Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1and 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. of the funeral cakes, are mentioned Manu III, 261. Discussions of the ancient sages, exactly resembling those met with in the Dharma-sitras', are given IX, 31-55 regarding the long-disputed question whether a son begotten on a wife by a stranger, but with the husband’s consent, belongs to the natural parent or to ‘the owner of the soil.’ In the same chapter it is stated, just as in Gautama’s Dharma-sfitra*, that ‘some’ permit the procreation of a second son with an appointed widow. Manu X, 70-71, we find a decision on the question whether, as ‘some’ assert, the seed be more important, or, as ‘others’ state, the soil, or, as ‘again others’ maintain, the seed and the soil have equal importance, and, XI, 45, we are told that the sages, i. e. all sages, are convinced of the efficacy of penances for atoning unintentional offences, while ‘some’ declare that they even destroy the guilt of him who sinned intentionally. The latter point is discussed in exactly the same manner Gaut. XIX, 3-6. In other cases the author is less explicit. He merely places conflicting opinions side by side without indicating that they belong to different authorities, and hence he has mostly succeeded in misleading the commentators as to his real meaning. Thus we read Manu II, 145, that the teacher is less venerable than the father and the mother, while the next following verses teach exactly the contrary doctrine. The commentators are much perplexed by this contradiction. But if we turn to Gautama II, 50-51, where it is said, ‘ The teacher is chief among all Gurus; some say (that) the mother (holds the first place),’ it is not doubtful that the Manu-smriti gives in the first verse the opinion of Gautama’s ‘some’ as the pirvapaksha, and adduces the following one in order to prove its incorrectness. A similar case occurs Manu III, 23-25, where three opinions regarding the permissibility of certain marriage-rites are enumerated, the last of which is the siddh4nta or the author’s own view. It might be contended that these passages, the list of 1 See especially Vas. XVII, 6-9, where one of the verses of the Manu-smrtti occurs, + Gaut. XVIII, 8. INTRODUCTION. . XXV
2It might be contended that these passages, the list of 1 See especially Vas. XVII, 6-9, where one of the verses of the Manu-smrtti occurs, + Gaut. XVIII, 8. INTRODUCTION. . XXV which might be considerably enlarged, do not necessarily force on us the conviction that they refer to actual lawbooks which preceded our Manu-smriti. If they stood by themselves, they might possibly be explained as showing nothing more than that legal and ritual questions had long engaged the attention of the learned. But this subterfuge becomes impossible, as we find in other verses the explicit confession that the author of the Manu-smriti knew Dharmasdstras. Three passages allude to their existence in general terms. The first occurs in the definition of the terms Sruti and Smriti, Manu II, 10, ‘ But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law.’ In the text the last word, dharmasAstram, stands in the singular. But it must doubtlessly be taken, as Kulldka! and Narayana? indicate, in a collective sense. Another mention of law-books is found Manu XII, 111, where a dharmapahaka, ‘ one who recites (the Institutes of) the sacred law,’ is named among the members of a parishad or assembly entitled to decide difficult points of law. The commentators are unanimous in explaining dharma, literally ‘ the sacred law,’ by ‘the Institutes of the sacred law’ or ‘the Smritis of Manu and others,’ and it is indeed impossible to take the word in any other sense than that of ‘law-books®.’ The third passage is perfectly explicit, as the word Dharmasastra is used in the plural. It occurs in the section on funeral sacrifices, Manu III, 232, ‘ At a (sacrifice in honour) of the manes he must let (his guests) hear the Veda, the Institutes of the sacred law (dharmasdstrai), &c.* Here the existence of many earlier law-books is plainly acknowledged. The character of the Institutes of the sacred law, known to the author of our Manu, may be inferred 1 ararfeged ofa: u * witgred arerata | Tarqyreatd Weta | * Medh, WATCTSm HeaTfeRTfagreqrareaiay nu Gov. arpa waaay i Kull. QTaqrfewatgrregaet i Nand. WAYTETANSR: tt The full significance of this passage will be shown below, p. lii. * See also Professor Stenzler in the Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 245; Dr. Johinntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 76. XXVvi LAWS OF MANU.
3arpa waaay i Kull. QTaqrfewatgrregaet i Nand. WAYTETANSR: tt The full significance of this passage will be shown below, p. lii. * See also Professor Stenzler in the Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 245; Dr. Johinntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 76. XXVvi LAWS OF MANU. from some other passages which reveal an acquaintance with the Angas of the Veda’. Manu II, 141, and IV, 98, these auxiliary sciences are mentioned in a general way. From Manu III, 185, where it is said that a Brahmaza who knows the six Angas sanctifies the company at a Sraddha dinner, we learn that their number, as known to our author, did not differ from that mentioned in all Vedic works. Further, the name of the first Anga, the Kalpa, occurs III, 185, and the mention of a Nairukta among the members of a parishad shows that the fourth, the Nirukta, was also known. With the latter and the remaining four, which the author of the Manu-smr‘ti in all probability also knew, we are not immediately concerned. But the first, the Kalpa, possesses a very great interest for our purposes. This term, as is well known, denotes collectively those Sitras of the Vedic schools which teach the performance of the Srauta sacrifices, the rites especially described in the Sruti. Hence both Srauta-sdtras and, of course, also Sitrakaranas must have preceded the Manu-smriti. If it is now borne in mind that according to the Hindu tradition, mentioned above, all Sidtrakarazas formerly possessed Dharma-sftras, and that in some existing Kalpas the Dharma-sitras are closely connected with the Srauta-sdtras, it becomes exceedingly probable, nay, certain, that our Manava Dharmasdstra is later than some of the Dharmasitras. This conclusion is further corroborated by those passages of the Manu-smriti where the author quotes the opinions of individual predecessors. Manu III, 16 we read, ‘According to Atri and (Gautama) the son of Utathya? he who weds a SQdra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sadra female alone).’ Under the above explanation, which is adopted by the majority of the commentators, 1 See also Professor Stenzler, loc. cit.; Dr. Johinntgen, loc. cit. p. 74. ? The form Utathya is a corruption of the Vedic Uéathya, and shows the substitution of a dental for a palatal, which is not uncommon in the Prakrit dialects. Hence it possesses a certain value as an additional proof for the post- Vedic origin of the Manu-smriti. INTRODUCTION. XXVil
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.
1and 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. of the funeral cakes, are mentioned Manu III, 261. Discussions of the ancient sages, exactly resembling those met with in the Dharma-sitras', are given IX, 31-55 regarding the long-disputed question whether a son begotten on a wife by a stranger, but with the husband’s consent, belongs to the natural parent or to ‘the owner of the soil.’ In the same chapter it is stated, just as in Gautama’s Dharma-sfitra*, that ‘some’ permit the procreation of a second son with an appointed widow. Manu X, 70-71, we find a decision on the question whether, as ‘some’ assert, the seed be more important, or, as ‘others’ state, the soil, or, as ‘again others’ maintain, the seed and the soil have equal importance, and, XI, 45, we are told that the sages, i. e. all sages, are convinced of the efficacy of penances for atoning unintentional offences, while ‘some’ declare that they even destroy the guilt of him who sinned intentionally. The latter point is discussed in exactly the same manner Gaut. XIX, 3-6. In other cases the author is less explicit. He merely places conflicting opinions side by side without indicating that they belong to different authorities, and hence he has mostly succeeded in misleading the commentators as to his real meaning. Thus we read Manu II, 145, that the teacher is less venerable than the father and the mother, while the next following verses teach exactly the contrary doctrine. The commentators are much perplexed by this contradiction. But if we turn to Gautama II, 50-51, where it is said, ‘ The teacher is chief among all Gurus; some say (that) the mother (holds the first place),’ it is not doubtful that the Manu-smriti gives in the first verse the opinion of Gautama’s ‘some’ as the pirvapaksha, and adduces the following one in order to prove its incorrectness. A similar case occurs Manu III, 23-25, where three opinions regarding the permissibility of certain marriage-rites are enumerated, the last of which is the siddh4nta or the author’s own view. It might be contended that these passages, the list of 1 See especially Vas. XVII, 6-9, where one of the verses of the Manu-smrtti occurs, + Gaut. XVIII, 8. INTRODUCTION. . XXV
2It might be contended that these passages, the list of 1 See especially Vas. XVII, 6-9, where one of the verses of the Manu-smrtti occurs, + Gaut. XVIII, 8. INTRODUCTION. . XXV which might be considerably enlarged, do not necessarily force on us the conviction that they refer to actual lawbooks which preceded our Manu-smriti. If they stood by themselves, they might possibly be explained as showing nothing more than that legal and ritual questions had long engaged the attention of the learned. But this subterfuge becomes impossible, as we find in other verses the explicit confession that the author of the Manu-smriti knew Dharmasdstras. Three passages allude to their existence in general terms. The first occurs in the definition of the terms Sruti and Smriti, Manu II, 10, ‘ But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law.’ In the text the last word, dharmasAstram, stands in the singular. But it must doubtlessly be taken, as Kulldka! and Narayana? indicate, in a collective sense. Another mention of law-books is found Manu XII, 111, where a dharmapahaka, ‘ one who recites (the Institutes of) the sacred law,’ is named among the members of a parishad or assembly entitled to decide difficult points of law. The commentators are unanimous in explaining dharma, literally ‘ the sacred law,’ by ‘the Institutes of the sacred law’ or ‘the Smritis of Manu and others,’ and it is indeed impossible to take the word in any other sense than that of ‘law-books®.’ The third passage is perfectly explicit, as the word Dharmasastra is used in the plural. It occurs in the section on funeral sacrifices, Manu III, 232, ‘ At a (sacrifice in honour) of the manes he must let (his guests) hear the Veda, the Institutes of the sacred law (dharmasdstrai), &c.* Here the existence of many earlier law-books is plainly acknowledged. The character of the Institutes of the sacred law, known to the author of our Manu, may be inferred 1 ararfeged ofa: u * witgred arerata | Tarqyreatd Weta | * Medh, WATCTSm HeaTfeRTfagreqrareaiay nu Gov. arpa waaay i Kull. QTaqrfewatgrregaet i Nand. WAYTETANSR: tt The full significance of this passage will be shown below, p. lii. * See also Professor Stenzler in the Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 245; Dr. Johinntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 76. XXVvi LAWS OF MANU.
3arpa waaay i Kull. QTaqrfewatgrregaet i Nand. WAYTETANSR: tt The full significance of this passage will be shown below, p. lii. * See also Professor Stenzler in the Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 245; Dr. Johinntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 76. XXVvi LAWS OF MANU. from some other passages which reveal an acquaintance with the Angas of the Veda’. Manu II, 141, and IV, 98, these auxiliary sciences are mentioned in a general way. From Manu III, 185, where it is said that a Brahmaza who knows the six Angas sanctifies the company at a Sraddha dinner, we learn that their number, as known to our author, did not differ from that mentioned in all Vedic works. Further, the name of the first Anga, the Kalpa, occurs III, 185, and the mention of a Nairukta among the members of a parishad shows that the fourth, the Nirukta, was also known. With the latter and the remaining four, which the author of the Manu-smr‘ti in all probability also knew, we are not immediately concerned. But the first, the Kalpa, possesses a very great interest for our purposes. This term, as is well known, denotes collectively those Sitras of the Vedic schools which teach the performance of the Srauta sacrifices, the rites especially described in the Sruti. Hence both Srauta-sdtras and, of course, also Sitrakaranas must have preceded the Manu-smriti. If it is now borne in mind that according to the Hindu tradition, mentioned above, all Sidtrakarazas formerly possessed Dharma-sftras, and that in some existing Kalpas the Dharma-sitras are closely connected with the Srauta-sdtras, it becomes exceedingly probable, nay, certain, that our Manava Dharmasdstra is later than some of the Dharmasitras. This conclusion is further corroborated by those passages of the Manu-smriti where the author quotes the opinions of individual predecessors. Manu III, 16 we read, ‘According to Atri and (Gautama) the son of Utathya? he who weds a SQdra woman becomes an outcast, according to Saunaka on the birth of a son, and according to Bhrigu he who has (male) offspring from a (Sadra female alone).’ Under the above explanation, which is adopted by the majority of the commentators, 1 See also Professor Stenzler, loc. cit.; Dr. Johinntgen, loc. cit. p. 74. ? The form Utathya is a corruption of the Vedic Uéathya, and shows the substitution of a dental for a palatal, which is not uncommon in the Prakrit dialects. Hence it possesses a certain value as an additional proof for the post- Vedic origin of the Manu-smriti. INTRODUCTION. XXVil
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.