Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
11-74. 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.
2Ixxix. 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.
3If 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
11-74. 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.
2Ixxix. 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.
3If 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.