Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1reaaiehy: wifeafarsrarcafuga: nu PAT ayfe ania wat wraturs 81 welding was one J aquaraty 0 INTRODUCTION. , XV Itihd4sas, and the Smritis. Finally, in the notes on Manu I, 58, they discuss the question, how the Smriti can be called the Manava Dharmasdstra, though, as is admitted in the work itself, Brahman was its real author. Medhatithi offers two explanations. First he contends that Brahman produced only ‘the multitude of injunctions and prohibitions,’ while the work itself was composed by Manu. Next he says that, according to others, the SAstra may be called Manu’s, even if it were first composed by Brahman. In proof of this assertion he points to the analogous case of the river Ganges, which, though originating elsewhere, i.e. in heaven, is called Haimavatt, because it is first seen in the Himavat or Himalaya, and to that of the K4thaka S4kha, which, though studied and taught by many others, is named after Katha. In conclusion, he adds, ‘ Narada also records, “This work, consisting of one hundred thousand verses, was composed by Pragdapati (Brahman); it was successively abridged by Manu and others!.”’ Kulldka, who gives a somewhat insufficient abstract of Medhatithi’s discussion, refers to the same passage of Narada, and bases on it his own explanation of I, 58, according to which it means that Brahman first composed the law-book, and that Manu condensed its contents in his own language and taught it in that form to his pupils. This is, as far as I know, all that the commentaries say about Manu and the history of the Manava DharmasAstra, and their remarks contain also the substance of all that has been brought forward in other discussions on the same subject, with which we meet elsewhere, Important as they may appear to a Hindu who views the question of the origin of the Manu-smrtti with the eye of faith, they are of little value for the historical student who stands outside the circle of the Brahmanical doctrines. The statements regarding the person of Manu can, at the best, only furnish materials Dare wcfa i aaaeat oer waafen aa a Aeanfefie: waa dfan efan ? See e.g. the passages translated in Professor Max Miiller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 87-94. Xvi LAWS OF MANU.
2The statements regarding the person of Manu can, at the best, only furnish materials Dare wcfa i aaaeat oer waafen aa a Aeanfefie: waa dfan efan ? See e.g. the passages translated in Professor Max Miiller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 87-94. Xvi LAWS OF MANU. for mythological research. The arguments in support of the authenticity and authoritativeness of the Manu-smrti are extremely weak. For the Vedic passage which the commentators adduce is, strictly speaking, a misquotation. It occurs in four slightly differing versions in three Samhit4s and in one Brahmaza?. But in all the four places it refers, in the first instance, to Vedic Mantras which Manu is said to have revealed or seen. As, however, the assertion of the wholesomeness of Manu’s teaching is couched in general terms, it may probably be inferred that many sayings, attributed to the father of mankind, were known to the authors of the four Vedic works, and it is not improbable that legal maxims were included amongst them*. But MedhAtithi’s and Kullika’s assumption that our Manu-smriti is meant in the passages quoted would require very strong special proof, as its language and part of its doctrines by no means agree with those of the Vedic times. Of course, no such proof is offered, and it is not probable that it ever will be offered. The quotations made by the commentators from the Mahabharata and from the Brzhaspati-smriti, as well as their well-founded assertion that in the Purazas and in many Smritis Manu is frequently referred to as an authority on the sacred law, are of greater importance. It is undoubtedly true that the two works mentioned by Kulldka refer to a particular Dharmasdstra attributed to Manu, and the same remark holds good with respect to those passages of the Purdsas and of the Smrttis where, in enumerations of the authors of Dharmas4stras, Manu is placed at the head of the list. Yet even this evidence is of little use, because on the one hand the antiquity of many of the works in which Manu’s name occurs is extremely doubtful, and on the other hand the existence of several recensions of Manu’s laws is admitted, and can be shown to have been a fact. Hence a reference to a Manu-smrtti in a 1 Kashaka XI, 5 (apparently quoted by Medh&tithi); Maitrayaty4 Samhita I, 1,5; Taittiriy4 Samhita II, 2, 10,2; and Tasdya Brahmanxa XXIII, 16, 7 (quoted by Kullfka). 3 I would not infer with Professor Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p. 364, that a legal work ascribed to a Manu was known to the authors of the four works; see also below, p. Ix. INTRODUCTION. Xvii
33 I would not infer with Professor Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p. 364, that a legal work ascribed to a Manu was known to the authors of the four works; see also below, p. Ix. INTRODUCTION. Xvii Puréza or a Smriti does not prove much for Bhrigu’s Samhita, if, at the same time, it is not made evident that the latter is really meant, and that the work in which it is contained really has a claim to be considered ancient. In illustration of this point it may suffice to remark here that the Brzhaspati-smriti, which Kulldka adduces as a witness, is by no means an ancient work, but considerably later than the beginning of our era, because it gives a definition of golden dinaras, an Indian coin struck in imitation of and called after the Roman denarii'. Regarding Manu and the Mahabh4rata more will be said below. Medhatithi’s quotation from Narada is very unlucky ; for it is inexact, and worded in such a manner as to veil the serious discrepancy which exists between the stories told in the Manava Dharmasdstra and in the N§arada-smriti. The introduction to the latter, as read in the MSS. of the vulgata, does not state that the original law-book of one hundred thousand verses was composed by Pragdpati and abridged by Manu and others, but alleges that its author was Manu Pragdapati, and that Narada and Sumati the son of Bhzzgu summarised it?. The text of Narada, which is accompanied by Kaly4zabhatta’s edition of Asahaya’s commentary, names one more sage, M4rkandeya, who also tried his hand at Manu Pragdpati’s enormous work. Whichever of the two versions may be the original one, it is evident that Medhatithi’s representation of Niérada’s statement is inexact, and that the latter differs considerably from the story in our Manu-smriti, which asserts that it is the original work composed by Brahman, and revealed by Manu to Bhvigu, who explains it to the great sages ‘exactly as he received it.’ Hence Narada’s story discredits the details of the account given in the M4anava Dharmasdstra. It might, at the best, be only quoted to prove the existence of the general belief that Manu was the first lawgiver of India. These remarks will 1 West and Biibler, Digest, p. 48, third edition. 2 See Jolly, Narada, p. 2, and Tagore Lectures of 1883, p. 6 My conjecture that the introduction to Narada belongs to Asahfya, not to the Smrtti itself (West and Biihler, Digest, p. 49), is not tenable. [25] xviii 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.
1reaaiehy: wifeafarsrarcafuga: nu PAT ayfe ania wat wraturs 81 welding was one J aquaraty 0 INTRODUCTION. , XV Itihd4sas, and the Smritis. Finally, in the notes on Manu I, 58, they discuss the question, how the Smriti can be called the Manava Dharmasdstra, though, as is admitted in the work itself, Brahman was its real author. Medhatithi offers two explanations. First he contends that Brahman produced only ‘the multitude of injunctions and prohibitions,’ while the work itself was composed by Manu. Next he says that, according to others, the SAstra may be called Manu’s, even if it were first composed by Brahman. In proof of this assertion he points to the analogous case of the river Ganges, which, though originating elsewhere, i.e. in heaven, is called Haimavatt, because it is first seen in the Himavat or Himalaya, and to that of the K4thaka S4kha, which, though studied and taught by many others, is named after Katha. In conclusion, he adds, ‘ Narada also records, “This work, consisting of one hundred thousand verses, was composed by Pragdapati (Brahman); it was successively abridged by Manu and others!.”’ Kulldka, who gives a somewhat insufficient abstract of Medhatithi’s discussion, refers to the same passage of Narada, and bases on it his own explanation of I, 58, according to which it means that Brahman first composed the law-book, and that Manu condensed its contents in his own language and taught it in that form to his pupils. This is, as far as I know, all that the commentaries say about Manu and the history of the Manava DharmasAstra, and their remarks contain also the substance of all that has been brought forward in other discussions on the same subject, with which we meet elsewhere, Important as they may appear to a Hindu who views the question of the origin of the Manu-smrtti with the eye of faith, they are of little value for the historical student who stands outside the circle of the Brahmanical doctrines. The statements regarding the person of Manu can, at the best, only furnish materials Dare wcfa i aaaeat oer waafen aa a Aeanfefie: waa dfan efan ? See e.g. the passages translated in Professor Max Miiller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 87-94. Xvi LAWS OF MANU.
2The statements regarding the person of Manu can, at the best, only furnish materials Dare wcfa i aaaeat oer waafen aa a Aeanfefie: waa dfan efan ? See e.g. the passages translated in Professor Max Miiller’s Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 87-94. Xvi LAWS OF MANU. for mythological research. The arguments in support of the authenticity and authoritativeness of the Manu-smrti are extremely weak. For the Vedic passage which the commentators adduce is, strictly speaking, a misquotation. It occurs in four slightly differing versions in three Samhit4s and in one Brahmaza?. But in all the four places it refers, in the first instance, to Vedic Mantras which Manu is said to have revealed or seen. As, however, the assertion of the wholesomeness of Manu’s teaching is couched in general terms, it may probably be inferred that many sayings, attributed to the father of mankind, were known to the authors of the four Vedic works, and it is not improbable that legal maxims were included amongst them*. But MedhAtithi’s and Kullika’s assumption that our Manu-smriti is meant in the passages quoted would require very strong special proof, as its language and part of its doctrines by no means agree with those of the Vedic times. Of course, no such proof is offered, and it is not probable that it ever will be offered. The quotations made by the commentators from the Mahabharata and from the Brzhaspati-smriti, as well as their well-founded assertion that in the Purazas and in many Smritis Manu is frequently referred to as an authority on the sacred law, are of greater importance. It is undoubtedly true that the two works mentioned by Kulldka refer to a particular Dharmasdstra attributed to Manu, and the same remark holds good with respect to those passages of the Purdsas and of the Smrttis where, in enumerations of the authors of Dharmas4stras, Manu is placed at the head of the list. Yet even this evidence is of little use, because on the one hand the antiquity of many of the works in which Manu’s name occurs is extremely doubtful, and on the other hand the existence of several recensions of Manu’s laws is admitted, and can be shown to have been a fact. Hence a reference to a Manu-smrtti in a 1 Kashaka XI, 5 (apparently quoted by Medh&tithi); Maitrayaty4 Samhita I, 1,5; Taittiriy4 Samhita II, 2, 10,2; and Tasdya Brahmanxa XXIII, 16, 7 (quoted by Kullfka). 3 I would not infer with Professor Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p. 364, that a legal work ascribed to a Manu was known to the authors of the four works; see also below, p. Ix. INTRODUCTION. Xvii
33 I would not infer with Professor Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p. 364, that a legal work ascribed to a Manu was known to the authors of the four works; see also below, p. Ix. INTRODUCTION. Xvii Puréza or a Smriti does not prove much for Bhrigu’s Samhita, if, at the same time, it is not made evident that the latter is really meant, and that the work in which it is contained really has a claim to be considered ancient. In illustration of this point it may suffice to remark here that the Brzhaspati-smriti, which Kulldka adduces as a witness, is by no means an ancient work, but considerably later than the beginning of our era, because it gives a definition of golden dinaras, an Indian coin struck in imitation of and called after the Roman denarii'. Regarding Manu and the Mahabh4rata more will be said below. Medhatithi’s quotation from Narada is very unlucky ; for it is inexact, and worded in such a manner as to veil the serious discrepancy which exists between the stories told in the Manava Dharmasdstra and in the N§arada-smriti. The introduction to the latter, as read in the MSS. of the vulgata, does not state that the original law-book of one hundred thousand verses was composed by Pragdpati and abridged by Manu and others, but alleges that its author was Manu Pragdapati, and that Narada and Sumati the son of Bhzzgu summarised it?. The text of Narada, which is accompanied by Kaly4zabhatta’s edition of Asahaya’s commentary, names one more sage, M4rkandeya, who also tried his hand at Manu Pragdpati’s enormous work. Whichever of the two versions may be the original one, it is evident that Medhatithi’s representation of Niérada’s statement is inexact, and that the latter differs considerably from the story in our Manu-smriti, which asserts that it is the original work composed by Brahman, and revealed by Manu to Bhvigu, who explains it to the great sages ‘exactly as he received it.’ Hence Narada’s story discredits the details of the account given in the M4anava Dharmasdstra. It might, at the best, be only quoted to prove the existence of the general belief that Manu was the first lawgiver of India. These remarks will 1 West and Biibler, Digest, p. 48, third edition. 2 See Jolly, Narada, p. 2, and Tagore Lectures of 1883, p. 6 My conjecture that the introduction to Narada belongs to Asahfya, not to the Smrtti itself (West and Biihler, Digest, p. 49), is not tenable. [25] xviii 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.