History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18.12

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).