History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18.49
History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s18.49
- Language
- English
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.
v1.c6.s18.49.5
In A. Bergaigne's 'Inscriptions Sanscrites de Campā et du Cambodge' (p. 423) we have an inscription in which occur verses,299a one of which is identical with Manu (II. 136) and the other is a summary of Manu (III. 77-80).