Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
148, 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. suffice to show that the explanatory notes offered by the Indian commentators on the origin and history of the Manu-smr?ti are not suited to furnish a basis for a critical discussion of these questions, and that hence they have been deservedly set aside by most modern Sanskritists who have written on the subject. As regards the theories of the latter, it would be useless to enumerate those preceding Professor Max Miiller’s now generally accepted view, according to which our Manu-sm~‘ti is based on, or is in fact a recast of anancient Dharma-sfitra. But, well known as are his hypotheses and the later discoveries confirming them, an introduction to the laws of Manu would, I think, be incomplete without a full restatement of his arguments and of their additional supports furnished by others. The considerations on which Professor Max Miiller based his explanation of the origin of the Manu-smzti may be briefly stated as follows!. The systematic cultivation of the sacred sciences of the Brahmans began and for a long time had its centre in the ancient Sdtrakarazas, the schools which first collected the fragmentary doctrines, scattered in the older Vedic works, and arranged them for the convenience of oral instruction in Sdtras or strings of aphorisms. To the subjects which these schools chiefly cultivated, be- -longs besides the ritual, grammar, phonetics, and the other so-called Angas of the Veda, the sacred lawalso. The latter includes not only the precepts for the moral duties of all Aryas, but also the special rules regarding the conduct of kings and the administration of justice. The Sitra treatises on law thus cover the whole range of topics, contained in the metrical Smritis attributed to Manu, Y4giiavalkya, and other sages. Though only one Dharma-sitra, that of the Apastambiyas, actually remains connected with the aphorisms on the ritual and other sacred subjects, the existence of the Dharmasdstras of Gautama, Vasish¢/a, and Vishau, which are likewise composed in Sitras, proves that formerly 1 See his letter to Mr. Morley, reprinted in Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. ix-xi, and Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 132-134. Compare also the analogous views formed independently by Professors Weber and Stenzler, Indische Studien, vol. i, pp. 69, 143, 243-4. INTRODUCTION. xix
2Morley, reprinted in Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. ix-xi, and Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 132-134. Compare also the analogous views formed independently by Professors Weber and Stenzler, Indische Studien, vol. i, pp. 69, 143, 243-4. INTRODUCTION. xix they were more numerous. The perfectly credible tradition of the MimAmsa school, which declares that originally each Vedic school or Karama possessed a peculiar work on Dharma, confirms this assumption. While the Dharmasitras possess a considerable antiquity, dating between 600- 200 B.C., the metrical Smzztis cannot be equally ancient, because there is much in their form that is modern, and especially because tlfe epic Anush¢ubh Sloka, in which they are written, was not used for continuous composition during the Stra period. As the metrical Smvtis are later than the Dharma-sitras, it is, under the circumstances stated, very probable that each of them is based ona particular Dharmasitra, The Manava Dharmasdstra in particular may be considered as a recast and versification of the Dharma-s(tra of the Manava Satrakarama, a subdivision of the Maitrayantya school, which adheres to a redaction of the Black Yagur-veda. Considering the state of our knowledge of Vedic literature thirty years ago, the enunciation of this hypothesis was certainly a bold step. The facts on which it rested were few, and the want of important links in the premises laid it open to weighty objections. No proof was or could be furnished that the Sitras of Gautama, Vasish/sha, and Vishnu originally were manuals of Vedic schools, not codes promulgated for the guidance of all Aryas, as the Hindu tradition, then known, asserted. The assumption that it was so, rested solely on the resemblance of their form and contents to those of the Apastambiya Dharma-stitra. No trace of a Manava Dharma-sitra could be shown, nor could any connexion between the Manava DharmasAstra and the school of the MAnavas, except through their titles, be established. The assertion that the Brahmans had turned older Sfitras, and especially Dharma-sitras, into metrical works, written in epic Slokas, had to be left without any illustration, and no cause was assigned which would explain this remarkable change. As a set off against these undeniable weaknesses, Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis possessed two strong points which secured for it from the outset a favourable reception on the part of all Sanskritists of the historical school. First, it substituted a rational theory b2 XX LAWS OF MANU.
3As a set off against these undeniable weaknesses, Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis possessed two strong points which secured for it from the outset a favourable reception on the part of all Sanskritists of the historical school. First, it substituted a rational theory b2 XX LAWS OF MANU. of historical development for the fantastic fables of the Hindu tradition and for the hopeless uncertainty which characterised the earlier speculations of European scholars concerning the origin of the so-called Indian codes of law. Secondly, it fully agreed with many facts which the beginning exploration of Vedic literature had brought to light, and which, taken as a whole, forced on all serious students the conviction that the systematic cultifation of all the Indian SAstras had begun in the Vedic schools. Subsequent events have shown that Professor Max Miiller was right to rely on these two leading ideas, and that his fellow Sanskritists did well to follow him, instead of taking umbrage at the minor flaws. Slowly but steadily a great number of the missing links in the chain of evidence has been brought to light by subsequent investigations. We now know that the Satra works of other schools than the Apastambiyas included or still include treatises on the sacred law. The Dharma-s(itra of the Baudhdyantyas, the oldest Sftra- Rarana of the Taittirtya Veda, has been recovered. Though the connexion between the several parts of the great body of Sfitras has been severed, it is yet possible to recognise that it once was closely joined to the Grzhya-sitra'. The recovery of the entire collection of Hirazyakesi-sftras has proved that these too include a Dharma-siatra, which in this instance has been borrowed from the earlier Apastambiyas?. The mystery which surrounded the position of the Dharmasdstras of Gautama, Vishvu, and Vasish¢/a has been cleared up. To the assertion that they were composed by ancient Rishis for the welfare of mankind, we can at present oppose another tradition according to which they were at first studied and recognised as authoritative by particular schools only, adhering respectively to the Sama-veda, Black- Yagur-veda, and the Rig-veda*. Internal evidence confirming this tradition has been found in the case of Gautama’s Dharmasdstra and of the Vishvzu-smriti, or, more correctly, 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxi. ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii. ® Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xlv—xlviii; vol. vii, pp. x-xvi; vol. xiv, pp. xl-xlv, INTRODUCTION, Xxi
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.
148, 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. suffice to show that the explanatory notes offered by the Indian commentators on the origin and history of the Manu-smr?ti are not suited to furnish a basis for a critical discussion of these questions, and that hence they have been deservedly set aside by most modern Sanskritists who have written on the subject. As regards the theories of the latter, it would be useless to enumerate those preceding Professor Max Miiller’s now generally accepted view, according to which our Manu-sm~‘ti is based on, or is in fact a recast of anancient Dharma-sfitra. But, well known as are his hypotheses and the later discoveries confirming them, an introduction to the laws of Manu would, I think, be incomplete without a full restatement of his arguments and of their additional supports furnished by others. The considerations on which Professor Max Miiller based his explanation of the origin of the Manu-smzti may be briefly stated as follows!. The systematic cultivation of the sacred sciences of the Brahmans began and for a long time had its centre in the ancient Sdtrakarazas, the schools which first collected the fragmentary doctrines, scattered in the older Vedic works, and arranged them for the convenience of oral instruction in Sdtras or strings of aphorisms. To the subjects which these schools chiefly cultivated, be- -longs besides the ritual, grammar, phonetics, and the other so-called Angas of the Veda, the sacred lawalso. The latter includes not only the precepts for the moral duties of all Aryas, but also the special rules regarding the conduct of kings and the administration of justice. The Sitra treatises on law thus cover the whole range of topics, contained in the metrical Smritis attributed to Manu, Y4giiavalkya, and other sages. Though only one Dharma-sitra, that of the Apastambiyas, actually remains connected with the aphorisms on the ritual and other sacred subjects, the existence of the Dharmasdstras of Gautama, Vasish¢/a, and Vishau, which are likewise composed in Sitras, proves that formerly 1 See his letter to Mr. Morley, reprinted in Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. ix-xi, and Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 132-134. Compare also the analogous views formed independently by Professors Weber and Stenzler, Indische Studien, vol. i, pp. 69, 143, 243-4. INTRODUCTION. xix
2Morley, reprinted in Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. ix-xi, and Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 132-134. Compare also the analogous views formed independently by Professors Weber and Stenzler, Indische Studien, vol. i, pp. 69, 143, 243-4. INTRODUCTION. xix they were more numerous. The perfectly credible tradition of the MimAmsa school, which declares that originally each Vedic school or Karama possessed a peculiar work on Dharma, confirms this assumption. While the Dharmasitras possess a considerable antiquity, dating between 600- 200 B.C., the metrical Smzztis cannot be equally ancient, because there is much in their form that is modern, and especially because tlfe epic Anush¢ubh Sloka, in which they are written, was not used for continuous composition during the Stra period. As the metrical Smvtis are later than the Dharma-sitras, it is, under the circumstances stated, very probable that each of them is based ona particular Dharmasitra, The Manava Dharmasdstra in particular may be considered as a recast and versification of the Dharma-s(tra of the Manava Satrakarama, a subdivision of the Maitrayantya school, which adheres to a redaction of the Black Yagur-veda. Considering the state of our knowledge of Vedic literature thirty years ago, the enunciation of this hypothesis was certainly a bold step. The facts on which it rested were few, and the want of important links in the premises laid it open to weighty objections. No proof was or could be furnished that the Sitras of Gautama, Vasish/sha, and Vishnu originally were manuals of Vedic schools, not codes promulgated for the guidance of all Aryas, as the Hindu tradition, then known, asserted. The assumption that it was so, rested solely on the resemblance of their form and contents to those of the Apastambiya Dharma-stitra. No trace of a Manava Dharma-sitra could be shown, nor could any connexion between the Manava DharmasAstra and the school of the MAnavas, except through their titles, be established. The assertion that the Brahmans had turned older Sfitras, and especially Dharma-sitras, into metrical works, written in epic Slokas, had to be left without any illustration, and no cause was assigned which would explain this remarkable change. As a set off against these undeniable weaknesses, Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis possessed two strong points which secured for it from the outset a favourable reception on the part of all Sanskritists of the historical school. First, it substituted a rational theory b2 XX LAWS OF MANU.
3As a set off against these undeniable weaknesses, Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis possessed two strong points which secured for it from the outset a favourable reception on the part of all Sanskritists of the historical school. First, it substituted a rational theory b2 XX LAWS OF MANU. of historical development for the fantastic fables of the Hindu tradition and for the hopeless uncertainty which characterised the earlier speculations of European scholars concerning the origin of the so-called Indian codes of law. Secondly, it fully agreed with many facts which the beginning exploration of Vedic literature had brought to light, and which, taken as a whole, forced on all serious students the conviction that the systematic cultifation of all the Indian SAstras had begun in the Vedic schools. Subsequent events have shown that Professor Max Miiller was right to rely on these two leading ideas, and that his fellow Sanskritists did well to follow him, instead of taking umbrage at the minor flaws. Slowly but steadily a great number of the missing links in the chain of evidence has been brought to light by subsequent investigations. We now know that the Satra works of other schools than the Apastambiyas included or still include treatises on the sacred law. The Dharma-s(itra of the Baudhdyantyas, the oldest Sftra- Rarana of the Taittirtya Veda, has been recovered. Though the connexion between the several parts of the great body of Sfitras has been severed, it is yet possible to recognise that it once was closely joined to the Grzhya-sitra'. The recovery of the entire collection of Hirazyakesi-sftras has proved that these too include a Dharma-siatra, which in this instance has been borrowed from the earlier Apastambiyas?. The mystery which surrounded the position of the Dharmasdstras of Gautama, Vishvu, and Vasish¢/a has been cleared up. To the assertion that they were composed by ancient Rishis for the welfare of mankind, we can at present oppose another tradition according to which they were at first studied and recognised as authoritative by particular schools only, adhering respectively to the Sama-veda, Black- Yagur-veda, and the Rig-veda*. Internal evidence confirming this tradition has been found in the case of Gautama’s Dharmasdstra and of the Vishvzu-smriti, or, more correctly, 1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxi. ? Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii. ® Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xlv—xlviii; vol. vii, pp. x-xvi; vol. xiv, pp. xl-xlv, INTRODUCTION, Xxi
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.