History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s14.29.4

v1.c6.s14.29.4

It is possible that in recasting several changes were made. The third opinion of the Mānavas quoted by Kauṭilya is about the fine to be imposed upon officers of the state occasioning loss of revenue (II. 7). The other two views of the Mānavas quoted are concerned with the fine to be imposed on false witnesses and for forcible seizure of jewels¹⁷⁵ &c. It must be admitted that in the extant Manusmṛti there is nothing exactly corresponding with these views. But from this fact no one conclusion alone can be drawn. There may be a mistake in quoting, or there may be interpolations, it may be that some of the verses in the original Manusmṛti have dropped out or that Kauṭilya is quoting not the Manusmṛti itself, but the views of works based on or explanatory of Manu. It is noteworthy that Bṛhaspati¹⁷⁶ contains a verse very similar to the views on sāhasa attributed to the Mānavas. We shall see below that Bṛhaspati's work was more or less a supplement of Manu. The only authors or schools, besides the Mānavas, cited by name in the dharmasthīya section are the Bārhaspatyas and the Auśanasas. It is remarkable that the well-known and ancient Dharmasūtrakāras like Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana, Vasiṣṭha, Hārīta are nowhere quoted by name. It is noteworthy that in the dharmasthīya section Kauṭilya several times quotes the views of ācāryas and of some others under the word "apare". Some of these views correspond closely with the discussions in the ancient dharmasūtras.