History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18.40

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.