The History of Indian Literature c9.336

c9.336

As regards the existing text of Manu, it cannot, apparently, have been extant in its present shape even at the period to which the later portions of the Mahábhárata belong. For although Manu is often cited in the epic in literal accordance with the text as we now have it, on the other hand, passages of Manu are just as often quoted there which, while they appear in our text, yet do so with considerable variations. Again, passages are there ascribed to Manu which are nowhere found in our collection, and even passages composed in a totally different metre. And, lastly, passages also occur frequently in the Mahá-Bhárata which are not attributed to Manu at all, but which may nevertheless be read *verbatim* in our text.∗ Though we may doubtless here assign a large share of the blame to the writers making the quotations (we know from the commentaries how often mistakes have crept in through the habit of citing from memory), still, the fact that our text attained its present shape only after having been, perhaps repeatedly, recast, is patent from the numerous inconsistencies, additions, and repetitions it contains. In support of this conclusion, we have, further, not only the fabulous tradition to the effect that the text of Manu consisted originally of 100,000 *ślokas*, and was abridged, first to 12,000, and eventually to 4000 *ślokas*†—a tradition which at least clearly displays a reminiscence of various remodellings of the text—but also the decisive fact that in the legal commentaries, in addition to Manu, a *Vṛiddha*-Manu and a *Bṛihan*-Manu are directly quoted,‡ and must therefore have been still extant at the time of these commentaries. But although we cannot determine, even approximately, the date when our text of Manu received its present shape,³²⁸ there is little doubt that its contents, compared with those of the other Dharma-Sástras, are, on the whole, the most ancient, and that, consequently, it has been rightly placed by general tradition\* at the head of this class of literature. The number of these other Dharma-Sástras is considerable, amounting to fifty-six, and is raised to a much higher figure—namely, eighty—if we reckon the several redactions of the individual works that have so far come to our knowledge, and which are designated by the epithets *laghu*, *madhyama*, *bṛihat*, *vṛiddha*.³²⁹ When once the various texts are before us, their relative age will admit of being determined without great difficulty. It will be possible,† in particular, to characterise them according to the preponderance, or the entire absence, of one or other of the three constituent elements which make up the substance of Indian law, that is to say, according as they chiefly treat of domestic and civil duties, of the administration of justice, or of the regulations as to purification and penance. In Manu these three constituents are pretty much mixed up, but upon the whole they are discussed with equal fulness. The code of Yájnavalkya is divided into three books, according to the three topics, each book being of about the same extent. The other works of the class vary.