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