleventh chapter of Manu, exhibits, mostly in the beginning, the following verses, partly in somewhat different versions, XI, 2°, 3°, 4%, 7, 11-17, 20, 22°, 23%, 27%, 29-31, 34-40, 91", 105, 150, 177°, 181, 207. The general sense of some other Slokas corresponds without a real agreement in words, and the same chapter of the Mah. contains also wv. 31° and 32°,
[25] -f
Ixxxii LAWS OF MANU.
three-quarters of Manu II, 238, and v. 68* the first half of Manu III, 172. Equivalents of Manu XI, 44, 74, 76%, 77; 84 are found Mah. XII, 34, 2; 35,:4-6; 263, 45°-46°. Among other somewhat longer corresponding passages the following are the most noteworthy. Portions of the discussion on the reverence due to parents and teachers, Manu II, 229-234, occur Mah. XII, 108, 5-12.- The rules regarding the disposal of the fee at an Arsha wedding and the respect to be shown to females are found Mah. XIII, 45, 20; 46, 1-7, and some verses, Manu III, 134-135, 140-142, 158- 159, 172, 180-181, 184-185, from the section on Sraddhas, Mah. XIII, 90, as well as fragments of III, 267-274 in the beginning of Mah. XIII, 88.. The warning against. quarrels with relatives, Manu IV, 179-185, is repeated Mah. XII, 244, 14-21%, A number of the rules applicable to the ascetic, Manu VI, 42-48, 57°, 58%, reappears in the. beginning of Mah. XII, 246 and 279, while Manu VI, 49 is read Mah. XII, 331, 30. The sketch of the state administration, Manu VII, 115-122, is given mostly in the same words, Mah. XII, 87, 3-11*, and the same chapter contains also. closely agreeing precepts regarding taxation’ together with the verses Manu VII, 127 and 139%. . The’ remainder of the corresponding passages ranges between triplets and single feet of Slokas, and is scattered over all the twelve chapters of Manu. The portions of the Mahabharata where we chiefly meet with them, are III, 94,:180;. XII, 15, 244-245, 265; XIII, 44-46, 90, 104-105, 115, 1523.
In order to complete this sketch of the relation in which the two works stand towards each other, it will be advisable to give one of the three longest corresponding passages in full, and to carefully note both the points of contact and of difference. ‘ The piece most suitable for such a comparison is that from the first book of Manu. For the latter doubtlessly belongs to the additions made by the editor of the metrical version, and its account of the creation presents numerous problems which have sorely puzzled the com-
‘ The piece most suitable for such a comparison is that from the first book of Manu. For the latter doubtlessly belongs to the additions made by the editor of the metrical version, and its account of the creation presents numerous problems which have sorely puzzled the com-
1 It is impossible to give here more than these general indications. A more complete list of the verses of the Manu-smriti occurring in the Mah. will be found in the Appendix.
INTRODUCTION, Ixxxiii
mentators. The solution of some of these difficulties is furnished by the corresponding passage of the MahabhArata. This passage occurs in an account of the creation, communicated by Vy4sa-Krishva-Dvaip4yana to his son Suka, which Bhishma narrates to YudhishZfira.
p. 232
tr. Vyasa said: In the commencement exists the Brahman without beginning or end, unborn, luminous, free from decay, immutable, eternal, unfathomable by reasoning, not to be fully known.
12. Fifteen nimeshas (twinklings of the eye ar) one kAsh¢h4’, but thirty kash- 4has one should reckon as one kala; moreover, thirty kalds and that which may amount to the tenth part of a kala shall be one muhfita ;
13. Thirty muhfrtas shall make a day and a night—that number has been fixed by the sages; a month is declared (to consist of) thirty nights and days, and a year of twelve months.
14. But those acquainted with calculations call two progresses of the sun, the southern and the northern one, a year?.
15. The sun divides the days and nights of the world of men’, the night (being intended)
Manu I.
64. Eighteen nimeshas (twinklings of the eye are one k&sh/A 4?), thirty kash#Aas one kalé, thirty kalés one muhfirta, and as many (muhfirtas) one day and night.
65. The sun divides days and nights, both human and divine, the night (being intended)
1 Regarding the difference between the two computations, see Wilson,
Vishvu-purana I, 47 (ed. Hall).
? The verse marked as 14 in the Bombay edition consists of a single line only.
3 The reading of the Mah&bh4rata, mAnushalaukike for mfnushadaivike,
{2 seems the better one.
Ixxxiv
LAWS OF MANU.
for the repose of created beings and the day for exertion.
16. A month is a day and a night of the manes, but their division (is as follows): the bright (fortnight)? is their day for active exertion, the dark (fortnight) their night for sleep.
17. A year is a day and a night of the gods; the division is (as follows): the half year during which the sun progresses to the north will be the day, that during which it goes southwards the night.
18. Counting the sum of) years (consisting) of those human days and nights which have been mentioned above, I will declare (the duration of) a day and night of Brahman.
19. I will declare severally and in due order the totals of the years in the Kreta, Treté,
Dvpara, and Kali ages’.
18. Counting the sum of) years (consisting) of those human days and nights which have been mentioned above, I will declare (the duration of) a day and night of Brahman.
19. I will declare severally and in due order the totals of the years in the Kreta, Treté,
Dvpara, and Kali ages’.
20. They declare that the Krita age (consists of) four thousand years (of the gods); the twilight preceding it consists of as many hundreds, and the twilight following it of the same number.
21. In the (other) three ages, for the repose of created beings and the day for exertion.
66. A month is a day and a night of the manes, but the division is according to fortnights. The dark (fortnight) is their day for active exertion, the bright (fortnight) their night for sleep.
67. A year is a day and a night of the gods; the division is (as follows): the half year during which the sun progresses to the north will be the day, that during which it goes southwards the night.
68. But hear now the brief (description of) the duration of a night and day of Brahman and of the several ages (of the world) according to their order.
69. They declare that the Krita age (consists of) four thousand years of the gods; the twilight preceding it consists of as many hundreds, and the twilight following it of the same number.
70. In the (other) three ages,
1 The reading of the Mahabhfrata is obviously faulty, as it is well known that the dark fortnight is, according to the Hindus, the day of the manes. The fault has probably arisen by an accidental transposition of the words suklaz and krishnak. The second var. lect. of the Mah. tayoA puna/ for tu pakshayoA is leas intelligible than Manu’s, because a substantive is required to which sukla/A and krishna can be referred.
? It is a particularly significant fact that in spite of the great difference between the two works, both show the intercalation of a fresh exordium.
INTRODUCTION.
Ixxxv
with the preceding twilights and in the twilights following them, the thousands and hundreds are diminished by one-fourth (in each)!.
22. These support the eternal, everlasting worlds; this is known as the eternal Brahman to those who know Brahman.
23. In the Krita age Dharma is four-footed and entire, and (so is) Truth; nor does any gain which is opposed to that (spirit of justice) accrue by unrighteousness*,
24. In the other (three ages), by reason of (unjust) gains, Dharma is deprived successively of one foot, and unrighteousness increases through theft, falsehood, and fraud.
25. (Men are) free from disease, accomplish all their aims, and live four hundred years in the Krita (age); but in the Treta age (and the following ones) their life is lessened by one quarter in each®;
26. And the doctrines of the Veda decrease, as we with their twilights preceding and following, the thousands and hundreds are diminished by one (in each).
And the doctrines of the Veda decrease, as we with their twilights preceding and following, the thousands and hundreds are diminished by one (in each).
81. In the Krita age Dharma is four-footed and entire, and (so is) Truth ; nor does any gain accrue to men by unrighteousness.
82. In the other (three ages), by reason of (unjust) gains, Dharma is deprived successively of one foot, and through (the prevalence of) theft, falsehood, and fraud the merit (gained by men) is diminished by one-fourth (in each).
83. (Men are) free from disease, accomplish all their aims, and live four hundred years in the Krita (age), but in the Tret4 and (in each of) the succeeding (ages) their life is lessened by one quarter.
84. The life of mortals, mentioned in the Veda, the de-
' The reading of Manu, sasamdhyAamseshu £a for samdhamseshu tata/, seems preferable, but his ekapayena is inferior to the ekapAdena of the Mahabharata.
7 Nilakan‘ha explains Agama in this verse and the next by ‘doctrine.’ I translate it by ‘gain,’ in accordance with the rendering adopted for Manu, but willingly acknowledge that the other rendering is possible in both works, and that the meaning may be ‘nor does any unrighteous doctrine, opposed to that (Dharma), prevail’ (Mah.), ‘nor is any unrighteous doctrine spread among men’ (Manu),
3 The reading krite tretfyuge tvesh&m instead of Manu’s krite tretidishu hyesham is more archaic.
Ixxxvi
LAWS OF
MANU.
hear, in each successiveage, as well as the lives (of men), their blessings (Asishaz), and the rewards which the Veda yields’.
27. One set of duties (is prescribed) for men in the Krita age, different ones in the Treta and in the Dvapara, and (again) another (set) in the Kali age, in proportion as (those) ages decrease in length. .
28. In the Krita age the chief (virtue is the performance of) austerities, in the Treta (divine) knowledge is most excellent, in the Dvapara they declare sacrifices (to be best), in the Kali liberality alone.
29. The wise know such (a period of) twelve thousand (divine) years (to be understood by) the term an age (of the gods); that (period) being multiplied by one thousand is called a day of Brahman.
30. (Know his) night to be as long?. At the beginning of that (day) the lord who is the Universe finally awakes, after having entered deep meditation sired results (Asishah) of sacrificial rites, and the (supernatural) power of embodied (spirits) are fruits proportioned among men according to (the character of) the age’.
85. One set of duties (is prescribed) for men in the Krita age, different ones in the Treta and in the Dvadpara, and again another (set) in the Kali age, in proportion as (those) ages decrease in length.
86. In the Krita age the chief (virtue) is declared to be (the performance of) austerities, in the Treta (divine) knowledge, in the Dvdpara (the performance of) sacrifices, in the Kali liberality alone.
86. In the Krita age the chief (virtue) is declared to be (the performance of) austerities, in the Treta (divine) knowledge, in the Dvdpara (the performance of) sacrifices, in the Kali liberality alone.
41-72. These twelve thousand (years), which thus have been mentioned above as the total of four (human) ages, are called one age of the gods. But know that the sum of one thousand ages of the gods (makes) one day of Brahman, and that his night has the same length’.
1 The Sanskrit text of the two Slokas agrees somewhat better than the translation. It looks as if neither of them was the original version, which probably declared that the age of men, their blessings, and the rewards of deeds, such as they are promised in the Veda, diminish in each successive age. Another version, which almost exactly agrees with Manu’s, occurs Mah. III, 200, 115.
2 Both the Mah. and Manu have the accusative case ratrim, which does not agree with the preceding verb g#eyam (Manu) uéyate (Mah.) It would seem that both give adaptations of an older verse, where a word like ahus, which governed the accusative, occurred. Though the verb was changed, the further alteration of the case was forgotten.
INTRODUCTION.
Ixxxvil
and having slept during the period of. destruction.
31. Those (only) who know that Brahman’s day ends after (the completion of) one thousand ages (of the gods) and that his night lasts a thousand ages, are (really) men acquainted with (the length of) days and nights.
32. When imperishable Brahman awakes at the end of his night, he modifies himself and creates the element (called) the Great One (and) from that mind which is discrete.
p. 233
1. Luminous Brahman is the seed from which single element this whole twofold creation, the immovable and the movable, has been produced.
2. Awaking at the beginning of his day, he creates the world by means of Ignorance—even first the element, (called) the Great One, (next) speedily mind which is discrete ;
3. And conquering here resplendent (mind) which goes far, enters many paths, and has the nature of desire and doubt, creates the seven mind-born ones.
4. Mind, impelled by the desire to create, performs the work of creation by modifying itself ; thence ether is produced; they declare that sound is the quality of the latter.
73. Those (only) who know that the holy day of Brahman, indeed, ends after (the completion of) one thousand ages (of the gods), and that his night lasts as long, are (really) men acquainted with (the length of) days and nights.
75. Mind, impelled by the desire to create, performs the work of creation by modifying itself; thence ether is produced; they declare that sound is the quality of the latter,
Ixxxviii
LAWS OF MANU.
5. But from ether, modifying itself, springs the pure, powerful wind, the vehicle of all perfumes ; touch is considered to be its quality,
5. But from ether, modifying itself, springs the pure, powerful wind, the vehicle of all perfumes ; touch is considered to be its quality,
6. Next from wind, modifying itself, proceeds the brilliant light which illuminates and is white; that is declared to possess the quality of colour ;
4. And from light, modifying itself, (comes) water which possesses taste; from water smell and earth; (such) is declared (to be)the creation of (them) all.
8. The qualities of each earlier-named (element) enter each of the later-named ones, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess‘.
g. If some, perceiving a smell in water through a want of care, attribute (that quality to water), one must know that it belongs to earth alone, (and that it is) adventitious in water and wind.
10, Those ‘Atmans of seven kinds’, which possess various powers, were severally unable to create beings without fully uniting themselves.
11. These great Atmans, uniting and mutually combining
76. But from ether, modifying itself, springs the pure, powerful wind, the vehicle of all perfumes ; that is held to possess the quality of touch.
47. Next from wind, modifying itself, proceeds the brilliant light which illuminates and dispels darkness; that is declared to possess the quality of colour.
78. And from light, modifying itself, (is produced) water, declared to possess the quality of taste; from water earth, which has the quality of smell; such is the creation in the beginning.
zo. Among them each succeeding (element) acquires the quality of the preceding one, and whatever place (in the sequence) each of them occupies, even so many qualities it is declared to possess.
1 The position of this verse in the Mahabharata makes the conjecture, put forward in the note to the translation, that the correct position of Manu I, 20 is after verse 78, exceedingly probable.
2 According to Nflakav://a, the seven Atmans, called above, ver. 3, the seven mind-born ones, are Mahat, Ahamkéra, and the five subtile elements.
INTRODUCTION.
Ixxxix
with each other, entered the body; hence one speaks of Purusha [i.e. him who resides (usha) ina fortress (pur)].
12. In consequence of that entering (srayana), the body (sartra) becomes endowed with a (perceptible) form, and consists of sixteen’ (constituent parts).
That the great elements? enter together with the karman (merit and demerit).
13. Taking with him all the elements, that first creator of created beings (enters it) in order to perform austerities; him they call the lord of created beings.
14. He, indeed, creates the creatures, both the immovable and the movable; then that Brahma creates gods, sages, manes, and men,
15. The worlds, rivers, oceans, the quarters of the compass, mountains, trees, men, Kinnaras, Rakshas, birds, tame and wild beasts, and snakes, the imperishable and the perishable, both the immovable and the movable.
The worlds, rivers, oceans, the quarters of the compass, mountains, trees, men, Kinnaras, Rakshas, birds, tame and wild beasts, and snakes, the imperishable and the perishable, both the immovable and the movable.
16. Whatever course of action they adopted in a former creation, even that
18>, That the great elements enter together with their functions (karman)*.
28. But to whatever course of action the Lord at first appointed each (kind of
1 The sixteen constituent parts are, according to Nilakastha, the five gross elements and the eleven organs.
* Nilakawha takes mahanti bhitAni, ‘the great elements,’ in the sense of ‘the subtile elements, and the great ones, the mahattattvas’ (bhitani sikshmavi
mahénti mahattatattvani).
* This line is a good example, showing how the same words of the ancient school-tradition were made to serve different purposes.
XC LAWS OF
MANU.
alone they adopt in each succeeding creation.
17. They turn to noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, according to the disposition with which they were (first) created; hence that (particular course of action)
beings), that alone it has spontaneously adopted in each succeeding creation.
29. Whatever he assigned to each at the (first) creation, noxiousness or harmlessness, gentleness or ferocity, virtue or sin, truth or falsehood, that clung(afterwards)spontaneously to it.
pleases each.
The remainder of Vydsa’s narrative, which continues through the following twenty-six verses, may be omitted, as, further on, it presents few points of contact with our Smriti. It must, however, be noticed that, according to verses 25-26, ‘the Lord assigned to his creatures their names and conditions, in accordance with the words of the Veda.’ This idea agrees with Manu I, 21, but the wording of the two passages differs very considerably.
The lesson which the facts, revealed by the above discussion, teach, is a double one. First, they clearly. show that the editor of our metrical Manu-sm7iti has not drawn on the Mah4bhd4rata, but that the authors of both works have utilised the same materials. Secondly, they make it highly probable that the materials, on which both works are based, were not systematic treatises on law and philosophy, but the floating proverbial wisdom of the philosophical and legal schools which already existed in metrical form. The first point is so evident that it seems to me unnecessary to waste any more words on it. With respect to the second conclusion, I would point out that it is made unavoidable by the peculiar character of the differences found in closely connected Slokas, by the occurrence of identical lines and pddas in verses whereof the general sense differs, and by the faint, shadowy resemblance in words and ideas, observable in other pieces. I may add, further, that the supposition that each special school possessed such a body of metrical maxims is perfectly well founded.
INTRODUCTION. xc
I may add, further, that the supposition that each special school possessed such a body of metrical maxims is perfectly well founded.
INTRODUCTION. xc
As has been rcpeatedly stated, the text-books of the ancient Vedic schools, the Sftras and the Upanishads, contain already a not inconsiderable proportion of Anushéubh verses which sometimes recur in identical or slightly varying forms. Hence it is no more than might be expected that the teachers of the special schools should have continued in the path of their predecessors, and should have gradually augmented the stock of their ‘Spruchweisheit, until it extended to all legal and philosophical topics, and the accumulation of these detached verses made it easy and tempting. to convert the old aphoristic. handbooks into metrical treatises!, The answer, which we are thus obliged to give to the question whence the editor of our Manu-smrti took his:additional. materials, agrees.very closely. with Professor Hopkins’ hypothesis, who, as mentioned above, considers the law-book to be a conglomerate of the Manava Dharma-sdtra and of the floating sayings attributed to Manu, the father of mankind. The latter restriction seems to me unadvisable, because among the mass of corresponding pieces found. in the Mahdbh4rata comparatively few are attributed to the PragApati, and because a Hindu who was
1 The probability of the existence of such a body of metrical maxims would become still more apparent, if it were possible to enter here on a comparison of portions of the older Purazas with the Mahabharata and the metrical Smritis, as well as on a detailed consideration of the ancient Buddhist literature. Though the difficulty and magnitude of such a task forbid its being attempted in this Introduction, I cannot refrain from inserting a few general hints. The Purazas contain a good deal that is identical with or similar to passages of the Mahabh4rata and Manu, and it is in many cases impossible to assume that the corresponding verses have been borrowed from the latter works, The Purfas, some of which, like the Vayu, even in their present shape, go back to a very respectable antiquity, are popular sectarian compilations of mythology, philosophy, history, and the sacred law, intended, as they are now used, for the instruction of the unlettered classes, including the upper divisions of the S{idra varma, the so-called SaééAfidras, It was only natural that their authors should have appropriated suitable portions of the floating metrical wisdom of the philosophical and legal schools,
The comparison of the ancient Buddhist literature is particularly instructive, because the Buddhists are a special philosophical school, and because their oldest works, though mostly consisting of prose, include a considerable number of Slokas, among which a certain number, as, for instance, in the Dhammapada, shows affinities to verses of the MahAbharata and even of Manu. They probably took over a certain stock of ancient metrical maxims, and added a great number of new ones,
XCll LAWS OF MANU.
thoroughly convinced of the truth of the dogma that Manu first taught the sacred law, would not hesitate to ascribe to that sage all the maxims which seemed to him to bear the stamp of authenticity, even if others attributed them to different authorities.
The answer to the next question, whether the conversion of the Manava Dharma-sitra was effected at one time or by degrees, and whether Bhvzgu’s recension has to be considered as the immediate offspring or as a remoter descendant of the Stra, must, I think, be answered, as has been tacitly assumed in the preceding discussion, in the sense of the first alternative. Not long ago it seemed that the contrary opinion was the more probable one. But the closer one examines the facts which at first sight seem to lead up to the inference that Bhrigu’s Manu-samhita forms the last link in a long chain of metrical Manu-smritis, the more one sees that they possess no, or very little, importance. On the other hand, those arguments which speak in favour of our text being, if not the first, at least one of the first attempts at a conversion of a Vedic school-book into a special law-book, gain by the same process in force and increase in number. The points which have been brought forward in order to prove that the existing text of Manu has suffered many recasts are, first, its numerous contradictory passages; secondly, the explicit statement of the Hindu tradition in the preface to the Narada-smriti; thirdly, the quotations from a Brihat Manu and a Vriddha Manu met with in the medieval Digests of law; and fourthly, the untraceable or partly traceable quotations from Manu’s Dharmasdstra found in some of the older Sanskrit works.. The existence of these facts is undeniable. But it is not difficult to show that they are partly useless as arguments, and partly, under a better interpretation, lead to quite other conclusions. Thus in weighing the value of the argument drawn from the occurrence of contradictory passages, two circumstances, which mostly have been left out of account, must be kept in mind: first, that it is a common habit of Indian authors to place conflicting opinions, supported by authorities of equal weight, side by side, and to allow an option, or to
INTRODUCTION. XCill
XCill
mention time-honoured rules, legal customs, and _ social institutions, and afterwards to disapprove of them; and secondly, that, as our Smriti is in any case a recast of an earlier Sftra, that fact alone is sufficient to account for contradictions. It has been shown above!, that some contradictory passages, such as those concerning the respective rank of the mother and the teacher, or regarding the permissibility of certain marriage-rites, express conflicting views, mentioned also in the Dharma-sitras. The Manusmriti only reproduces the ancient opinions, but omits, possibly for metrical reasons, to mark them as belonging to different authors or schools. In other cases we may hesitate between two explanations. If we find, for instance, that our text in the third and ninth chapters? violently inveighs against Asura marriages, and in the eighth and ninth? lays down rules which presuppose the legality of the sale or purchase of a bride, we may assume that the first utterance is due to the editor of the metrical version, and that the second represents the more archaic doctrine of the Dharma-sitra. In favour of this supposition it may be urged that the Manava Gréhya-sfitra unhesitatingly admits the acquisition of a bride by purchase‘. But it is also possible that the Dharma-s(tra itself contained both the condemnation of the custom and the rules regulating it. For similar contradictions occur also in other Satras. Thus Apastamba expressly forbids, in his sections on Dharma, the sale and gift of children and the procreation of Kshetraga sons®, Yet, in his Srauta-sitra I, 9, 7, he gives a rule showing how the Pindapitriyagia is to be performed by the son of two fathers (dvipita). Such a person can only be a Kshetraga, a Dvy4mushydyaza Dattaka, or a Putrikaputra. If it is borne in mind that Baudhayana, on whose works Apastamba’s Sitras are based, admits the affiliation which the later member of his vidyAvamsa rejects, the obvious explanation of the contradiction is that Apastamba, in spite of his disapproval of other than Aurasa sons, did
1 See p. xxiv. 3 Manu III, 25, 51-54; IX, 98-100. 3 Manu VIII, 204, 234-225; IX, 97. § See above, p. xxxix. 5 Ap. Dh. S. I, 13, 11; 27, 2.
Xciv LAWS OF MANU.
xxiv. 3 Manu III, 25, 51-54; IX, 98-100. 3 Manu VIII, 204, 234-225; IX, 97. § See above, p. xxxix. 5 Ap. Dh. S. I, 13, 11; 27, 2.
Xciv LAWS OF MANU.
not venture to change the prescriptions which he found in the older Srauta-sitra. Similarly, the supposition that the author of the Manava Dharma-sitra, though condemning Asura marriages, was unwilling to expunge the rules regulating the sale, is not at all improbable.” It seems to be even better than the explanation proposed first. For the prohibition of the Asura rite occurs in the quotation found in the Sakuntalopakhy4na, and the latter, as we shall see presently, in all probability refers to the Manava Dharmasitra. Hence I think that at least the remarks made Manu IIT, 26 did stand-in the ancient text. The other repetitions of the same sentiments may have been added on the revision. Another famous instance of a contradiction, Manu IX, 58- 70, where the appointment of a widow is first permitted and next forbidden, has probably to be explained in the same manner. If I here differ from Professor Jolly’ and others, who ascribe the prohibition to the remodeller of the Dharma-sitra, and if I adhere to the view expressed by Brihaspati and some Indian commentators, my reasons are that, as the conflicting statements of the Dharma-sitras show, the propriety of the Niyoga was not generally acknowledged even in ancient times, and that the medieval Nibandhakdras frequently follow. the: strange method of teaching adopted by Manu. They, too, describe various antiquated customs, and afterwards add the remark that the matter taught is forbidden in the Kali age.. Among the clear cases where a conflict of statements has been caused by additions of the editor, I may mention the rule, Manu IV, 222, prescribing a penance for an unlawful acceptance of food, which differs from that given XI, 153. Here the former must be considered spurious, because it occurs in a chapter. which has nothing to do with penances.: It is evident that neither the instances just mentioned, nor indeed any other, where our Smriti exhibits either two ancient conflicting rules or a modern precept contradicting an ancient one, can be used as arguments showing that the Manava Dharma-satra underwent more than one revision. Under these circumstances it might appear advisable to rely on those contradictions
+ Tagore Lectures, pp. 48, 61.
INTRODUCTION. “ xev
Under these circumstances it might appear advisable to rely on those contradictions
+ Tagore Lectures, pp. 48, 61.
INTRODUCTION. “ xev
which occur in the decidedly modern portions of our text, in the additions to the ancient Dharma-sitra, and to maintain that e.g. the differences in the two accounts of the creation!, Manu I, 7-58 and 62-86, indicate that the first . chapter owes its present shape to two different authors. Such a mode of reasoning would, no doubt, be correct if the additions to the Dharma-s(tra were independent, original productions. But as the preceding discussion on the sources of this additional matter has shown that the first chapter is a compilation from older versus memoriales, which certainly contained portions and possibly even the whole of both accounts, it becomes inconclusive. The contradictory verses may either have been strung together, as MedhAtithi seems to suggest, merely because they really are or were considered paraphrases of Vedic passages, or they may have been reconciled with each other by one of those ingenious methods of interpretation of which the Indian schoolmen are such great: masters.
As regards the second argument, the assertion of the Narada-smriti*, that Manu composed a Dharmasdstra in 100,000 verses arfanged in 1080 chapters, which was successively reduced by Narada to 12,000, by Markandeya to 8,000, and by Bhvigu’s son, Sumati, to 4,000 verses, is so ‘circumstantial that, in spite of its obvious exaggerations, it might be considered to have a substratum of truth, and to be important for the history of Manu’s law-book. Abridgments of larger works‘ are in literature as common as ‘expansions of shorter ones. Yet the only assertion in the above account, which we can test, is certainly not true, that NArada’s version of Manu’s laws is more ancient than that by Sumati Bhargava or Bhrigu. The actual position of the
1 See also Dr. Johanntgen, Uber das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 15.
3 In his discussion on the aim of the first chapter Medhatithi says (comm. on 1,6): ~~ ~~ facfaqawaequarfeqttaaraa: | we rafcararaing Weg AINA ATA AA | AS we AaTdarer: ATATwt SE eT Wma A wretiqanig tl
® See above, p. xvii; and Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 57. ‘4 The two versions of Narada furnish an interesting instance; see Jolly, loc.
cit. p. §7.
xcvi LAWS OF MANU.
on 1,6): ~~ ~~ facfaqawaequarfeqttaaraa: | we rafcararaing Weg AINA ATA AA | AS we AaTdarer: ATATwt SE eT Wma A wretiqanig tl
® See above, p. xvii; and Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 57. ‘4 The two versions of Narada furnish an interesting instance; see Jolly, loc.
cit. p. §7.
xcvi LAWS OF MANU.
two works has been inverted. N4rada’s Vyavahdéramatrika shows .a far more advanced development of the judicial theories than Bhrigu’s Samhita, and contains matter which conclusively proves that it cannot date from an earlier time than the fourth or fifth century of our era’. As this test fails, N4rada’s statement cannot be used for the determination of the order in which the various versions of Manu’s laws were composed. It becomes more probable that it has been framed, with a view to enhance the importance of the Narada-smziti, on the model of such purely fictitious stories respecting the origin of the Dharma, as that given in the Mahabharata XII, 59, 22, and 80 seqq., where we are told that Brahman, assisted by the gods, first produced a Dharmasdstra in 100,000 chapters, which was successively abridged by Samkara in 10,000, by Indra in 5,000, by Brihaspati in 3,000, and by Kavya in 1,000 Adhydyas. Against the genuineness of Narada’s story we may also adduce the Paurazik statement, according to which Manu’s laws were remodelled first by Bhvigu, secondly by Narada, thirdly by Brzhaspati, and fourthly by Angiras*.
The third argument, drawn from the fact that the medieval Nibandhas and commentaries quote passages from a Brihat (great) and Vrzddha (old) Manu, has still less value. Professor Jolly has of late asserted in his able discussion ? of the quotations from these works that they are later, not earlier, than the existing text of Manu, because some of their rules resemble the advanced teaching of Yagfiavalkya and Ndrada, while others contradict our Manu on points where he holds archaic views. Moreover, a passage of Vyriddha Manu, to which Professor Max Miiller has first called attention‘, possibly indicates an acquaintance with Greek astrology. Ican only agree with Professor Jolly’s conclusions, and add that a comparison of the quotations from Brzhat and Vriddha Manu with Bhrigu’s Samhita produces the impression that both works—if indeed the titles refer
1 West and Biihler, Digest, pp. 48-50, third edition; Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 56; Preface to the Translation of N4rada, pp. xv-xvii.
? Mandalik, the Vyavaharamay(kha and Yag#., p. xlvii; Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 44.
5 Tagore Lectures, pp. 65-66. * India, what can it teach us? p. 366.
INTRODUCTION. xcvii
48-50, third edition; Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 56; Preface to the Translation of N4rada, pp. xv-xvii.
? Mandalik, the Vyavaharamay(kha and Yag#., p. xlvii; Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 44.
5 Tagore Lectures, pp. 65-66. * India, what can it teach us? p. 366.
INTRODUCTION. xcvii
to two and not to one—must have been enlarged versions of the latter’. As it thus appears that there existed recensions posterior to our Manu-smriti, the existence of untraceable or partly traceable quotations from Manu’s Dharmasastra in Asvaghosha’s Vagras04i? and from Manu in Vardhamihira’s Brzhat-samhita® possesses no great significance. With respect to Varahamihira’s reference, it must be noted that, according to Albirfni’s Indica, two astrological Samhit4s, called after Manu, existed in the eleventh century A.D., the smaller of which was an abridgment made by a perfectly well-known human author *. Hence Varahamihira may have taken his verses on the character of women from the latter. In both quotations the Slokas, not found in our Smriti, have a very modern look. The case is, however, different with the quotations from Manu, which, as has been shown above, occur in the Mahabharata. We have been compelled to admit that the existing text of our Smriti is younger than the epic. If, therefore, the law-book referred to in the latter is not the ancient Dharma-sitra, we must also concede the existence of a secondary recension which preceded Bhvigu’s Samhit4é. The solution of this question is, owing to the
' In order to enable the reader to form his own judgment on this point, I add a list of the quotations which I have noted. Those from Brihat Manu occur, 1. Col. Dig. II, 3, 26; 2. Col. Dig. V, 428 = Gi. Day. XI, 6, 34; 3. Datt. Mim. II, 8; 4. May. IV, 5, 53;—those from Vviddha Manu, 1. Col. Dig. III, 1, 69; 2. Col. Dig. ITI, 1, 83 = May. XI, 5 = Viv. Aint. p. 99; 3. Col. Dig. III, 1, 86 = Viv. Xint. p. 89; 4. Col. Dig. III, 1, g901=May. XI, 5 = Viv. Xint. p. 100; 5. Col. Dig. III, 1, 93 = Viv. Aint. p. 103; 6. Col. Dig. V, 162 = Viv. Xint. p. 272 = Varad. p. a1 = Gi. Day. IX, 17 (where attrib. to Brshat M.); 7. Col. Dig. V, 408 =Smri. Xand. XI, 1, 15 =Sar. Vil. 504 = Varad. pp. 33, 40 = Viram. III, 1, 2 Gi. Day. XI, 1, 7 and Viv. int. p. 289 (where attrib. to Brihat M.); 8. Mit. II, 5,6 = Viv. X int. p. 2®9 and Varad. p. 37 (where attrib. to Brzhat M.) = Sar. Vil. s91 (where attrib. to M.); 9. Viv. Xint. pp. 126-7; 10.Viv. Xint. p. 180; 11. Varad. p. 50; 12. Varad. p. 28, where in reality Manu IX, 206 seems to be quoted.
2 Weber, Indische Streifen, vol. i, pp. 190, 192, 198.
3 Kern, Brthat-samhita, chapter 74, vv. 7-15, and Preface, p. 43.
Vil. s91 (where attrib. to M.); 9. Viv. Xint. pp. 126-7; 10.Viv. Xint. p. 180;
11. Varad. p. 50; 12. Varad. p. 28, where in reality Manu IX, 206 seems to be quoted.
2 Weber, Indische Streifen, vol. i, pp. 190, 192, 198.
3 Kern, Brthat-samhita, chapter 74, vv. 7-15, and Preface, p. 43.
* Albfrfint, Indica, chapter xiv; see also Kern, loc. cit. p. 42, where the probability of the existence of a Manavi Samhita has been shown. Albfrint says that the title of the two works was Manasa (Manavi?), and that the shorter one had been composed by one PNXL, a native of Southern India. I owe these notes to the kindness of Professor Sachau, the learned editor and translator of Albfrint’s important work.
While there is thus no proof for the opinion that the modern portions of the Manu-smriti have been gradually added one to the other, or that the present text is one of
INTRODUCTION. XcIx
XcIx
the last links in a long chain of metrical recensions, there are several points which tend to show that our Manu-samhita is one of the first attempts at remodelling a Dharma-sitra. The most important argument for its comparatively early date is furnished by the incompleteness and awkwardness of its rules on judicial procedure and on civil law’. If we compare these rules with those of the Dharma-sitras and with those of the other metrical Smritis, they are somewhat more explicit than the former, but very much inferior to the latter. As regards procedure, the Manu-smriti pays more attention to the moral side of the duties, incumbent on the judge and the other persons concerned, than to the technicalities, which are much more clearly and minutely described in the Dharmasdstras of YA4giavalkya and Narada. In this respect it comes close to the Dharmasdtras, with which it particularly agrees in the absence of all mention of written plaints and of documentary evidence, as well as in the shortness of its remarks on ordeals. Among the ancient law-books the Vasish¢#a Dharmasdstra is the only one which has allusions to written documents, and names them, XVI, 10, 14-15, as one of the means of legal proof. In the other Dharma-sitras there is no indication that their authors were acquainted with the art of writing. I have already pointed out in the Introduction to my translation of Vasisht#a? that most probably this omission has to be explained not by the assumption that in the times of Gautama, Baudhdyana, and Apastamba writing was unknown or little used in India, but by the consideration that the general character of the Dharma-sftras, which principally pay attention to the moral side of the law, does not require the introduction of matters belonging more properly to the customs of the country or to the Arthas4stra. Whatever may be thought of the prevalence of writing during the earlier times and of the value of my explanation, it may be regarded as perfectly certain that
1 See on this subject and the following discussion, Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 279-281; Stenzler, Yagfavalkya, pp. vii-x ; Journal of the German Or. Soc. vol. ix, on the Indian Ordeals ; and Jolly, Tagore Lectures, pp. 45-49.
2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvi, p. xxvi.
g2
¢c LAWS OF MANU.
279-281; Stenzler, Yagfavalkya, pp. vii-x ; Journal of the German Or. Soc. vol. ix, on the Indian Ordeals ; and Jolly, Tagore Lectures, pp. 45-49.
2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xvi, p. xxvi.
g2
¢c LAWS OF MANU.
Bhvigu’s Manu-samhit4 belongs to a period when the art of writing was known and generally practised. For, first, we find two clear references to written documents, ‘what has been caused to be written by force’ (lekhita, VIII, 168) and royal edicts (sésana, IX, 232). Secondly, we have the expression nibandh, ‘to record,’ in a passage (VIII, 255) where the context leaves no doubt that a written entry is referred to. When it is said there, that in a boundarydispute the king shall record the boundary, according to the unanimous declaration of the witnesses, together with their names, it is impossible to imagine how he can do so without drawing up a written document, which, of a necessity, must have legal force for the future. This use of the verb nibandh makes it further probable that Medhatithi is not altogether wrong, when he explains (VIII, 76) the compound anibaddhaZ/, ‘a person not appointed (to be a witness to a transaction),’ by ‘a person not entered (as a witness in the document), and refers the rule to cases of loans and other commercial transactions. Thirdly, there is the term karawa (VIII, 54 and 154), which, though less explicit, likewise points to the use of written bonds for loans. The former passage declares that ‘a debt which is proved by karava’ (karazena vibh4vitam) must be paid, and the commentators explain karaza to mean ‘written bonds, witnesses, and so forth.’ Hence it has been rendered in the translation by ‘ good evidence.’ Verse 154 prescribes that a debtor ‘who, unable to pay a debt (at the fixed time), wishes to make a new contract, may renew (lit. change) the karazam (karazam parivartayet').’ Two commentators, Kullika and Raghava, take the word here in the sense of ‘a written bond, while the older ones, Govinda, Naradyaza, and probably also Medh§atithi, explain it by ‘bonds and so forth,’ and make it include agreements before witnesses. From these explanations and the use of the word karaza in other legal works it would appear that karaza may also be cited as a witness for the acquaintance of our author with the art of writing. To the conclusion that writing must have been extensively used in business-
1 Nandana’s reading karavam is clearly erroneous; see below, p. cxxxiv.
INTRODUCTION. ci
To the conclusion that writing must have been extensively used in business-
1 Nandana’s reading karavam is clearly erroneous; see below, p. cxxxiv.
INTRODUCTION. ci
dealings points, finally, the whole state of civilisation to which Manu’s rules are adapted. The highly developed trade by land and by sea’, on which ad valorem duties were imposed?, the existence of official lists of prices which were renewed periodically’, the complicated system of calculations of interest, among which we find compound interest‘, and the occurrence of mortgages5, would be impossible without written documents. These facts appear to me so eloquent that even though all the passages adduced above, which explicitly mention written documents, could be proved to be late interpolations, the general aspect of this question would remain unchanged. If, under these circumstances, Manu’s rules on evidence contain nothing definite on the admissibility of documents, and if he agrees in this particular with the Dharma-sitras and differs strongly from the Dharmasdstras of Yagravalkya and Narada as well as other metrical Smritis, this omission gains a great importance for the historical position of the Samhita. Whether we explain it by an oversight of the editor or by the assumption that he left the determination of the value of written documents to custom or to another Sastra, it shows that he was acquainted with the Dharmasitras alone or with Dharma-sQtras and such metrical Smritis as excluded the section on documents. As he certainly was an adherent of a special law school, and bent on making his work as complete as possible, he would not have omitted so important a point if he had known lawbooks like the Yagfiavalkya-smriti.
The omission of the details regarding ordeals is no less significant. Manu VIII, 109-116 describes only the administration of oaths more fully, and mentions the ordeals by fire and water in a cursory manner. Among the Dharma-sitras there is only the Apastambiya which (II, 29, 6) recommends the employment of divine proof (daiva) or ordeals in a general way without adding any particulars. The secondary law-books of YAgiiavalkya and Narada describe five kinds of ordeals, and enter, the second more
fully than the first, on descriptions of the manner in which they must be performed. Even the Vishzu-smvzti agrees with them, and the fragments of the lost metrical Smritis show that most of the latter, too, contained sections resembling those of Yagfiavalkya and Narada. It would be, in my opinion, a mistake to infer from the silence of Gautama, Baudhayana, and Vasish¢Za that in ancient times ordeals were unknown in India. Traces of such practices, which were formerly prevalent in various forms also among other Indo-European races, are found, as might be expected, even in Vedic works. If the authors of the Dharma-sitras ignore them or just indicate their existence, the correct explanation of this fact, too, is that they considered the subject not important enough for giving details, and left it to custom. The authors of the secondary Smrittis, as a matter of course, were anxious to fill up the blank left by their predecessors. But they probably did nothing more than bring the various local customs into a system which gradually was made more and more complete. Under these circumstances the fact that Manu’s rules stand midway between those of the Dharma-s(tras and of the other metrical law-books is another argument for allotting the first place to his Samhité. In the treatment of the civil and criminal law the inferiority of the Manu-sm7iti to the other Dharmasdstras of the same class, even to YAgiavalkya’s, which contains a much smaller number of verses on Vyavahara, manifests itself in various ways. In spite of the attempt at a scientific classification of the rules under certain heads, the arrangement of these sections is cumbrous and disorderly. Twice, at the end of the eighth and ninth chapters, we find collections of miscellaneous rules, which, as a comparison of the works of Y4gfiavalkya and Narada shows, might for the greater part have been easily fitted in to the one or the other of the eighteen titles. Under the single titles the rules are sometimes badly arranged. This is particularly visible in the chapter on inheritance, where, to mention only one most conspicuous instance of this want of care, the verse asserting the right of the mother and grandmother to take the estate of a predeceased son or grandson,
INTRODUCTION. Cill
This is particularly visible in the chapter on inheritance, where, to mention only one most conspicuous instance of this want of care, the verse asserting the right of the mother and grandmother to take the estate of a predeceased son or grandson,
INTRODUCTION. Cill
is placed so awkwardly that it is absolutely impossible to guess which place in the sequence of heirs the author meant to allot to them. As stated above, the verse most probably was inserted by the editor of the ancient Dharma-sitra. If he had cared at all for order and intelligibility, he ought not to have contented himself with the enunciation of the maxim that these persons do inherit, but he ought to have indicated where the preceding close series of heirs has to be broken in order to admit them. Very significant, too, are the constant mingling of moral exhortations with the legal rules and the occasional recommendation of quaint judicial devices which are common in the earlier stages of the development of the law. Though the duty of kings to protect their subjects and to restrain the wicked has been fully explained in the seventh chapter, yet in the sections on theft (VIII, 302-311), on violence (VIII, 343-347), and on adultery (VIII, 386-387), the author expatiates again and again on the necessity of eradicating such offences. In the second case the specific rules, providing for the punishment of sahasa crimes, are left out, the omission being repaired at the end of the ninth chapter. Both YAgviavalkya and Narada think it unnecessary to recur to the moral obligations of the king after pointing them out once. Both refrain also from mentioning the curious expedient which Manu recommends (VIII, 182-184) for the decision of doubtful disputes regarding deposits. Another important point is that Manu’s rules on some titles are exceedingly incomplete, and touch one particular case only, from which it is not always easy to deduce the general principle. Thus, in treating of the subtraction or resumption of gifts, Manu (VIII, 212-213) confines his remarks to pious gifts which are not applied in the manner stipulated. Yagviavalkya (II, 175-177) gives under this head at least some general principles, showing what is required for the validity of gifts; while Narada! offers a fairly full and systematic treatment of the whole law of gifts. A similarly gradual development is visible under other heads, especially concerns among
1 Professor Jolly’s Translation, pp. 59-60.
civ LAWS OF MANU.
offers a fairly full and systematic treatment of the whole law of gifts. A similarly gradual development is visible under other heads, especially concerns among
1 Professor Jolly’s Translation, pp. 59-60.
civ LAWS OF MANU.
partners and rescission of sale and purchase, the rules under which latter head Manu gives partly in their proper place and partly among the miscellaneous precepts at the end of the eighth chapter. A third point, finally, which deserves to be noted here, is the fact that legal definitions are almost entirely wanting in the Manu-smrcti, become more frequent in Y4gfavalkya’s work, and are regularly given by Nérada, as well as that many single rules which are common to Manu and Yagfavalkya, or to Manu, YAgviavalkya, and Narada, are framed in the latter works with much greater precision than in the former’, The inferiority of the Manusmrtti in all these points can only be explained by the assumption that it was composed at a time when the systematic treatment of the law had been begun, but had not reached a high state of perfection, while the superiority of the other metrical Smrtis permits us to infer that they belong to a much later period when the special law schools had made a considerable progress in the elaboration of their theories. This argument is, it seems to me, the strongest which can be brought forward as a firm basis for the universally prevalent belief of all European and Indian Sanskritists in the priority of our Manu to all other known secondary law-books. For wherever we are able to trace larger portions of the history of a special Br&éhmanical science, as e.g. in the case of grammar, we find that the later authors, though belonging to different schools and creeds, and though differing in the actual doctrines, invariably avail themselves of the method of their predecessors, developing and refining it more and more. Retrogressive steps, examples of which seem to occur in the handbooks of the Vedic schools?, have hitherto not been found’. All
1 Compare e. g. the rules regarding lawful interest, Manu VIII, 140-142, and YV4ga. II, 34.
* Compare e. g. the case of the Gautamfya and Bandhdyanfya Dharma-sitras, where the second and later work is inferior in method to the earlier one.
% Should it be objected that the Vishzu-smv7ti, though certainly younger than Manu’s and Yagfavalkya’s Dharmasdstras, is deficient in a systematic arrangement of the rules on civil and criminal law, the answer would be that the editor of this work appears to have been a Vaishwava sectarian, not an adherent of a school which made the law its special object of study.
INTRODUCTION.
INTRODUCTION.
the other arguments which have been or can be adduced to prove the antiquity of our Manu-smzriti are less conclusive. If it has been said that this work contains some very archaic doctrines! which are not found in the other secondary lawbooks, that is perfectly true. But the inference regarding its age becomes doubtful, because on other subjects Manu is ahead of the other Smritis?, and because in general the development of the actual doctrines seems to have been not quite steady and continuous. Still more precarious are the arguments, based on the language of the Manu-smriti, on its not mentioning the Greek astrology or Greek coinage and similar points. As we have to deal with a recast of a very ancient book, and as its editor has utilised a good many ancient verses in compiling his recension, it is only to be expected that a number of archaic forms and phrases should be found. But it is evident that they prove nothing with respect to the period when the compilation was made, because it is impossible to decide in each case to which of its component parts the archaism belongs. As regards the remaining argumenta a silentio, they are equally inconclusive. Even if we grant, for argument’s sake, the correctness of the assertion that our Manu contains no allusion to the Greek order of the planets, to the zodiac, to judicial astrology, and to Greek or Scythian dindras, drammas, and nazakas, while all the other secondary law-books mention one or the other of these foreign importations, the omission may be purely accidental. These and similar points can be used for no other purpose than to show that there is nothing in Manu’s text that compels us to place it in or after the period between 300-500 A.D., during which Greek influence made itself strongly felt in India. They possess
One of the clearest instances of this kind is Manu’s doctrine with regard to the succession of females to the estate of males, where the exclusion of the wife agrees with the teaching of the Dharma-siitras (Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 48). The assertion of Professor Hopkins (Castes according to the M. Dh. p. 108 seqq.), that the prerogatives of Brahmaaas are greater according to YagA. than according to Manu, seems to me erroneous, and chiefly based on an inadmissible interpretation of some passages of Manu. In my opinion the mutual relations of the castes, as described in the two law-books, cannot be used to prove a priority of the one to the other.