A History of Sanskrit Literature c20.s1: Law
A History of Sanskrit Literature c20.s1
- Language
- English
Contents
- c20.s1.1 — 3 parts
Law
c20.s1.1.1
ON Sanskrit legal literature in general, consult the very valuable work of Jolly, *Recht und Sitte*, in Bühler's *Encyclopædia*, 1896 (complete bibliography). There are several secondary Dharma Sūtras of the post-Vedic period. The most important of these is the *Vaishṇava Dharma Çāstra* or *Vishṇu Smṛiti* (closely connected with the *Kāṭhaka Gṛihya Sūtra*), not earlier than 200 A.D. in its final redaction (ed. by Jolly, Calcutta, 1881, trans. by him in the *Sacred Books of the East*, Oxford, 1880). The regular post-Vedic lawbooks are metrical (mostly in *çlokas*). They are much wider in scope than the Dharma Sūtras, which are limited to matters connected with religion. The most important and earliest of the metrical Smṛitis is the *Mānava Dharma Çāstra*, or *Code of Manu*, not improbably based on a *Mānava Dharma Sūtra*. It is closely connected with the *Mahābhārata*, of which three books alone (iii., xii., xvi.) contain as many as 260 of its 2684 *çlokas*. It probably assumed its present shape not much later than 200 A.D. It was ed. by Jolly, London, 1887; trans. by Bühler, with valuable introd., in the *Sacred Books*, Oxford, 1886; also trans. by Burnell (ed. by Hopkins), London, 1884; text ed., with seven comm., by Mandlik, Bombay, 1886; text, with Kullūka's comm., Bombay, 1888, better than Nirn. Sāg. Pr., ed. 1887. Next comes the *Yājñavalkya Dharma Çāstra*, which is much more concise (1009 *çlokas*). It was probably based on a Dharma Sūtra of the *White* *Yajurveda*;
c20.s1.1.2
its third section resembles the *Pāraskara Gṛihya Sūtra*, but it is unmistakably connected with the *Mānava Gṛihya Sūtra* of the *Black Yajurveda*. Its approximate date seems to be about 350 A.D. Its author probably belonged to Mithilā, capital of Videha (Tirhut). *Yājñavalkya*, ed. and trans. by Stenzler, Berlin, 1849; with comm. *Mitāksharā*, 3rd ed., Bombay, 1892. The *Nārada Smṛiti* is the first to limit *dharma* to law in the strict sense. It contains more than 12,000 *çlokas*, and appears to have been founded chiefly on *Manu*. Bāṇa mentions a *Nāradīya Dharma Çāstra*, and Nārada was annotated by one of the earliest legal commentators in the eighth century. His date is probably about 500 A.D. *Nārada*, ed. by Jolly, Calcutta, 1885, trans. by him in *Sacred Books*, vol. xxxiii. 1889. A late lawbook is the *Parāçara Smṛiti* (anterior to 1300 A.D.), ed. in Bombay Sansk. Series, 1893; trans. *Bibl. Ind.*, 1887. The second stage of post-Vedic legal literature is formed by the commentaries. The oldest one preserved is that of Medhātithi on *Manu*; he dates from about 900 A.D. The most famous comm. on *Manu* is that of Kullūka-bhaṭṭa, composed at Benares in the fifteenth century, but it is nothing more than a plagiarism of Govindarāja, a commentator of the twelfth century. The most celebrated comm. on *Yājñavalkya* is the *Mitāksharā* of Vijnāneçvara, composed about 1100 A.D.
c20.s1.1.3
It early attained to the position of a standard work, not only in the Dekhan, but even in Benares and a great part of Northern India. In the present century it acquired the greatest importance in the practice of the Anglo-Indian law-courts through Colebrooke’s translation of the section which it contains on the law of inheritance. From about 1000 A.D. onwards, an innumerable multitude of legal compendia, called *Dharma-nibandhas*, was produced in India. The most imposing of them is the voluminous work in five parts entitled *Chaturvarga-chintāmaṇi*, composed by Hemādri about 1300 A.D. It hardly treats of law at all, but is a perfect mine of interesting quotations from the Smṛitis and the Purāṇas; it has been edited in the *Bibl. Ind.* The *Dharmaratna* of Jīmūtavāhana (probably fifteenth century) may here be mentioned, because part of it is the famous treatise on the law of inheritance entitled *Dāyabhāga*, which is the chief work of the Bengal School on the subject, and was translated by Colebrooke. It should be noted that the Indian Smṛitis are not on the same footing as the lawbooks of other nations, but are works of private individuals; they were also written by Brahmans for Brahmans, whose caste pretensions they consequently exaggerate. It is therefore important to check their statements by outside evidence.