Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1xiv, 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 of the Kazaka Sitras. These latter discoveries are of particularly great importance, because they fully establish the truth of the assumption, underlying Professor Max Miiller’s theory, that in post-Vedic times the Brahmans did not hesitate to change the character of ancient school-books and to convert them into generally binding law-codes, either by simply taking them out of their connexion with the Srauta and Grihya-sitras or by adding besides matter which, in the eyes of orthodox Hindus, must greatly increase the sentiment of reverence felt for them. It is especially the case of the so-called Vishvu-smriti, which deserves the most careful attention. The beginning and the end of the work distinctly characterise it as a revelation of the god Vishnu. Vishvu, Vaishvava worship and philosophy are on various occasions praised and recommended in the course of the discussions. Yet the difference in the style of the introductory and concluding chapters leaves no doubt that they are later additions, and the perfectly credible tradition of the Pandits of Puma and Benares, the occurrence of particular sacred texts known to the K4z#akas alone, as well as the special resemblance of its contents to those of the Katkaka Grthya-sitra, make it perfectly certain that the work is only a Vaishvava recast of the Katsaka Dharmasitra!. We thus obtain in this case the confirmation of almost every fact which the conversion of the Dharma-sitra of the MAnavas into the revealed code of the Pragdpati Manu presupposes, with the sole exception of the substitution of epic Slokas for aphoristic prose. With respect to the last point, the further exploration of the Smriti literature has furnished numerous analogies. As an instance to the point we can now cite the fragments of the so-called Brihat Sankha Dharmasastra, which, as the quotations show, must 1 A quotation in Govindaraga’s Smrrtimafgart, fol.12>, 1. 8 (India Office Collection, No. 1736), contains a very small portion of this work. When explaining the penance for the murder of a Brahmama, mentioned Manu XI, 74, Govinda- raga says, WHIT MSTA MTV A [F] | ASAP TAIT sETATT xfau wt [rreart: | gafeat Tera ll The quotation shows that the Dharma-s(tra of the Ka¢has mentioned the fanciful expiations ending in death, which are given in all the ancient law-books, but omitted in the Vishzu-smriti. XXii LAWS OF MANU.
2XXii LAWS OF MANU. formerly have consisted of prose and verse, while the available MSS. show Sftras and Anush¢ubhs in one chapter only, and Slokas alone in the remainder!. There are, further, such works like the two Asvalayana Smritis and the Saunaka-smriti, evidently versifications of the corresponding Grthya-sitras, with or without the additions of extraneous matter?. In short, among all the general propositions concerning the origin of the metrical Smritis, which Professor Max Miiller advanced, only one, the assertion that during the Sdtra period of 600-200 B.C. works written in continuous epic verse were unknown, has proved untenable in its fullextent. It seems no longer advisable to limit the production of Satras to so short and so late a period as 600-200 B.C., and the existence of metrical school-manuals at a much earlier date has been clearly demonstrated*. It is now evident that the use of the heroic metre for such works did not begin all of asudden and ata certain given date. But it seems, nevertheless, indisputable that the use of aphoristic prose was adopted earlier than that of verse. For in all known cases a Sitra, not a metrical Samgraha, Varttika, or Ka4rika, stands at the head of each series of school-books, and some of the most salient peculiarities of the Sdtra style reappear in that of the metrical manuals*. With respect to the conjectures specially affecting the M4nava Dharmasdstra, the former existence of a Manava Dharmasfitra, consisting of prose mixed with verses in several metres, has been established by the discovery of some quotations in the Vasish¢za Dharma-sfitra, and their contents show that the work known to the author of the latter Sastra was closely related to our Manu-smriti. As regards the connexion of this Dharma-sftra, and consequently of our Manu-smr?ti with the Sitragaraza of the Manavas, the results of the late researches have not been equally satisfactory. The recovery of the writings of the MAnavas has not only not furnished any facts in support of the supposed connexion, but, on the contrary, has raised difficulties, as it 1 West and Biihler, Digest of H. L. p. 40, third edition. ? West and Biihler, loc. cit. p. 51. 5 Goldstiicker, Manavakalpa-sitra, p. 78. * West and Biihler, loc. cit. pp. 42. 44. INTRODUCTION. XXili
3L. p. 40, third edition. ? West and Biihler, loc. cit. p. 51. 5 Goldstiicker, Manavakalpa-sitra, p. 78. * West and Biihler, loc. cit. pp. 42. 44. INTRODUCTION. XXili appears that the doctrines of the Manava Grthya-sitra differ very considerably from those of our Manava Dharmasdastra. All that has been brought forward in substantiation of this portion of Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis is that as close an affinity exists between the Vishzusmriti, the modern recension of the Kas#aka Dharma-sitra, and our Manusmriti, as is found between the K4thaka and Manava Grthya-sitras and between the KAaskaka and MA4nava Samhitds, and that hence the Vedic original of the Manusmriti may be supposed to have belonged to the Manava school', The conclusive force of this argument is no doubt somewhat weakened, as Dr. von Bradke has pointed out, by the fact that the Vishzu-smrtti is not the original Katsaka Dharma-sitra. But to reject it altogether on account of this circumstance would be going too far. For the agreement between the Smritis of Manu and Vishzu extends to many subjects where the latter shows no traces of recasting, and may be reasonably supposed to faithfully represent the original Dharma-sitra. Nevertheless a full reconsideration of this point is indispensable. Before we proceed to that, it will, however, be advisable first to supplement Professor Max Miiller’s arguments against the antiquity of our Manusmriti by the discussion of some of its passages which clearly admit an acquaintance with a large body of older legal literature and particularly with Dharma-s@tras, and, secondly, to re-examine and complete the proof for the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra and for its having been the precursor of the metrical law-book. Among the passages of the Manu-smriti which disprove the claim, set up by its author, to be the first legislator, and which show that he had many predecessors, the first place must be allotted to its statements regarding controversies and conflicting decisions on certain points of the ritual and of the law. Such cases are by no means rare. Thus the observances of ‘some,’ with respect to the order of the several ceremonies at a Sraddha? and to the disposal 1 Professor Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, pp. xxvi-xxvii; and Dr. von Bradke, Jour. Germ. Or. Soc. vol. xxxii, pp. 438-441. * The same difference of opinion is mentioned in Sankh4yana Grihya-sitra IV, 1, 10. XXiV 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.
1xiv, 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 of the Kazaka Sitras. These latter discoveries are of particularly great importance, because they fully establish the truth of the assumption, underlying Professor Max Miiller’s theory, that in post-Vedic times the Brahmans did not hesitate to change the character of ancient school-books and to convert them into generally binding law-codes, either by simply taking them out of their connexion with the Srauta and Grihya-sitras or by adding besides matter which, in the eyes of orthodox Hindus, must greatly increase the sentiment of reverence felt for them. It is especially the case of the so-called Vishvu-smriti, which deserves the most careful attention. The beginning and the end of the work distinctly characterise it as a revelation of the god Vishnu. Vishvu, Vaishvava worship and philosophy are on various occasions praised and recommended in the course of the discussions. Yet the difference in the style of the introductory and concluding chapters leaves no doubt that they are later additions, and the perfectly credible tradition of the Pandits of Puma and Benares, the occurrence of particular sacred texts known to the K4z#akas alone, as well as the special resemblance of its contents to those of the Katkaka Grthya-sitra, make it perfectly certain that the work is only a Vaishvava recast of the Katsaka Dharmasitra!. We thus obtain in this case the confirmation of almost every fact which the conversion of the Dharma-sitra of the MAnavas into the revealed code of the Pragdpati Manu presupposes, with the sole exception of the substitution of epic Slokas for aphoristic prose. With respect to the last point, the further exploration of the Smriti literature has furnished numerous analogies. As an instance to the point we can now cite the fragments of the so-called Brihat Sankha Dharmasastra, which, as the quotations show, must 1 A quotation in Govindaraga’s Smrrtimafgart, fol.12>, 1. 8 (India Office Collection, No. 1736), contains a very small portion of this work. When explaining the penance for the murder of a Brahmama, mentioned Manu XI, 74, Govinda- raga says, WHIT MSTA MTV A [F] | ASAP TAIT sETATT xfau wt [rreart: | gafeat Tera ll The quotation shows that the Dharma-s(tra of the Ka¢has mentioned the fanciful expiations ending in death, which are given in all the ancient law-books, but omitted in the Vishzu-smriti. XXii LAWS OF MANU.
2XXii LAWS OF MANU. formerly have consisted of prose and verse, while the available MSS. show Sftras and Anush¢ubhs in one chapter only, and Slokas alone in the remainder!. There are, further, such works like the two Asvalayana Smritis and the Saunaka-smriti, evidently versifications of the corresponding Grthya-sitras, with or without the additions of extraneous matter?. In short, among all the general propositions concerning the origin of the metrical Smritis, which Professor Max Miiller advanced, only one, the assertion that during the Sdtra period of 600-200 B.C. works written in continuous epic verse were unknown, has proved untenable in its fullextent. It seems no longer advisable to limit the production of Satras to so short and so late a period as 600-200 B.C., and the existence of metrical school-manuals at a much earlier date has been clearly demonstrated*. It is now evident that the use of the heroic metre for such works did not begin all of asudden and ata certain given date. But it seems, nevertheless, indisputable that the use of aphoristic prose was adopted earlier than that of verse. For in all known cases a Sitra, not a metrical Samgraha, Varttika, or Ka4rika, stands at the head of each series of school-books, and some of the most salient peculiarities of the Sdtra style reappear in that of the metrical manuals*. With respect to the conjectures specially affecting the M4nava Dharmasdstra, the former existence of a Manava Dharmasfitra, consisting of prose mixed with verses in several metres, has been established by the discovery of some quotations in the Vasish¢za Dharma-sfitra, and their contents show that the work known to the author of the latter Sastra was closely related to our Manu-smriti. As regards the connexion of this Dharma-sftra, and consequently of our Manu-smr?ti with the Sitragaraza of the Manavas, the results of the late researches have not been equally satisfactory. The recovery of the writings of the MAnavas has not only not furnished any facts in support of the supposed connexion, but, on the contrary, has raised difficulties, as it 1 West and Biihler, Digest of H. L. p. 40, third edition. ? West and Biihler, loc. cit. p. 51. 5 Goldstiicker, Manavakalpa-sitra, p. 78. * West and Biihler, loc. cit. pp. 42. 44. INTRODUCTION. XXili
3L. p. 40, third edition. ? West and Biihler, loc. cit. p. 51. 5 Goldstiicker, Manavakalpa-sitra, p. 78. * West and Biihler, loc. cit. pp. 42. 44. INTRODUCTION. XXili appears that the doctrines of the Manava Grthya-sitra differ very considerably from those of our Manava Dharmasdastra. All that has been brought forward in substantiation of this portion of Professor Max Miiller’s hypothesis is that as close an affinity exists between the Vishzusmriti, the modern recension of the Kas#aka Dharma-sitra, and our Manusmriti, as is found between the K4thaka and Manava Grthya-sitras and between the KAaskaka and MA4nava Samhitds, and that hence the Vedic original of the Manusmriti may be supposed to have belonged to the Manava school', The conclusive force of this argument is no doubt somewhat weakened, as Dr. von Bradke has pointed out, by the fact that the Vishzu-smrtti is not the original Katsaka Dharma-sitra. But to reject it altogether on account of this circumstance would be going too far. For the agreement between the Smritis of Manu and Vishzu extends to many subjects where the latter shows no traces of recasting, and may be reasonably supposed to faithfully represent the original Dharma-sitra. Nevertheless a full reconsideration of this point is indispensable. Before we proceed to that, it will, however, be advisable first to supplement Professor Max Miiller’s arguments against the antiquity of our Manusmriti by the discussion of some of its passages which clearly admit an acquaintance with a large body of older legal literature and particularly with Dharma-s@tras, and, secondly, to re-examine and complete the proof for the former existence of a Manava Dharma-sitra and for its having been the precursor of the metrical law-book. Among the passages of the Manu-smriti which disprove the claim, set up by its author, to be the first legislator, and which show that he had many predecessors, the first place must be allotted to its statements regarding controversies and conflicting decisions on certain points of the ritual and of the law. Such cases are by no means rare. Thus the observances of ‘some,’ with respect to the order of the several ceremonies at a Sraddha? and to the disposal 1 Professor Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, pp. xxvi-xxvii; and Dr. von Bradke, Jour. Germ. Or. Soc. vol. xxxii, pp. 438-441. * The same difference of opinion is mentioned in Sankh4yana Grihya-sitra IV, 1, 10. XXiV 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.