Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1on 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
248-50, 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.
3Vil. 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. [25] g XCVIii LAWS OF MANU. shortness of the extracts, very difficult. But, considering all things, I feel inclined to assume that the author or authors of the Mahabhdrata knew only the Dharma-sitra. The character of the four verses and a half, quoted verbally, as well as of the paraphrase in the Sakuntalopakhy4na agrees well enough with this assumption, because the MAnava Dharma-sfitra, as we have seen, certainly did contain numerous Slokas. It is further corroborated by the fact that the Mahabharata does not differ in its arrangement, or rather in its want of an arrangement of the civil and criminal law, from the Dharma-sdtras. Though the epic contains numerous verses on these topics, it nowhere shows an acquaintance with the eighteen titles of the law which are so characteristic of the secondary Sm~ritis, the handbooks of the special law schools. On the other side it may be urged that the Mahabharata says nothing of Dharmasdtras, and that its general view of the origin of the sacred law coincides with that expressed in the later law-books. It holds that the moral and legal doctrines were revealed for the benefit of the human race, first by Brahman to various mythical Rzshis, and by them to mankind. This objection may, however, be met by the not unreasonable assumption that at the time when the Mahabharata was composed, the real origin of the old Sdtras had been forgotten, while the text had not yet been materially altered. What has been said above regarding the rise of the special law schools, and the facts known regarding the change in the tradition concerning the Sftras of Gautama and Vasish¢ka, make the hypothesis of such a transitional period not at all improbable. Should, nevertheless, the. possibility of the existence of a metrical redaction of the MAnava-sitra, preceding that ascribed to Bhvigu, be © considered as not altogether excluded, it would at least be necessary to concede that it could not have contained the present arrangement of the Vyavah4ra portion under titles, 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
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.
1on 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
248-50, 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.
3Vil. 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. [25] g XCVIii LAWS OF MANU. shortness of the extracts, very difficult. But, considering all things, I feel inclined to assume that the author or authors of the Mahabhdrata knew only the Dharma-sitra. The character of the four verses and a half, quoted verbally, as well as of the paraphrase in the Sakuntalopakhy4na agrees well enough with this assumption, because the MAnava Dharma-sfitra, as we have seen, certainly did contain numerous Slokas. It is further corroborated by the fact that the Mahabharata does not differ in its arrangement, or rather in its want of an arrangement of the civil and criminal law, from the Dharma-sdtras. Though the epic contains numerous verses on these topics, it nowhere shows an acquaintance with the eighteen titles of the law which are so characteristic of the secondary Sm~ritis, the handbooks of the special law schools. On the other side it may be urged that the Mahabharata says nothing of Dharmasdtras, and that its general view of the origin of the sacred law coincides with that expressed in the later law-books. It holds that the moral and legal doctrines were revealed for the benefit of the human race, first by Brahman to various mythical Rzshis, and by them to mankind. This objection may, however, be met by the not unreasonable assumption that at the time when the Mahabharata was composed, the real origin of the old Sdtras had been forgotten, while the text had not yet been materially altered. What has been said above regarding the rise of the special law schools, and the facts known regarding the change in the tradition concerning the Sftras of Gautama and Vasish¢ka, make the hypothesis of such a transitional period not at all improbable. Should, nevertheless, the. possibility of the existence of a metrical redaction of the MAnava-sitra, preceding that ascribed to Bhvigu, be © considered as not altogether excluded, it would at least be necessary to concede that it could not have contained the present arrangement of the Vyavah4ra portion under titles, 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
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.