History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s25.10

v1.c6.s25.10

About a dozen nibandhas on vyavahāra quote about 900 verses of Kātyāyana on vyavahāra, the Smṛticandrikā alone citing about 600 of them. In these verses Kātyāyana refers at least a score of times to the views of Bhṛgu. It is remarkable that only a few of the views ascribed to Bhṛgu are found in the extant Manusmṛti. Kātyāyana says, according to Bhṛgu, whatever (ancestral) wealth was concealed by one coparcener from others, whatever was badly divided should be divided in equal shares when afterwards discovered (Parāśara-Mādhavīya III, p. 566). This may well be compared with Manu 9. 215. Kātyāyana says according to Bhṛgu, it is not Brāhmaṇa-murder to kill an ātatāyin who is foremost by his austerities, learning and caste. This has in view Manu 8. 360. Kullūka distinctly says that Kātyāyana simply explains the verse of Manu by referring to it as Bhṛgu's. On the other hand there are several places where the views ascribed to Bhṛgu find no counterpart in the extant Manu. According to Bhrgu in all *sāhasas* of the worst type the truth should be found out by means of divine proof (ordeals &c.) even though there may be witnesses.³⁹⁸ There is nothing in the Manusmṛti corresponding with this. According to Bhṛgu the ordeals of balance &c. are prescribed for those who are suspected to be in league with marauders and who have incurred popular censure, but in such cases there is no undertaking (by the complainant to pay fine).³⁹⁹ The Manusmṛti has not a word on this point. Household paraphernalia, beasts of burden, cattle, ornaments, slaves should be divided when discovered; if they are (alleged to be) concealed, the ordeal of kośa should be resorted to; so says Bhṛgu.⁴⁰⁰ Another important circumstance deserves to be noted. Kātyāyana several times refers to the views of Manu. Kātyāyana says that the view of Manu was that in certain charges (such as the commission of mahāpātakas) the ordeals for the accused were to be performed by good men.⁴⁰¹ According to Manu if a woman deserted her son, though he may be able (to pay), her strīdhana should be seized and the paternal debt should be paid thereout.⁴⁰² Manu declared, says Kātyāyana, that if animals be killed, the offender should offer (to the owner) another similar animal or its proper price (note 345 above where Parāśara also quotes it as Manu's view). All these views attributed to Manu by Kātyāyana are not found in the extant Manusmṛti. In certain places Kātyāyana refers to the views of the Mānavas; e. g. according to the Gārgīyas and Mānavas if a bribe had already been paid, the person receiving it should be made to repay it and should be fined eleven times as much;⁴⁰³ according to the Mānavas thieves caught red-handed with their booty should be at once banished.⁴⁰⁴ As regards both these references, the teaching of the Manusmṛti seems to be different; vide Manu 9. 231 and 270 respectively. These facts about Kātyāyana's references to Bhṛgu and Manu raise several difficult questions, whether Bhṛgu and Manu stand for two entirely different works or for the same work and whether he refers to some other version of the Manusmṛti ascribed to Bhṛgu. In my opinion he is not referring to two separate works, and that he had before him a version of the Manusmṛti promulgated by Bhṛgu but somewhat different from and probably larger than the present Manusmṛti.