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