Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1He 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.
2Thus 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
3Further, 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.
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.
1He 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.
2Thus 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
3Further, 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.
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.