Hindu Law and Custom (Recht und Sitte) c7.124

c7.124

The relation between our M. and the Mah., which of course is of a very complicated nature, is remarkable¹. Thus in Mah. 12, 56, 23 ff. two Ślokas are mentioned which M. had sung sveṣu dharmeṣu. One of these Ślokas agrees with M. 9, 321 and the expression dharmaḥ is often used to indicate a Dharmaśāstra. In Mah. 13, 46, 30 ff. there is a still clearer reference to a Śastra composed by Manu—the more so because the rule cited here is the same as M. 9, 87 in substance and even agrees with it word for word to some extent. In the story of Śakuntalā in Mah. 1, 73, 8 ff., Manu at least, if not his manual, is mentioned as the authority for the list and description of the eight forms of marriage—a passage which agrees in its main features with M. 3, 20-26. Of course, in other comparable passages it appears that the Mah. represents an older state of things than our M., so that the law proper in it is expounded in an altogether disorderly fashion and without any trace of the 18 titles of law. Besides, M. contains a whole series of references (particularly 7, 41 ; 8, 110 ; 9, 23, 66, 129, 227, 314, 315 ; 10, 108), which betray an accurate knowledge of the saga of the Mah. ; but it is true that most of these references occur in those parts of our M. which seem to be of later origin. Particularly remarkable are the numerous parallel passages in these two works which in the Mah. are not mentioned as quotations from Manu. According to Bühler's researches there are more than 260 such verses, i.e. about 1/10 of the whole of the M., in the 3., 12., and the 16. Parvans of the Mah. alone. As sometimes the one and sometimes the other of these two works contains the better reading, this agreement cannot be the result of borrowing but goes back to a common source and this common source is to be sought in Indian "Spruchweisheit."