Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1104; v, 28; vi, 11; vii, 67, 69, 71; viii, 302. For other passages, see Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xi, pp. 243-249. * This is on the supposition that the era of the Valabht plates began in 319 A. D., the latest date ever assigned to it. [25] h cxiv LAWS OF MANU. of Dronasimha, the first Mahar4ga of Valabhi and the immediate predecessor of Dhruvasena I, that ‘like Dharmaraga (Yudhish¢Hira) he observed as his law the rules and ordinances taught by Manu and other (sages).’ Strictly interpreted, the passage says nothing more than that in Dronasimha’s times various law-books existed, one and the chief of which was attributed. But, considering what we know from other sources, it is not improbable that it refers to our Samhita, which is acknowledged by Brzhaspati as the paramount authority. This is all I am able to bring forward in order to fix the lower limit of the Manu-smriti. But the facts stated are, I think, sufficient to permit the inference that the work, such as we know it, existed in the second century A. D. For an answer to the question whether our Manu-smriti can go back to a higher antiquity, and how much older it may be, we have at present very scant data. Its posteriority to the twelfth and thirteenth Parvans of the Mahabhdrata teaches us, as already stated, nothing definite. But there is a passage in its tenth chapter, vv. 43-44, which has been frequently supposed to convey, and probably does contain, a hint regarding its lower limit. There the Kambogas, Yavanas, Sakas, and Pahlavas are enumerated among the races which, originally of Kshatriya descent, were degraded to the condition of S(dras in consequence of their neglect of the Brahmazas'. As the Yavanas are named together with the K4mbogas or K4bulis exactly in the same manner as in the edicts of Asoka’, it is highly probable that Greek subjects of Alexander’s successors, and especially the Bactrian Greeks, are meant. This point, as well as the mention of the Sakas*® or Scythians, would ' The verse contains also the name of the Atnas, which formerly has been taken to be valuable as a chronological landmark. More modem researches have proved this view to be untenable; see A. von Gutschmid, Journal of the German Or. Soc. vo]. xxxiv, pp. 203-208 ; Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p.131; Rig-veda, vol. iv, p. li. 7 See e. g. the fifth rock-edict, where the Yona-Kamboga-Gamdhara or Gamdhala are mentioned as Asoka’s neighbours, the most distant being placed first. ® The earliest mention of the Sakas probably occurs in a Varttika of KAtyayana on Pz. VI, 1, 94,where sakandhu is explained by saka + andhu. According to the traditional explanation the compound means ‘the well of the Saka king.’ INTRODUCTION. CXV
2® The earliest mention of the Sakas probably occurs in a Varttika of KAtyayana on Pz. VI, 1, 94,where sakandhu is explained by saka + andhu. According to the traditional explanation the compound means ‘the well of the Saka king.’ INTRODUCTION. CXV indicate that the Slokas could in no case have been written before the third century B.c. This limit would be still further and very considerably contracted if the mention of the Pahlavas were quite above suspicion, and if the deductions of my learned friend, Professor Néldeke!, regarding the age of this word were perfectly certain. Pahlava and its Iranian prototype Pahlav are, according to the concurrent testimony of the most distinguished Orientialists, corruptions of Parthava, the indigenous name of the Parthians*. Relying on the fact that the change of the Iranian #2 to & is first traceable in the name Meherdates, mentioned by Tacitus, and in the word Miiro, i. e. Mihira, on the coins of Kanishka or Kanerki*, Professor Néldeke concludes that the form Pahlav cannot have originated among the Iranians earlier than in the first century A. D., and that it cannot have been introduced into India before the second century of our era. If this inference were unassailable, the remoter limit of the Manu-smrtti would fall together with its lower one. But, with all due deference to the weight of Professor Néldeke’s name, I must confess that it appears to me very hazardous. For, first, the foundations of his theory are very narrow: secondly, one of his own facts is not quite in harmony with his assertions. However late we may place Kanishka, he cannot be later than the last quarter of the first century A.D. Kanishka was not a Parthian, and his coins probably were struck in the North of India. Hence it would appear that Iranian word-forms with the softening of t2 to # were known in India towards the end of the first century. Moreover, the word Pahlava occurs in the Girnér inscription of Rudraddman ¢, which was incised shortly before the year 72 of the era of the Western Kshatrapas. This era, as has been long ago conjectured, and is now incontestably proved by Mr. Fleet’s important discoveries, is } Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 187-8, note 201°. ® Olshansen, Parthava und Pahlav, Mada und Mah (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1877), and Noldeke, Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxi, p. 557. ® Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. p. 197. ‘Ind. Ant. vol. vii, p. 261. Rudradaman’s lieutenant at Gimfr was the Pablava Kulaipa (Khoraib?), son of Suvisakha. h 2 exvi LAWS OF MANU.
3xxxi, p. 557. ® Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. p. 197. ‘Ind. Ant. vol. vii, p. 261. Rudradaman’s lieutenant at Gimfr was the Pablava Kulaipa (Khoraib?), son of Suvisakha. h 2 exvi LAWS OF MANU. the so-called Vikramasamvat or, more correctly, the Samvat of the MAlavesas, the lords of MAlava, which began in 57 B.C. Rudrad4man’s inscription consequently dates from the year 21-22 A.D., and it is thus certain that the word Pahlava was used in India at the beginning of the first century A.D. These circumstances make it impossible to accept Professor Noldeke’s inferences from the occurrence of the softened Iranian forms. But the mere mention of the Pahlavas would show that Manu’s verse cannot have been composed before the beginning of the first century B.c. The Parthian dynasty of the Arsacides was founded in the middle of the third century B.C., and its sixth ruler, Mithradates I, according to some classical authors, invaded India about the middle of the second century?. Coins of an Arsaces Theos and of an Arsaces Dikaios, who uses also the Prakrit language and the North-Indian alphabet, have been found in the Panj4b, and belong to the same or a little later times*. As the Brahmans are ever ready to give foreign nations, with which they come into contact, a place in their ethnological system, it is quite possible that about the beginning of the first century B.C. an Indian origin might have been invented for the Pahlavas. But even this reduction of the remoter limit of the Manu-sm~‘ti is, in my opinion, not quite ‘safe. For though the evidence for the genuineness of Manu X, 43-44 is as complete as possible, and though the varia lectio for Pahlava, which Govinda offers, probably deserves no credit ®, there is yet a circumstance which raises a suspicion against the latter reading. Parallel passages, closely resembling Manu’s two verses, are found in the Mah4bharata XIII, 33, 21-23* and XIII, 35, 17-18, where the names of the degraded Kshatriya races are likewise enumerated, and the cause of their degradation is stated 1 Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, II*, 334. * Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. pp. 51, 156-157. 3 The commentators and MSS. all give the two verses. If some MSS. of Medhftithi read Pabnava for Pahlava, that is a clerical mistake caused by the similarity of the subscribed Devan4gart la and na. Govinda’s var. lect. Pallava is improbable, because the other races mentioned in the second line of verse 44 all belong to the North of India, while the Pallavas are, as far as we know, confined to the South. INTRODUCTION. CXVvii
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.
1104; v, 28; vi, 11; vii, 67, 69, 71; viii, 302. For other passages, see Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xi, pp. 243-249. * This is on the supposition that the era of the Valabht plates began in 319 A. D., the latest date ever assigned to it. [25] h cxiv LAWS OF MANU. of Dronasimha, the first Mahar4ga of Valabhi and the immediate predecessor of Dhruvasena I, that ‘like Dharmaraga (Yudhish¢Hira) he observed as his law the rules and ordinances taught by Manu and other (sages).’ Strictly interpreted, the passage says nothing more than that in Dronasimha’s times various law-books existed, one and the chief of which was attributed. But, considering what we know from other sources, it is not improbable that it refers to our Samhita, which is acknowledged by Brzhaspati as the paramount authority. This is all I am able to bring forward in order to fix the lower limit of the Manu-smriti. But the facts stated are, I think, sufficient to permit the inference that the work, such as we know it, existed in the second century A. D. For an answer to the question whether our Manu-smriti can go back to a higher antiquity, and how much older it may be, we have at present very scant data. Its posteriority to the twelfth and thirteenth Parvans of the Mahabhdrata teaches us, as already stated, nothing definite. But there is a passage in its tenth chapter, vv. 43-44, which has been frequently supposed to convey, and probably does contain, a hint regarding its lower limit. There the Kambogas, Yavanas, Sakas, and Pahlavas are enumerated among the races which, originally of Kshatriya descent, were degraded to the condition of S(dras in consequence of their neglect of the Brahmazas'. As the Yavanas are named together with the K4mbogas or K4bulis exactly in the same manner as in the edicts of Asoka’, it is highly probable that Greek subjects of Alexander’s successors, and especially the Bactrian Greeks, are meant. This point, as well as the mention of the Sakas*® or Scythians, would ' The verse contains also the name of the Atnas, which formerly has been taken to be valuable as a chronological landmark. More modem researches have proved this view to be untenable; see A. von Gutschmid, Journal of the German Or. Soc. vo]. xxxiv, pp. 203-208 ; Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p.131; Rig-veda, vol. iv, p. li. 7 See e. g. the fifth rock-edict, where the Yona-Kamboga-Gamdhara or Gamdhala are mentioned as Asoka’s neighbours, the most distant being placed first. ® The earliest mention of the Sakas probably occurs in a Varttika of KAtyayana on Pz. VI, 1, 94,where sakandhu is explained by saka + andhu. According to the traditional explanation the compound means ‘the well of the Saka king.’ INTRODUCTION. CXV
2® The earliest mention of the Sakas probably occurs in a Varttika of KAtyayana on Pz. VI, 1, 94,where sakandhu is explained by saka + andhu. According to the traditional explanation the compound means ‘the well of the Saka king.’ INTRODUCTION. CXV indicate that the Slokas could in no case have been written before the third century B.c. This limit would be still further and very considerably contracted if the mention of the Pahlavas were quite above suspicion, and if the deductions of my learned friend, Professor Néldeke!, regarding the age of this word were perfectly certain. Pahlava and its Iranian prototype Pahlav are, according to the concurrent testimony of the most distinguished Orientialists, corruptions of Parthava, the indigenous name of the Parthians*. Relying on the fact that the change of the Iranian #2 to & is first traceable in the name Meherdates, mentioned by Tacitus, and in the word Miiro, i. e. Mihira, on the coins of Kanishka or Kanerki*, Professor Néldeke concludes that the form Pahlav cannot have originated among the Iranians earlier than in the first century A. D., and that it cannot have been introduced into India before the second century of our era. If this inference were unassailable, the remoter limit of the Manu-smrtti would fall together with its lower one. But, with all due deference to the weight of Professor Néldeke’s name, I must confess that it appears to me very hazardous. For, first, the foundations of his theory are very narrow: secondly, one of his own facts is not quite in harmony with his assertions. However late we may place Kanishka, he cannot be later than the last quarter of the first century A.D. Kanishka was not a Parthian, and his coins probably were struck in the North of India. Hence it would appear that Iranian word-forms with the softening of t2 to # were known in India towards the end of the first century. Moreover, the word Pahlava occurs in the Girnér inscription of Rudraddman ¢, which was incised shortly before the year 72 of the era of the Western Kshatrapas. This era, as has been long ago conjectured, and is now incontestably proved by Mr. Fleet’s important discoveries, is } Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 187-8, note 201°. ® Olshansen, Parthava und Pahlav, Mada und Mah (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1877), and Noldeke, Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxi, p. 557. ® Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. p. 197. ‘Ind. Ant. vol. vii, p. 261. Rudradaman’s lieutenant at Gimfr was the Pablava Kulaipa (Khoraib?), son of Suvisakha. h 2 exvi LAWS OF MANU.
3xxxi, p. 557. ® Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. p. 197. ‘Ind. Ant. vol. vii, p. 261. Rudradaman’s lieutenant at Gimfr was the Pablava Kulaipa (Khoraib?), son of Suvisakha. h 2 exvi LAWS OF MANU. the so-called Vikramasamvat or, more correctly, the Samvat of the MAlavesas, the lords of MAlava, which began in 57 B.C. Rudrad4man’s inscription consequently dates from the year 21-22 A.D., and it is thus certain that the word Pahlava was used in India at the beginning of the first century A.D. These circumstances make it impossible to accept Professor Noldeke’s inferences from the occurrence of the softened Iranian forms. But the mere mention of the Pahlavas would show that Manu’s verse cannot have been composed before the beginning of the first century B.c. The Parthian dynasty of the Arsacides was founded in the middle of the third century B.C., and its sixth ruler, Mithradates I, according to some classical authors, invaded India about the middle of the second century?. Coins of an Arsaces Theos and of an Arsaces Dikaios, who uses also the Prakrit language and the North-Indian alphabet, have been found in the Panj4b, and belong to the same or a little later times*. As the Brahmans are ever ready to give foreign nations, with which they come into contact, a place in their ethnological system, it is quite possible that about the beginning of the first century B.C. an Indian origin might have been invented for the Pahlavas. But even this reduction of the remoter limit of the Manu-sm~‘ti is, in my opinion, not quite ‘safe. For though the evidence for the genuineness of Manu X, 43-44 is as complete as possible, and though the varia lectio for Pahlava, which Govinda offers, probably deserves no credit ®, there is yet a circumstance which raises a suspicion against the latter reading. Parallel passages, closely resembling Manu’s two verses, are found in the Mah4bharata XIII, 33, 21-23* and XIII, 35, 17-18, where the names of the degraded Kshatriya races are likewise enumerated, and the cause of their degradation is stated 1 Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, II*, 334. * Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. pp. 51, 156-157. 3 The commentators and MSS. all give the two verses. If some MSS. of Medhftithi read Pabnava for Pahlava, that is a clerical mistake caused by the similarity of the subscribed Devan4gart la and na. Govinda’s var. lect. Pallava is improbable, because the other races mentioned in the second line of verse 44 all belong to the North of India, while the Pallavas are, as far as we know, confined to the South. INTRODUCTION. CXVvii
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.