Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1cxxi—cxxiii. eviii LAWS OF MANU. tioned by his predecessors, and shows by the number of the conflicting explanations which he sometimes adduces for a passage of the text, that in his time a very large number of commentaries on the Manu-smriti existed. Among the persons thus quoted, he designates some by the terms Parva and Kiramtana. Parva, which means both ‘former’ and ‘ancient,’ is an ambiguous word. It can be applied to all persons who wrote before the author, though it frequently is used in speaking of those who lived centuries ago. Kiramtana, ‘long previous or ancient, is much stronger, and, according to the usage of Indian authors, denotes a predecessor belonging to a remote antiquity. As Medhétithi, writing in the ninth century, knew of commentaries to which he was compelled to assign a remote antiquity, it is only a moderate estimate if we assume that the earliest among them were in his time from three to four hundred years old. But if in the sixth or even in the fifth century A.D. glosses on our text existed, its composition must go back to much earlier times. For the widely divergent and frequently very questionable explanations of the more difficult passages, which Medhatithi adduces from his predecessors, indicate that even the earliest among them were separated by a considerable interval from the compilator of the Manu-saszhit4, an interval so great that the real meaning of the text had been forgotten. The merit of the discovery that one of the lost metrical DharmasAstras, the Brzhaspati-smrzti, was a Varttika on our text of Manu, belongs to Professor Jolly, whose careful investigation of the fragments of the lost law-books, contained in the modern Digests, has contributed very materially to the elucidation of a difficult chapter in the history of Indian legal literature. He shows! that Brzhaspati not only allots to Manu’s Smriti the first place among all lawbooks, but that he explains, amplifies, and occasionally corrects its rules on various portions of the Vyavahara. The particulars from Manu which Brzhaspati mentions are such as to leave no doubt that the text which he knew in ' Tagore Lectures, pp. 60-62; see also above, p. xvi. INTRODUCTION, cix
2The particulars from Manu which Brzhaspati mentions are such as to leave no doubt that the text which he knew in ' Tagore Lectures, pp. 60-62; see also above, p. xvi. INTRODUCTION, cix no way differed from that known to us. He explains, as Professor Jolly points out, the curious terms, used Manu VIII, 49, for the various modes by which a creditor may recover a debt, as well as the expression asvamin, which occurs in the title of law, called Asvamivikraya. He further mentions that Manu IX, 57-68 first teaches and afterwards forbids the practice of Niyoga, and gives, as it seems to me’, the correct explanation of this contradiction. He also notes that Manu IX, 221-228 forbids gambling, which other writers on law permit under due supervision, and he corrects Manu’s rules regarding the indivisibility of clothes and other objects enumerated IX, 219. An apparent contradiction in Brihaspati’s rules with respect to subsidiary sons * proves that he knew and accepted Manu’s teaching on this subject. He declares that the substitutes for a legitimate son of the body are forbidden in the Kaliyuga, and yet admits the rights of a Putrika or appointed daughter, who mostly is reckoned among the substitutes. This difficulty is easily solved, if it is borne in mind that Manu, differing from the other ancient law-books, does not reckon the Putrika among the subsidiary sons. He separates her, IX, 127-140, from the Gauna Putras, IX, 158-181, and strongly insists on her rights, while he restricts those of the others very much. The list of instances where Brihaspati alludes to, annotates, or amplifies rules of Manu might, I think, be enlarged still further, and it seems to me that a comparison of those verses of his, which Colebrooke’s Digest contains, with Manu gives one the impression that Brihaspati’s work is throughout a revised and enlarged edition of the Bhrigusamhita, or, to use the Indian expression, a Manuvarttika or Manukériké. Professor Jolly, finally, has pointed out that this evidence concerning the relation between Manu and Brzhaspati agrees with and gives some weight to the tradition preserved in the Skanda-puraza, according to which Brthaspati composed the third of the four versions of Manu’s Dharmasdstra. The age of the Brzhaspati-smriti 1 See also above, p. xciv. 3 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 158. cx LAWS OF MANU.
3The age of the Brzhaspati-smriti 1 See also above, p. xciv. 3 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 158. cx LAWS OF MANU. is circumscribed by its definition of the value of golden dindras, and by the quotations from it which occur already in the oldest commentaries and Nibandhas from the ninth century A.D. downwards. Since the latter period it has been considered as a work of divine origin, revealed by the teacher of the gods. Hence Professor Jolly’s supposition, that it must have existed some two or three hundred years earlier, places it not too early, but, in my opinion, rather too late. But even if the Brzhaspati-smvzti dates only about 600 A.D., its statements regarding the high authority of Manv’s teaching show that our version of the latter must have preceded it by many centuries. The three points just discussed are, in my opinion, the only ones that are really useful for fixing the lower date of our Manu-smriti.. All the other facts known to me which -bear on the question are made valueless by flaws of one kind or the other. Thus if we find that another metrical Dharmasastra,the KAty4yana-smziti,which probably belongs to the same period as the Brzhaspati-smriti, repeatedly quotes doctrines of Manu or Bhrigu found in our text, it is nevertheless not permissible to assume confidently with Kullika on Manu VIII, 3501, that its author knew and explained our text. For, as Professor Jolly has shown’, there are other cases in which the teaching attributed by Katy4yana to Bhyzgu or Manu differs from the opinion advanced in our Smriti. It is, of course, possible that the author, who assumes the name of K&aty4yana, may have made a slip, or may have known several Manu-smritis or Bhrigu-smritis, and have referred in different places to different works. But, making every allowance for such possibilities, it cannot be said that his references furnish a really conclusive argument. Again, it has been pointed out’ that the author of the Bhavishya-pur4wa has largely drawn on the first three chapters of our Manu, whom he also names, and nobody who carefully compares the two 1 SraTaTS PTAA AAA TL SH ars ITSM Ul ? Tagore Lectures, p. 62, ll. 22 and 24, Brihaspati has been printed twice by mistake for Katyayana. * Professor Aufrecht’s Catal. Sansk. MSS, Bodl. Libr. p. 30, INTRODUCTION. cxi
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.
1cxxi—cxxiii. eviii LAWS OF MANU. tioned by his predecessors, and shows by the number of the conflicting explanations which he sometimes adduces for a passage of the text, that in his time a very large number of commentaries on the Manu-smriti existed. Among the persons thus quoted, he designates some by the terms Parva and Kiramtana. Parva, which means both ‘former’ and ‘ancient,’ is an ambiguous word. It can be applied to all persons who wrote before the author, though it frequently is used in speaking of those who lived centuries ago. Kiramtana, ‘long previous or ancient, is much stronger, and, according to the usage of Indian authors, denotes a predecessor belonging to a remote antiquity. As Medhétithi, writing in the ninth century, knew of commentaries to which he was compelled to assign a remote antiquity, it is only a moderate estimate if we assume that the earliest among them were in his time from three to four hundred years old. But if in the sixth or even in the fifth century A.D. glosses on our text existed, its composition must go back to much earlier times. For the widely divergent and frequently very questionable explanations of the more difficult passages, which Medhatithi adduces from his predecessors, indicate that even the earliest among them were separated by a considerable interval from the compilator of the Manu-saszhit4, an interval so great that the real meaning of the text had been forgotten. The merit of the discovery that one of the lost metrical DharmasAstras, the Brzhaspati-smrzti, was a Varttika on our text of Manu, belongs to Professor Jolly, whose careful investigation of the fragments of the lost law-books, contained in the modern Digests, has contributed very materially to the elucidation of a difficult chapter in the history of Indian legal literature. He shows! that Brzhaspati not only allots to Manu’s Smriti the first place among all lawbooks, but that he explains, amplifies, and occasionally corrects its rules on various portions of the Vyavahara. The particulars from Manu which Brzhaspati mentions are such as to leave no doubt that the text which he knew in ' Tagore Lectures, pp. 60-62; see also above, p. xvi. INTRODUCTION, cix
2The particulars from Manu which Brzhaspati mentions are such as to leave no doubt that the text which he knew in ' Tagore Lectures, pp. 60-62; see also above, p. xvi. INTRODUCTION, cix no way differed from that known to us. He explains, as Professor Jolly points out, the curious terms, used Manu VIII, 49, for the various modes by which a creditor may recover a debt, as well as the expression asvamin, which occurs in the title of law, called Asvamivikraya. He further mentions that Manu IX, 57-68 first teaches and afterwards forbids the practice of Niyoga, and gives, as it seems to me’, the correct explanation of this contradiction. He also notes that Manu IX, 221-228 forbids gambling, which other writers on law permit under due supervision, and he corrects Manu’s rules regarding the indivisibility of clothes and other objects enumerated IX, 219. An apparent contradiction in Brihaspati’s rules with respect to subsidiary sons * proves that he knew and accepted Manu’s teaching on this subject. He declares that the substitutes for a legitimate son of the body are forbidden in the Kaliyuga, and yet admits the rights of a Putrika or appointed daughter, who mostly is reckoned among the substitutes. This difficulty is easily solved, if it is borne in mind that Manu, differing from the other ancient law-books, does not reckon the Putrika among the subsidiary sons. He separates her, IX, 127-140, from the Gauna Putras, IX, 158-181, and strongly insists on her rights, while he restricts those of the others very much. The list of instances where Brihaspati alludes to, annotates, or amplifies rules of Manu might, I think, be enlarged still further, and it seems to me that a comparison of those verses of his, which Colebrooke’s Digest contains, with Manu gives one the impression that Brihaspati’s work is throughout a revised and enlarged edition of the Bhrigusamhita, or, to use the Indian expression, a Manuvarttika or Manukériké. Professor Jolly, finally, has pointed out that this evidence concerning the relation between Manu and Brzhaspati agrees with and gives some weight to the tradition preserved in the Skanda-puraza, according to which Brthaspati composed the third of the four versions of Manu’s Dharmasdstra. The age of the Brzhaspati-smriti 1 See also above, p. xciv. 3 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 158. cx LAWS OF MANU.
3The age of the Brzhaspati-smriti 1 See also above, p. xciv. 3 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 158. cx LAWS OF MANU. is circumscribed by its definition of the value of golden dindras, and by the quotations from it which occur already in the oldest commentaries and Nibandhas from the ninth century A.D. downwards. Since the latter period it has been considered as a work of divine origin, revealed by the teacher of the gods. Hence Professor Jolly’s supposition, that it must have existed some two or three hundred years earlier, places it not too early, but, in my opinion, rather too late. But even if the Brzhaspati-smvzti dates only about 600 A.D., its statements regarding the high authority of Manv’s teaching show that our version of the latter must have preceded it by many centuries. The three points just discussed are, in my opinion, the only ones that are really useful for fixing the lower date of our Manu-smriti.. All the other facts known to me which -bear on the question are made valueless by flaws of one kind or the other. Thus if we find that another metrical Dharmasastra,the KAty4yana-smziti,which probably belongs to the same period as the Brzhaspati-smriti, repeatedly quotes doctrines of Manu or Bhrigu found in our text, it is nevertheless not permissible to assume confidently with Kullika on Manu VIII, 3501, that its author knew and explained our text. For, as Professor Jolly has shown’, there are other cases in which the teaching attributed by Katy4yana to Bhyzgu or Manu differs from the opinion advanced in our Smriti. It is, of course, possible that the author, who assumes the name of K&aty4yana, may have made a slip, or may have known several Manu-smritis or Bhrigu-smritis, and have referred in different places to different works. But, making every allowance for such possibilities, it cannot be said that his references furnish a really conclusive argument. Again, it has been pointed out’ that the author of the Bhavishya-pur4wa has largely drawn on the first three chapters of our Manu, whom he also names, and nobody who carefully compares the two 1 SraTaTS PTAA AAA TL SH ars ITSM Ul ? Tagore Lectures, p. 62, ll. 22 and 24, Brihaspati has been printed twice by mistake for Katyayana. * Professor Aufrecht’s Catal. Sansk. MSS, Bodl. Libr. p. 30, INTRODUCTION. cxi
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.