31. The Manusmṛti
So many editions of this work have been published in India since 1813 ( when the Manusmṛti was first published at Calcutta ), that it is not possible to name them. In this work the Nirṇayasāgara edition with the commentary of Kullūka has been used throughout. Another edition of Manu well known on this side of India is that of the late V. N. Mandlik, who published several commentaries such as those of Medhātithi, Govindaraja and others. The Manusmṛti has been translated into English several times. The best known translation is that of Dr. Būhler in the S. B. E. series (vol. 25). Dr. Būhler also added an exhaustive and very scholarly introduction to his translation and dealt with numerous problems connected with the Manusmṛti.
In the Ṛgveda the ṛṣis often speak of Manu as ‘father’ (in Ṛg. I. 80. 16, I. 114. 2, VIII. 63. 1 ) without expressly saying ‘of whom.’ But in Ṛg. II. 33. 13 the sage speaks of Manu as ‘our father’ (Yāni Mavur-avṛṇitā pitā nah). The word Manu in several cases (from the nominative to the locative) and in compound words like ‘Manu-jāta,’ ‘Manu-pritāsaḥ’ and ‘Manur-hita’ occur hundreds of times. In Ṛg. VIII. 30. 3 the prayer is ‘O Gods! May you protect us, help us, speak in our favour, may you not lead us far from the ancestral path of Manu.’ In Ṛg. I. 36. 19 the poet says ‘O’ Agni! Manu established you as a light for the people.’ The gods are often referred to as those to whom Manu offered sacrifices (as in Ṛg. V. 35. 15, VIII. 30. 2, X. 36. 10, X. 65. 14). In Ṛg. VIII. 23. 17 it is said ‘Kāvya Uśanas is said to have established Agni for Manu.’ In Ṛg. VIII. 98. 6 Indra is spoken of as the shatterer of many cities (of the asuras), as the killer of dasyu and as bringing prosperity to Manu and as the lord of Heaven. The two sūktas (Ṛg. X. 61 and 62 are ascribed in the Anukramaṇi to Nābhānediṣṭha, son of Manu, the refrain in the first four verses being ‘O’ intelligent (Aṅgirases ) accept me, the son of Manu, (as officiating priest). It may be noted that Nābhānediṣṭha is mentioned in Ṛg. X. 61. 18 and described as desirous (of securing cows ) and as praying loudly ( Nābhānediṣṭho rapati pra venan). In Ry. X. 62.4 be is referred to as ‘ayam Nābhā’ and in X. 62 Sāvarṇya or Sāvarṇi is said to be Manu ( verse 11). In many of the verses of the Ṛg. in which the word Manu occurs, commentators and translators often hold that the word Manu stands for ‘Manuṣya’ (and not merely for Manu as an individual ). But it is clear that in some Ṛgveda verses at least Manu must be taken as an individual sage ; e.g. in Ṛg. I. 112. 16 a prayer is made to the Aśvins to come with help as they did in the past ages (purā ) in the case of Śayu, Atri and Manu. Similarly, in 1. 80. 16 reference is made to the sacrifice offered and the sacred verses recited by Atharvan, father Manu and sage Dadhyaṅ in past ages (pūrvathā). The ṛși of Sūktas 27-81 of Ṛg. VIII is said in the Anukramaṇi to be Manu Vaivasvata and Manu is mentioned in VIII. 27. 4 and 14, in VIII. 30. 2 ( thirty-three gods are said to have been offered worship by Manu). On the two hymns (Ṛg. X. 61 and 62) the Ait. Br. ( 22. 9) tells the story of Nābhānediṣṭha, son of Manu, who was excluded from a share in the paternal wealth by his brothers and explains the refrain ‘pratigṛbhṇita mānavam sumedhasaḥ’ (in X. 62 ) as relating to that story.
It is impossible in the short space that can be spared to dilate at length on Manu as delineated in Sanskrit literature from the early Vedic times onwards. He is regarded in the early literature sometimes as the father of the human race ( so far at least as India is concerned ), as one of the very ancient sages, as having brought (or established ) Fire, as a semi-divine being who received from God himself the laws and regulations, as a king in the Kr̥ta yuga (Aśvamedhikaparva 4. 2 ), as the author of a work on Arthaśāstra ( Droṇaparva 7.1). The Manusmṛti (VII. 42 ) itself states that Manu became king by his disciplined behaviour (vinaya).
In the Taittiriya Saṁhita and the Tāṇḍya-mahā-brāhmaṇa it is said ‘whatever Manu said is medicine’1. Taittiriya-Saṁhita (II. 1. 5. 6 ) also says that mankind is Manu’s
( Mānavyo hi prajāḥ). In the Taittiriya Saṁhitā (III. 1. 9. 4-5 ) and the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa ( V, 14 ) we have the story of Manu dividing his wealth among his sons and of the exclusion of his son Nābhānediṣṭha. The Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa (S. B. E. vol. 12 p. 216 ) gives us the story of Manu and the deluge. In the Nirukta (chap. III ) there is a discussion about the rights of sons and daughters. One of the views there propounded is that children of both sexes take their father’s wealth and a r̥k and śloka are cited in support of that position2. The śloka refers to the opinion of Manu Svāyambhuva. It is noteworthy that that śloka is opposed to a rik, which means that the śloka is not Śruti but is Smṛti. So before Yāska wrote there were smṛti texts in verse in which Manu was spoken of as a lawgiver. We have seen how Gautama and Vasiṣṭha quote the views of Manu and how Āpastamba connects Manu with the promulgation of śrāddhas ( 11.7. 16.1). The Mahābhārata in numerous places speaks of Manu, sometimes as Manu simply, sometimes as Svāyambhuva Manu (Śānti 21. 12.) and also as Prācetasa Manu (Śānti, 57 48 ). In the Mahābhārata (Śānti. chap. 336. 38-46) we are told how the Supreme Being composed a hundred thousand ślokas on dharma, how Manu Svāyambhuva promulgated those dharmas and how Uśanas and Br̥haspati composed śāstras based on the work of Manu Svāyambhuva3. In another place the account is slightly different and Manu does not figure therein. Śānti-parva (chap. 59. 80–85 ) describes how the original work of Brahmā on the three, Dharma, Artha, and Kāma, in 100000 chapters was successively reduced to 10000, 5000, 3000 and 1000 chap. respectively by Viśalākṣa, Indra, Bāhudantaka, Br̥haspati and Kāvya (Uśanas). The prose introduction to the Nārada-smṛti says that Manu composed in 100000 ślokas, 1080 chap. and 24 prakaraṇas a Dharmaśāstra and imparted it to Nārada, who abridged it into 12000 verses and taught it to Mārkaṇḍeya, who in his turn compressed it into 8000 ślokas and passed it on to Sumati Bhārgava, who again reduced it to 4000 ślokas.
The Nāradasmṛti then gives the first verse4 of that work which is a combination of the extant Manu I. 5-6 and says that vyavahāra was the 9th prakaraṇa out of 24 in the original work of Manu. It will be noticed how this version differs from that of the Mahābhārata wherein Nārada is altogether ignored. The extant Manusmr̥ti ( I. 32-33 ) narrates how from Brahmā sprang Virāj, who produced Manu, from whom were born the sages including Bhr̥gu and Nārada, how Brahmā taught the śāstra to Manu, who in his turn imparted it to the ten sages (1.58 ), how some great sages approached Manu and sought instruction in the dharmas of the varṇas and the intermediate castes and how Manu told them that his pupil Bhr̥gu would impart to them the śāstra (1 59-60). This appearance is kept up throughout the work. The sages interrupt Bhr̥gu’s discourse in several places (as in V. 1-2 and XII. 1-2 -). Manu iṣ said to be omniscient (11.7) and Manu is mentioned by name dozens of times in the work with the words “Manurāha” (1X. 158, X. 78 etc.), or “Manur-abravıd” or “Manoranuśāsanam.” (VIII 139, 279, IX 239, etc. ). That the introductory words in the Nārada-smṛti are not spurious or a later addition follows from the remark of Medhātithi that, according to the Naradasmr̥ti, Prajāpati composed to work in 100000 ślokas which was abridged by Manu and others5. No one should take very seriously these varying accounts even in the Mahābhārata and in the Naradasmr̥ti, as they are intended to glorify some particular text or texts. According to the Bhaviṣya-purāṇa as quoted in Hemādri, the Saṁskāramayūkha and other works, there were four versions of the Svāyambhuva śāstra composed by Bhr̥gu, Nārada, Br̥haspati and Aṅgiras6.
So early a writer as Viśvarūpa cites verses from Manusmṛti as those of Svāyambhū (vide com. on Yāj. II. 73, 74, 83, 85, where Manu 8. 68, 70-71, 380 and 105-6 are respectively quoted as Svāyambhu’s ), while quotations from Bhṛgu cited by Viśvarūpa (on Yāj. I. 187 and 252 ) are not found in the Manusmṛti. In the same way most of the verses quoted from Bhṛgu by Aparārka are not found in the Manusmṛti. One verse which Aparārka quotes from Bhṛgu (on Yāj. II. 96 ) speaks of the view contained therein as that of Manu7.
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. Būhler following Max Mūller 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. 141-149 ). Būhler 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 Mānavagṛhyasūtra (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. $. I. 4. 7 to Manu 4.95; Mānava Gṛ. S. I. 20.1 to Manu 2.34 ; Mānava Gṛ. 8. 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 Mahābhārata8 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 Kauṭiliya speaks of tbe Mānavas, it 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 Kāvyamimāṁsā 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 Kauṭiliya 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 Kauṭiliya was composed or was then quite recent. In the extant Manusmṛti, the work is ascribed to Svāymbhuva Manu and then six other Manus, of whom Prācetasa is not one, are enumerated ( I. 62).
The extant Manusmṛti is divided into twelve adhyāyas and contains 2694 ślokas. Dr. Jolly’s edition (published in 1895 ) prepared after collating numerous mss. and printed editions contains only one śloka more. The Manusmṛti is written in a simple and flowing style. It generally agrees with Pāṇini’s system, though it contains some deviations from it as in the verse ‘sākṣiṇaḥ santi metyuktvā’ ( 8. 57). The foregoing pages have sufficiently shown how it agrees closely with the doctrines contained in the Dharmasūtras of Gautama, Baudhāyana, Āpastamba. We have also seen how numerous verses are common to the dharmasūtras of Vasiṣṭha and Viṣṇu and the Manusmṛti. The Kauṭilīya also exhibits remarkable agreement with the Manusmṛti in phraseology and doctrines9. What conclusions are to be drawn from this will be discussed later on. Some verses are repeated, e. g. V. 164-165 are the same as IX. 30 and 29. The contents of the Manusmṛti may be briefly summarised as follows (I) Sages approach Manu for instruction in the dharmas of the varṇas; Manu describes the creation of the world from the self-existent God more or les in the Saṅkhya manner; the creation of Virāj, of Manu from Virāj, of ten sages from Manu ; creation of various beings, men, beasts, birds etc.; Brahmā imparts Dharmaśāstra to Manu, who teaches the sages; Manu bids Bhṛgu to instruct the sages in dharma ; six other Manus sprang from Svāyambhuva Manu; units of time from nimeṣa to year, the four yugas and their twilights; one thousand yugas equal a day of Brahmā; extent of manvantara; pralaya; successive decline of dharma in the four yugas; different dharmas and goals in the four yugas; the special privileges and duties of the four varṇas; eulogy of Brāhmaṇas and of the śāstra of Manu; ācāra is the highest dharma; table of contents of the whole śāstra ; (II) definition of dharma, sources of dharma are Veda, smṛti, ācāra of the good, one’s own satisfaction ; who has adhikāra for this śāstra ; limits of Brahmāvarta, Brahmarṣideśa, Madhyadeśa, Āryāvarta ; why saṁskāras are necessary; such saṁskāras as jātakarma, nāmadheya, cūḍākarma, upanayana; the proper time of upanayana for the varṇas, the proper girdle, sacred thread, staff and skin for the Brahmacāri of the three varṇas; duties of the Brahmacāri and his code of conduct; (III) Brahmacarya for 36, 18, 9 years ; samāvartana ; marriage; marriageable girl ; Brāhmaṇa could marry a girl of any of the four varṇas; eight forms of marriage defined; which form suited to which caste; duties of husband and wife; eulogy of women; the five daily yajñās; praise of the status of householder; honouring guests; madhuparka; Śrāddhas; who should not be invited at Śrāddhas; (IV) mode of life and means of subsistence for a house-holder, the code of conduct for a snātaka; occasions for cessation from study; rules about prohibited and permissible food and drink;(V) what vegetables and meat are allowed; period of impurity on death and birth ; definition of sapiṇḍa and samānodaka; purification from contact with various substances in various ways; duties of wife and widow ; (VI) when one should become a forest hermit; his mode of life; parivrājaka and his duties ; eulogy of gr̥hastha ; (VII) rajadharmas, eulogy of daṇḍa (the power to punish ); the four vidyās for a king; the ten vices of kings due to kāma and eight due to krodha; constitution of council of ministers; qualities of a dūta; forts and capital; purohita and superintendents of various departments ; code of war; the four expedients, sāma, dāna, bheda, and daṇḍa ; hierarchy of officers from the village headman upwards; rules about taxation; the constitution of a circle of twelve kings; the six guṇas, peace, a state of war, march against an enemy, āsana, taking shelter and dvaidha; duties of victor (VIII) king’s duty to look to the administration of justice ; the 18 titles of law; the king and judge; other persons as judges; constitution of sabhā, king’s duty to look after minors, widows, helpless people; treasure trove; king’s duty to restore stolen wealth ; creditor’s means of recovering his debt; grounds on which the claimant may fail in his suit qualifications of witnesses; who were not proper persons as witnesses; oaths; fines for false witnesses ; methods of corporal punishment; Brāhmaṇa to be free from corporal punishment; weights and measures; lowest, middling and highest fines; rates of interest; pledges ; adverse possession does not affect a pledge, boundary, minor’s estate, deposit, king’s estate etc. ; rule of damdupat; sureties; what debts of the father the son was not liable to pay ; fraud and force vitiated all transactions ; sale by one not the owner ; title and possession ; partnership; resumption of gift; non-payment of wages; violation of conventions ; rescission of sale; dispute between owner and herdsman ; pastures round villages ; boundary disputes ; abuse, libel and slander; assault and battery and mischief; whipping only on the back; theft ; sāhasa i.e. offences in which force and hurt are an element, such as robbery, homicide etc.; right of private defence; when even a Brāhmaṇa may be killed ; adultery and rape; no sentence of death, but of transportation for a Brāhmaṇa ; parents, wife, children must not be forsaken ; tolls and monopolies ; seven kinds of dāsas ; (IX ) legal duties of husband and wife; censure of women ; eulogy of chastity ; to whom does the child belong, to the begetter or to him on whose wife it is begotten; niyoga described and condemned ; supersession of the first wife when allowed ; age of marriage; partition, its time, eldest son’s special share; putrikā ; daughter’s son; adopted son; rights of Brāhmaṇa’s son from a śūdra wife; twelve kinds of sonship; to whom piṇḍas are offered ; nearest sapiṇda succeeds; sakulya, teacher and pupils as heirs ; king ultimate heir except as to Brāhmaṇa’s wealth ; varieties of stridhana ; succession to stridhana grounds of exclusion from inheritance; property not liable to partition ; gains of learning; re-union ; mother and grandmother as heirs ; impartible property ; gambling and prize-fighting must be suppressed by the king; the five great sins ; prāyaścittas for them; open and secret thieves ; jails; the seven aṅgas of a kingdom; duties of Vaiśya and Śūdra; (X) Brāhmaṇa alone to teach ; mixed castes; mlecchas, Kāmbojas, Yavanas, Śakas; rules of conduct common to all; privileges and duties of the four varṇas; modes of subsistence for a brāhmaṇa in adversity; what articles should not be sold by brāhmaṇa ; seven proper modes of acquisition and the means of livelihood; (XI) eulogy of gifts ; different views about prāyaścitta ; various seen results, diseases and bodily defects due to sins in former lives; five mortal sins and prāyaścittas for them; upapātakas and prayaścittas for them; prāyaścittas like Sāntapana, Parāka, Cāndrāyaṇa ; holy mantras for removing sin; (XII) disquisition on karma; kṣetrajña, bhūtātmā, jiva ; tortures of hell; the three guṇas, sattva, rajas and tamas; what brings about niḥśreyasa; knowledge of the Self is the highest means of bliss ; pravṛita and nivṛtta karma; the latter is karma done without an eye to reward ; eulogy of Vedas; place of tarka ; śiṣṭas and pariṣad; reward of studying the Mānava śāstra.
The extent of the literature known to Manu was considerable. He mentions the three Vedas and the Atharvaveda is spoken of as the Atharva girasi Śruti ( XI. 33). He refers to Āraṇyaka (IV. 123 ). The Vedāṅgas are said to be six (III. 185 ) and they are often referred to without stating the number ( II. 141, IV. 98 ). He speaks of dharmaśāstra (II. 10) and also knew many dharmaśāstras (III. 232). By dharmapāṭhaka (XII. 111 ) he probably means one who has studied dharmaśāstras. He mentions several authors on dharmaśāstra, viz. Atri, the son of Utathya (i.e. Gautama according to commentators ), Bhṛgu and Śaunaka (all these in III. 16), Vasiṣṭha (on the rate of interest in VIII. 140 which agres with Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra II. 50), Vaikhānasamata (in VI. 1). He mentions Ākhyānas, Itihāsa, Purāṇas and Khilas (III. 232 ). He speaks of brahma as described in the Vedānta (in IV. 83 and 94 ) and is probably thinking of the Upaniṣads. That he knew some generally accepted works opposed to the teaching of the Vedas is quite clear from his reference to ‘Vedabāhyāḥ smṛtayaḥ’ (XII. 95). He is probably referring to the writings of the Bauddhas, Jainas and others. He speaks of heretics and their guilds (IV. 30 and 61 ). He refers to atheism and calumny of the Vedas (IV. 163 ) and of various tongues spoken among men (IV. 332 ). He frequently refers to the views of others in the words “kecit” in III, 53, 261, IX. 32, ’eke’ in X. 10, XI. 45, ‘apare’ and ‘anye’ in III. 261. In IX. 49 Manu refers to Gāthās of Vāyu and it appears that at least verses IX. 43-45 are quotations. Yoga had been well developed at the time of the Manu-smṛti. In Manu VI. 70 it is laid down that even three Prāṇayāmas when accompanied by Omkāras and the Vyāhṛtis constitute the highest tapas and that by prāṇāyāma all the aberrations of the senses (including the mind ) are destroyed. In VI. 72 are briefly indicated the results of Prāṇāyāma, Pratyāhāra ( withdrawal of the sense organs from the objects of sense ), Dhāraṇā (the holding of the mind to a certain spot or a certain point such as the tip of one’s nose) and Dhyāna (contemplation) i.e. one-pointedness of the apprehension of the object contemplated upon. Vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. pp. 1444-49 for explanation of Pratyāhāra, Dhāraṇā, Dhyāna. The word Dhyānayoga occurs in Manu VI. 73 and 79 and it is stated that by dhyānayoga, one realizes Brāhmaṇ. The words ‘Dhyānayoga,’ ‘Dhāraṇā’ and others occur in some of the Upaniṣads as illustrated in the note10 below. The Yogasūtra is not later than the 2nd or 3rd century A. D. ; vide H. of Dh. vol. V, pp. 1395-98, but the Upaniṣads had developed much of the yoga technique centuries before the Yogasūtras and the Manusmṛti is based on the Upaniṣads and not on the Yogasūtra.
Numerous interesting and difficult problems are connected with the Manusmṛti. Būhler in his elaborate introduction (S. B. E. vol. 25) exhaustively deals with these problems. It is not possible to go at great length into those questions here. A separate volume would be required to deal with the problems raised by Būhler and to examine the arguments of Būhler, Hopkins and others who have written on them. Only a brief discussion of some of these problems can be attempted.
Būhler takes considerable pains to refute the claims of Manu to be regarded as the first legislator (S. B. E. vol. 25 pp. XXIII-XXX). But no serious refutation of the claim is really needed. The very extent of the literature known to the Manusmṛti and the mention of several writers on dharmaśāstra by name are sufficient to negative that claim.
Būhler devotes a great deal of space to the consideration of the question as to what circumstances led to the substitution of a universally binding Mānava-dharmaśāstra for the manuals of the Vedic schools (S. B. E. vol. 25 pr. XLVI-LVI) and as to why the special law schools selected just the Mānavadharmasūtra among the large number of similar works for the basis of their studies (ibid. pp. LVII-LXV ).
Būhler then considers the question how the Mānavadharmasūtra was converted into the present Manusmṛti. Būhler concedes that the last is a problem of great difficulty and admits of an approximate solution only. The discussion of all these questions by Būhler is extremely thought-provoking and brilliant in many places, though it must be said with great respect that the arguments are often a priori and savour more or less of special pleading. As I question the very foundation of Būhler’s edifice ( viz, the actual existence of a Mānava-dharmasūtra ), it would be futile for me to enter into a discussion of the problems referred to above.
Jolly in Introduction to the Viṣṇudharmasūtra (p. XXYII n. 3) admits that Manu has little in common with the Mānavagṛhya, both in mantras and otherwise, Manu is recognised as an ancient writer on Dharmaśāstra in the Dharmasūtras. Gaut. Dh. S. 21. 7 refers to Manu’s view that three out of the five mortal sins ( Mahāpātakas ) could uot be wiped out except by death ( this has a counterpart in the extant Manusmṛti in XI. 89, 90, 103-4). The Āp. Dh. S. II. 6. 13. 11 refers to the tradition that Manu divided family property among his sons and also to the tradition (in II. 7. 16. 1 ) that Manu was the founder of the institution of Śrāddha rites. Manu is called ‘Śrāddhadeva’ in Brahmāṇḍa-purāṇa III. 59. 38. The Baud. Dh. S. also mentions Manu’s division of property among his sons, refers to Manu’s opinion that the father is a sinner if he does not arrange a marriage for his daughter within three years after her first monthly illness (IV.1.14) and further that the Aghamarṣaṇa hymn (Ṛg. X. 190. 1-3) is declared by Manu as a penance for all sing ( Baud. Dh. S. IV. 2. 19 20). This reflects Manu XI. 260. The Vas. Dh. S. in numerous places mentions ‘Mānavam ślokam’ or simply ‘Mānavam’, besides verses containing words like ‘Manuḥ prāha’ (in XI. 23 ) or Mannr-āha prajāpatiḥ’ (in Vas. XII. 16 ), ‘abravin-manuḥ’ (in Manusmṛti V.41 and in Vas. IV. 6). This question of the relation of the Manusmṛti and Vas. Dh. S. has been dealt with at some length above (pp. 99-103).
The Purāṇas differ as to the number of Manus and their names; e.g. Vāyu ( 26, 32-46 ) and Padma V.7. 81-115 speak of fourteen Mauus, while the Viṣṇu-purāṇa III, 1. 6 ff, Braḥmāṇda II. 36. 3-5 name twelve Manus. Vāyu ( 100.53 ) derive the word Manu as ‘Mananān-mānanāc-caiva tasmāt te Manavaḥ smṛtāḥ’. It is interesting to note that Kumārila (650-700 A.D.) asserts that there are 14 Manus11.
An extensive literature12 has accumulated in modern times about Manu and the Manusmṛti, about the relation of the Manusmṛti to the Dharmasūtras, to the Mahābhārata, to the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya and about the development and spread of his doctrines to countries in South-East Asia. The present author has read some of it, but he cannot expatiate on all the topics about Manu in one volume of the History of Dharmuśāstra.
In ancient times it was held to be the king’s duty13 to protect the kingdom and the people, to see that the rules of varṇas and āśramas were carried out by them, to make them conform to the dictates of Śāstra if they swerved from them, to punish the wicked and to dispense justice. The Arthaśāstra says ‘people of the four varṇas and in the ( different ) āśramas protected by the king with the Rod (of punishment ) and attached to the actions prescribed as their (respective) duties keep to the paths appropriate to them.’ Kauṭilya (in Arthaśāstra III. 1. 38 ) calls the king ‘Dharmapravartaka’ (propounder or promulgator of Dharma ). Many works (particularly the Mahābhārata ) hold that all dharmas and all vidyās abide in Rājadharma, that the welfare of the people depends on the king (Śāntiparva 141. 9 ).
Though the general tendency was to say that Dharma progressively declines in each of the four yugas, yet this idea14 was not universal. The Mahābhārata and the Manusmṛti state (in IX. 301) that conditions described about the four yugas are not immutably fixed parts of Time, but it is the ruler (who by conducting himself properly ) can create the conditions of even Kr̥tayuga in what common people call Kaliyuga. There is a great difference between ancient societies (like those in India ) and some modern western societies. In several modern societies there are legislatures that lay down many laws to be observed by the people. In ancient times (in India ), the legislative activity of the ruler was extremely limited. Besides, India was divided into many kingdoms and great conflict of laws might have arisen. Moreover, there was no single ruler who could have legislated for the whole of India, even if the task of legislation was attempted. Manu ( in VIII. 3 ) and Kātyāyana15 provide that causes ( law-suits) were to be looked into (i.e. decided ) by the king according to the Śāstras and in the absence of Śāstric dicta, by the usages of the country and that if the king decides causes by his fiat when there is in existence a Śāstric text, it leads him away from heaven, it brings danger to him from enemies and reduces the span of his life.
Manu (VII. 13 ) laid down that since the ruler has in him the glory of eight deities (Indra, Vāyu, the Sun, Yama, Agni, Varuṇa, the Moon and Kubera ) whatever rules as regards desirable matters he (the king) established, whatever rules he makes about undesirable actions should not be transgressed by the people. Medhatithi and other commentators expressly state that the ruler could not make a rule opposed to the Śāstras and the long standing usages of the people. Therefore, changes in the practices of the people could be provided only by resorting to such devices as the Kalivarjya topics (indicated in H. of Dh. III. pp. 885–968 ) or by composing fresh Śāstras acceptable to the learned and the leaders of people or by saying that in the four different yugas four different smṛtis were predominant as stated in Parāśara-smṛti (I. 24). Manu (IV. 176 ) says ‘One16 should abandon what was (once) Dharma, if it ends in unhappiness or it has become hateful to the people’ and Yāj. (I. 156 ) also remarks ‘what was (once) allowed to be Dharma should not be practised, if people have come to hate it and it does not lead to Heaven.’ The Viṣṇu-Purāṇa (III. 11. 7 says the same thing. It is very rare to find one smṛtikāra expressly stating that he dissents from the views of other named smṛtikāras. Yaj. (I. 56 ) remarks ‘what is said (by some) that persons of the twice-born classes can marry a śūdra woman is not my view,’ Manu (in III. 13) allows a Brāhmaṇa to marry a śūdra woman, but in the following verses (III. 14–19) he severely condemns such marriages. That means he condemned the practices of a former age.
Similarly, the practice of niyoga ( appointment of a brother-in law to procreate a son on the widow of a sonless person ) was set out at some length by Manu in IX. 53-62, but immediately afterwards he condemns it (in IX. 64-68)17 as beastly (paśu dharma’ in IX. 66 ) and waters down the whole idea by saying (IX. 69 ) that, when after the betrothal of a girl, the selected bridegroom dies (before actual marriage), then the brother of the deceased should marry that girl. Bṛhaspati refers to these passages of Manu by saying that Manu described the procedure of niyoga but ultimately he himself forbade it ( vide Bṛhaspati quoted by Aparārka p. 97 (on Yāj. I.68-69 ).
Confusion is caused by the fact that ancient texts refer to Svāyambhuva Manu, Prācetasa Manu and Manu simply. To take first the Manusmṛti itself. The views of Svāyambhuva Manu are mentioned in Manu VI. 54 ( on the vessels to be used by ascetics ), VIII. 124 (the parts of the body where corporal punishment was to be administered in the case of all offenders except Brāhmaṇas ), IX. 158 (on the twelve varieties of sons such as aurasa, kṣetraja &c.). In the first two cases the verb ‘abravit’ is used and in the 3rd ‘āha’. No Manu is cited in chapters II and VII. In Manu IX. 138 the etymology of the word ‘putra’ is attributed to Svāyambhuva (Manu not being added ). The words ’tan-manor anuśāsanam’ occur in VIII. 139, 279 and IX, 239. The words ‘Manurabravīt’ occur many times, as in III. 150 and 222, IV, 103, V.41 and 131, VIII. 168, 242, 339, IX. 182 and X. 63.
In Manusmṛti IX, 17 Manu is said to have consigned certain special matters to women in general (Manur-akalpayat). Manu Prajāpati is mentioned in X. 78 and in XII. 123 it is stated that the highest Puruṣa is called by some as Manu Prajāpati. I have not been able to find in the Manusmṛti any mention of Prācetasa Manu as having said something, but in I. 35 among the ten Prajāpatis that primeval Manu (son of Virāj) created Pracetas is one. Therefore, it boils down to this that in the 2684 verses of the Manusmṛti (in the Nir. edition ) Manu (whether simply as Manu or as Svāyambhuva or as Prajāpati ) is mentioned only about twenty times. In many of these cases the words ‘Manurāha’ or ‘Manur-abravit’ or ‘Manor-anuśāsanam’ are ‘pādapūraṇa’. The earliest extant commentator ( Medhātithi ) on Manu IV. 10318 expressly says ‘Manugrahaṇam ślokapūraṇārtham, vikalpārtham-anye.’ This shows that there was at least among those who could read and understand the Manusmṛti, no idea about deceiving anybody and that learned people at least did not understand the words as meaning that the primeval Manu had said so. The general tendency in the Manusmṛti is to have a complete proposition or idea (and not more or less ) in one verse of 32 syllables. In several cases where that seemed difficult these words were added as ‘padding.’ In the few cases where great conflict of views is expressed in the extant Manusmṛti, the words ‘Manurabravīt’or ‘Manurāha’ or ‘Manor-anuśāsanam’ do not occur. For example, as to the propriety of a brāhmaṇa marrying a woman of the śūdra class the opinions of four sages are mentioned (in Manu III. 16 ). But no words like ‘Manu svāyambhuva’ or Manur-abravit’ occur there. The opinion of the extant Manusmṛti is that by marrying a śūdra woman a Brāhmaṇa falls into naraka (hell) and by procreating a son from her he loses his status as a Brāhmaṇa ( Manu III. 17 ), while Bhṛgu’s view seems to be that a brāhmaṇa becomes a condemned sinner by having a child (son or daughter ) from her. If the entire extant Manusmṛti proceeds from Bhṛgu, pupil of the primeval Manu, the Bhṛgu (in III. 16 ) seems to be a different person altogether.
It may be noted that Aparārka on Yāj. II. 96 (p. 696 ) quotes a verse of Bhṛgu on ordeals in which the view of Manu is stated19. That means that there was a work of Bhṛgu before Aparārka in which Manu was cited. There are only two cases (in the present author’s opinion ) where Manu’s views are set out and where he may be said to assert his views as against those of others. One is connected with the question of the śrāddha to be offered to three ancestors, when the performer’s father and great grand-father are dead, but the grand-father is alive. In this Case Manu gives two alternatives in III. 221-222. The Kalpataru on Śrāddha (p. 240 ) states three views about this matter. The other case is about eating the flesh of animals ( discussed at length in the Manusmṛti in V. 26-56 ). The general tenor of the extant Manusmṛti is against flesh-eating, but there was Vedic authority for offering flesh on certain occasions; therefore, Manu allows the killing of animals only on four occasions (in Madhuparka, in Yajña, in Śrāddhas and rites in honour of gods ) and forbids it in other cases ( in V. 41. )
E. W. Hopkins, in his paper on ‘Professed quotations from Manu found in the Mahābhārata’ in J. A. O. S. Vol. XI. pp. 239-275 indulges in some very strongly worded and uncalled-for criticism of the extant Manusmṛti and of the views attributed to Manu in the Mahābhārata and in later legal and other works. A volume would be required to refute the one-sided remarks of Hopkins. But a few samples must be given. On p. 268 he observes ’the Śāstram was in great part collated between the time when the bulk of the epic was composed and its final completion, that previous to its collation there had existed a vast number of sententious remarks, proverbial wisdom, rules of morality etc. which were ascribed, not to this treatise of Manu at all, but to the ancient hero Manu as a type of godly wisdom. These I conceive to have floated about in the mouths of the people, not brought together but all loosely quoted as laws or sayings of Manu and these sayings were afterwards welded into one with the laws of a particular text (? sect) called the Mānavas. … … I fancy this sect built up their ācāra ( usages ) and Kuladharma ( family law ) out of their own heads, not ascribing them to Manu’.
Hopkins is obsessed by the occurrence of words like ‘Manurabravit’ in the Manusmṛti and asks “if Manu says all, why emphasize a few ? According to my theory these Manu verses found in the Manu treatise were simply caught up and drawn from the hearsay of the whole Brāhmaṇa worlds. Doctrines utterly at variance with the Mānava treatise are palmed off upon us with “Manu said " doctrines”. It has been shown above that there are less than two dozen Manu said ‘(to use Hopkin’s phrase ) verses in about 2700 verses of the extant Manu and most of them do not at all teach doctrines at variance with the Mānava treatise. This is a specimen of what some Western Scholars on account of preconceived baseless notions write about Indian works and Indian people. On p. 270 he winds up his diatribe in the following words ‘in my opinion the devotees of the legal Śāstra were more knaves than fools.’ There is no need to criticize these baseless and purely subjective remarks and wild theories about thousands of floating Sanskrit verses among people thousands of years ago, their being welded into one śāstra and new customs started on the basis of these verses by a sect like the Mānavas. Apart from the Manusmṛti (in which phrases like ‘Manurabravit’ occur a number of times ) such references do not occur at all in Yāj., there are only a few places in Nārada where such phrases occur and in other early smṛtis also there are only a few such references. Some later smṛtis do mention Manu in some cases. The reason is obvious. Manu was famed as the great law-giver of ancient times. Some practices and rules had changed in the course of centuries. Later writers wanted changes according to their lights to be recognised, but, if they had stated them in their own names, little weight would have been attached to them, therefore they probably hit upon the plan of saying in some cases that the view propounded by them had the authority of Manu. Hammurabi professed to have received laws from the Sun. Prophets of several religions profess that what they say is inspired by God Himself. Luther, who rebelled against the authority of the Pope, denounced Copernicus as a fool and relied upon the Bible for proving that it was the Sun that had motion and not the earth. One should like to know whether Hopkins would have been prepared to dub as knaves ancient prophets who claimed to have received directly from God what they preached. Hopkins (in JRAS Vol. XI. pp. 243–246 ) collects some imprecatory verses occurring in grants of lands stating that he who deprives a donee of land given by former donors or by himself incurs great sin and falls into hell for long periods and so forth. Sometimes such verses are ascribed to Vyāsa (as in E. I. Vol. VI. p. 363 of śaka 500 i.e. 578 A.D., where the three verses ‘Bahubhir Vasudhā … … phalam,‘‘Svadattām … pālanam,’ and ‘Svadattām … … kilbiṣam ), sometimes to Manu and rarely to God Brahmā, as in E. I. VIII. p. 233-235)20. He does not notice that comparatively very early grants do not associate the verses with any name whatever e.g. in the Omgūdu plates of Sālaṅkāyana ruler Vijayaskandavarman (in E. I. Vol. XV. p. 249 ) the grant ends with the words ‘atra ca dvau slokāvudāharanti’ and the two verses ‘svadattām’ and ’na viṣam’ are cited without anybody’s name and which are Nos. 3 and 11 of the 43 imprecatory verses collected by the present author on pp. 1271-77 of Vol. II. of H. of Dh. He himself points out that the extant Manu does not contain anything of this sort, that Manu XI. 26 is the only condemnatory verse about theft of land which merely asserts that the man who steals the property dedicated to God or to Brāhmaṇas has to subsist in his next birth on the leavings of vultures. He also shows that the Mahābhārata (Śānti 136. 2 ) exhorts the king not to fill his treasury by taking the property of those who perform sacrifices nor the property dedicated to Gods. Yet he could not avoid the temptation of having a fling at Manu in the words ’the fact that these quotations are often ascribed to Vyāsa as well as to Manu points to the real worth of this Father Manu’. If people, in order to frighten those who might intend to grab property of temples and brāhmaṇas use the name of Manu ( human lawgiver ),Manu is not at fault. And such people are certainly not as blamable as men claiming to have direct messages from God in this matter.
There is a rather involved account in the extant Manusmṛti about the creation of the world by Paramātman. Sages ask Manu to expound the Dharmas of Varṇas and intermediate castes; the evolution is briefly described in the summary of the first chapter above. Towards the end of the first chapter the Manusmṛti winds up by stating the appropriate actions for the four varṇas, the pre-eminence of the brāhmaṇa and by proclaiming that the highest Dharma is ācāra as propounded by the Vedas and the smṛtis and that the Smṛti declares the Dharmas of countries, castes, families, heretical sects and of gaṇas (guilds and oligarchies ).
The description of Manu as the son of Brahmā and the primeval promulgator of laws is a mere camouflage or disguise. The extant Manusmṛti mentions such human authors as Atri, Utathyatanaya, Śaunaka, Bhṛgu (all in III. 16 ), Vasiṣṭha ( as laying down the proper rate of interest in VIII. 140); also mentions Smṛtis beyond the pale of the Veda ( XII. 95) and above all refers to dasyus who speak mleccha languages and Arya languages such as Pauṇḍrakas, Oḍras, Kāmbojas, Yavanas, Pāradas, Pahlavas, Cinas, Śakas, Kirātas, Daradas and Khaśas (X. 44-45). Similarly, the śāntiparva ( in chap. 65 )21 mentions in a dialogue between Indra and Māndhātṛ ( verses 13-14 quoted below) sixteen dasyu-like peoples and in verses 17-21 sets out the Dharmas that should be practised by those people described as living like dasyus. We know from the 13th Rock Edict of Aśoka that he tried to propagate dhamma among Yona-kambojas, Nabhāka, Nābhapanti, the Andhras and Pāradas, Bhoja-pitenikas and in the 5th Rock Edict also he mentions Yona-Kambhojas, people of Gandhāra, the Rittikas, Pitenikas and other Western people. These references to people to the West of Āryāvarta would indicate that the extant Manusmṛti is not older than about 200 B. C.
I shall now address myself to the discussion of the age of the Manusmṛti from external and internal evidence. That question is bound up with other problems, viz. whether there are earlier and later strata in the extant Manusmṛti, whether the Manusmṛti was recast several times or once only, what relation exists between the Manusmṛti and the Mahābhārata.
First the external evidence may be taken up. The bhāṣya of Medhātithi is the earliest extant commentary on the Manusmṛti and was composed about 900 A. D. as will be shown later on. The text commented upon by Medhātithi was the same (barring a few various readings ) as the one we now possess. Therefore, long before 900 A. D. the Manusmṛti was the same as now. Viśvarūpa in his commentary on Yāj. quotes over two hundred verses of the Manusmṛti either wholly or in part from all the twelve chapters beginning with the very first verse. The text that Viśvarūpa had before him was the same as the present Manusmṛti and the verses were arranged in the game order as at present. Viśvarūpa quotes eight verses ( Manu XI. 108-115 ) from Manu (on Yāj. III. 262 ). Saṅkarācārya in his Vedāntasūtra-bhāṣya quotes the ManuSmṛti very frequently. For example, he quotes Manu I. 5 and 21 (on V. S. I. 3. 28 ), I. 27 (on V. S. IV. 2. 6), II. 87 ( on V. S. III. 4. 38), X. 4 and 126 ( on V. S. I. 3. 36 ), XII. 91 and 105-6 (on V. S. II. 1 and 11 ). In his bhāṣya on the Br. U. he quotes Manu dozens of times and calls the Manusmṛti ‘Mānavam’22 (on Bṛ. U. I. 4. 17). He looks upon the Manusmṛti as one of the authorities on which the author of the Vedāntasūtra relies23. The Tantravārtika of Kumārila stands in a special relation to the Manusmṛti. Vide J BBRA S for 1925 pp. 98-100. He places Manu at the head of all smṛtis, even higher than the dharmasūtra of Gautama. He cites numerous quotations from the first chapter of the Manusmṛti to the last. He looks upon all parts of the extant Manusmṛti as equally authoritative and regards the Manusmṛti as the highest authority on matters of dharma.
The Mṛcchakaṭika (9. 39 )24 refers to the ordinance of Manu that a Brāhmaṇa sinner was not to be sentenced to death, but was to be banished. An inscription of the Valabhi king Dharasena dated in the year 252 of the Valabhi era (i.e. 571 A. D. ) speaks of a king as one who obeyed25 the rules composed by Manu (I. A. vol. 8 p. 303, Gupta Inscriptions p. 165 ). Vide also I. A. vol. IV. p. 105 where the same words occur in an inscription from Valabhi dated 216 of the Valabhi era (i.e. 535 A. D.). Śabarasvāmin, the bhāṣyakāra of Jaimini’s sūtras, who cannot be placed later than 500 A. D. and may be a few centuries earlier still, says “Manu and others have given instruction” 26 and quotes a verse as a smṛti passage which is practically the same as Manu VIII. 416 and similar to Udyoga-parva27 33. 64. Aparārka and Kullūka point out how the Bhaviṣyapurāṇa expounds passages of the Manusmṛti (vide Kullūka on Manu XI. 72, 73, 100 and Aparārka pp. 1071, 1076)28. It will be shown below that Bṛhaspati must have composed his work before 500 A. D. Bṛhaspati says that the Manusmṛti occupies a pre-eminent position because it correctly represents the sense of the Veda and that a smṛti which is in conflict with Manu is not esteemed29.
Bṛhaspati in numerous places pointedly refers to the present text of the Manusmṛti. One such quotation about niyoga has been cited above (note 187 ). Bṛhaspati says “Manu has spoken of quantities (units of weights ) beginning from the mote in the sun-beam to the kārṣāpaṇa” 30. This is obviously a reference to Manu 8. 132–136. Bṛhaspati says “Manu enumerated thirteen sons and, just as in the absence of clarified butter, oil is a substitute, so in the absence of an aurasa son or a putrikā, the eleven kinds of sons are a substitute”31. This has in view Manu IX 158-160, 180, 127-130, where Manu speaks of the twelve sons, out of whom eleven are substitutes and advocates that a sonless man should appoint a daughter (putrikā, who then is the 13th kind of son ). In another place Bṛhaspati32 declares “Manu forbade gambling as it destroys truth, purity and wealth ; but others allowed it, provided a share was given to the king (in the gains of gambling ).” This very aptly describes the attitude of Manu (IX. 224) and of Yāj. (II. 201 203). Bṛhaspati says “If a man kills a cow with a weapon &c., he should perform the penance laid down by Manu, but if he kills a cow by forcible restraint, then he should perform the penance laid down by Aṅgiras or Āpastamba.” The reference is to Manu XI. 108-115, Āpastamba Dh. S. I. 9. 26. 1 and Aṅgirasa verse 27 (Jivananda, part I. p. 556 ). In one place Bṛhaspati seems to criticise Manu (IX. 219) when he says “those who declared clothes and other things to be impartible have not considered the position that the wealth of the rich may consist of clothes and ornaments”33.
In another place Bṛhaspati says “Bhṛgu spoke of sale without ownership after deposit; listen to it attentively, I shall speak of it with more details”34. This keeps in view Manu VIII. 4 and clearly shows that Bṛhaspati was well aware of Bhṛgu’s connection with the extant Manusmṛti. Aṅgiras as quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (I. p. 7) speaks of the dharmaśāstra of Manu. In the Vajrasūci of Aśvaghoṣa (ed. by Weber ) several verses are quoted as from the ‘Mānavadharma’ which occur in the extant Manusmṛti35, though it must be admitted that there are others that do not occur. In the Rāmāyaṇa also there are verses cited as from Manu which occur in the extant Manusmṛti; vide Kiṣkindhā 18. 30-32 ( Gujarati Press, 1915-1920), where two verses are quoted as ‘sung by Manu’ which correspond to Manusmṛti VIII. 318 and 316 respectively.
The foregoing discussion of the external evidence shows that writers from the 2nd century onwards (if not earlier ) looked upon the extant Manusmṛti as the most authoritative smṛti. This position it could not have attained unless several centuries intervened between it and these writers. Therefore it must be presumed that the Manusmṛti had attained its present form at least before the 2nd century A. D. Even the Mahābhāṣya contains a verse which is Manu II.12036. But as the verse occurs also in the Anuśāsana (104. 64-65 ) no chronological conclusion can be drawn therefrom. The Pratimānātaka (after V. S.) speaks of ‘Mānaviyadharmaśāstra’ and ‘Pracetasa-Śrāddhakalpa’ but as it is in controversy whether that work can be ascribed to the ancient Bhāsa this reference will serve no useful purpose.
The next question is whether the Manusmṛti contains earlier and later strata. There can be no doubt on this point. On numerous points the Manusmṛti contains conflicting doctrines. In Manu III. 12-13 a Brāhmaṇa is allowed to have a śūdra woman as wife, while in III. 14-19 it is emphatically asserted that a śūdra woman cannot be the wife of a Brāhmaṇa and heavy disabilities are prescribed for him who breaks the injunction. In III. 23-26 there are contradictory statements about the appropriate forms of marriage for the several castes. In one breath Manu seems to permit niyoga (‘9. 59-63 ) and immediately afterwards he strongly reprobates it (9. 64-69). The lengthy discussion on flesh-eating in Manu V. 27-56 discloses different mentalities. At several places the work seems even to recommend flesh-eating in sacrifices, śrāddhas and madhuparka (V. 31-32, 35, 39, 41 ), while elsewhere it recommends total abstinence from meat on all occasions whatever ( V. 48-50). In one śloka ( Manu II. 145) the father is said to be equal to a hundred ācāryas, while in the next verse the ācārya is said to be superior to the father. In V. 1 Bhṛgu is said to have sprung from fire, while in I. 35 he is said to be one of the ten sons of Manu Svāyambhuva. Vide also IX. 32-56.
Būhler devotes considerable space to this question (S. B. E. vol. 25. pp. LXVI-LXXIII). He arrives at the conclusion that the cosmological and philosophical portions in the first and 12th books, the philosophical disquisition in II. 89-100, the classifications of pitaraḥ in III. 193-201, the means of subsistence for brāhmaṇa in IV. 1-24, verses 1-4 of the fifth book. the rule about mixed castes (X. 1-7 ) and the duties of castes that are repeated in X. 101-131 were put in when the work was versified from the Mānavadharmasūtra. Though one may not agree with all the details of Būhler’s examination and with his theory about the versification of the Mānavadharmasūtra, it may be admitted that most of the passages pointed out by him have rather the flavour of comparative modernity about them. My own position is that the original Manusmṛti in verse had certain additions made in order to bring it in a line with the change in the general attitude of people on several points such as those of flesh-eating, niyoga &c. But all these additions must have been made long before the 3rd century A. D. as the quotations from Bṛhaspati and others show.
In this connection it is pertinent to note that the text of the Manusmṛti has been the same with very few exceptions at least from the 6th century onwards (as the quotations in the Tantravārtika and in the Śāṅkarabhāṣya on the Vedāntasūtra and as the commentaries of Medhātithi and others show), while the text of the Mahābhārata differs greatly in the different editions published in our country.
To cite a few examples; Śaṅkarācārya on V. S. I. 2. 19 quotes the latter half of Manu I. 5, on V. S. I. 3. 28 refers to Manu I. 21 in slightly different words, on V. S. IV. 2. 6 quotes Manu I. 28 (‘aṇvyo’ &c.), on V. S. I. 3. 36 refers to Manu X. 4 ( about śūdra) and quotes the first half of Manu X. 126; on V. S. II. 1. I quotes the whole of Manu XII. 91 and on V. S. II. 1. 11 he quotes Manu XII. 105-6. From this it is clear that he had before him the extant Manusmṛti (from its first to the last chapter ) and treated it as an authoritative Smṛti. Similarly, Kumārila ( who, according to the present author, wrote his Tantravārtika between 650-700 A. D. (as shown on pp. 1191, 1198 and notes 1946 and 1952 of H. of Dh. Vol. V.) quotes many verses of Manu ( sometimes as Mānavam ).
The Tantravārtika stands in a special relation to the Manusmṛti. Whenever the author speaks of Smṛtis, that of Manu is the first to come to his mind and Kumārila refers to him even before the Gautamadharmasūtra. A few examples may be cited. After finishing the discourse on the importance of Veda (consisting of Vidhis, Arthavādas, Mantras and nāmadheyas ), Kumārila starts his discourse on the Smṛtis and mentions Manu as the representative of or foremost among smṛtis. On p. 105 he quotes Manu II. 6-7, though he employs the plural ‘smartṛbhiḥ’ (i.e. smṛtikāraiḥ). On the question of the duration of the stage of student-hood ( brahmacarya) for various periods, he first quotes Manu (III. 2) and then Gautama Dh. S. II. 51-52 (on p. 192). The Tantravārtika states that authors of Smṛtis are generally prepared to accept as authoritative the usages of countries, castes and families, that are not opposed to the Vedas and first quotes Manu II. 6 and then Gaut. Dh. S. XI. 20.
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 Mauusmṛti 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 Būhler points out, that Sanskrit 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 Naradasmṛti 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 345-348 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 authoritative. It is therefore that the Paurāṇic account ( note 321 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 point37. The Mit. on Yaj. II. 135-136 and Mādhava (in Parāśaramādhaviya ) quote a verse and a half from Bṛhan-Manu, which are expansions of Manu (V. 60 )38. 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 ManuSmṛti39. 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.
Turning now to the internal evidence, the extant Manusmṛti seems to be much older than Yājñavalkya, since the rules of judicial procedure are incomplete and awkward in Manu as compared with Yāj., since there is no reference to documents as evidence in Manu, as ordeals are not treated of in Manu, as legal definitions are almost absent in Manu, while frequent in Yāj. and as Manu is silent about the widow’s rights, while Yāj. gives her the first place among the heirs of a sonless man. So the Manusmṛti will have to be placed some centuries earlier than the third century A. D., the latest date to which the Yājṅavalkya Smṛti can be assigned with any show of reason. In X. 44 Manu mentions the Yavanas, Kāmbojas, Śakas, Pahlavas and Cinas40 and in X. 48 Medas and Āndhras.
This shows that the extant Manusmṛti could not be much earlier than the 3rd century B. C. The Yona, Kāmboja and Gāndhāra people are mentioned in the 5th rock edict of Aśoka. Manu forbids Brāhmaṇas to dwell in the kingdom of a śūdra ( IV. 61 ) and condemns the appointment of a śūdra as a judge ( VIII. 20-21 ). The late Mr. Jayaswal in his work ‘Manu and Yājñavalkya’ p. 32 refers to Manusmṛti XII. 10041 (among other matters) which states ‘a person who knows the science of the Veda deserves the post of the commander-in-chief, the kingdom itself, the leadership in Government and the overlordship of all the world’. He thinks that this is a sample of the aggressive Brāhmaṇa spirit that arose when Puṣyamitra Śuṅga became king. Pușyamitra was a Senāpati before he became king. Mr. Jayaswal cites other examples of this spirit (such as Manu VIII. 20 which states that even a Brāhmaṇa in name only who maintains himself out of the superiority of his caste may be a judge but a śūdra never.’ This was nothing new. Centuries before the extant Manusmṛti, the Tai. S. ( I. 7.3. 1 ) states that brāhmaṇas are gods that are directly seen. Gaut. VIII. 1 placed the learned Brāhmaṇa on the same level as the king. The extant Manu smṛti in its arrangement and doctrines is much in advance of the ancient dharmasūtras such as those of Gautama, Baudhāyana and Āpastamba. Taking all these things into consideration Būhler ( S B E vol. 25 p. CXVII ) was certainly right in saying that the extant Manusmṛti was composed between the second century B. C and 2nd century A. D. But the question of the date when the original Manusmṛti to which additions were made between the 2nd century B. C. and 2nd century A. D. was composed presents very great difficulties. That question is largely bound up with the relation of the Mahābhārata to the Manusmṛti.
This question is an extremely intricate one. The late V. N. Mandlik ( Intro. to the Vyavahāramayukha XLVII ) held that the Manusmṛti borrowed from the Mahābhārata. Būhler after an elaborate examination of the question (SBE vol. 25, pp. LXXIV-XCVIII) came to the conclusion that it was indisputable that the 12th and 13th parvans of the Mahābhārata knew a Mānavadharmaśāstra which was closely connected with but not identical with the present Manusmṛti.
Būhler expresses himself very cautiously and it seems to me that the great scholar was unduly prepossessed in favour of the Mahābhārata as against the Manusmṛti. Būhler somewhat contradicts himself when he says that the author of the epic only knew the dharmasūtras (SBE vol. 25, p. XCVIII). Hopkins ( Great Epic of India p. 21-22 ) seems inclined to hold that the 13th book which alone, according to him, recognises the Śāstra declared by Manu, knew the present Manusmṛti, though the earlier books cannot be held to have known a Śāstra of Manu even when they employ such expressions as “Manu said." He thinks that there was a floating mass of verses containing philosophical and other lore attributed to the mythical Manu on which the earlier books of the Mahābhārata and the Manusmṛti both drew and that the matter that is common to both works was not borrowed from any systematic treatise. Būhler accepts this view with the slight modification that the floating mass of verses was not all attributed to Manu ( S B E vol. 25 p. XC). Before giving my individual views on this vexed question as against the array of such eminent scholars as Būhler and Hopkins some facts must be clearly set forth. The Mahābhārata is nowhere mentioned by name in the Manusmṛti, though the word “itihāsa” (in the plural ) occurs in Manu (III. 232 ). The Manusmṛti mentions many historical and legendary personages, about most of whom the Mahābhārata contains similar stories. The following are the persons so mentioned in the Manus Āṅgirasa (in II. 151–152, addressing his elders as ‘putrakāḥ’); Agastya (V. 22, in connection with sacrificing animals); Vena, Nahuṣa, Sudās Paijavana and Nimi (all in VII. 41 ); coming to grief (through insolence ); Pṛthu, Manu, Kubera and the son of Gādhi (VII. 42), benefiting by their (good conduct ); Vasiṣṭha (in VIII. 110, taking an oath before king Paijavana ), Vatsa (in VIII. 116, undergoing fire ordeal ); Akṣamālā and Sāraṅgi (in IX. 23, though of low birth, respectively were united to Vasiṣṭha and Mandapāla ); Dakṣa (in IX. 128-129 ) gave his daughters to Dharma, Kāśyapa and Soma ); Ajigarta (in X, 105, who was ready to sacrifice his own son ); Vāmadeva (in X, 106, desired dog’s flesh to save his life ); Bharadvāja (in X. 107, who accepted the gift of many cows ); Viśvāmitra (in X. 108, who took from a Caṇḍāla’s hand a dog’s leg. Pṛthu is also mentioned (in IX. 44 ) as the husband of the earth and in IX. 314 Brāhmaṇas are credited with having made fire all-devourer, the ocean undrinkable and the waning (phthisical) moon to wax. Most of the names mentioned here go far back into Vedic antiquities. For example, Vasiṣṭha’s oath occurs in Ṛgveda (VII. 104. 1542) and the Bṛhaddevatā (VI. 32-34 ), Ajigarta figures in the Aitareya Brāhmaṇa (VII. 16 ) and Aṅgirasa’s story occurs in the Tāṇḍyamahā Brāhmaṇa ( 13. 3. 24 ). Besides, the Manusmṛti does not say that the stories are taken from the great epic. The Mahābhārata also was not the first to originate these stories but is only a storehouse and encyclopaedia of the numerous popular traditions that were current in ancient India. When our Manu ( 9. 227 ) says that gambling was seen to have produced in former ages deep-rooted enmities, it is unnecessary to suppose that there is a reference to the Mahābhārata, for, from Vedic times the evil effects of gambling were known ( vide Ṛgveda X. 34 ) and even the Mahābhārata contains the same verse ( Udyoga 37. 19), though this fact was not noticed by Būhler. On the other hand, there are numerous passages in the Mahābhārata scattered over almost all the parvans, where occur such expressions as, ’ Manur.abravid, ’the rājadharmas of Manu’, ’the śāstra of Manu’ etc. Some of these passages agree with the extant Manusmṛti, while some do not. Besides, there are hundreds of verses in the Mahābhārata that are identical with the verses of the Manusmṛti, though they are not expressly attributed to Manu. Dr. Būhler says that in the Vana, Śānti and Anuśasana parvans alone he could identify either wholly or partly 260 verses with those of our Manu. What then is the conclusion ? Prima facie it should be, on account of all these abovementioned facts, against the Mahābhārata and in favour of the Manusmṛti being the earlier of the two. Hopkins at all events holds that the Anuśāsanaparva knew a Manusmṛti essentially the same as we have now. Būhler expresses himself more cautiously and says that the Śānti and Anuśāsana parvans knew a Mānava-dharmaśāstra closely connected with the extant one, though not identical. Both are agreed that the earlier books when they speak of Manu are either referring to the Mānava-dharmasūtra or to the floating mass of popular verses, but not to our Manu.
We must now closely examine the data. The Anuśāsanaparva distinctly speaks of ‘a śāstra declared by Manu’43. In the Śāntiparva are quoted two ślokas ‘sung by Manu in his own dharmas’, one of which is identical with Manu44 (9. 321 ). In another place the Śāntiparva speaks of the ‘rājadharmas of Prācetasa Manu’ and quotes two verses therefrom45. In the Droṇaparva (7.1) ‘Mānavi arthavidyā’ is referred to and in Vanaparva the rājadharmas as proclaimed by Manu are referred to ( Vanaparva 35. 2. 21 ). In other places, the words ‘Manu Svāyambhuva said’ occur (e.g. Śānti 21. 12, Anuśasana 114. 12, Vanaparva 180. 34-35, Ādiparva 73. 9, 110. 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; Anuśasana 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. 34-3546. These two verses are very interesting. “When the subjects are not guarded by the king, he shares in the 4th part of whatever sins they commit. Then some say that the whole sin is the king’s,’ while again some say he certainly shares in half of them (the sins ); but on hearing the ordinance of Manu our view is that he shares in the 4th part of the sins. Here the author of the Anuśāsana expressly says that he puts forward his own opinion after hearing Manu’s ordinance. There is no doubt that the Anuśāsanaparva clearly refers in several places to the extant Manusmṛti.
In Anu. 19. 88-89 reference is made to those who know Dharmaśāstras about adultery. In Anu. 45. 17-20 reference is made to the Gāthās declared by Yama and set down in Dharmaśāstras and one verse ‘Ārṣe gomithunam ‘is mentioned there, which is the same as Manu III. 53. In Anu. 20. 14 it is said that it is the view of Prajapati that women do not deserve independence and 20. 21 is almost the same as extant Manu 9. 3. Jayaswal arrives at this conclusion ( on p. 50 ) ’the main date may be regarded to be circa 150 B. C., the final revision and the present form would have been fixed by 100-150 A. C., not later.’ He seizes upon the word ‘Senāpatya’ in Manu XII. 100. The word was placed first for preserving the regularity of the śloka metre (in which the 5th letter in each pāda is required to be short ) as the wording ‘Rājye ca Senāpatye ca’ would have the fifth letter long. Further, Manu had already stated in several places the greatness and worth of Brāhmaṇas e.g. Manu in I. 93 says “Brāhmaṇa is the lord of this whole creation, because he sprang from the mouth (of the Creator as stated in Ṛg. X. 90. 12), as he is the senior (among the four varṇas ), as he preserves the Veda (by memorizing it) and since he propounds Dharma’. Vide also 1. 99-101 (which occur also in Śānti 72. 6, 10,11 first half ), also Manu VIII. 37, IX. 317, 319, X. 3. Further, there was the tradition of the Mahābhārata war that after Bhīṣma was mortally wounded, Droṇa, a Brāhmaṇa teacher, was made commander-in-chief of the Kaurava army. The Droṇaparva expressly refers to the ceremony of abhiṣeka in the case of Droṇa as commander-in chief. Although, the Āp. Dh. S. (I. 10. 29. 7) states that a Brāhmaṇa should not take in his hand a weapon even for testing it, that was an extreme view ; other Dharmasūtras (like Gautama VII.25, Baud. II.2.80, Vasiṣṭha III. 24 ) allowed a Brāhmaṇa to use arms in danger to life, for protecting cows and Brāhmaṇas &c. We learn from Pāṇini (V. 2. 71 ) that there were before his time Brāhmaṇas as professional soldiers and he teaches that the word ‘Brāhmaṇaka’ means a country in which Brāhmaṇas follow the profession of arms. Kauṭilya (in A. IX. 2. 21-24 ) refers to armies of Brāhmaṇas, Kṣatriyas, Vaiśyas and śūdras. Therefore, Jayaswal’s remarks on Manu XII. 100 are worthless for settling the date of the Manusmṛti. Jayaswal’s ‘Manu and Yājñavalkya’ is full of information, but it is sometimes marred by specious assumptions about ancient times for which there is hardly any solid basis. It would be impossible to deal with many such matters here for want of space. One matter, however, may be briefly mentioned here. On p. 288 of that work he propounds the somewhat startling proposition that ‘Manu VIII. 169 shows that professional lawyers were already in existence in the time of the Mānava Code’. The verse is quoted below. It literally means ’three persons have to undergo trouble (in litigation ) for others viz. witnesses, sureties, kula (family members ); while four persons prosper or benefit (in litigation ) viz. the brāhmaṇa, the rich (i.e. the creditor who supplies money to the litigants ), the trader and the king. No word in this verse can mean a lawyer by itself. Vipra ordinarily means brāhmaṇa. Gaut. Dh. S. 13. 26, Manu VIII. 9 and Yāj. 11.3 expressly provide that when the king cannot himself look into the causes of his subjects, he may appoint as judge a brāhmaṇa learned in the Dharmaśāstra, along with sabhyas. The Mit. quotes Kātyāyana to the effect that if a brāhmaṇa learned in the Dharmaśāstras cannot be found then a Kṣatriya or Vaiśya learned in Dharmaśāstras may be appointed. So the general rule was that a Brāhmaṇa was to be the presiding judge. He benefitted by litigation in the sense that he was paid his salary whatever the result of the litigation might be. The king benefitted by the receipt of the fines paid by the losing parties in litigations. The commentators do not say a word about a class of lawyers helping litigants for fees. Sarvajña Nārāyana and Rāmacandra paraphrase ‘vipra’ as prāḍvivāka; Kullūka and Govindarāja simply paraphrase ‘vipra’ as Brāhmaṇa. ‘Medhātithi’s’ text as printed is not clear, yet he commented that this verse has to be connected with the preceding verse that condemns the use of force and that ‘vipra’ should not be forced to accept a gift. So it is clear, that Manu and his commentators do not speak of a profession of lawyers at all. Jayaswal refers to the Burmese code as giving a scale of fees (p. 288 n. 3). That may have been the law in ancient Burma and the Burmese might have grafted it on Manu, when they adopted Manu. He should have mentioned, if he wanted to place the matter on a sound footing, a Sanskrit smṛti setting out a scale of fees for lawyers. 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. 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 ). There are some important references to Prācetasa Manu in the Mahābhārata, though in the Manusmṛti no text or view is ascribed to him. The Śāntiparva (in chap. 58. 1-3 ) names seven propounders of Rājadharma viz. Bṛhaspati, Viśālākṣa, Kāvya (Uśanas ), Sahasrākṣa, Mahendra, Prācetasa Manu, Bhāradvāja and Gauraśiras, all of whom speak highly of protection (of subjects ) as, the (one) Dharma for kings. The great epic quotes the views of Prācetasa Manu in Śānti ( 57.44-45 ) that Prācetas Manu set forth two verses in his work on Rajadharmas.) A reference to Prācetasa’s dictumn in Anuśāsana 46. 1-2 to the effect that what the relations of a girl receive from the bridegroom’s side is not a sale but that it is really meant as honour to the girl and as to be paid over to the girl. This is almost the same as Manu III. 54. In Vanaparva 35. 21 we have the words ‘you have heard the Rājadharmas that were declared by Manu.’ This Manu must be Prācetasa since in Śānti 58. 1-3 Prācetasa Manu is said to have been one of the expounders of Rājaśāstra.
A remarkable reference to Viśālākṣa as a writer on Nīti (Rājanīti) is found in an inscription from Cambodia (No. 64 in ‘Inscriptions of Kambuja’ edited by Dr. R. C. Majumdar ) in praise of Yaśovarman, king of Kambuja, about 889 A. D. in a highly paronomastic verse47. 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. Būhler 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. 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; Adiparva 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 mentioned48.
Hastisūtra, and Aśvasūtra are mentioned in Sabhā 5.20, but no Dharmasūtra or Nītisūtra occurs anywhere. On the other hand Būhler 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. A volume would have to be written to expose the mistakes, underlying the assumptions and fallacies in the writings of Hopkins, Būhler and some other Western scholars. The former collects two groups of passages from the Manusmṛti; group A containing 9 passages, 8 of which he admits to be ancient and holds Manu VI. 54 ( about Yatipātras including ‘alābu’) to be doubtful and group B with 13 passages ( 3 he holds ancient, 5 doubtful and 5 others suspicious ). It is impossible to agree with Hopkins in many cases which he treats as doubtful. For example, he cites Manu VIII. 59 as contradicting VIII. 139 and therefore he suspects that VIII. 139 is not genuine Manu. It has been shown above that Manu makes contradictory statements on some matters such as the practice of niyoga and the validity of the marriage of a Brāhmaṇa with a śūdra woman. Besides, the apparent contradiction is easily resolved, if we hold that VIII. 59 lays down a general rule for fines and VIII. 139 contains special rules about debts only viz. if the defendant admits in court his indebtedness but has not paid the debt, then the fine for him is five paṇas for each hundred of debt, but if he denies the debt he should be fined ten paṇas for each hundred of debt (proved ). Besides, Hopkins has misunderstood words like Manur-abravit or-āha. Those words have not a single meaning, but are capable of several explanations; firstly, a quotation may be meant; secondly, only the gist of Manu’s words ( but not his exact words ) may be intended; thirdly, the quotation may be only what the writer remembers of the original text of Manu and fourthly, he may think that what he states is the proper rule and enhances its authority by ascribing it to Manu. Būhler’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. There was also another work on Rājadharma 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 on politics. There is one circumstance that points in this direction. The Mahābhārata quotes a saying (vacana) of Pracetasa which is almost the same as our Manu49 (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.
अलाबुं दारुपात्रं च मृन्मयं वैदलं तथा। एतानि यानि पात्राणि मनुः स्वायम्भुवोऽब्रवीत् ॥ मनु VI. 54. The word पात्र occurring only in दारुपात्र is to be understood with all the others. Hopkins (J. A. 0. 8. vol. XI. p. 274 remarks that alābu occurs nowhere olse ; what he means is not clear. Alābu is the bottle gourd. The Mahābhāṣya mentions alābūḥ on vārtika of Pāṇ. IV. 1. 66. It is much older than tbat, Alābu-pātra occurs in Atharvaveda VIII. 29. 5 (वत्स आसीदलाबुपात्रम् ). The Amarakośa has तुम्बालाबूरुभे समे. Several Western scholars are often too cocksure. However learned and industrious he may be, a scholar would not be able to read and master the whole of the extant Sanskrit Literature. Besides, a vast literature in Sanskrit (that once existed ) has perished. All scholars when stating their opinions in such cases should be cautious in what they say and should not make dogmatic statements or assertions.
This hypothesis would explain why some of the verses and views quoted as Manu’s occur in the extant Manusmṛti and why some do not50. 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. Narada probably arrives at the larger figure by including the verses attributed to Vṛddha-Manu and Bṛhan-Manu. If Vṛddha-Manu was a separate work it must have been composed before at least the 7th century A. D. at the latest. Viśvarūpa on Yāj. I. 69 (p. 75, Trivandrum ed. of 1922 ) quotes two verses on niyoga. The Mit. on Yāj. II. 270 (first half) and 272, III, 5, 20 (latter half), 260 quotes a few verses of Vṛddha-Manu, while Aparārka quotes him twenty times and on p. 908 quotes Manu II. 67 and immediately afterwards quotes a verse of Vṛddha-Manu. Kalpataru on Vya. quotes Vṛddha-Manu eight times, but in one case (on p. 402) one half of the verse is the same as Manu VIII. 157 (first half). The Smṛticandrikā quotes Vṛddha-Manu verses 23 times on ācāra, 6 times on Vyavahāra and 12 times on Śrāddha.
Bṛhan-Manu is cited by the Mitākṣarā only a few times i.e. on YĀj. II.135-36 (1 1/2 verses on limits of sapiṇḍa and samānodaka relationship ), on YĀj. III. 20 (latter half) two verses on āśauca. Aparārka cites Bṛhan-Manu only once (on p. 910 ) on Āśauca. The influence of the Manusmṛti spread even beyond the confines of India. In A. Bergaigne’s ‘Inscriptions Sanscrites de Campā et du Cambodge’ (p. 423 ) we have an inscription in which occur verses,51 one of which is identical with Manu (II. 136 ) and the other is a summary of Manu (III. 77-80).
The Burmese are governed in modern times by the dhammathat, which are based on Manu. Vide Dr. Forchhammer’s essay on the sources and development of Burmese Law (1885, Rangoon). Dr. E. C. G. Jonker ( Leyden 1885) wrote a dissertation on an old Javanese law book compared with Indian sources of law like the Manusmṛti ( which is still used as a law book in the island of Bali).
Vide the paper of Louis Finot in I. H. Q. Vol. I (1925) pp. 599-622 on ‘Hindu Kingdoms in Indo-China’ (who remarks that India has laid her mark on all the great Far Eastern countries, some of them received from her a substantial part of their religious and artistic culture and others are indebted to her for their very existence as civilized, Indo-China being the foremost among the latter ). Vide an article by R. Lingat in A. B. O. R. I. Vol. XXX, pp. 284-297 on ‘Buddhist Manu or the propagation of Hindu Law in Hinayānist Indo-China’ and Dr. R. C. Majumdar in S. Krishnaswamy Aiyangar Presentation Volume pp. 445-461 on ‘Hindu Law in Java and Bali ‘.
Manu had numerous commentators. As to Medhātithi Govindarāja and Kullūka, vide below sections 63, 76, 88. (1st ed.). Besides these, Nārāyaṇa, Rāghavānanda, Nandana and Rāmacandra also wrote commentaries on Manu. Mr. Mandlik published all these commentaries. Dr. Jolly published ( in 1885 for the Bengal Asiatic Society ) extracts from all these commentaries (except Kullūka’s and Rāmacandra’s ) and from an anonymous Kashmirian commentary on the first three chapters. Asahāya seems to have written a commentary on Manu (vide below section on him). The Vivādaratnākara quotes a commentary on Manu by Udayakara ( pp. 455, 560, 583, 590). The same work seems to suggest that Bhāguri wrota a commentary on Manu52.
एवं स्मरति । भार्या दासश्च पुत्रश्च निर्धनाः सर्व एव ते। यत्ते समधिगच्छन्ति यस्य ते तस्य तद्धनम् ॥ इति, शबर on पू. मी. सू. VI. 1. 120. The मनुस्मृति (VIII. 418) text runs भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च त्रय एवाधनाः स्मृताः । यत्ते … तद्धनम् ॥. The उद्योगपर्व 33. 64 reads: त्रय एवाधना राजन् भार्या दासस्तथा सुतः । यत्ते … तद्धनम् .
For the predecessors of Medhatithi, vide sec. on him. Kullūka on Manu 8. 184 tells us that Bhojadeva arranged the four verses of Manu 8. 181-184 in a particular manner and therefore suggests that Bhojadeva probably commented on Manu. He also names a commentator Dharaṇidhara on Manu 2.83 and says that he was later than Medhātithi. He is also referred to elsewhere by Kullūka ( on Manu 4.50 ).
The commentator Nārāyaṇa is certainly earlier than 1550 A. D. as his commentary is cited by Bhattoji in his commentary on the Caturvimśatimata (vide p. 61 of the Benares Sanskrit Series edition, 1907). A ms. of Narayaṇa’s commentary was written in 1497 A. D. and he appears to have been quoted by Rāyamukuṭa in 1431 A.D. (Jolly in R. und. S. p. 31 ). He cites the explanation of Govindaraja on Manu VIII. 123. He appears to have composed a work called Kāmadhenudipikā in which he dealt exhaustively with the prāyaścittas for various sins (as said on Manu XI. 71 ) and on the topic of flesh-eating at some length (as stated on Manu V. 56 ). He also wrote a work called Śuddhidīpika in which he wrote at some length on Āśauca ( as stated on Manu V. 79 and 104 ) and on the prāyaścittas for Mahāpātakas (as stated on Manu XI. 209). He also refers to a Mālākāra (probably the author of a lexicon ) on Manu V. 81. He does not comment on some verses such as on Manu III. 174 and 278 (Mandlik’s ed.). He is generally brief in his comments but he has longer notes than Medhātithi or Kullūka on Manu V. 16, 31, 56, VI. 34-35, 67, X. 42, XI. 130. He is later than Govindarāja and flourished between 1100 and 1300 A. D. Raghavananda mentions by name Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Nārāyaṇa, and Kullūka and so is later than about 1400 A. D. When Nandana flourished it is difficult to say. But he is a late writer. There are several other commentators mentioned in the catalogues of mss. who may be passed over for want of space.
The Tantravārtika (p. 159) after dealing with the usefulness of the Veda ( which is constituted by Vidhi, Arthavāda, Mantra and Nāmadheya ) for understanding what Dharma is, comes to the consideration of smṛtis such as those of Manu and others that have human authors. It further quotes the words ‘Vedoskhilo Dharmamūlam’ (Manu 2. 6 and 7 ) and concludes from the words of these passages that the Smartṛs (i.e. smṛtikāras ) have bound themselves by stating that Veda is the source of Dharma. The Tantravārtika further says that the smṛtikāras ( p. 205 ) accept the authoritativeness of usages that are not opposed to the Veda in such passages as are quoted above. Similarly, Mānavam (i.e. Manusmṛti) states in 12. 105, 106 that one who desires to find out the pure Dharma has to rely upon Pratyakṣa and Anumāna, and that man really knows Veda who makes use of logic in interpreting Veda. The Tantravārtika (p. 191 ) further quotes a passage as of Manu which does not occur in the present Manu but occurs in the MBH, Śāntiparva 140.38, which states that a man should first extricate himself from distress by any action, soft or hard, and then when he becomes able, should practise what Dharma requires. Similarly, Śabara on P. M. S. VI. 1. 12 quotes a verse as smṛti which is almost the same as the extant Manu (8. 416 ) and which is also similar to Udyogaparva, ch. 33.64. For further references to Manu, vide the present author’s paper in JBBRAS (NEW Series, 1925 ) Vol. I pp. 98-102. In one or two cases it appears that Kumārila had before him a text of Manu slightly different from the extant Manu. For example, on p. 191 he quotes a verse as Manu’s which does not occur in the extant smṛti.
The above discussion shows that the extant Manusmṛti was practically the same long before the 7th century A. D.
It may be noted that Śabarasvāmin on PMS. VI. 1. 12 quotes a verse as Smṛti which is practically the same as extant Manu VIII. 116. Śabara has to be placed between 200 and 400 A. D. (nearer the former date); vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1197. Hence the extant Manusmṛti cannot be placed later than 2nd century A. D. Vide the present author’s paper on ‘Gleanings from Śabara and the Tantravārtika’ in JBBRAS (old series ) Vol. 26 ( 1924 ) pp. 83-98.
Viśvarūpa ( on Yāj. I. 69 ), the Mitākṣarā, the Smṛticandrikā, the Parāśaramādhaviya and other works quote dozens of verses from Vṛddha-Manu on āhnika, vyavahāra and prāyaścitta. The Mitākṣarā (on Yāj. II. 135-6, III. 20 ), Aparārka p. 910 and other works cite a few verses from Bṛhan-Manu. No independent works going under these names have yet been unearthed. Those works, if they ever existed independently, appear to have been later than our Manu. For example, our Manu is silent about the widow’s right to inherit to her husband, but Vṛddha-Manu recognises the right of a chaste widow to take the entire wealth of her husband (Mit. on Yāj. II. 136); similarly, Bṛhan-Manu ( according to the Mit. ) seems to refer to Manu’s view about the meaning of ‘samānodaka’ (Manu 5. 60 ) and modifies it. It is not unlikely that those verses which were not recognised as Manu’s by ancient commentators like Medhātithi and were yet found in the mss. of the Manusmṛti were regarded as Vṛddha-or Bṛhan-Manu.
-
मद्वै किं च मनुस्वदत्तद्वेषजम् । तै. सं. 31. 2. 10. 2 ; ‘मनुवैं यस्किंचावदत्तद्वेषजं भेषजतायै’ ताण्ड्य • 28. 16. 17. ↩︎
-
अविशेषेण मिथुनाः पुत्रा दायादा इति । तदेतदृक्श्लोकाभ्यामुक्तम् । अङ्गादङ्गात्संभवसि हृदयादधिजायसे । आत्मा वै पुत्रनामासि स जीव शरदः शतम् ॥ इति । आविशेषेण पुत्राणां दायो भवति धर्मतः । मिथुनानां विसर्गादौ मनुः स्वायंभुवोऽब्रवीत् ॥ ↩︎
-
ऋषीनुवाच तान्सर्वानदृश्यः पुरुषोत्तमः । कृतं शतसहस्रं हि श्लोकानामिदमुत्तमम् । - लोकतन्त्रस्य कृत्स्नस्य यस्माद्धर्मः प्रवर्तते । … तस्मात्प्रवक्ष्यते धर्मान् मनुः स्वायंभुवः स्वयम् । … स्वायंभुवेषु धर्मेषु शास्त्रे चौशनसे कृते । बृहस्पतिमृते चैव लोकेषु प्रतिचारिते ॥ ↩︎
-
तत्रायमाद्यः श्लोकः । आसीदिदं तमोभूतं न प्राज्ञायत किंचन । ततः स्वयं भूर्भगवान्प्रादुरासीच्चतुर्मुखः ॥. Manu I. 5 is quoted as the verse of a स्मृतिकार by कमलशील in his comment on शान्तरक्षित’s तत्त्वसंग्रह .(कारिका 3118) in the middle of the 8th century A.D, Vide सुरेश्वर’s बृहदारण्यकभाष्यवार्तिक p. 487. ↩︎
-
नारदश्च स्मरति । शतसाहस्रो ग्रन्थः प्रजापतिना कृतः सः मन्वादिभिः क्रमेण संक्षिप्त इति । मेधातिथि on मनु, I.58 ↩︎
-
भार्गवीया नारदीया च बार्हस्पत्याङ्गिरस्यपि । स्वायंभुवस्य शास्त्रस्य चतस्रः संहिता मताः ॥ चतुर्वर्ग•, दानखण्ड p.528, संस्कारमयूख p. 2. ↩︎
-
येषु पापेषु दिव्यानि प्रतिशुद्धानि यत्नतः । कारयेत्सज्जनैस्तानि नाभिक्षस्तं त्यजेन्मनुः ॥ अपरार्क. ↩︎
-
अश्रौषीस्त्वं राजधर्मान्यथा वै मनुरब्रवीत् । वनपर्व 35. 21; वेदं षडङ्गं वेदाहमर्थविद्यां च मानवीम् ॥ द्रोणपर्व 7.1. ↩︎
-
Compare अलब्धलाभार्था लब्धपरिरक्षणी रक्षितविवर्धनी वृद्धस्य तीर्थेषु प्रतिपादनी च । कौटिल्य ( I. 4 ) with मनु 7. 101 अलब्धमिच्छेद्दण्डेन लब्धं रक्षेदवेक्षया । रक्षितं वर्धयेबुद्ध्या वृद्धं पात्रेषु निक्षिपेत् ॥; ‘तस्माल्लोकयात्रार्थी नित्यमुद्यतदण्डः स्यात्’ कौटिल्य ( I. 4 ) with मनु 7. 162 नित्यमुद्यतदण्डः स्यात् ; ‘असंभाष्ये देशे साक्षिभिर्मिथः संभाषते’ कौटिल्य (III. 1) with मनु 8. 55 ‘असंभाष्ये साक्षिभिश्च देशे संभाष्यते मिथः’; ‘साहसमन्वयवत्प्रसभकर्म’ कौटिल्य (III. 17 ) with मनु 8. 332 ‘स्या साहसं त्वन्वयवत् प्रसभं कर्म यत् कृतम्’. ↩︎
-
The word ध्यानयोग occurs in the Śvetāśvataropaniṣad I. 3; the मैत्रायणी Upaniṣad ( VI. 18 ) regards Yoga as ṣaḍaṅga ‘प्राणायामः प्रत्याहारो ध्यानं धारणा तर्कः समाधिः षडङ्ग इत्युच्यते योगः’।; तां योगमिति मन्यन्ते स्थिरामिन्द्रियधारणाम् । कठोपनिषद् VI. II ; तत्सुकृतदुष्कृते धुनुते । तस्य प्रिया ज्ञातयः सुकृतमुपयन्ति । अप्रिया दुष्कृतम् । स एष विसुकृतो विदुष्कृतो ब्रह्म विद्वान् ब्रह्मैवाभिप्रैति । कौषीतक्युपनिषद् I. 4. Manu VI.79 summarisos this, employing some of the very words that Upaniṣad. ↩︎
-
प्रतिमन्वन्तरं चैव स्मृतिरन्या विधीयते । स्थिताश्च मनवो नित्यं कल्पे कल्पे चतुर्दश ॥ तन्त्रवार्तिक p. 202. ↩︎
-
Vide Muir’s Original Sanskrit Texts, vol. I. Article on Manu pp.161-238 (2nd ed, of 1872); E. W, Hopkins on ‘Professed quotations from Manu found in the Mahābhārata’ in J. A. 0. S. vol. XI. pp. 239-275; Hopkin’s ‘Great Epic of India, its Character and origin’ (1901); Būhler’s Intro. to his translation of Manusmṛti (in S. B. E. vol. 25, pp. XI-LXXXVII ); ‘Manu and Yājñavalkya’ by K, P. Jayaswal (Calcutta, 1930); ‘Hindu Polity’ by the same author (2nd ed. of 1943 ); ‘Aspects of the Social and Political systems of the Manusmṛti’ (1949) and ‘Some aspects of Hindu view of life’ ( 1952), both by Prof. K. V. Rangaswami Aiyangar ; ‘History of Indian Political Ideas’ by Dr. U. N. Ghoshal ( 1959) . ↩︎
-
वर्णानाश्रमांश्च न्यायतोऽभिरक्षेत् । चलतश्चैतान् स्वधर्मे स्थापयेत् । धर्मस्य ह्यंशभाग्भवतीति । गौ. XI. 9.-11; देशधर्मजातिकुलधर्मान्सर्वानेवैताननुप्रविश्य राजा चतुरो वर्णान्स्वधर्मे स्थापयन् । तेप्वपचरत्सु दण्डं धारयेत् । वसिष्ट 19.7-8 ; वर्णानामाश्रमाणां च राजा सृष्टोऽभिरक्षिता॥ मनु VII. 35 ; चतुर्वर्णाश्रमो लोको राज्ञा दण्डेन पालितः । स्वधर्मकर्माभिरतो वर्तते स्वेषु वर्त्मसु ॥ अर्थशास्त्र I. 4. 16. ↩︎
-
कृतं त्रेतायुगं चैव द्वापरं कलिरेव च । राज्ञो वृत्तानि सर्वाणि राजा हि युगमुच्यते॥ मनु 1X.301 ; कृतं त्रेता द्वापरं च कलिश्च भरतर्षभ । राजमूला इति मतिर्मम नास्त्यत्र संशयः । शान्ति 141. 10; सर्वे धर्मा राजधर्मप्रधानाः सर्वे वर्णाः पाल्य माना भवन्ति । सर्वस्त्यागो राजधर्मेषु राजंस्त्यागं धर्मं चाहुरण्यं पुराणम् ॥ मज्जेत्रयी दण्डनीतौ हृतायां सर्वे धर्मा प्रक्षयेयुर्विवृद्धाः। सर्वे धर्माश्चाश्रमाणां हताः स्युः क्षात्रे त्यक्ते राजधर्मे पुराणे ॥ सर्वा विद्या राजधर्मेषु युक्ताः। सर्वे लोका राजधर्मे प्रविष्टाः ॥ शान्ति 83. 27-29. ↩︎
-
अस्वर्ग्या लोकनाशाय परानीकभयावहा । आयुर्वीजहरी राज्ञां सति वाक्ये स्वयं कृतिः ॥ तस्माच्छास्त्रानुसारेण राजा कार्याणि साधयेत् । वाक्याभावे तु सर्वेषां देशदृष्टेन तन्नयेत् ॥ कात्यायन q. by अपरार्क on या. II. 1 (p. 599) ; कृते तु, मानवो धर्मस्त्रेतायां गौतमः स्मृतः । द्वापरे शाङ्खलिखितः कलौ पाराशरः स्मृतः ॥ पराशर I. 24 q. by स्मृतिच० ( आह्निक p. 11). ↩︎
-
अस्वर्ग्यं लोकविद्विष्टं धर्म्यमप्यावरेन्न तु ॥ या. 1. 156. The मिता. cites as an instance मधुपर्के गोवधादि; यदुच्यते द्विजातीनां शूद्राद्दारोपसङ्ग्रहः । नैतन्मम मतं यस्मात्तत्रायं जायते स्वयम् ॥ या. I. 56 ; this has in view, Manu III. 12-13, the last being शूद्रैव भार्या शूद्रस्य सा च स्वा च विशः स्मृते । ते चैव स्वा च राज्ञश्च ताश्च स्वा चाग्रजन्मनः॥ ↩︎
-
उक्तो नियोगो मनुना निषिद्धः स्वयमेव हि । युगक्रमादशक्योयं कर्तुमन्यैर्विधानतः ॥ बृहस्पति, quoted by कुल्लूक on Manu IX. 68. It may be noted that Medhātithi on Manu IX. 66 refers to Ṛg. X. 40.2 (ko vām śayutrā vidhaveva devaram ) as an indication of the practice of niyoga in those far-off ages. Further, it is found that Viśvarūpa op Yaj. I. 68-69 raises a pūrvapakṣa (a prima facie view ) that Niyoga is alluded to in the Ṛgveda ( X. 40, 2) and therefore it is clear that it was practised ; to this he replies that the smṛti texts about niyoga are meant for śūdras and the Manusmṛti (in IX. 64 ) forbids niyoga for dvijātis and that such a practice prevails ( among śūdras). He boldly asserts that Vyasa’s procreating sons from the wives of Vicitravirya should be condemned like the marriage of Draupadi with five brothers. He provides that niyoga was allowed only for kings when the dynasty would have come to an end if there were no son. He further says that the Vedic Mantra (X. 40. 2) should be explained as referring only to śūdras, and quotes two verses of Vṛddha-Manu viz. शूद्राणामेव धर्मोयं पत्यौ प्रेतेऽन्यसंश्रयः । लोभान्मूढेरविद्वद्भिः क्षत्रियैरपि चर्यते ॥ वायुप्रोक्तां तथा गाथां पठन्त्यत्र मनीषिणः । विप्राणां न नियोगोस्ति प्रेते पत्यौ न वेदनम् ॥ ↩︎
-
विद्युत्स्तनितवर्षेषु महोल्कानां च संप्लवे । आकालिकमनध्यायमेतेषु मनुरब्रवीत ॥ मनु. IV. 103. ↩︎
-
भृगुः । येषु पापेषु दिव्यानि प्रतिशुद्धानि (v. 1. प्रतिषिद्धानि ) यत्नतः । कारयेत्सज्जनैस्तानि नाभिशस्तं त्यजेन्मनुः ॥ अपरार्क p. 696. ↩︎
-
In E. I. VIII p. 233 at p. 235 (Chendalur Plates of king Kumāraviṣṇu II of the Pallava dynasty ) the acount ends with the words ‘अपि चात्र ब्रह्मगीताः श्लोकाः’ and four versos condemning the resumption of lands once granted are set out viz. the verses ‘भूमिदानात्परं दानं, स्वदत्तां परदत्तां वा, पूर्वैः पूर्वतरैश्चैव दत्तां भूमिं हरेत्तु यः, and बहुभिर्वसुधा… फलम्. Vide H.of Dh. Vol. II. pp. 1271-1277 in which I have collected 43 verses occurring in Inscriptions and Sanskrit works condemning the resumption of lands granted where the four verses of E.I.VIII occur as nos. 25, 3, 26, 1 respectively and for which several references are given. ↩︎
-
यवनाः किराता गान्धाराश्चीनाः शबरबर्बराः । शकास्तुषाराः कङ्काश्च पह्लवाश्चान्ध्र मद्रकाः ॥ पौण्ड्राः पुलिन्दा रमठाः काम्बोजाश्चैव सर्वशः । कथं धर्माश्चरिष्यन्ति सर्वे विषयवासिनः । मद्विधैश्च कथं स्थाप्याः सर्वे वै दस्युजीविनः । शान्ति 65. 13-15. ↩︎
-
मानवे च सर्वा प्रवृत्तिः कामहेतुक्येवेति. Vide. मनु. II. 4. ↩︎
-
On the Sutra स्मरन्ति च ( वेदान्तसूत्र III. 1. 14 ) Śaṅkara adds ‘मनुव्यासप्रभृतयः शिष्टाः’. ↩︎
-
अयं हि पातकी विप्रो न वध्यो मनुरब्रवीत् । राष्ट्रादस्मात्तु निर्वास्यो विभवैरक्षतैः सह ॥. Compare मनु 8. 380 न जातु ब्राह्मणं हन्यात्सर्वपापेष्वपि स्थितम् । राष्ट्रादेनं बहिः कुर्यात्समग्रधनमक्षतम् ॥. The words राष्ट्र and अक्षत occurring in both may particularly be noted. ↩︎
-
मन्वादिप्रणीतविधिविधानधर्मा. ↩︎
-
उपदिष्टवन्तश्य मन्वादयः, on पूर्वमीमांसा I. 1. 2 ( vol. I. p. 4 ). ↩︎
-
एवं च स्मरति । भार्या दासश्च पुत्रश्च निर्धनाः सर्व एव ते । यत्ते समधिगच्छन्ति यस्य ते तस्य तद्धनम् ॥. Manu ( 8. 416 ) reads भार्या पुत्रश्च दासश्च त्रय एवाधनाः स्मृताः, while उद्योग. reads ‘त्रय एवाधना राजन्भार्या दासस्तथा सुतः’. ↩︎
-
on मनु XI. 73 कुल्लूक says ’ मनुश्लोकमेव लिखित्वा यथा व्याख्याने (तं!) भविष्यपुराणे’; on मनु XI. 100 ‘अत एव मन्वर्थव्याख्यानपरे भविष्यपुराणे’. ↩︎
-
वेदार्थोपनिबन्द्धृत्वात्प्राधान्यं तु मनुस्मृतौ । मन्वर्थविपरीता या स्मृतिः सा न प्रशस्यते ॥ (quoted by अपरार्क on Yaj. II. 21 and by कुल्लूक on. मनु I. 1. who adds one more verse from बृहस्पति ‘तावच्छस्त्राणि शोभन्ते तर्कव्याकरणानि च । धर्मार्थमोक्षोपदेष्टा मनुर्यावन्न दृश्यते ॥) ↩︎
-
संख्या रश्मिरजोमूला मनुना समुदाहृता । कार्षापणान्ता सा दिव्ये नियोज्या विनये तथा ॥ quoted by अपराकै on याज्ञ. II. 99 and by the स्मृतिच ( व्य. p. 211). ↩︎
-
पुत्रास्त्रयोदश प्रोक्ता मनुना येन पूर्वशः । सन्तानकारणं तेषामौरसः पत्रिका यथा ॥ आज्यं विना यथा तैलं सद्भिः प्रतिनिधिः स्मृतम् । तथैकादश पुत्रास्तु पुत्रिकौरसयोर्विना ॥, quoted by अपरार्क on याज्ञ. II. 128-132 and the दत्तकमीमांसा (p. 39 ). ↩︎
-
द्यूतं निषिद्धं मनुना सस्य (त्य ?) शौचधनापहम् । तत्प्रवर्तितमन्यैस्तु राजभागसमन्वितम् । सभिकाधिष्ठितं कार्यं तस्करज्ञानहेतुना।. It is striking that याज्ञ uses the word तस्करज्ञानकारणात् in II. 203. ↩︎
-
वस्त्रादयोऽविभाज्या यैरुक्तं तैर्नं विचारितम् । धनं भवेत्समृद्धानां वस्त्रालङ्कारसंश्रितम् ॥ quoted by अपरार्क on याज्ञ. II. 19 and by the व्यवहारमयूख. ↩︎
-
निक्षेपानन्तरं प्रोक्तो भृगुणास्वामिविक्रयः । श्रूयतां तं प्रयत्नेन सविशेषं ब्रवीम्यहम् ॥ विवादरत्नाकर p. 100. The words of मनु are: तेषामाद्यमृणादानं निक्षेपोऽस्वामिविक्रयः ।. ↩︎
-
e.g. उक्तं हि मानवे धर्मे-सद्यः पतति मांसेन लाक्षया लवणेन वा। त्र्यहाच्छूद्रश्च भवति ब्राह्मणः क्षीरविक्रयात् ॥ ( this is मनु X. 92); उक्तं हि मानवे धर्मे ‘वृषलीफेनपीतस्य निःश्वासोपहतस्य च । तत्रैव च प्रसूतस्य निष्कृतिर्नोपलभ्यते ॥’ (this is मनु III. 19.); उक्तं हि मानवे धर्मे ‘अधीत्य चतुरो वेदान् साङ्गोपाङ्गेन तत्वतः । शूद्रात्ग्रतिग्रहग्राही ब्राह्मणो जायते खरः ॥ खरो द्वादश जन्मानि षष्टिजन्मानि सूकरः । श्वानः सप्ततिजन्मानि इत्येवं मनुरब्रवीत् ॥’ ( this cannot be traced in the extant Manusmṛti); इह हि मानवधर्मेभिहितम् । अरणीगर्भसंभूतः कठो नाम महामुनिः । तपसा ब्राह्मणो जातस्तस्माज्जातिरकारणम् ॥ This is followed by several verses citing instances of व्यास, वसिष्ठ, ॠष्यशृङ्ग, विश्वामित्र, नारद and others, who, though born of women of low class, became sages. These verses also are not found in the extant मनुस्मृति. ↩︎
-
ऊर्ध्वं प्राणा ह्युत्कामन्ति यूनः स्थविर आयति । प्रत्युत्थानाभिवादाभ्यां पुनः स्तान्प्रतिपद्यते ॥ महाभाष्य vol. III. p. 58. This verse occurs also in the उद्योगपर्व ( 38. 1). ↩︎
-
अपुत्रा शयनं भर्तुः पालयन्ती व्रते स्थिता । पत्न्येव दद्यात्तत्पिण्डं कृत्स्नमंशं लभेत च ॥ मिता on याज्ञ. II. 135. ↩︎
-
तदुक्तं बृहन्मनुना-सपिण्डता तु पुरुषे सप्तमे विनिवर्तते । समानोदकभावस्तु निवर्तेताचतुर्दशात् । जन्मनामस्मृतेरेके तत्परं गोत्रमुच्यते ॥ पराशरमाधवीय vol. III, para 2, p. 528. ↩︎
-
मनुगीतं श्लोकमुदाहरन्ति – बहुभिर्वसुधा भुक्ता राजभिः सगरादिभिः । and स्वदत्तां परदत्तां वा यो हरेत वसुन्धराम् । &c. I. A. vol. VIII. p. 97. ↩︎
-
पौण्ड्रकाश्चौद्रविडाः काम्बोजा यवनाः शकाः । पारदाः पह्लवाश्चीनाः किरात दरदाः खशाः ॥ ↩︎
-
सेनापत्यं च राज्यं च दण्डनेतृत्वमेव च । सर्वलोकाधिपत्यं च वेदशास्त्रविदर्हति ॥ मनुस्मृति XII, 100. ; तै.सं. I.7.3 एते वै देवाः प्रत्यक्षं यद् ब्रह्मणाः । ↩︎
-
अद्या मुरीय यदि यातुधानो अस्मि & c. ↩︎
-
मनुनाभिहितं शास्त्रं यच्चापि कुरुनन्दन । अनु. 47. 35. ↩︎
-
मनुना चैव राजेन्द्र गीतौ श्लोकौ महात्मना । धर्मेषु स्वेषु कौरव्य हृदि तौ कर्तुमर्हसि ॥ अद्भ्योग्निर्ब्रह्मतः क्षत्रमश्मनो लोहमुत्थितम् । तेषां सर्वत्रगं तेजः स्वासु योनिषु शाम्यति ॥ अयो हन्ति यदाश्मानमग्निना वारि हन्यते । ब्रह्म च क्षत्रियो द्वेष्टि तदा सीदन्ति ते त्रयः ॥ शान्ति० 56. 23-25. ↩︎
-
प्राचेतसेन मनना श्लोकौ चेमावुदाहृतौ । राजधर्मेषु राजेन्द्र ताविहैकमनाः शृणु। षडेतान्पुरुषो जह्याद्भिन्नां नावमिवाम्भसि । अप्रवक्तारमाचार्यमनधीयानमृत्विजम् ॥ अरक्षितारं राजानं भार्यां चाप्रियवादिनीम् । ग्रामकामं च गोपालं वनकामं च नापितम् ॥ शान्ति. 57. 43-45. ↩︎
-
पापं कुर्वन्ति यत्किंचित्प्रजा राज्ञा हरक्षिताः । चतुर्थं तस्य पापस्य राजा विन्दति भारत ॥ अथाहुः सर्वमेवेति भूयोर्धमिति निश्चयः । चतुर्थं मतमस्माकं मनोः श्रुत्वानुशासनम् ॥ अनु. 61. 34-35. Here भीष्म is supposed to address युधिष्ठिर. Compare मनुस्मृति 8.18 पादोऽधर्मस्य कर्तारं पादः साक्षिणमृच्छति । पादः सभासदः सर्वान् पादो राजानमृच्छति ॥ प्रजापतिमतं ह्येतन्न स्त्री स्वातन्त्र्यमर्हति ॥ अनु. 20. 14 and पिता रक्षति कौमारे भर्ता रक्षति यौवने । पुत्राश्च स्थविरे काले नास्ति स्त्रीणां स्वतन्त्रता ॥ अनु. 20. 21. मनु 9. 3 is almost the same. अथाभिषिषिचुर्द्रोणं दुर्योधनमुखा नृपाः । सैनापत्ये यथा स्कन्दं पुरा शक्रमुखाः सुराः ॥ द्रोणपर्व 7.6. त्रयः परार्थे क्लिश्यन्ति साक्षिणः प्रतिभूः कुलम् । चत्वारस्तूपचीयन्ते विप्र आढ्यो वणिङ् नृपः । मनु VIII, 169; षडेतान्पुरुषो जह्याद्भिन्नां नावमिवाम्भसि । । अप्रवक्तारमाचार्यमनधीयानमृत्विजम् ॥ अरक्षितारं राजानं भार्यां चाप्रियवादिनीम् । ग्रामकामं च गोपालं वनकामं च नापितम् ॥ शान्ति 57. 44-45, उद्योगपर्व 33. 79-80 ; अश्रौषीस्त्वं राजधर्मान्यथा वै मनुरब्रवीत् । वनपर्व 35, 21. ↩︎
-
पारदः स्थिरकल्याणो गुणाढ्यः प्राकृताप्रियः । अनीतिर्यो विशालाक्षः शरो न्यकृतभीमकः । (verse 69). Visālākșa was an author on Nīti ; the king Yaśovarman had large eyes ( but though Viśālākṣa, he wrote no work on RājaNīti). The other paronomastic words are easy. ↩︎
-
अनृताः स्त्रिय इत्येवं सूत्रकारो व्यवस्यति । अनु० 19. 6 ; compare मनु 9.18 निरिन्द्रिया ह्यमन्त्राश्च स्त्रियोनृतमिति स्थितिः । ↩︎
-
प्राचेतसस्य वचनं कीर्तयन्ति पुराविदः । यस्याः किंचिन्नाददतो ज्ञातयो न स विक्रयः । अर्हणं तत्कुमारीणामानृशंस्यतमं हि तत् ॥ अनुशासन 46. 1-2. ↩︎
-
It is to be noted that so early a writer as शान्तरक्षित in his तत्त्वसंग्रह (कारिका 3584, G. O. S. ) expressly attributes the verse (पुराणं मानवो धर्मः साङ्गो बेदश्चिकित्सितम् । आज्ञासिद्धानि चत्वारि न हन्तव्यानि हेतुभिः॥) to मनु, which was not commented upon by मेधातिथि and later commentators. शान्तरक्षित flourished about 750 A. D. i.e. a century earlier than मेधातिथि. ↩︎
-
आचार्यवद् गृहस्थोपि माननीयो बहुश्रुतः । अभ्यागतगुणानां च परा विद्येति मानवम् ॥ वित्तं बन्धुर्वयः कर्म विद्या भवति पञ्चमी । एतानि मान्यस्थानानि गरीयो यद्यदुत्तरम् ॥ The latter is मनु II. 136 and the former summarises मनु III. 77-80. ↩︎
-
On मनु 8. 198 the विवादरत्नाकर (p. 104) remarks : कल्पतरुकारस्तु अपसरत्यनेन स्वामिनः सकाशाद्धनमिति प्रतिग्रहादिर्धनोपायः अपसरः स न विद्यते यस्य तथा । एतच्च भागुरिमेधातिथिवृत्तिकाराणामनुमतमित्याह । एवं तावद्विव्यर्थवादमन्त्रनामधेयात्मकस्य वेदस्य धर्मं प्रत्युपयोगः साभितः । इदानी पौरुषेयीषु स्मर्यमाणार्थावधिषु मन्वादिप्रणीतनिबन्धनासु स्मृतिष्वनिबद्वेषु चाचारेषु चिन्ता । p. 159 of the edition of Śābarabhāṣya and Tantravārtika ( Ānan. ed. by Kinjavdekar–shastri ); अपि च ‘वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलं, स सर्वोऽभिहितो वेदे’ इति च स्वयमेव स्मर्तृभिरात्मा बद्ध्वा समर्पितः etc. p. 165 ; ‘स्मृतिकाराश्च आचारश्चैव साधूनाम् , देशजातिकुलधर्माश्चाम्नायैरविरुद्धाः प्रमाणम्’ इति वेदविरुद्धानामाचाराणां सामान्यतः प्रामाण्यमनुमन्यन्ते । तन्त्रवा. p. 205; तथा च मानवेप्याभिहितं-प्रत्यक्ष- मनुमानं…भीप्सता; तथा यस्तर्केंणानु…नेतरः. These are Manusmṛti XII. 105-106 ; तथा च मनुनाप्युक्तमापद्धर्मगतं प्रति । तत्रत्यपापशेषाणामन्ते शौचं भविष्यति । कर्मणा येन केनेह मृदुना दारुणेन वा । उद्धरेद्दीनमात्मानं समर्थो धर्ममाचरेत् ॥; here the verse कर्मणा येन etc. does not occur in Manu but in Śāntiparva 140. 38 ( reads तेनैव for केनेह ). ↩︎