INTRODUCTION.

I.

DIFFICULT as the historical problems are which the Dharma-sûtras translated in vols. ii and xiv of this Series offer, they are infinitely less complicated than those connected with the metrical law-books and especially with the Manu-smriti, or, to speak more exactly, with Bhrigu's version of the Institutes of the Sacred Law proclaimed by Manu. Though mostly the materials available for the inquiry into the history of the Dharma-sûtras are scanty, and in part at least belong to the floating traditions which are generally current among the learned, but of uncertain origin, they not only exhibit no extravagancies, but agree fully with the facts known from strictly historical sources. Moreover, and this is the most important point, though the text of the Dharma-sûtras has not always been preserved with perfect purity, they have evidently retained their original character. They do not pretend to be anything more than the compositions of ordinary mortals, based on the teaching of the Vedas, on the decisions of those who are acquainted with the law, and on the customs of virtuous Âryas. In some cases their authors say as much in plain words. Thus Âpastamba repeatedly laments. the sinfulness and the weakness of 'the men of later times,' and Gautama warns against an imitation of the irregular conduct of the ancients whose great 'lustre' preserved them from falling. It is, further, still possible to recognise, even on a superficial examination, for what purpose the Dharmasûtras were originally composed. Nobody can doubt for a moment that they are manuals written by the teachers of the Vedic schools for the guidance of their pupils, that at first they were held to be authoritative in restricted circles, and that they were later only acknowledged as sources of

the sacred law applicable to all Aryas. This fact is fully acknowledged by the Hindu tradition, even in cases where the Dharma-sûtras no longer are the property of particular Vedic schools.

The metrical Smritis, on the other hand, are surrounded by clearly fictitious traditions, by mythological legends which either may have grown up spontaneously, because the real origin had been forgotten, or may have been fabricated intentionally in order to show that these works possess divine authority and, hence, have a claim to implicit obedience on the part of all Âryas. Nay, what is more, such legends or portions of them have been introduced into the text, and obscure the real character of the Smritis. These peculiarities are particularly marked in the Mânava Dharmasâstra, where the whole first chapter is devoted to the purpose of showing the mighty scope of the book, and of setting forth its divine origin as well as the manner in which it was revealed to mankind. Its opening verses narrate how the great sages approached Manu, the descendant of self-existent Brahman, and asked him to explain the sacred law. Manu agrees to their request, and gives to them an account of the creation as well as of his own origin from Brahman. After mentioning that he learnt 'these Institutes of the Sacred Law' from the creator who himself produced them, and that he taught them to the ten sages whom he created in the beginning, he transfers the work of expounding them to Bhrigu, one of his ten mindborn sons. The latter begins his task by completing, as the commentators call it, Manu's account of the creation. First he gives the theory of the seven Manvantaras, the Yugas, and other divisions of time, as well as an incidental description of the order of the creation. Next he briefly describes the duties of the four principal castes, passes then to an encomium of the Brâhmanas and of the Institutes of Manu, and winds up with an enumeration of the contents of all the twelve chapters of the work, which he promises to expound 'exactly as it was revealed to him.' In the following chapters we find frequent allusions to the situation which the first describes. In about forty passages a new

topic is introduced by a prefatory verse which contains phrases like 'such and such a matter has been explained to you, now listen to,' &c., or 'I will next declare,' &c.

Twice (V, 1-3 and XII, 1-2) the sages are represented as interrupting Bhrigu's discourse and expressing their desire to be instructed on particular points, and on both occasions Bhrigu is again named as the narrator. Moreover in a number of verses1 Manu is particularly mentioned as the author of certain rules, and II, 7 the authoritativeness of Manu's teaching is emphatically asserted, 'because he was omniscient.' In two other passages Manu appears, however, in different characters. VII, 42 he is enumerated among the kings who gained sovereignty by their humility, and XII, 123 he is identified with the supreme Brahman.

This account of the origin of our Manu-smriti would have to be slightly modified by those who accept as genuine the verse 2 which stands at the beginning of the Smriti according to the commentators Govindarâga, Nârâyana, and Râghavânanda, as well as according to the Kasmîr copy and other MSS. As this verse contains an invocation of the selfexistent Brahman, and a promise to explain the laws which Manu taught, it indicates, as Govindarâga says, that 'some pupil of Bhrigu recites the work which had descended to him through an unbroken line of teachers.' According to this version we have, therefore, a triple exordium instead of a double one, and our Manu-smriti does not contain the original words of Bhrigu, but a recension of his recension. such as it had been handed down among his pupils. The additional verse is apparently intended to make the story more plausible.

The remarks which the commentators make on this narrative are scanty, and, though they are meant to support its credibility, they are, partly at least, calculated to discredit it. Medhâtithi states in his remarks on Manu I, 1, that the Pragâpati Manu was 'a particular individual, perfect

1 See the index s. v. Manu.

8

2 See note on Manu I, 1.

इह भृगु शिष्पः कश्चिदविच्छिन्न परंपरायात स्मृत्यर्थप्रबन्धमिदमाह ॥

in the study of many branches of the Veda, in the knowledge (of its meaning) and in the performance (of its precepts), and known through the sacred tradition which has been handed down in regular succession '.' Govindarâga closely agrees, and says that Manu is 'a great sage, who received his name on account of his acquaintance with the meaning of the whole Veda, who is known to all learned men through the tradition handed down in regular succession, and who is entrusted with causing the creation, preservation, and destruction (of the world)2.' Kullûka, on the other hand, though he agrees with respect to the etymology and explanation of Manu's name, deriving it from man, 'to know (the meaning of the Veda),' and though he admits the human character of his Sâstra, somewhat differs in the description of the person. Referring to XII, 123, he declares Manu to be a manifestation or incarnation of the supreme Soul. Further, Medhâtithi and Kullûka adduce in their remarks on the same verse various passages from the Sruti and the Smriti, tending to prove the authoritativeness of the Manu-smriti. Both quote slightly varying versions of the famous Vedic passage which declares that 'All Manu said is medicine.' Medhâtithi adds only one more anonymous verse, to the effect that 'the Vedas were proclaimed by the great sages, but the Smârta or traditional lore by Manu. Kullûka gives two other passages, one from the Brihaspati-smriti which places Manu's Sâstra at the head of all works of the same class, and another from the Mahâbhârata which declares that 'the Purânas, Manu's laws, the Vedas, and the medical works must not be opposed by (adverse) reasoning.' Both commentators mention also that the pre-eminence of Manu's teaching is admitted in other passages of the Vedas, the Purânas, the मनुनीम कश्चित्पुरुपविशेषोनेकवेदशाखाध्ययन विज्ञानानुष्ठानसंपन्नः स्मृतिपरंपराप्रसिद्धः ॥

1

2

' मनुनीम महर्भिरशेपवेदार्थज्ञानेन प्राप्तमनुसंज्ञ आगमपरंपरया सकलविइज्जनकर्णगोचरीभूतः सर्गस्थितिप्रलयकारणेधिकृतः ॥

3

ऋचो यजूंषि सामानि मन्त्रा आथर्वणाश्च ये । महर्षिभिस्तु तत्प्रोक्तं स्मार्त मनुरब्रवीत् ॥

तु

Itihâsas, and the Smritis. Finally, in the notes on Manu I, 58, they discuss the question, how the Smriti can be called the Mânava Dharmasâstra, though, as is admitted in the work itself, Brahman was its real author. Medhâtithi offers two explanations. First he contends that Brahman produced only 'the multitude of injunctions and prohibitions,' while the work itself was composed by Manu. Next he says that, according to others, the Sâstra may be called Manu's, even if it were first composed by Brahman. In proof of this assertion he points to the analogous case of the river Ganges, which, though originating elsewhere, i. e. in heaven, is called Haimavatî, because it is first seen in the Himavat or Himâlaya, and to that of the Kâthaka Sâkhâ, which, though studied and taught by many others, is named after Katha. In conclusion, he adds, 'Nârada also records, "This work, consisting of one hundred thousand verses, was composed by Pragâpati (Brahman); it was successively abridged by Manu and others'."' Kullûka, who gives a somewhat insufficient abstract of Medhâtithi's discussion, refers to the same passage of Nârada, and bases on it his own explanation of I, 58, according to which it means that Brahman first composed the law-book, and that Manu condensed its contents in his own language and taught it in that form to his pupils.

This is, as far as I know, all that the commentaries say about Manu and the history of the Mânava Dharmasâstra, and their remarks contain also the substance of all that has been brought forward in other discussions on the same subject, with which we meet elsewhere. Important as they may appear to a Hindu who views the question of the origin of the Manu-smriti with the eye of faith, they are of little value for the historical student who stands outside the circle of the Brahmanical doctrines. The statements regarding the person of Manu can, at the best, only furnish materials

1

' नारदश्च स्मरति । शतसाहस्रो ग्रन्थः प्रजापतिना कृतः स मन्वादिभिः क्रमेण संक्षिप्त इति ॥

2 See e. g. the passages translated in Professor Max Müller's Ancient Sanskrit Literature, pp. 87-94.