Theory of Government in Ancient India (Post-Vedic) c9.2.3

c9.2.3

Jayaswal would ascribe the first forms of the Sûtras to about 500 B.C., but in their present form he would place Gautama at 350 B.C., Baudhāyana at 240 B.C., and Vasiṣṭha at 100 B.C. Hopkins thinks that “probably the Gṛihyas represent the earlier Sûtras; the Dharmas as a whole come later, perhaps 300 B.C. would represent the earliest.” Āpastamba, he concludes, “probably is not older than the second century B.C.” Hopkins regards Vasiṣṭha as even later. Not even the lowest date is, however, always a safe guide in discussing the subject-matter of Sûtras. Their texts have been constantly tampered with. It appears that attempts were made to bring them into line with the later Dharma Śāstras. The oldest of all Dharma Sūtras, those of Gautama, are even known as a Dharma Śāstra. If the canon of historical criticism be rigidly applied, all that is possible to say is that the Dharma Sūtras, on the whole, represent an earlier stage of political and legal thought than the Dharma Śāstras. It will be a mistake to compare either the Dharma Sūtras or the Dharma Śāstras, as Sir William Jones compared Manu, to the institutes of Justinian. The Hindu texts cover far more than law and do not cover the whole of law. They are manuals of conduct, but they leave large tracts to custom. These circumstances explain their failure to create a real science of law. They embody no real system of jurisprudence. They expressly recognise the force of family, caste and local usage.