Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18: 31. The Manusmṛti

History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18

Language
English

Contents

31. The Manusmṛti

v1.c6.s18.1

So many editions of this work have been published in India since 1813 (when the Manusmṛti was first published at Calcutta), that it is not possible to name them. In this work the Nirṇaya-sāgara edition with the commentary of Kullūka has been used throughout. Another edition of Manu well known on this side of India is that of the late V. N. Mandlik who published several commentaries snch as those of Medhātithi, Govindarāja and others. The Manusmṛti has been translated into English several times. The best known translation is that of Dr. Bühler in the S. B. E. series (vol. 25). Dr. Bühler also added an exhaustive and very scholarly introduction to his translation and dealt with numerous problems connected with the Manusmṛti.

v1.c6.s18.2

In the Ṛgveda Manu is spoken of as the father of mankind (Ṛg. I. 80. 16, I. 114. 2, II. 33. 13) and a Vedic poet prays that he may not be led away from the ancestral path of Manu.²⁶⁴ Another Vedic bard says that Manu was the first to offer sacrifice (Ṛg. X. 63. 7). In the Taittirīya Saṁhitā and the Tāṇḍya-mahā-brāhmaṇa it is said 'whatever Manu said is medicine.'²⁶⁵ Taittirīya-Saṁhitā (II. 1. 5. 6) also says that mankind is Manu's (Mānavyo hi prajāḥ). In the Taittirīya Saṁhitā (III. 1. 9. 4-5) and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (V. 14) we have the story of Manu dividing his wealth among his sons and of the exclusion of his son Nābhānediṣṭha. The Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 216) gives us the story of Manu and the deluge. In the Nirukta (chap. III) there is a discussion about the rights of sons and daughters. One of the views there propounded is that children of both sexes take their father's wealth and a ṛk and śloka are cited in support of that position.²⁶⁶ The śloka refers to the opinion of Manu Svāyambhuva. It is noteworthy that that śloka is opposed to a ṛik, which means that the śloka is not Śruti but is Smṛti. So before Yāska wrote there were smṛti texts in verse in which Manu was spoken of as a lawgiver. We have seen how Gautama and Vasiṣṭha quote the views of Manu and how Āpastamba connects Manu with the promulgation of śrāddhas (II. 7. 16. 1). The Mahābhārata in numerous places speaks of Manu, sometimes as Manu simply, sometimes as Svāyambhuva Manu (Śānti 21. 12) and also as Prācetasa Manu (Śānti 57. 43). In the Mahābhārata (Śānti. chap. 336. 38-46) we are told how the supreme being composed a hundred thousand ślokas on *dharma*, how Manu Svāyambhuva promulgated those *dharmas* and how Uśanas and Bṛhaspati composed *śāstras* based on the work of Manu Svāyambhuva.²⁶⁷ In another place the account is slightly different and Manu does not figure therein. Śānti-parva (chap. 59. 80-85) describes how the original work of Brahmā on the three, *Dharma*, *Artha*, and *Kāma*, in 100000 chapters was successively reduced to 10000, 5000, 3000 and 1000 chap. respectively by Viśālākṣa, Indra, Bāhudantaka, Bṛhaspati and Kāvya (Uśanas). The prose introduction to the Nārada-smṛti says that Manu composed in 100000 ślokas, 1080 chap. and 24 *prakaraṇas* a Dharmaśāstra and imparted it to Nārada, who abridged it into 12000 verses and taught it to Mārkaṇḍeya, who in his turn compressed it into 8000 ślokas and passed it on to Sumati Bhārgava, who again reduced it to 4000 ślokas. The Nārada-smṛti then gives the first verse²⁶⁸ of that work which is a combination of the extant Manu I. 5-6 and says that vyavahāra was the 9th prakaraṇa out of 24 in the original work of Manu. It will be noticed how this version differs from that of the Mahābhārata wherein Nārada is altogether ignored. The extant Manusmṛti (I. 32-33) narrates how from Brahmā sprang Virāj, who produced Manu, from whom were born the sages including Bhṛgu and Nārada, how Brahmā taught the śāstra to Manu, who in his turn imparted it to the ten sages (I. 58), how some great sages approached Manu and sought instruction in the *dharmas* of the *varṇas* and the intermediate castes and how Manu told them that his pupil Bhṛgu would impart to them the śāstra (I. 59-60). This appearance is kept up throughout the work. The sages interrupt Bhṛgu's discourse in several places (as in V. 1-2 and XII. 1-2). Manu is said to be omniscient (II. 7) and Manu is mentioned by name dozens of times in the work with the words "Manurāha" (IX. 158, X. 78 etc), or "Manur-abravīd" or "Manor-anuśāsanam".

v1.c6.s18.3

²⁶⁴ मा नः प॒थः पित्र्या॑न्मान॒वादधि॑ दू॒रं नै॑ष्ट परा॒वत॑: । ऋग्वेद VIII. 30. 3.

v1.c6.s18.4

²⁶⁵ यद्वै किं च मनुरवदत्तद्भेषजम् । तै. सं. II. 2. 10. 2; 'मनुर्वै यत्किंचावदत्तद्भेषजं भेषजतायै' ताण्ड्य ० 23. 16. 17.

v1.c6.s18.5

²⁶⁶ अविशेषेण मिथुनाः पुत्रा दायादा इत । तदेतदृक्श्लोकाभ्यामुक्तम् । अङ्गादङ्गात्संभवसि हृदयादधिजायसे । आत्मा वै पुत्रनामासि स जीव शरदः शतम् ॥ इति । अविशेषेण पुत्राणां दायो भवति धर्मतः । मिथुनानां विसर्गादौ मनुः स्वायंभुवोऽब्रवीत् ॥

v1.c6.s18.6

²⁶⁷ ऋषीनुवाच तान्सर्वान्दृष्ट्यः पुरुषोत्तमः। कृतं शतसहस्रं हि श्लोकानामिदमुत्तमम् ॥ लोकतन्त्रस्य कृत्स्नस्य यस्माद्धर्मः प्रवर्तते। ... तस्मात्प्रवक्ष्यते धर्मान् मनुः स्वायंभुवः स्वयम् । ... स्वायंभुवेषु धर्मेषु शास्त्रे चौशनसे कृते। बृहस्पतिमते चैव लोकेषु प्रतिचारिते ॥

v1.c6.s18.7

²⁶⁸ तत्राद्यमाद्यः श्लोकः। आसीदिदं तमोभूतं न प्राज्ञायत किंचन। ततः स्वयंभूर्भगवान्प्रादुरासीच्चतुर्मुखः ॥. Manu I. 5 is quoted as the verse of a स्मृतिकार by कमलशील in his comment on शान्तरक्षित's तत्त्वसंग्रह (कारिका 3118) in the middle of the 8th century A. D. *Vide* सुरेश्वर's बृहदारण्यकभाष्यवार्तिक p. 487.

v1.c6.s18.8

(VIII. 139, 279, IX. 239, etc). That the introductory words in the Nârada-smṛti are not spurious or a later addition follows from the remark of Medhātithi that, according to the Nāradasmṛti, Prajāpati composed a work in 100000 ślokas which was abridged by Manu and others.²⁶⁹ No one should take very seriously these varying accounts even in the Mahābhārata and in the Nāradasmṛti, as they are intended to glorify some particular text or texts. According to the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa as quoted in Hemādri, the Saṁskāra-mayūkha and other works, there were four versions of the Svāyambhuva śāstra composed by Bhṛgu, Nārada, Bṛhaspati and Aṅgiras.²⁷⁰ So early a writer as Viśvarūpa cites verses from Manusmṛti as those of Svayaṁbhū (vide com. on Yāj. II. 73, 74, 83, 85, where Manu 8. 68, 70-71, 380 and 105-6 are respectively quoted as Svayambhū's), while quotations from Bhṛgu cited by Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. I. 187 and 252) are not found in the Manusmṛti. In the same way most of the verses quoted from Bhṛgu by Aparārka are not found in the Manusmṛti. One verse which Aparārka quotes from Bhṛgu (on Yāj. II. 96) speaks of the view contained therein as that of Manu.²⁷¹

v1.c6.s18.9

²⁶⁹ नारदश्च स्मरति । शतसाहस्रो ग्रन्थः प्रजापतिना कृतः स मन्वादिभिः क्रमेण संक्षिप्त इति । मेधातिथि on मनु I. 58.

v1.c6.s18.10

²⁷⁰ भार्गवीया नारदीया च बार्हस्पत्याङ्गिरस्यपि । स्वायंभुवस्य शास्त्रस्य चतस्रः संहिता मताः ॥ चतुर्वर्ग०, दानखण्ड p. 528, संस्कारमयूख p. 2.

v1.c6.s18.11

²⁷¹ येषु पापेषु दिव्यानि प्रतिशुद्धानि यत्नतः । कारयेत्सज्जनैस्तानि नामिशस्तं त्वगेन्मनुः ॥ अपरार्क.

v1.c6.s18.12

It is almost impossible to say who composed the Manusmṛti. It goes without saying that the mythical Manu, progenitor of mankind even in the Ṛgveda, could not have composed it. What motives could have induced the unknown author to palm it off in the name of the mythical Manu and to suppress his identity it is difficult to say. One motive may have been to invest the work with a halo of antiquity and authoritativeness. Bühler following Max Müller says (SBE vol. 25 p. XVIII) that the Manusmṛti is based on or is a recast of an ancient dharmasūtra, viz. that of the Mānavacaraṇa. The question whether the Mānavadharmasūtra existed has been discussed above (sec. 13, pp. 79-85). Bühler himself candidly admits (SBE vol. 25, p. XXIII) that the recovery of the writings of the Mānavas has not only not furnished any facts in support of the alleged relation between the Mānavadharmasūtra and the Manusmṛti, but on the contrary has raised difficulties as the doctrines of the Mānava-gṛhyasūtra (edited by Dr. Knauer) differ very considerably from those of the Manusmṛti. To take only a few examples, Mānava Gṛ. S. II. 12. 1-2 are opposed to Manu 3. 1; Mānava Gṛ. S. I. 4. 7 to Manu 4. 95; Mānava Gṛ. S. I. 20. 1 to Manu 2. 34; Mānava Gṛ. S. I. 21. 1 to Manu 2. 35; Mānava Gṛ. S. I. 22. 1 to Manu 2. 36; Mānava Gṛ. S. II. 12. 1-2 to Manu 3. 84-86. Besides there is nothing in our Manu corresponding to the Vināyakaśānti in the Mānavagṛhya (II. 14) nor to the tests for selecting a bride prescribed in Mānava Gṛ. S. I. 7. 9, which corresponds to Āśvalāyana Gṛ. S. I. 5. 5-6. Dr. Caland points out (R. und S. p. 17) that though single verses of the Manusmṛti tally with the Śrāddhakalpa of the Mānava School, yet the descriptions of funeral rites widely differ in the two works. There are no doubt some parallels as pointed out by Bradke (in ZDMG, vol. 36, pp. 417-477). There is one circumstance about the authorship of the Manusmṛti that deserves to be noted. The Mahābhārata seems to distinguish between Svāyambhuva Manu and Prācetasa Manu. The former is said to be the promulgator of dharmaśāstra and the latter of arthaśāstra (or politics). For example Śānti 21. 12 speaks of Svāyambhuva Manu and Śānti 57-43 and 58-2 speak of Prācetasa as an author on *rājaśāstra* or *rājadharma*. In some places Manu alone without any epithet is associated with *rājadharma* or *arthavidyā*. It is not unlikely that originally there were two distinct works, one on dharma and the other on arthaśāstra attributed to Manu. When the Kauṭilīya speaks of the Mānavas, he probably refers to the work on politics attributed to Prācetasa Manu. It is extremely doubtful whether Rājaśekhara, when he mentions the several views on the number of vidyās (including that of the Mānavas that they were three), had the Arthaśāstra of the Mānavas before him or only copied a passage from Kauṭilya (vide Kāvyamīmāṁsā p. 4). It is not unlikely that the work on *dharma* attributed to Manu may have contained general directions on the duties of kings. It is therefore (i. e. because there were two different works on dharma and arthaśāstra attributed to Manu) that the views ascribed to the Mānavas by the Kauṭilīya are not found word for word in the extant Manusmṛti. One may hazard the conjecture that the author of the Manusmṛti, whoever he might have been, combined in his work the information contained in the two works on *dharma* and *arthaśāstra* and supplanted both the earlier works and that this result had not been either accomplished at the time when the Kauṭilīya was composed or was then quite recent. In the extant Manusmṛti, the work is ascribed to Svāyambhuva Manu and then six other Manus of whom Prācetasa is not one are enumerated (I. 62).

v1.c6.s18.13

²⁷² अश्रौषीस्त्वं राजधर्मान्न्यथा वै मनुरब्रवीत्। वनपर्व 35. 21; वेदं षडङ्गं वेदाहमर्थविद्यां च मानवीम् ॥ द्रोणपर्व 7. 1.

v1.c6.s18.14.1

The extant Manusmṛti is divided into twelve *adhyāyas* and contains 2694 ślokas. Dr. Jolly's edition (published in 1895) prepared after collating numerous mss. and printed editions contains only one śloka more. The Manusmṛti is written in a simple and flowing style. It generally agrees with Pāṇini's system, though it contains some deviations from it as in the verse 'sākṣiṇaḥ santi metyuktvā' (8. 57). The foregoing pages have sufficiently shown how it agrees closely with the doctrines contained in the Dharmasūtras of Gautama, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba. We have also seen how numerous verses are common to the dharmasūtras of Vasiṣṭha and Viṣṇu and the Manusmṛti. The Kauṭilīya also exhibits remarkable agreement with the Manusmṛti in phraseology and doctrines.²⁷³ What conclusions are to be drawn from this will be discussed later on. Some verses are repeated, e. g. V. 164-165 are the same as IX. 30 and 29. The contents of the Manusmṛti may be briefly summarised as follows:--(I) Sages approach Manu for instruction in the *dharmas* of the *varṇas*; Manu describes the creation of the world from the self-existent God more or less in the Sāṅkhya manner; the creation of Virāj, of Manu from Virāj, of ten sages from Manu; creation of various beings, men, beasts, birds etc.; Brahmā imparts dharmaśāstra to Manu, who teaches the sages; Manu bids Bhṛgu to instruct the sages in *dharma*; six other Manus sprang from Svāyambhuva Manu;

v1.c6.s18.14.2

units of time from *nimeṣa* to year, the four *yugas* and their twilights; one thousand *yugas* equal a day of Brahmā; extent of *Manvantara*, *pralaya*; successive decline of *dharma* in the four *yugas*; different dharmas and goals in the four *yugas*; the special privileges and duties of the four *varṇas*; eulogy of Brāhmaṇas and of the *śāstra* of Manu; ācāra is the highest dharma; table of contents of the whole śāstra; (II) definition of *dharma*, sources of *dharma* are Veda, smṛti, ācāra of the good, one’s own satisfaction; who has *adhikāra* for this *śāstra*; limits of Brahmāvarta, Brahmarṣideśa, Madhyadeśa, Āryāvarta; why saṁskāras are necessary; such *saṁskāras* as *jātakarma*, nāmadheya, chūḍākarma, upanayana; the proper time of upanayana for the *varṇas*, the proper girdle, sacred thread, staff and skin for the Brahmacāri of the three *varṇas*; duties of the Brahmacārī and his code of conduct; (III) Brahmacarya for 36, 18, 9 years; *samāvartana*; marriage; marriageable girl; brāhmaṇa could marry a girl of any of the four *varṇas*; eight forms of marriage defined; which form suited to which caste; duties of husband and wife; eulogy of women; the five daily yajñas; praise of the status of householder; honouring guests; madhuparka; śrāddhas; who should not be invited at śrāddhas; (IV) mode of life and means of subsistence for a house-holder, the code of conduct for a *snātaka*; occasions for cessation from study;

v1.c6.s18.14.3

rules about prohibited and permissible food and drink; (V) what vegetables and meat are allowed; period of impurity on death and birth; definition of *sapiṇḍa* and *samānodaka*; purification from contact with various substances in various ways; duties of wife and widow; (VI) when one should become a a forest hermit; his mode of life; parivrājaka and his duties; eulogy of *gṛhastha*; (VII) rājadharmas, eulogy of daṇḍa (the power to punish); the four *vidyās* for a king; the ten vices of kings due to *kāma* and eight due to *krodha*; constitution of council of ministers; qualities of a *dūta*; forts and capital; *purohita* and superintendents of various departments; code of war; the four expedients, *sāma*, *dāna*, *bheda*, and *daṇḍa*; hierarchy of officers from the village headman upwards; rules about taxation; the constitution of a circle of twelve kings; the six *guṇas*, peace, a state of war, march against an enemy, āsana, taking shelter and dvaidha; duties of victor; (VIII) king’s duty to look to the administration of justice; the 18 titles of law; the king and judge; other persons as judges; constitution of *sabhā*, king’s duty to look after minors, widows, helpless people; treasure trove; king’s duty to restore stolen wealth; creditor’s means of recovering his debt; grounds on which the claimant may fail in his suit; qualifications of witnesses; who were not proper persons as witnesses; oaths; fines for false witnesses; methods of corporal punishment;

v1.c6.s18.14.4

Brāhmaṇa to be free from corporal punishment; weights and measures; lowest, middling and highest fines; rates of interest; pledges; adverse possession does not affect a pledge, boundary, minor’s estate, deposit, king’s estate etc.; rule of *damdupat*; sureties; what debts of the father the son was not liable to pay; fraud and force vitiated all transactions; sale by one not the owner; title and possession; partnership; resumption of gift; non-payment of wages; violation of conventions; rescission of sale; dispute between owner and herdsman; pastures round villages; boundary disputes; abuse, libel and slander; assault and battery and mischief; whipping only on the back; theft; *sāhasa* i. e. offences in which force and hurt are an element, such as robbery, homicide etc; right of private defence; when even a Brāhmaṇa may be killed; adultery and rape; no sentence of death, but of transportation for a Brāhmaṇa; parents, wife, children must not be forsaken; tolls and monopolies; seven kinds of *dāsas*; (IX) legal duties of husband and wife, censure of women; eulogy of chastity; to whom does the child belong, to the begetter or to him on whose wife it is begotten; niyoga described and condemned; supercession of the first wife when allowed; age of marriage; partition, its time, eldest son’s special share; *putrikā*; daughter’s son; adopted son; rights of Brāhmaṇa’s son from a śūdra wife; twelve kinds of sonship; to whom piṇḍas are offered; nearest *sapiṇḍa* succeeds;

v1.c6.s18.14.5

*sakulya*, teacher and pupils as heirs; king ultimate heir except as to Brāhmaṇa’s wealth; varieties of *strīdhana*; succession to *strīdhana*; grounds of exclusion from inheritance; property not liable to partition; gains of learning; reunion; mother and grandmother as heirs; impartible property; gambling and prize fighting must be suppressed by the king; the five great sins; *prāyaścittas* for them; open and secret thieves; jails; the seven *aṅgas* of a kingdom; duties of Vaiśya and Śūdra; (X) Brāhmaṇa alone to teach; mixed castes; *mlecchas*, Kāmbojas, Yavanas, Śakas; rules of conduct common to all; privileges and duties of the four *varṇas*; modes of subsistence for a Brhāmaṇa in adversity; what articles should not be sold by Brāhmaṇa; seven proper modes of acquisition and the means of livelihood; (XI) eulogy of gifts; different views about *prāyaścitta*; various seen results, diseases and bodily defects due to sins in former lives; five mortal sins and *prāyaścittas* for them; upapātakas and *prāyaścittas* for them; prāyaścittas like Sāntapana, Parāka, Cāndrāyaṇa; holy mantras for removing sin; (XII) disquistion on *karma*; kṣetrajña, *bhutātma*, *jīva*; tortures of hell; the three *guṇas*, *sattva*, *rajas* and *tamas*; what brings about *niḥśreyasa*; knowledge of the self is the highest means of bliss; *pravṛtta* and *nivṛtta* *karma*; the latter is karma done without an eye to reward; eulogy of Vedas; place of *tarka*; *śiṣṭas* and *pariṣad*;

v1.c6.s18.14.6

reward of studying the Mānava śāstra.

v1.c6.s18.15

²⁷³ Compare अलब्धलाभार्था लब्धपरिरक्षणी रक्षितविवर्धनी वृद्धस्य तीर्थेषु प्रतिपादनी च। कौटिल्य (I. 4) with मनु 7. 101 अलब्धमिच्छेद्दण्डेन लब्धं रक्षेद्बवेक्षया । रक्षितं वर्धयेद्बृध्या वृद्धं पात्रेषु निक्षिपेत् ॥ ; 'तस्माल्लोकयात्रार्थी नित्यमुद्यतदण्डः स्यात्' कौटिल्य (I. 4) with मनु 7. 102 नित्यमुद्यतदण्डः स्यात्; 'असंभाष्ये देशे साक्षिभिर्मिथः संभाषते' कौटिल्य (III. 1) with मनु 8. 55 'असंभाष्ये साक्षिभिश्च देशे संभाषते मिथः' ; 'साहसमन्वयवत्प्रसभकर्म' कौटिल्य (III. 17) with मनु 8. 332 स्यात्साहसं त्वन्वयवत् प्रसभं कर्म यत् कृतम्.

v1.c6.s18.16

The extent of the literature known to Manu was considerable. He mentions the three Vedas and the Atharvaveda is spoken of as the Atharvāṅgirasī Śruti (XI. 33). He refers to Āraṇyaka (IV. 123). The Vedāṅgas are said to be six (III. 185) and they are often referred to without stating the number (II. 141, IV. 98). He speaks of dharmaśāstra (II. 10) and also knew many dharmaśāstras (III. 232). By dharmapāṭhaka (XII. 111) he probably means one who has studied dharmaśāstras. He mentions several authors on dharmaśāstra, viz. Atri, the son of Utathya (i. e. Gautama according to commentators), Bhṛgu and Śaunaka (all these in III. 16), Vasiṣṭha (on the rate of interest in VIII. 140 which agrees with Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra II. 50), Vaikhānasmata (in VI. 21). He mentions Ākhyānas, Itihāsas, Purāṇas and Khilas (III. 232). He speaks of *brahma* as described in the Vedānta (in VI. 83 and 94) and is probably thinking of the Upaniṣads. That he knew some generally accepted works opposed to the teaching of the Vedas is quite clear from his reference to 'Vedabāhyāḥ smṛtayaḥ' (XII. 95). He is probably referring to the writing of the Bauddhas, Jainas and others. He speaks of heretics and their guilds (IV. 30 and 61). He refers to atheism and calumny of the Vedas (IV. 163) and of various tongues spoken among men (IV. 332). He frequently refers to the views of others in the words "kecit", "apare", "anye" (as in III. 261, X. 70, IX. 32).

v1.c6.s18.17

Numerous interesting and difficult problems are connected with the Manusmṛti. Bühler in his elaborate introduction (S B E vol. 25) exhaustively deals with these problems. It is not possible to go at great length into those questions here. A separate volume would be required to deal with the problems raised by Bühler and to examine the arguments of Bühler, Hopkins and others who have written on them. Only a brief discussion of some of these problems can be attempted.

v1.c6.s18.18

Bühler takes considerable pains to refute the claims of Manu to be regarded as the first legislator (S. B. E. vol. 25 pp. XXIII-XXX). But no serious refutation of the claim is really needed. The very extent of the literature known to the Manusmṛti and the mention of several writers on dharmaśāstra by name are sufficient to negative that claim.

v1.c6.s18.19

Bühler devotes a great deal of space to the consideration of the question as to what circumstances led to the substitution of a universally binding Mānava-dharmaśāstra for the manuals of the Vedic schools (S. B. E. vol. 25 pp. XLVI-LVI) and as to why the special law schools selected just the Mānavadharmasūtra among the large number of similar works for the basis of their studies (ibid. pp. LVII-LXV). Bühler then considers the question how the Mānavadharmasūtra was converted into the present Manusmṛti. Bühler concedes that the last is a problem of great difficulty and admits of an approximate solution only. The discussion of all these questions by Bühler is extremely thought-provoking and brilliant in many places, though it must be said with great respect that the arguments are often *à priori* and savour more or less of special pleading. As I question the very foundation of Bühler’s edifice (viz. the actual existence of a Mānava-dharmasūtra), it would be futile for me to enter into a discussion of the problems referred to above.

v1.c6.s18.20

I shall now address myself to the discussion of the age of the Manusmṛti from external and internal evidence. That question is bound up with other problems, viz. whether there are earlier and later strata in the extant Manusmṛti, whether the Manusmṛti was recast several times or once only, what relations exists between the. Manusmṛti and the Mahābhārata.

v1.c6.s18.21.1

First the external evidence may be taken up. The bhāṣya of Medhātithi is the earliest extant commentary on the Manusmṛti and was composed about 900 A. D. as will be shown later on (sec. 36). The text commented upon by Medhātithi was the same (barring a few various readings) as the one we now possess. Therefore long before 900 A. D. the Manusmṛti was the same as now. Viśvarūpa in his commentary on Yāj. quotes over two hundred verses of the Manusmṛti either wholly or in part from all the twelve chapters beginning with the very first verse. The text that Viśvarūpa had before him was the same as the present Manusmṛti and the verses were arranged in the same order as at present. Viśvarūpa quotes eight verses (Manu XI. 108–115) from Manu (on Yāj. III. 262). Śaṅkarācārya in his Vedāntsūtra-bhāṣya quotes the Manusmṛti very frequently. For example, he quotes Manu I. 5 and 21 (on V. S. I. 3. 28), I. 27 (on V. S. IV. 2. 6), II. 87 (on V. S. III. 4. 38), X. 4 and 126 (on V. S. I. 3. 36), XII. 91 and 105-6 (on V. S. II. 1 and 11). In his bhāṣya on the Bṛ. U. he quotes Manu dozens of times and calls the Manusmṛti²⁷⁴ ‘Mānavam’ (on Bṛ. U. I. 4. 17). He looks upon the Manusmṛti as one of the authorities on which the author of the Vedāntasūtra relies.²⁷⁵ The Tantravārtika of Kumārila stands in a special relation to the Manusmṛti. *Vide JBBRAS for 1925 pp. 98–100.* He places Manu at the head of all smṛtis, even higher than the dharma-sūtra of Gautama.

v1.c6.s18.21.2

He cites numerous quotations from the first chapter of the Manusmṛti to the last. He looks upon all parts of the extant Manusmṛti as equally authoritative and regards the Manusmṛti as the highest authority on matters of *dharma*. The Mṛccha-kaṭika²⁷⁶ (9. 39) refers to the ordinance of Manu that a Brāhmaṇa sinner was not to be sentenced to death, but was to be banished. An inscription of the Valabhi king Dharasena dated in the year 252 of the Valabhi era (i. e. 571 A. D.) speaks of a king as one who obeyed the rules composed by Manu²⁷⁷ (I. A. vol. 8. p. 303 = Gupta Inscriptions p. 165). *Vide also* I. A. vol. IV. p. 105 where the same words occur in an inscription from Valabhi dated 216 of the Valabhi era (i. e. 535 A. D.). Śabarasvāmin, the bhāṣyakāra of Jaimini's sūtras, who cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. and may be a few centuries earlier still, says “Manu and others have given instruction²⁷⁸" and quotes a verse as a smṛti passage which is practically the same as Manu IX. 416 and similar to Udyoga-parva²⁷⁹ 33. 64. Aparārka and Kullūka point out how the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa expounds passages of the Manusmṛti (vide Kullūka on Manu XI. 72, 73, 100 and Aparārka pp. 1071, 1076).²⁸⁰ It will be shown below that Bṛhaspati must have composed his work before 500 A. D.

v1.c6.s18.21.3

Bṛhaspati says that the Manusmṛti occupies a pre-eminent position because it correctly represents the sense of the Veda and that a smṛti which is in conflict with Manu is not esteemed.²⁸¹ Bṛhaspati in numerous places pointedly refers to the present text of the Manusmṛti. One such quotation about *niyoga* has been cited above (note 172). Bṛhaspati says "Manu has spoken of quantities (units of weights) beginning from the mote in the sun-beam to the kārṣāpaṇa.²⁸²" This is obviously a reference to Manu 8. 132-136. Bṛhaspati says "Manu enumerated thirteen sons and just as in the absence of clarified butter, oil is a substitute, so in the absence of an *aurasa* son or a *putrikā*, the eleven kinds of son are a substitute.²⁸³" This has in view Manu 9. 158-160, 180, 127-130, where Manu speaks of the twelve sons, out of whom eleven are substitutes and advocates that a sonless man should appoint a daughter (*putrikā*, who then is the 13th kind of son). In another place Bṛhaspati declares "Manu forbade gambling as it destroys truth, purity and wealth; but others allowed it provided a share was given to the king (in the gains of gambling²⁸⁴)." This very aptly describes the attitude of Manu (9. 224) and of Yāj. (II. 201-203). Bṛhaspati says "If a man kills a cow with a weapon &c., he should perform the penance laid down by Manu, but if he kills a cow by forcible restraint, then he should perform the penance laid down by Aṅgiras or Āpastamba." The reference is to Manu XI.

v1.c6.s18.21.4

108-115, Āpastamba Dh. S. I. 9. 26. 1 and Āṅgirasa verse 27 (Jivananda, part I p. 556). In one place Bṛhaspati seems to criticise Manu (9. 219) when he says "those who declared clothes and other things to be impartible have not considered the position that the wealth of the rich may consist of clothes and ornaments.²⁸⁵" In another place Bṛhaspati says "Bhṛgu spoke of sale without ownership after deposit; listen to it attentively, I shall speak of it with more details.²⁸⁶" This keeps in view Manu 8. 4 and clearly shows that Bṛhaspati was well aware of Bhṛgu's connection with the extant Manusmṛti. Aṅgiras as quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (I. p. 7) speaks of the dharmaśāstra of Manu. In the Vajrasūci of Aśvaghoṣa (ed. by Weber) several verses are quoted as from the 'Mānavadharma' which occur in the extant Manusmṛti,²⁸⁷ though it must be admitted that there are others that do not occur. In the Rāmāyaṇa also there are verses cited as from Manu which occur in the extant Manusmṛti; vide Kiṣkindhā 18.30-32 (Gujarati Press, 1915-1920) where two verses are quoted as 'sung by Manu' which correspond to Manusmṛti VIII. 318 and 316 respectively.

v1.c6.s18.22

²⁷⁴ **मानवे च सर्वा प्रवृत्तिः कामहेतुक्येवेति. Vide मनु. II. 4.**

v1.c6.s18.23

²⁷⁵ **On the sūtra स्मरन्ति च (वेदान्तसूत्र III. 1. 14) Śaṅkara adds ‘मनुव्यासप्रभृतयः शिष्टाः ’.**

v1.c6.s18.24

²⁷⁶ **अयं हि पातकी विप्रो न बध्यो मनुरब्रवीत् । राष्ट्रादस्मात्तु निर्वास्यो विभवैरक्षतैः सह ॥. Compare मनु 8. 380 न जातु ब्राह्मणं हन्यात्सर्वपापेष्वपि स्थितम् । राष्ट्रादेनं बहिः कुर्यात्समग्रधनमक्षतम् ॥. The words राष्ट्र and अक्षत occurring in both may particularly be noted.**

v1.c6.s18.25

²⁷⁷ **मन्वादिप्रणीतविधिविधानकर्मा.**

v1.c6.s18.26

²⁷⁸ उपदिष्टवन्तश्च मन्वादयः on पूर्वमीमांसा I. 1. 2 (vol. I. p. 4).

v1.c6.s18.27

²⁷⁹ एवं च स्मरति । भार्या दासश्च पुत्रश्च निर्धनाः सर्व एव ते । यत्ते समधिगच्छन्ति यस्य ते तस्य तद्धनम् ॥. Manu reads भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च त्रय एवाधनाः स्मृताः, while उद्योग० reads त्रय एवाधना राजन्भार्या दासस्तथा सुतः .

v1.c6.s18.28

²⁸⁰ On मनु XI. 73 कुल्लूक says 'मनुश्लोकमेव लिखित्वा यथा व्याख्याने (तं ?) भविष्यपुराणे'; on मनु XI. 100 'अत एव मन्वर्थव्याख्यानपरे भविष्यपुराणे'.

v1.c6.s18.29

²⁸¹ वेदार्थोपनिवद्धत्वात्प्राधान्यं तु मनुस्मृतौ । मन्वर्थविपरीता या स्मृतिः सा न प्रशस्यते ॥ (quoted by अपरार्क on Yāj. II. 21 and by कुल्लूक on मनु I. 1. who adds one more verse from बृहस्पति 'तावच्छास्त्राणि शोभन्ते तर्कव्याकरणानि च । धर्मार्थमोक्षोपदेष्टा मनुर्यावन्न दृश्यते ॥)'.

v1.c6.s18.30

²⁸² संख्या रश्मिरजोमूला मनुना समुदाहृता । कार्षापणान्ता सा दिव्यै नियोज्या विनये तथा ॥ quoted by अपरार्क on याज्ञ. II. 99 and by the स्मृतिच० (व्य. p. 211).

v1.c6.s18.31

²⁸³ पुत्रास्त्रयोदश प्रोक्ता मनुना येन पूर्वशः । संतानकारणं तेषामौरसः पुत्रिका यथा ॥ आज्यं विना यथा तैलं सद्भिः प्रतिनिधिः स्मृतम् । तथैकादश पुत्रास्तु पुत्रिकौरसयोर्विना ॥ quoted by अपरार्क on याज्ञ. II. 128-132 and the दत्तकमीमांसा (p. 39).

v1.c6.s18.32

²⁸⁴ द्यूतं निषिद्धं मनुना सत्य-(त्य !)शौचधनापहम् । तत्प्रवर्तितमन्यैस्तु राजभागसमन्वितम् । सभिकाधिष्ठितं कार्यं तस्करज्ञानहेतुना ।. It is striking that याज्ञ. uses the word तस्करज्ञानकारणात् in II. 203.

v1.c6.s18.33

²⁸⁵ वस्त्रादयोऽविभाज्या यैरुक्तं तैर्न विचारितम् । धनं भवेत्ससमृद्धानां वस्त्रालङ्कारसंश्रितम् ॥ quoted by अपरार्क on याज्ञ. II. 119 and by the व्यवहारमयूख.

v1.c6.s18.34

²⁸⁶ निक्षेपानन्तरं प्रोक्तो भृगुणास्वामिविक्रयः । श्रूयतां तं प्रयत्नेन सविशेषं ब्रवीम्यहम् ॥ विवादरत्नाकर p. 100. The words of मनु are तेषामाद्यमृणादानं निक्षेपोस्वामिविक्रयः.

v1.c6.s18.35

²⁸⁷ *e. g.* उक्तं हि मानवे धर्मे—सद्यः पतति मांसेन लाक्षया लवणेन वा । त्र्यहाच्छूद्रश्च भवति ब्राह्मणः क्षीरविक्रयात् ॥ (this is मनु X. 92); उक्तं हि मानवे धर्मे ‘वृषलीफेनपीतस्य निःश्वासोपहतस्य च । तत्रैव च प्रसूतस्य निष्कृतिर्नोपलभ्यते ॥’ (this is मनु III. 19); उक्तं हि मानवे धर्मे ‘अधीत्य चतुरो वेदान् साङ्गोपाङ्गेन तत्वतः । शूद्रात्प्रतिग्रहाद्ग्राही ब्राह्मणो जायते खरः ॥ खरो द्वादश जन्मानि षष्टि-जन्मानि सूकरः । श्वानः सप्ततिजन्मानि इत्येवं मनुरब्रवीत् ॥’ (this cannot be traced in the extant Manusmṛti); इह हि मानवधर्मेऽभिहितम् । अरणगिर्भ- संभूतः कठो नाम महामुनिः । तपसा ब्राह्मणो जातस्तस्माज्जातिरकारणम् ॥ This is followed by several verses citing instances of व्यास, वसिष्ठ, ऋष्यशृङ्ग, विश्वामित्र, नारद and others who though born of women of low class became sages. These verses also are not found in the extant मनुस्मृति.

v1.c6.s18.36

The foregoing discussion of the external evidence shows that writers from the 2nd century onwards (if not earlier) looked upon the extant Manusmṛti as the most authoritative smṛti. This position it could not have attained unless several centuries intervened between it and these writers. Therefore it must be presumed that the Manusmṛti had attained its present form at least before the 2nd century A. D. Even the Mahābhāṣya contains a verse which is Manu II. 120.²⁸⁸ But as the verse occurs also in the Anuśāsana (104. 64-65) no chronological conclusion can be drawn therefrom. The Pratimānāṭaka (after V. 8) speaks of "mānavīyadharmaśāstra' and 'Prācetasa śrāddhakalpa,' but as it is in controversy whether that work can be ascribed to the ancient Bhāsa, this reference will serve no useful purpose.

v1.c6.s18.37

²⁸⁸ ऊर्ध्वं प्राणा ह्युत्क्रामन्ति यूनः स्थविर आयति । प्रत्युत्थानाभिवादाभ्यां पुनस्तान्प्रतिपद्यते ॥ महाभाष्य vol. III, p. 58. This verse occurs also in the उद्योगपर्व (38. 1).

v1.c6.s18.38

The next question is whether the Manusmṛti contains earlier and later strata. There can be no doubt on this point. On numerous points the Manusmṛti contains conflicting doctrines. In Manu III. 12-13 a Brāhmaṇa is allowed to have a *śūdra* woman as wife, while in III. 14-19 it is emphatically asserted that a śūdra woman cannot be the wife of a Brāhmaṇa and heavy disabilities are prescribed for him who breaks the injunction. In III. 23-26 there are contradictory statements about the appropriate forms of marriage for the several castes. In one breath Manu seems to permit *niyoga* (9. 59-63) and immediately afterwards he strongly reprobates it (9. 64-69). The lengthy discussion on flesh-eating in Manu V. 27-56 discloses different mentalities. At several places the work seems even to recommend flesh-eating in sacrifice, *śrāddhas* and *madhuparka* (V. 31-32, 35, 39, 41), while elsewhere it recommends total abstinence from meat on all occasions whatever (V. 48-50). In one śloka (Manu II. 145) the father is said to be equal to a hundred ācāryas, while in the next verse the ācārya is said to be superior to the father. In V. 1 Bhṛgu is said to have sprung from fire, while in I. 35 he is said to be one of the ten sons of Manu Svāyambhuva. Vide also IX. 32-56.

v1.c6.s18.39

Bühler devotes considerable space to this question (S B E vol. 25. pp. LXVI-LXXIII). He arrives at the conclusion that the cosmological and philosophical portions in the first and 12th books, the philosophical disquisition in II. 89-100, the classifications of *pitaraḥ* in III. 193-201, the means of subsistence for Brāhmaṇa in IV. 1-24, verses 1-4 of the fifth book, the rules about mixed castes (X. 1-74) and the duties of castes that are repeated in X. 101-131 were put in when the work was versified from the Mānavadharma-sūtra. Though one may not agree with all the details of Bühler's examination and with his theory about the versification of the Mānavadharmasūtra, it may be admitted that most of the passages pointed out by him have rather the flavour of comparative modernism about them. My own position is that the original Manusmṛti in verse had certain additions made in order to bring it in a line with the change in the general attitude of people on several points such as those of flesh-eating, *niyoga* &c. But all these additions must have been made long before the 3rd A. D., as the quotations from Bṛhaspati and others show.

v1.c6.s18.40

Another problem is whether the Manusmṛti has undergone several recasts. This does not seem likely and the evidence adduced in support of the theory that the Manusmṛti suffered several recasts is quite inadequate for the purpose. The occurrence of several conflicting passages can as well be explained on the theory of a single recast and it has also to be borne in mind, as Bühler points out, that Saṅskṛit writers down to the most recent times are in the habit of placing side by side conflicting opinions without actually preferring a particular view to others. The tradition of the Nāradasmṛti that the śāstra of Manu was successively abridged by Nārada, Mārkaṇḍeya and Sumati Bhārgava is, as has been observed above, not worth much, since it is merely intended to glorify Nārada's work. The other traditions given above either ignore Nārada altogether or assign him a secondary position. The present Manusmṛti is put into the mouth of Bhṛgu. Nārada's smṛti is clearly based upon Manu, though the former diverges from the latter on many points. Bṛhaspati generally takes Manu as his text and amplifies the dicta of the Manusmṛti (as the verses quoted above in notes 281-86 show) and so his work may by analogy be regarded as a Vārtika on Manu, as Dr. Jolly puts it. Aṅgiras also looks upon Manusmṛti as most authorirative. It is therefore that the Pauranic account (note 270 above) regards Bhṛgu and other works as the redactions of the original Manusmṛti. The quotations cited from Vṛddha-Manu and Bṛhan-Manu do not establish that the original Manusmṛti underwent many recasts. Quotations cited under these names are later than the Manusmṛti. Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. I. 69) quotes the views of Vṛddha-Manu on *niyoga*, who allows it only to śūdras. The Mitākṣarā quotes a verse from Vṛddha-Manu about the widow of a sonless man being entitled to all her husband's wealth, while Manu is silent on that point.²⁸⁹ The Mitākṣarā quotes a verse from Bṛhan-Manu also (on Yāj. III. 20). Mādhave quotes a verse from Bṛhan-Manu about *sapiṇḍa* and samānodaka relationship which are expansions of Manu²⁹⁰ (V. 60). The fact that many quotations ascribed to Manu in several works are not found in the extant Manusmṛti is explicable in several ways and not only by the theory of several recasts. For one thing the authors quoting from memory may be found tripping. For example, in an inscription of the Badami Cālukyas of the 7th century two verses that occur in most grants of lands are ascribed to Manu, but are not found in the extant Manusmṛti.²⁹¹ No one can for a moment doubt that the extant Manusmṛti was an authoritative work in the 7th century. Therefore there is hardly any reliable evidence to support the theory that the Manusmṛti suffered several recasts.

v1.c6.s18.41

²⁸⁹ अपुत्रा शयनं भर्तुः पालयन्ती व्रते स्थिता । पत्न्येव दद्यात्तत्पिण्डं कृत्स्नमंशं लभेत च ॥ मिता on याज्ञ. II. 135.

v1.c6.s18.42

²⁹⁰ तदुक्तं बृहन्मनुना--सपिण्डता तु पुरुषे सप्तमे विनिवर्तते । समानोदकभावस्तु निवर्तेताचतुर्दशात् । जन्मनामस्मृतेरेके तत्परं गोत्रमुच्यते ॥ पराशरमाधवीय vol. III, part 2, p. 528.

v1.c6.s18.43

²⁹¹ मनुगीतं श्लोकमुदाहरन्ति--बहुभिर्वसुधा भुक्ता राजभिः सगरादिभिः । and स्वदत्तां परदत्तां वा यो हरेत वसुन्धराम् । &c. I. A. vol. VIII. p. 87.

v1.c6.s18.44

Turning now to the internal evidence, the extant Manusmṛti seems to be much older than Yājñavalkya, since the rules of judicial procedure are incomplete and awkward in Manu as compared with Yāj., since there is no reference to documents as evidence in Manu, as ordeals are not treated of in Manu, as legal definitions are almost absent in Manu, while frequent in Yāj. and as Manu is silent about the widow's rights, while Yāj. gives her the first place among the heirs of a sonless man. So the Manusmṛti will have to be placed some centuries earlier than the third century A. D., the latest date to which the Yājñavalkya smṛti can be assigned with any show of reason. In X. 44 Manu mentions the Yavanas, Kāmbojas, Śakas, Pahlavas and Cīnas²⁹² and in X. 48 Medas and Āndhras. This shows that the extant Manusmṛti could not be much earlier than the 3rd century B. C. The Yona, Kāmboja and Gāndhāra people are mentioned in the 5th rock edict of Aśoka. Manu forbids Brāhmaṇas to dwell in the kingdom of a Śūdra (IV. 61) and condemns the appointment of a śūdra as a judge (VIII. 20-21). The former is possibly a reference to the Mauryas, though one cannot be certain of it. Mr. Jayasval (Calcutta Weekly Notes, vol. 15, p. CCC) goes too far in supposing that in the word 'senāpatya' occurring in Manu (XII. 100) there is a reference to Senāpati Puṣyamitra. The extant Manusmṛti in its arrangement and doctrines is much in advance of the ancient dharmasūtras, such as those of Gautama, Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. Taking all these things into consideration Bühler (S B E vol. 25 p. CXVII) was certainly right in saying that the extant Manusmṛti was composed between the second century B. C and 2nd century A. D. But the question of the date when the original Manusmṛti to which additions were made between the 2nd century B. C. and 2nd century A. D. was composed presents very great difficulties. That question is largely bound up with the relation of the Mahābhārata to the Manusmṛti.

v1.c6.s18.45

²⁹² पौण्ड्रकाश्चौड्रद्रविडाः काम्बोजा यवनाः शकाः । पारदाः पह्लवाश्चीनाः किराता दरदाः खशाः ॥

v1.c6.s18.46

This question is an extremely intricate one. The late V. N. Mandlik (Intro. to the Vyavahāramayūkha XLVII) held that the Manusmṛti borrowed from the Mahābhārata. Bühler after an elaborate examination of the question (S B E vol 25, pp. LXXIV-XCVIII) came to the conclusion that it was indisputable that the 12th and 13th *parvans* of the Mahābhārata knew a Mānava dharmaśāstra which was closely connected with but not identical with the present Manusmṛti. Bühler expresses himself very cautiously and it seems to me that the great scholar was unduly prepossessed in favour of the Mahābhārata as against the Manusmṛti. Bühler somewhat contradicts himself when he says that the author of the epic only knew the dharmasūtras (S B E vol. 25, p. XCVIII). Hopkins (Great Epic of India p. 21-22) seems inclined to hold that the 13th book which alone, according to him, recognises the śāstra declared by Manu, knew the present Manusmṛti, though the earlier books cannot be held to have known a śāstra of Manu even when they employ such expressions as "Manu said." He thinks that there was a floating mass of verses containing philosophical and other lore attributed to the mythical Manu on which the earlier books of the Mahābhārata and the Manusmṛti both drew and that the matter that is common to both works was not borrowed from any systematic treatise. Bühler accepts this view with the slight modification that the floating mass of verses was not all attributed to Manu (S B E vol. 25 p. XC). Before giving my individual views on this vexed question as against the array of such eminent scholars as Bühler and Hopkins some facts must be clearly set forth. The Mahābhārata is nowhere mentioned by name in the Manusmṛti though the word "itihāsa" (in the plural) occurs in Manu (III. 232). The Manusmṛti mentions many historical and legendary personages, about most of whom the Mahābhārata contains similar stories. The following are the persons so mentioned in the Manusmṛti. Āṅgirasa (in II. 151-152, addressing his elders as 'putrakāḥ'), Agastya (V 22, in connection with sacrificing animals), Vena, Nahuṣa, Sudās Paijavana and Nimi (all in VII. 41, coming to grief through insolence), Pṛthu, Manu, Kubera and the son of Gādhi (VII. 42, benefiting by their good conduct), Vasiṣṭha (in VIII. 110, taking an oath before king Paijavana), Vatsa (in VIII. 116, undergoing fire ordeal), Akṣamā and Sāraṅgī (in IX. 23, though of low birth respectively were united to Vasiṣṭha and Mandapāla), Dakṣa (in IX. 128-129, gave his daughters to Dharma, Kaśyapa and Soma), Ajīgarta (in X, 105, who was ready to sacrifice his own son), Vāmadeva (in X, 106, desired dog's flesh to save his life), Bharadvāja (in X. 107. who accepted the gift of many cows), Viśvāmitra (in X. 108, who took from a cāṇḍāla's hand a dog's leg). Pṛthu is also mentioned (in IX. 44) as the husband of the earth and in IX. 314 Brāhmaṇas are credited with having made fire all-devourer, the ocean undrinkable and the waning (pthisical) moon to wax. Most of the names mentioned here go far back into Vedic antiquities.

v1.c6.s18.47

For example, Vasiṣṭha's oath occurs in Ṛgveda (VII. 104. 15²⁹³) and the Bṛhaddevatā (VI. 32-34), Ajīgarta figures in the Aitareya-brāhmaṇa (VII. 16) and Āṅgirasa's story occurs in the Tāṇḍya-mahā-brāhmaṇa (13. 3. 24). Besides the Manusmṛti does not say that the stories are taken from the great epic. The Mahābhārata also was not the first to originate these stories but is only a storehouse and encyclopaedia of the numerous popular traditions that were current in ancient India. When our Manu (9. 227) says that gambling was seen to have produced in former ages deep-rooted enmities, it is unnecessary to suppose that there is a reference to the Mahābhārata, for from Vedic times the evil effects of gambling were known (vide Ṛgveda X. 34) and even the Mahābhārata contains the same verse (Udyoga 37. 19), though this fact was not noticed by Bühler. On the other hand there are numerous passages in the Mahābhārata scattered over almost all the *parvans*, where occur such expressions as, 'Manur-abravīd,' 'the rājadharmas of Manu,' 'the *śāstra* of Manu' etc. Some of these passages agree with the extant Manusmṛti, while some do not. Besides there are hundreds of verses in the Mahābhārata that are identical with the verses of the Manusmṛti, though they are not expressly attributed to Manu. Dr. Bühler says that in the Vana, Śānti and Anuśāsana *parvans* alone he could identify either wholly or partly 260 verses with those of our Manu. What then is the conclusion? *Prima facie* it should be, on account of all these abovementioned facts, against the Mahābhārata and in favour of the Manusmṛti being the earlier of the two. Hopkins at all events holds that the Anuśāsana-parva knew a Manusmṛti essentially the same as we have now. Bühler expresses himself more cautiously and says that the Śānti and Anuśāsana *parvans* knew a Mānava-dharmaśāstra closely connected with the extant one, though not identical. Both are agreed that the earlier books when they speak of Manu are either referring to the Mānava-dharmasūtra or to the floating mass of popular verses, but not to our Manu.

v1.c6.s18.48

²⁹³ अ॒द्या मु॑रीय॒ यदि॑ यातु॒धानो॒ अस्मि॒ &c.

v1.c6.s18.49.1

We must now closely examine the data. The Anuśāsana-parva distinctly speaks of 'a śāstra declared by Manu.'²⁹⁴ In the Śāntiparva are quoted two ślokas ‘sung by Manu in his own dharmas,’ one of which is identical with Manu²⁹⁵ (9. 321). In another place the Śāntiparva speaks of the ‘rājadharmas of Prācetasa Manu’ and quotes two verses therefrom.²⁹⁶ In the Droṇaparva (7. 1) ‘Mānavī arthavidyā’ is referred to (vide note 272 above) and in Vanaparva the rājadharmas as proclaimed by Manu are referred to (vide note 272 above). In another places, the words ‘Manu Svāyambhuva said’ occur (e. g. Śānti 21. 12, Anuśāsana 114. 12, Vanaparva 180. 34-35, Ādiparva 73. 9, 120. 32-36, Udyoga 37. 1-6). In most cases the words ‘Manu said occur’ without the appellation ‘Svāyambhuva’ or ‘Prācetasa’ (e. g. Śānti 78. 31, 88. 14-16, 121. 10-12, 152. 14, 152. 30, 266. 5; Anuśāsana 44. 18 and 23, 65. 1 and 3, 67. 19, 68. 31, 88. 4, 115. 52-53; Vanaparva 32. 39, Udyogaparva 40. 9-10, Ādiparva 41. 31, 74. 39). The words ‘Manor-anuśāsanam’ occur in a few cases as in Anuśāsana 61. 34-35. Hopkins says that the words ‘the śāstra of Manu’ occur only in the Anuśāsana-parva and so only that *parvan* knew the Manusmṛti, while in the other *parvans* we have the expression ‘Manu said,’ and therefore these other books did not know the Manusmṛti but are only referring to floating verses attributed to the mythical Manu. This, however, is not a reasonable conclusion.

v1.c6.s18.49.2

The words ‘śāstra of Manu’ occur only once even in the Anuśāsana, while in about ten places in the same *parvan* we come across only the words ‘Manu said’. If the words ‘Manu said’ in the Anuśāsana indicate in the Anuśāsana a reference to the extant Manusmṛti, there is no cogent reason why the same words in other *parvans* should not be regarded as referring to the Manusmṛti. Besides in the Śāntiparva also we meet with the words ‘Dharmas or rājadharmas of Manu’ and in Ādiparva the word ‘dharma-darśane’ (120. 32). That is obviously a reference to some work of Manu. Hopkins further says (Great Epic of India, p. 21) that all the express citations of Manu in the Anuśāsana, except one, agree very closely with our Manu, while in the other *parvans* the citations agree only up to one-third or one-half. In the first place I demur to the latter statement. The agreements of the citations in the other books are as close and almost as frequent as in the Anuśāsana, e. g. excepting Śānti 21. 12 and 57. 43-45 all citations of Manu therein, referred to above, agree closely with Manu 7. 89, 9. 225-26, 9. 17-19 and 27, 6. 33 and 81, 11. 259-60, 5. 43 and 45 and 48-49. The same is the case with the few citations of Manu in the Vanaparva. Bühler says that the Mahābhārata knew only of the dharmasūtras. But there is positively not one express citation attributed by name to the well-known writers of dharmasūtras, such as Gautama, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba, Vasiṣṭha or Śaṅkha-Likhita.

v1.c6.s18.49.3

That the Mahābhārata knew several dharmaśāstras is clear from over a dozen references to dharmaśāstras, often in the plural (e. g. Śānti 167. 4, 298. 40, 341. 74; Anuśāsana 19. 89, 45. 17-20, Vanaparva 207. 83, 293. 35, 313. 105; Ādiparva 3. 32 and 77 etc.). The only place where a sūtrakāra is cited on matters of *dharma* is Anu. 19. 6; but no name is mentioned.²⁹⁷ Hastisūtra, Aśvasūtra are mentioned in Sabhā 5. 20, but no dharmasūtra or Nītisūtra occurs any where. On the other hand Bühler is not prepared to admit that the views expressly attributed to Manu in the Mahābhārata are taken from a treatise and refers them to a floating mass of verses the authorship of which was unknown and was fathered upon the mythical Manu. Distrust of ancient Indian authors could go no further. Bühler's assumptions are, to say the least, gratuitous and are prompted by his unwillingness to assign an early date to a versified smṛti of Manu. Not only are there identical verses in Manu and the Mahābhārata, but some verses of the latter (e. g. Udyoga 35. 31 and Śānti 111. 66) occur in the Nāradasmṛti (pp. 103 and 26 respectively). In my humble opinion the following seems to be the relation of the Mahābhārata and the Manusmṛti. I must state frankly that it is a mere theory, a conjecture which may be taken for what it is worth. Long before the 4th century B. C., there was a work on Dharmaśāstra composed by or attributed to Svāyambhuva Manu. This work was most probably in verse.

v1.c6.s18.49.4

There was also another work on Rājādharma attributed to Prācetasa Manu, which also was prior to the 4th century B. C. It is not unlikely that instead of there being two works there was one comprehensive work embodying rules on *dharma* as well as politics. There is one circumstance that points in this direction. The Mahābhārata quotes a saying (vacana) of Prācetasa which is almost the same as our Manu²⁹⁸ (3. 54). It is to these works (or work) that Yāska, Gautama, Baudhāyana, and Kauṭilya refer whenever they cite the opinions of Manu or the Mānavas. The Mahābhārata also (particularly in the earlier portions) probably refers to the same. This work was the original kernel of the present Manusmṛti. Then between 2nd century B. C. and 2nd century A. D. the Manusmṛti was finally recast, probably by Bhṛgu. That work must have compressed the older works in some cases and expanded it in others. This hypothesis would explain why some of the verses and views quoted as Manu's occur in the extant Manusmṛti and why some do not.²⁹⁹ In my opinion the extant Mahābhārata is later than the extant Manusmṛti. When Nārada mentions the tradition that Sumati Bhārgava compressed the vast work of Manu into 4000 verses, he is somewhat obscurely hinting at the truth. The extant Manusmṛti contains only about 2700 verses. Nārada probably arrives at the larger figure by including the verses attributed to Vṛddha-Manu and Bṛhan-Manu. The influence of the Manusmṛti spread even beyond the confines of India.

First 60 of 78 passages. Read on

Linked texts (9)