Hindu Law and Custom (Recht und Sitte) c7.120

c7.120

Now, the Smṛtis which at the present day are studied and consulted by the authorities on Dharma in all parts of India, are primarily metrical Smṛtis, above all, the Mānavam Dharmaśāstram and the commentaries and systematic works annexed to it. How early the authority of this work spread over the whole of India is best shown by the numerous commentaries composed in various countries, which go back to the early mediaeval age and refer to even earlier sources. In my edition of the text of M. (London 1887) the variations of the text in these different commentaries were marked as fully as possible, but they are unimportant comparatively and it cannot, therefore, be doubted that our M. was essentially the same as it is to-day even 1000 years ago. A still more ancient testimony for the existence of a work at least very closely resembling this Smṛti is Bṛh.¹ whose fragments, which should be assigned to about the sixth or the seventh century A.D., exhibit an intimate acquaintance with M. Thus Bṛh. 10, 13 speaks about the different weights described by "M." with clear reference to M. 8, 132-137. The famous passage M. 9, 57-68, where Niyoga is at first prescribed and then forbidden, is already turned to account by Bṛh.; regarding the permissibility of gambling he points out (26, 1) the disagreement which exists in this respect between M. 9, 221 ff. and other teachers of law, and when Bṛh. 25, 33 speaks of the 13 sons, who were mentioned "by M.," it is only seemingly in contradiction to the 12 sons in M. 9, 158, 180; for according to M. 9, 127 ff. the Putrikāputra may be regarded as the thirteenth son. The superiority of M. over all other teachers of law is emphasised by Bṛh. 27, 3. In 13, 1 he mentions Bhṛgu instead of M. and thereby betrays his acquaintance with those passages of M. where Bhṛgu figures as the real author. Nārada too seems to presuppose our M. although his relation to our M. is not quite so clear as that of Bṛh., and Nār. is to be assigned to about 500 A.D. (§7). The Burmese and Javanese law-books are not less dependent on M. (§13). Kumārila (8. century) is the more important as a witness, because the ancient commentary often cited by him frequently refers to our M.² The inscriptions too corroborate this, at least in so far as they mention M. at the head of the teachers of law and this is done even in a Valabhi inscription of the sixth century A. D.³