for mythological research. The arguments in support of the authenticity and authoritativeness of the Manu-smriti are extremely weak. For the Vedic passage which the commentators adduce is, strictly speaking, a misquotation. It occurs in four slightly differing versions in three Samhitâs and in one Brâhmaza. But in all the four places it refers, in the first instance, to Vedic Mantras which Manu is said to have revealed or seen. As, however, the assertion of the wholesomeness of Manu's teaching is couched in general terms, it may probably be inferred that many sayings, attributed to the father of mankind, were known to the authors of the four Vedic works, and it is not improbable that legal maxims were included amongst them 2. But Medhâtithi's and Kullûka's assumption that our Manu-smriti is meant in the passages quoted would require very strong special proof, as its language and part of its doctrines by no means agree with those of the Vedic times. Of course, no such proof is offered, and it is not probable that it ever will be offered. The quotations made by the commentators from the Mahâbhârata and from the Brihaspati-smriti, as well as their well-founded assertion that in the Purânas and in many Smritis Manu is frequently referred to as an authority on the sacred law, are of greater importance. It is undoubtedly true that the two works mentioned by Kullûka refer to a particular Dharmasâstra attributed to Manu, and the same remark holds good with respect to those passages of the Purânas and of the Smritis where, in enumerations of the authors of Dharmasâstras, Manu is placed at the head of the list. Yet even this evidence is of little use, because on the one hand the antiquity of many of the works in which Manu's name occurs is extremely doubtful, and on the other hand the existence of several recensions of Manu's laws is admitted, and can be shown to have been a fact. Hence a reference to a Manu-smriti in a

1 Kâthaka XI, 5 (apparently quoted by Medhâtithi); Maitrâyanîyâ Samhitâ I, 1,5; Taittirîyâ Samhitâ II, 2, 10, 2; and Tândya Biâhmana XXIII, 16, 7 (quoted by Kullûka).

2 I would not infer with Professor Max Müller, India, what can it teach us? p. 364, that a legal work ascribed to a Manu was known to the authors of the four works; see also below, p. lx.

Purâna or a Smriti does not prove much for Bhrigu's Samhitâ, if, at the same time, it is not made evident that the latter is really meant, and that the work in which it is contained really has a claim to be considered ancient. In illustration of this point it may suffice to remark here that the Brihaspati-smriti, which Kullûka adduces as a witness, is by no means an ancient work, but considerably later than the beginning of our era, because it gives a definition of golden dînâras, an Indian coin struck in imitation of and called after the Roman denarii1. Regarding Manu and the Mahâbhârata more will be said below. Medhâtithi's quotation from Nârada is very unlucky; for it is inexact, and worded in such a manner as to veil the serious discrepancy which exists between the stories told in the Mânava Dharmasâstra and in the Nârada-smriti. The introduction to the latter, as read in the MSS. of the vulgata, does not state that the original law-book of one hundred thousand verses was composed by Pragâpati and abridged by Manu and others, but alleges that its author was Manu Pragâpati, and that Nârada and Sumati the son of Bhrigu summarised it. The text of Nârada, which is accompanied by Kalyânabhatta's edition of Asahâya's commentary, names one more sage, Mârkandeya, who also tried his hand at Manu Pragâpati's enormous work. Whichever of the two versions may be the original one, it is evident that Medhâtithi's representation of Nârada's statement is inexact, and that the latter differs considerably from the story in our Manu-smriti, which asserts that it is the original work composed by Brahman, and revealed by Manu to Bhrigu, who explains it to the great sages exactly as he received it.' Hence Nârada's story discredits the details of the account given in the Mânava Dharmasâstra. It might, at the best, be only quoted to prove the existence of the general belief that Manu was the first lawgiver of India. These remarks will

6

1 West and Bühler, Digest, p. 48, third edition.

2 See Jolly, Nârada, p. 2, and Tagore Lectures of 1883, p. 46. My conjecture that the introduction to Nârada belongs to Asahâya, not to the Smriti itself (West and Bühler, Digest, p. 49), is not tenable.

suffice to show that the explanatory notes offered by the Indian commentators on the origin and history of the Manu-smriti are not suited to furnish a basis for a critical discussion of these questions, and that hence they have been deservedly set aside by most modern Sanskritists who have written on the subject. As regards the theories of the latter, it would be useless to enumerate those preceding Professor Max Müller's now generally accepted view, according to which our Manu-smriti is based on, or is in fact a recast of an ancient Dharma-sûtra. But, well known as are his hypotheses and the later discoveries confirming them, an introduction to the laws of Manu would, I think, be incomplete without a full restatement of his arguments and of their additional supports furnished by others.

The considerations on which Professor Max Müller based his explanation of the origin of the Manu-smriti may be briefly stated as follows1. The systematic cultivation of the sacred sciences of the Brâhmans began and for a long time had its centre in the ancient Sûtrakaranas, tlie schools which first collected the fragmentary doctrines, scattered in the older Vedic works, and arranged them for the convenience of oral instruction in Sûtras or strings of aphorisms. To the subjects which these schools chiefly cultivated, belongs besides the ritual, grammar, phonetics, and the other so-called Angas of the Veda, the sacred law also. The latter includes not only the precepts for the moral duties of all Aryas, but also the special rules regarding the conduct of kings and the administration of justice. The Sûtra treatises on law thus cover the whole range of topics, contained in the metrical Smritis attributed to Manu, Yâgñavalkya, and other sages. Though only one Dharma-sûtra, that of the Âpastambîyas, actually remains connected with the aphorisms on the ritual and other sacred subjects, the existence of the Dharmasâstras of Gautama, Vasishtha, and Vishnu, which are likewise composed in Sûtras, proves that formerly

1 See his letter to Mr. Morley, reprinted in Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. ix-xi, and Hist. Anc. Sansk. Lit. pp. 132-134. Compare also the analogous views formed independently by Professors Weber and Stenzler, Indische Studien, vol. i, pp. 69, 143, 243-4.

they were more numerous. The perfectly credible tradition of the Mîmâmsâ school, which declares that originally each Vedic school or Karana possessed a peculiar work on Dharma, confirms this assumption. While the Dharmasûtras possess a considerable antiquity, dating between 600200 B. C., the metrical Smritis cannot be equally ancient, because there is much in their form that is modern, and espe cially because the epic Anushtubh Sloka, in which they are written, was not used for continuous composition during the Sûtra period. As the metrical Smritis are later than the Dharma-sûtras, it is, under the circumstances stated, very probable that each of them is based on a particular Dharmasûtra. The Mânava Dharmasâstra in particular may be considered as a recast and versification of the Dharma-sûtra of the Mânava Sûtrakarana, a subdivision of the Maitrâyanîya school, which adheres to a redaction of the Black Yagur-veda.

Considering the state of our knowledge of Vedic literature thirty years ago, the enunciation of this hypothesis was certainly a bold step. The facts on which it rested. were few, and the want of important links in the premises laid it open to weighty objections. No proof was or could be furnished that the Sûtras of Gautama, Vasishtha, and Vishnu originally were manuals of Vedic schools, not codes promulgated for the guidance of all Âryas, as the Hindu tradition, then known, asserted. The assumption that it was so, rested solely on the resemblance of their form and contents to those of the Âpastambîya Dharma-sûtra. No trace of a Mânava Dharma-sûtra could be shown, nor could any connexion between the Mânava Dharmasâstra and the school of the Mânavas, except through their titles, be established. The assertion that the Brâhmans had turned older Sûtras, and especially Dharma-sûtras, into metrical works, written in epic Slokas, had to be left without any illustration, and no cause was assigned which would explain this remarkable change. As a set off against these undeniable weaknesses, Professor Max Müller's hypothesis possessed two strong points which secured for it from the outset a favourable reception on the part of all Sanskritists of the historical school. First, it substituted a rational theory

of historical development for the fantastic fables of the Hindu tradition and for the hopeless uncertainty which characterised the earlier speculations of European scholars concerning the origin of the so-called Indian codes of law. Secondly, it fully agreed with many facts which the beginning exploration of Vedic literature had brought to light, and which, taken as a whole, forced on all serious students the conviction that the systematic cultivation of all the Indian Sâstras had begun in the Vedic schools. Subsequent events have shown that Professor Max Müller was right to rely on these two leading ideas, and that his fellow Sanskritists did well to follow him, instead of taking umbrage at the minor flaws. Slowly but steadily a great number of the missing links in the chain of evidence has been brought to light by subsequent investigations. We now know that the Sûtra works of other schools than the Âpastambîyas in

Icluded or still include treatises on the sacred law. The Dharma-sûtra of the Baudhâyanîyas, the oldest Sûtrakarana of the Taittirîya Veda, has been recovered. Though the connexion between the several parts of the great body of Sûtras has been severed, it is yet possible to recognise that it once was closely joined to the Grihya-sûtra1. The recovery of the entire collection of Hiranyakesi-sûtras has proved that these too include a Dharma-sûtra, which in this instance has been borrowed from the earlier Âpastambîyas 2. The mystery which surrounded the position of the Dharmasâstras of Gautama, Vishnu, and Vasishtha has been cleared up. To the assertion that they were composed by ancient Rishis for the welfare of mankind, we can at present oppose another tradition according to which they were at first studied and recognised as authoritative by particular schools only, adhering respectively to the Sâma-veda, Black Yagur-veda, and the Rig-veda 3. Internal evidence confirming this tradition has been found in the case of Gautama's Dharmasâstra and of the Vishnu-smriti, or, more correctly,

1 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, p. xxxi.

2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, p. xxiii.

Sacred Books of the East, vol. ii, pp. xlv-xlviii; vol. vii, pp. x-xvi; vol. xiv, pp. xl-xlv.