Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1INTRODUCTION. the other arguments which have been or can be adduced to prove the antiquity of our Manu-smzriti are less conclusive. If it has been said that this work contains some very archaic doctrines! which are not found in the other secondary lawbooks, that is perfectly true. But the inference regarding its age becomes doubtful, because on other subjects Manu is ahead of the other Smritis?, and because in general the development of the actual doctrines seems to have been not quite steady and continuous. Still more precarious are the arguments, based on the language of the Manu-smriti, on its not mentioning the Greek astrology or Greek coinage and similar points. As we have to deal with a recast of a very ancient book, and as its editor has utilised a good many ancient verses in compiling his recension, it is only to be expected that a number of archaic forms and phrases should be found. But it is evident that they prove nothing with respect to the period when the compilation was made, because it is impossible to decide in each case to which of its component parts the archaism belongs. As regards the remaining argumenta a silentio, they are equally inconclusive. Even if we grant, for argument’s sake, the correctness of the assertion that our Manu contains no allusion to the Greek order of the planets, to the zodiac, to judicial astrology, and to Greek or Scythian dindras, drammas, and nazakas, while all the other secondary law-books mention one or the other of these foreign importations, the omission may be purely accidental. These and similar points can be used for no other purpose than to show that there is nothing in Manu’s text that compels us to place it in or after the period between 300-500 A.D., during which Greek influence made itself strongly felt in India. They possess One of the clearest instances of this kind is Manu’s doctrine with regard to the succession of females to the estate of males, where the exclusion of the wife agrees with the teaching of the Dharma-siitras (Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 48). The assertion of Professor Hopkins (Castes according to the M. Dh. p. 108 seqq.), that the prerogatives of Brahmaaas are greater according to YagA. than according to Manu, seems to me erroneous, and chiefly based on an inadmissible interpretation of some passages of Manu. In my opinion the mutual relations of the castes, as described in the two law-books, cannot be used to prove a priority of the one to the other. 4 E. g. in the doctrine concerning the Niyoga. cvi LAWS OF MANU.
2In my opinion the mutual relations of the castes, as described in the two law-books, cannot be used to prove a priority of the one to the other. 4 E. g. in the doctrine concerning the Niyoga. cvi LAWS OF MANU. a certain importance only as auxiliaries to the chief argument derived from the imperfect development of the method or formal treatment of the law. But considering all that has been said in the preceding discussion, it is, I think, not too much to say that there is no obstacle against, and some reason for, our accepting as true the assertion, which is made in the Manu-smriti itself and supported by the tradition preserved in the Skanda-pur4va, that Bhvigu’s! Samhita is the first and most ancient recast of a Dharmasastra attributed to Manu, which latter, owing to the facts pointed out in the first part of this Introduction, must be identified with the Manava Dharma-sdtra. Though this recast must be considered the work of one hand, the possibility that single verses may have been added later or altered, is of course not excluded. <A perfectly intact preservation of an Indian work which has been much studied, is a priori improbable, and the divergence of the commentators with respect to certain verses shows that some of those contained in our text were suspected by the one or the other of them. But the number of Slokas with regard to which real doubts can be entertained is comparatively small, and hardly amounts to more than a dozen?, The above discussion has also to a certain extent defined the relative position of our Manu-smr#ti in Brahmanical literature, and has thus opened the way for the consideration of the last remaining problem, the question when the conversion of the M4nava Dharma-sitra into a metrical law-book ' A clear and definite explanation of the question why the Hindu tradition ascribes the promulgation of Manu’s laws to Bhrigu has hitherto not been traced. Bhrigu’s only connexion with Manu is that mentioned in the text, according to which he is one of the mind-born sons or creatures of the father of mankind. ‘This version of the legend of his origin is, however, by no means common. In the Mahabhfrata XII, 182-192, we find ‘a condensed DharmasAstra,’ which is said to have been revealed by Bhrigu to Bharadvaga. It includes an account of the creation, but makes no mention of Manu. As Bhvigu appears also elsewhere as the author of a Dharmasastra, it is just possible that the legend may be based on Bhrigu’s fame as a legislator and as the offspring of Manu. 2 Many more verses are left out partly in Medhatithi’s BhAshya and partly in Nandana’s commentary. But see below, pp. cxxvi and cxxxv, where it has been shown that omissions in the accessible MSS. of these two works alone do not mean much. INTRODUCTION. cVvii
32 Many more verses are left out partly in Medhatithi’s BhAshya and partly in Nandana’s commentary. But see below, pp. cxxvi and cxxxv, where it has been shown that omissions in the accessible MSS. of these two works alone do not mean much. INTRODUCTION. cVvii may have taken place. The terminus a quo which has been gained for the composition of Bhrigu’s Samhita is the age of the Mahabhirata, and the terminus ad quem the dates of the metrical Smritis of Yagiavalkya and Narada. Though we are at present not in a position to assert anything positive regarding the period when the Mahdbharata and especially its twelfth and thirteenth Parvans were written, and though the date of Yagvavalkya’s Dharmasdstra is very doubtful, yet some facts known regarding the Narada-smriti are not without importance for framing our answer to the difficult question now proposed. Both Professor Jolly and myself! have lately discussed the significance of the mention of golden dindras or denarii in the longer and more authentic version of Narada and of the circumstance that Asah4ya, a predecessor of Manu’s earliest commentator, Medhatithi, explained it and have arrived at a very similar conclusion, viz. that the Narada-smriti dates either shortly before or shortly after the middle of the first thousand years of our era. If that is so, Bhrigu’s Samhita must, in consideration of the arguments just stated, be placed not only earlier, but considerably earlier, and the assertion that it must have existed at least in the second century of our era is not unwarranted. This latter inference is also made inevitable by the discovery that we have to admit the former existence of very ancient commentaries, and of at least one ancient Varttika or K4rika which referred to the text of Manu, known to us. With respect to the commentaries, Medhftithi, the author of the Manubhashya, is a most valuable and clear witness. This author, who probably wrote in the ninth century A.D.’, very frequently quotes opinions and various readings, expressed or men- 1 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 56; West and Biihler, Digest, p. 48. To the arguments adduced there I would add that Basa, the friend of Sriharsha- Harshavardhana (606-7-648 A.D.), makes a pretty clear allusion to the N4radiya Dharmasastra in the Kadambart, p. 91, 1. 13 (Peterson's edition), where he calls a royal palace nfradiyam ivavarzyamanaragadharmam, ‘similar to the Naradfya (Dharmasdstra), because there the duties of kings were taught (by the conduct of the ruler) just as they are taught (in the law-book).’ 2 For the details, see below, pp. cxxi—cxxiii. eviii 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.
1INTRODUCTION. the other arguments which have been or can be adduced to prove the antiquity of our Manu-smzriti are less conclusive. If it has been said that this work contains some very archaic doctrines! which are not found in the other secondary lawbooks, that is perfectly true. But the inference regarding its age becomes doubtful, because on other subjects Manu is ahead of the other Smritis?, and because in general the development of the actual doctrines seems to have been not quite steady and continuous. Still more precarious are the arguments, based on the language of the Manu-smriti, on its not mentioning the Greek astrology or Greek coinage and similar points. As we have to deal with a recast of a very ancient book, and as its editor has utilised a good many ancient verses in compiling his recension, it is only to be expected that a number of archaic forms and phrases should be found. But it is evident that they prove nothing with respect to the period when the compilation was made, because it is impossible to decide in each case to which of its component parts the archaism belongs. As regards the remaining argumenta a silentio, they are equally inconclusive. Even if we grant, for argument’s sake, the correctness of the assertion that our Manu contains no allusion to the Greek order of the planets, to the zodiac, to judicial astrology, and to Greek or Scythian dindras, drammas, and nazakas, while all the other secondary law-books mention one or the other of these foreign importations, the omission may be purely accidental. These and similar points can be used for no other purpose than to show that there is nothing in Manu’s text that compels us to place it in or after the period between 300-500 A.D., during which Greek influence made itself strongly felt in India. They possess One of the clearest instances of this kind is Manu’s doctrine with regard to the succession of females to the estate of males, where the exclusion of the wife agrees with the teaching of the Dharma-siitras (Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 48). The assertion of Professor Hopkins (Castes according to the M. Dh. p. 108 seqq.), that the prerogatives of Brahmaaas are greater according to YagA. than according to Manu, seems to me erroneous, and chiefly based on an inadmissible interpretation of some passages of Manu. In my opinion the mutual relations of the castes, as described in the two law-books, cannot be used to prove a priority of the one to the other. 4 E. g. in the doctrine concerning the Niyoga. cvi LAWS OF MANU.
2In my opinion the mutual relations of the castes, as described in the two law-books, cannot be used to prove a priority of the one to the other. 4 E. g. in the doctrine concerning the Niyoga. cvi LAWS OF MANU. a certain importance only as auxiliaries to the chief argument derived from the imperfect development of the method or formal treatment of the law. But considering all that has been said in the preceding discussion, it is, I think, not too much to say that there is no obstacle against, and some reason for, our accepting as true the assertion, which is made in the Manu-smriti itself and supported by the tradition preserved in the Skanda-pur4va, that Bhvigu’s! Samhita is the first and most ancient recast of a Dharmasastra attributed to Manu, which latter, owing to the facts pointed out in the first part of this Introduction, must be identified with the Manava Dharma-sdtra. Though this recast must be considered the work of one hand, the possibility that single verses may have been added later or altered, is of course not excluded. <A perfectly intact preservation of an Indian work which has been much studied, is a priori improbable, and the divergence of the commentators with respect to certain verses shows that some of those contained in our text were suspected by the one or the other of them. But the number of Slokas with regard to which real doubts can be entertained is comparatively small, and hardly amounts to more than a dozen?, The above discussion has also to a certain extent defined the relative position of our Manu-smr#ti in Brahmanical literature, and has thus opened the way for the consideration of the last remaining problem, the question when the conversion of the M4nava Dharma-sitra into a metrical law-book ' A clear and definite explanation of the question why the Hindu tradition ascribes the promulgation of Manu’s laws to Bhrigu has hitherto not been traced. Bhrigu’s only connexion with Manu is that mentioned in the text, according to which he is one of the mind-born sons or creatures of the father of mankind. ‘This version of the legend of his origin is, however, by no means common. In the Mahabhfrata XII, 182-192, we find ‘a condensed DharmasAstra,’ which is said to have been revealed by Bhrigu to Bharadvaga. It includes an account of the creation, but makes no mention of Manu. As Bhvigu appears also elsewhere as the author of a Dharmasastra, it is just possible that the legend may be based on Bhrigu’s fame as a legislator and as the offspring of Manu. 2 Many more verses are left out partly in Medhatithi’s BhAshya and partly in Nandana’s commentary. But see below, pp. cxxvi and cxxxv, where it has been shown that omissions in the accessible MSS. of these two works alone do not mean much. INTRODUCTION. cVvii
32 Many more verses are left out partly in Medhatithi’s BhAshya and partly in Nandana’s commentary. But see below, pp. cxxvi and cxxxv, where it has been shown that omissions in the accessible MSS. of these two works alone do not mean much. INTRODUCTION. cVvii may have taken place. The terminus a quo which has been gained for the composition of Bhrigu’s Samhita is the age of the Mahabhirata, and the terminus ad quem the dates of the metrical Smritis of Yagiavalkya and Narada. Though we are at present not in a position to assert anything positive regarding the period when the Mahdbharata and especially its twelfth and thirteenth Parvans were written, and though the date of Yagvavalkya’s Dharmasdstra is very doubtful, yet some facts known regarding the Narada-smriti are not without importance for framing our answer to the difficult question now proposed. Both Professor Jolly and myself! have lately discussed the significance of the mention of golden dindras or denarii in the longer and more authentic version of Narada and of the circumstance that Asah4ya, a predecessor of Manu’s earliest commentator, Medhatithi, explained it and have arrived at a very similar conclusion, viz. that the Narada-smriti dates either shortly before or shortly after the middle of the first thousand years of our era. If that is so, Bhrigu’s Samhita must, in consideration of the arguments just stated, be placed not only earlier, but considerably earlier, and the assertion that it must have existed at least in the second century of our era is not unwarranted. This latter inference is also made inevitable by the discovery that we have to admit the former existence of very ancient commentaries, and of at least one ancient Varttika or K4rika which referred to the text of Manu, known to us. With respect to the commentaries, Medhftithi, the author of the Manubhashya, is a most valuable and clear witness. This author, who probably wrote in the ninth century A.D.’, very frequently quotes opinions and various readings, expressed or men- 1 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 56; West and Biihler, Digest, p. 48. To the arguments adduced there I would add that Basa, the friend of Sriharsha- Harshavardhana (606-7-648 A.D.), makes a pretty clear allusion to the N4radiya Dharmasastra in the Kadambart, p. 91, 1. 13 (Peterson's edition), where he calls a royal palace nfradiyam ivavarzyamanaragadharmam, ‘similar to the Naradfya (Dharmasdstra), because there the duties of kings were taught (by the conduct of the ruler) just as they are taught (in the law-book).’ 2 For the details, see below, pp. cxxi—cxxiii. eviii 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.