Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Vasish¢ka III, 2, a Manava Sloka is quoted which agrees literally with Manu II, 168. The same remark applies to the quotation at Vasishtha XX, 18, which is found Manu XI, 152. Another passage, Tate fety es ware aE AAT ATG: 0 INTRODUCTION.” XXXili Vas. XIII, 16, shows considerable verbal differences. According to Vasishta, Manu’s verse is: ‘Be it fruit, or water, or sesamum, or food, or whatever be (the gift) at a Sraddha, let him not, having just accepted it, recite the Veda; for it is declared in the Smviti that the hands of - Brahmanas are their mouths,’ while we read Manu IV, 117, ‘Be it an animal or a thing inanimate, whatever be the (gift) at a SrAddha, let him not, having just accepted it, recite the Veda; for it is declared in the Smriti that the hand of a Brahmana is his mouth". The last quotation which occurs Vas. XIX, 37, and refers to the sulka, (exemptions from) taxes and duties’, is in the Trishtubh metre, and, hence, cannot have a place in our Manu-smriti. But it is remarkable that the latter does not even show a corresponding Anush¢ubh verse, and that the contents of the quotation do not quite agree with the teaching of our Manu. The latter mentions the exemption of a sum less than a kaérshapaaa incidentally X,120. It agrees also with Manu’s doctrines that Srotriyas, ascetics, alms, and sacrifices should not be taxed. But there are no indications that infants, messengers, and ambassadors, or the remnant left to-a plundered trader, should go free. With respect to those living by arts (silpa), our Manu teaches, VII, 138, and X, 120, just like most other ancient authors, that artisans are to do monthly one piece of work for the king. Though this corvée amounts to a pretty severe tax, it is, of course, possible to contend that Manu’s rule does not exactly contradict that quoted by Vasishéka. Besides these passages, there are some other verses® which contain the well-known phrase, ‘ manur abravit, thus Manu spoke,’ 1 Vas, RTA WA whegerecta | Gararafersrargrrereangfark wag wfeperanara: were ate: eye eft W | Mans, wife a afe wife afeifqegifak tq aerearTeTe: Uwren fe few: oA: 4 ? “No duty (is paid) on a sum less than a karshapama, there is no tax on a livelihood gained by arts, nor on an infant, nor on a messenger, nor on what has been received as alms, nor on the remnants of property left after a robbery, nor on a Srotriya, nor on an ascetic, nor on a sacrifice.’ * Vas. XI, 23; XII, 16; XXIIL, 43; XXVI, 8. [25] Cc XXXIV LAWS OF MANU.
2XI, 23; XII, 16; XXIIL, 43; XXVI, 8. [25] Cc XXXIV LAWS OF MANU. and mention Manu as the authority for the rule taught. With respect to these references it seems to me not probable that they have been taken from the Manava Dharma-sitra. We shall see below! that from the earliest times the mythical Manu, the father of mankind, was considered as the founder of the social and moral order, and that he was considered to have first taught or revealed religious rites and legal maxims. Hence I believe that these four verses give nothing more than an expression of the belief that their doctrines go back to the first progenitor of men?. The first three among them either contradict or find no counterpart in our Manu-smriti. The fourth agrees in substance with Manu XI, 260-261. But it occurs ina chapter which is probably spurious, or, at least, full of interpolations, Whatever view may be taken concerning these passages, the allegation that the Manava DharmasQitra, known to Vasish¢ha, closely resembled, but was not identical with our Manu, need not be modified. If we look for other traces of the Sdtra, quoted by Vasishtha, it is possible that Gautama, who mentions an opinion of Manu, XXI, 7, refers to it. His Dharma-siitra is even older than Vasish¢/a’s, and long anterior to our Manu-smriti. But the possibility that Gautama refers not to a rule of the Manava Dharma-sitra, but to a maxim generally attributed to the mythical Manu, is not altogether excluded. Gautama says, ‘Manu (declares that) the first three (crimes, the intentional murder of a Brahmaaza, drinking Sur4, and the violation of a Guru’s bed) cannot be expiated®’ The wording of the Sdtra shows that it is not a quotation, but a summary of Manu’s opinion. Our Manu-smriti explicitly teaches, XI, 90, the same doctrine with respect to the intentional murder of a Brahmaza, and, if my explanation of XI, 147 is accepted, also with respect to the intentional drinking of Sura. As regards the third offence, there is no 1 See p. lviii. ® The meaning of the phrase in the verse, occurring in the quotation from the Manava Dharma-siitra, is probably the same. > ftfa wanrafadyarter ag: The same opinion is expressed in the Mahabharata XII, 165, 34, but not attributed to Manu, INTRODUCTION. XXXV direct statement. But the expiations, prescribed XI, 104- 105, amount to a sentence of death. Hence our Manusmriti, too, practically declares the crime to be inexpiable during the offender’s lifetime. Its original, the Dharmasitra, may, therefore, be supposed to have had the rule which Gautama attributes to Manu. Nevertheless, owing to the circumstances mentioned above, Gautama’s passage cannot be adduced as a perfectly certain proof of the early existence of the MAanava Dharma-sitra.
3Its original, the Dharmasitra, may, therefore, be supposed to have had the rule which Gautama attributes to Manu. Nevertheless, owing to the circumstances mentioned above, Gautama’s passage cannot be adduced as a perfectly certain proof of the early existence of the MAanava Dharma-sitra. Among the remaining Dharma-sftras! there is only the fragment attributed to Usanas which seems to quote a Satra of Manu. At the beginning of the first chapter? we find a very corrupt passage containing a prose-quotation which according to two of my MSS. belongs to Manu, but according to a third to Sumantu. As the latter copy is, however, clearly more incorrect than the other two, and as a Sfitra by Sumantu is not known from other sources, the reading of the first two seems to be preferable. The contents of the quotation which apparently prescribes that on the death of an infant, of an emigrant, of one who keeps no sacred fires, of one who kills himself by starvation or by self-cremation, and of one slain in battle, no period of impurity need be kept, agree with the teaching of our Manusmriti, V, 78, 89, 94, 98. There is, further, one among the Vedic books on the ritual, the SAnkhayana Grzhya-sdtra, which possibly refers to the Manava Dharma-sitra. This work quotes the verse, Manu V, 41, which, as has been shown above, occurred also in the Dharma-sitra as well as several other Slokas of 1 Regarding the passage of Apastamba II, 16, 1, which ascribes the revelation of the Sraddhas to Manu, see below, p. lix. 2 I transcribe the whole beginning of the work, W4 WHATHT BTS Perret: ws eqers araTfaes: qk agfoR a un TrETyT ~~ ~~ aque 0 wes Syraced qrafrae sears (7) warwaframagy Feed 6 Wen aterre afemfataerrenet ge FIAT Thos two MSS.; the third reads, SWSIET Y YALE | and further on, WATAwrfa arfirer® t It is impossible to restore the whole passage. The end of the quotation may have been GW? wiufaefata a c2 XXXVI 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.
1Vasish¢ka III, 2, a Manava Sloka is quoted which agrees literally with Manu II, 168. The same remark applies to the quotation at Vasishtha XX, 18, which is found Manu XI, 152. Another passage, Tate fety es ware aE AAT ATG: 0 INTRODUCTION.” XXXili Vas. XIII, 16, shows considerable verbal differences. According to Vasishta, Manu’s verse is: ‘Be it fruit, or water, or sesamum, or food, or whatever be (the gift) at a Sraddha, let him not, having just accepted it, recite the Veda; for it is declared in the Smviti that the hands of - Brahmanas are their mouths,’ while we read Manu IV, 117, ‘Be it an animal or a thing inanimate, whatever be the (gift) at a SrAddha, let him not, having just accepted it, recite the Veda; for it is declared in the Smriti that the hand of a Brahmana is his mouth". The last quotation which occurs Vas. XIX, 37, and refers to the sulka, (exemptions from) taxes and duties’, is in the Trishtubh metre, and, hence, cannot have a place in our Manu-smriti. But it is remarkable that the latter does not even show a corresponding Anush¢ubh verse, and that the contents of the quotation do not quite agree with the teaching of our Manu. The latter mentions the exemption of a sum less than a kaérshapaaa incidentally X,120. It agrees also with Manu’s doctrines that Srotriyas, ascetics, alms, and sacrifices should not be taxed. But there are no indications that infants, messengers, and ambassadors, or the remnant left to-a plundered trader, should go free. With respect to those living by arts (silpa), our Manu teaches, VII, 138, and X, 120, just like most other ancient authors, that artisans are to do monthly one piece of work for the king. Though this corvée amounts to a pretty severe tax, it is, of course, possible to contend that Manu’s rule does not exactly contradict that quoted by Vasishéka. Besides these passages, there are some other verses® which contain the well-known phrase, ‘ manur abravit, thus Manu spoke,’ 1 Vas, RTA WA whegerecta | Gararafersrargrrereangfark wag wfeperanara: were ate: eye eft W | Mans, wife a afe wife afeifqegifak tq aerearTeTe: Uwren fe few: oA: 4 ? “No duty (is paid) on a sum less than a karshapama, there is no tax on a livelihood gained by arts, nor on an infant, nor on a messenger, nor on what has been received as alms, nor on the remnants of property left after a robbery, nor on a Srotriya, nor on an ascetic, nor on a sacrifice.’ * Vas. XI, 23; XII, 16; XXIIL, 43; XXVI, 8. [25] Cc XXXIV LAWS OF MANU.
2XI, 23; XII, 16; XXIIL, 43; XXVI, 8. [25] Cc XXXIV LAWS OF MANU. and mention Manu as the authority for the rule taught. With respect to these references it seems to me not probable that they have been taken from the Manava Dharma-sitra. We shall see below! that from the earliest times the mythical Manu, the father of mankind, was considered as the founder of the social and moral order, and that he was considered to have first taught or revealed religious rites and legal maxims. Hence I believe that these four verses give nothing more than an expression of the belief that their doctrines go back to the first progenitor of men?. The first three among them either contradict or find no counterpart in our Manu-smriti. The fourth agrees in substance with Manu XI, 260-261. But it occurs ina chapter which is probably spurious, or, at least, full of interpolations, Whatever view may be taken concerning these passages, the allegation that the Manava DharmasQitra, known to Vasish¢ha, closely resembled, but was not identical with our Manu, need not be modified. If we look for other traces of the Sdtra, quoted by Vasishtha, it is possible that Gautama, who mentions an opinion of Manu, XXI, 7, refers to it. His Dharma-siitra is even older than Vasish¢/a’s, and long anterior to our Manu-smriti. But the possibility that Gautama refers not to a rule of the Manava Dharma-sitra, but to a maxim generally attributed to the mythical Manu, is not altogether excluded. Gautama says, ‘Manu (declares that) the first three (crimes, the intentional murder of a Brahmaaza, drinking Sur4, and the violation of a Guru’s bed) cannot be expiated®’ The wording of the Sdtra shows that it is not a quotation, but a summary of Manu’s opinion. Our Manu-smriti explicitly teaches, XI, 90, the same doctrine with respect to the intentional murder of a Brahmaza, and, if my explanation of XI, 147 is accepted, also with respect to the intentional drinking of Sura. As regards the third offence, there is no 1 See p. lviii. ® The meaning of the phrase in the verse, occurring in the quotation from the Manava Dharma-siitra, is probably the same. > ftfa wanrafadyarter ag: The same opinion is expressed in the Mahabharata XII, 165, 34, but not attributed to Manu, INTRODUCTION. XXXV direct statement. But the expiations, prescribed XI, 104- 105, amount to a sentence of death. Hence our Manusmriti, too, practically declares the crime to be inexpiable during the offender’s lifetime. Its original, the Dharmasitra, may, therefore, be supposed to have had the rule which Gautama attributes to Manu. Nevertheless, owing to the circumstances mentioned above, Gautama’s passage cannot be adduced as a perfectly certain proof of the early existence of the MAanava Dharma-sitra.
3Its original, the Dharmasitra, may, therefore, be supposed to have had the rule which Gautama attributes to Manu. Nevertheless, owing to the circumstances mentioned above, Gautama’s passage cannot be adduced as a perfectly certain proof of the early existence of the MAanava Dharma-sitra. Among the remaining Dharma-sftras! there is only the fragment attributed to Usanas which seems to quote a Satra of Manu. At the beginning of the first chapter? we find a very corrupt passage containing a prose-quotation which according to two of my MSS. belongs to Manu, but according to a third to Sumantu. As the latter copy is, however, clearly more incorrect than the other two, and as a Sfitra by Sumantu is not known from other sources, the reading of the first two seems to be preferable. The contents of the quotation which apparently prescribes that on the death of an infant, of an emigrant, of one who keeps no sacred fires, of one who kills himself by starvation or by self-cremation, and of one slain in battle, no period of impurity need be kept, agree with the teaching of our Manusmriti, V, 78, 89, 94, 98. There is, further, one among the Vedic books on the ritual, the SAnkhayana Grzhya-sdtra, which possibly refers to the Manava Dharma-sitra. This work quotes the verse, Manu V, 41, which, as has been shown above, occurred also in the Dharma-sitra as well as several other Slokas of 1 Regarding the passage of Apastamba II, 16, 1, which ascribes the revelation of the Sraddhas to Manu, see below, p. lix. 2 I transcribe the whole beginning of the work, W4 WHATHT BTS Perret: ws eqers araTfaes: qk agfoR a un TrETyT ~~ ~~ aque 0 wes Syraced qrafrae sears (7) warwaframagy Feed 6 Wen aterre afemfataerrenet ge FIAT Thos two MSS.; the third reads, SWSIET Y YALE | and further on, WATAwrfa arfirer® t It is impossible to restore the whole passage. The end of the quotation may have been GW? wiufaefata a c2 XXXVI 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.