of the Kathaka Sûtras. These latter discoveries are of particularly great importance, because they fully establish the truth of the assumption, underlying Professor Max Müller's theory, that in post-Vedic times the Brâhmans did not hesitate to change the character of ancient school-books and to convert them into generally binding law-codes, either by simply taking them out of their connexion with the Srauta and Grihya-sûtras or by adding besides matter which, in the eyes of orthodox Hindus, must greatly increase the sentiment of reverence felt for them. It is especially the case of the so-called Vishnu-smriti, which deserves the most careful attention. The beginning and the end of the work distinctly characterise it as a revelation of the god Vishnu. Vishnu, Vaishnava worship and philosophy are on various occasions praised and recommended in the course of the discussions. Yet the difference in the style of the introductory and concluding chapters leaves no doubt that they are later additions, and the perfectly credible. tradition of the Pandits of Puna and Benares, the occurrence of particular sacred texts known to the Kâthakas alone, as well as the special resemblance of its contents to those of the Kâthaka Grihya-sûtra, make it perfectly certain that the work is only a Vaishnava recast of the Kâthaka Dharmasûtra1. We thus obtain in this case the confirmation of almost every fact which the conversion of the Dharma-sûtra of the Mânavas into the revealed code of the Pragâpati Manu presupposes, with the sole exception of the substitution of epic Slokas for aphoristic prose. With respect to the last point, the further exploration of the Smriti literature has furnished numerous analogies. As an instance to the point. we can now cite the fragments of the so-called Brihat Sankha Dharmasâstra, which, as the quotations show, must

1 A quotation in Govindarâga's Smritimangarî, fol. 12, 1. 8 (India Office Collection, No. 1736), contains a very small portion of this work. When explaining the penance for the murder of a Brahmana, mentioned Manu XI, 74, Govinda

rága says, अवस्थानं कठसूत्रकृता व्याख्यानं [तं ] । त्वक्त्यागो भक्तत्यागो वस्त्रत्याग इति ॥ त्वग् [त्वक्त्यागः ] क्षुरादिना देहत क्षणम् ॥ The quotation shows that the

Dharma-sûtra of the Kathas mentioned the fanciful expiations ending in death, which are given in all the ancient law-books, but omitted in the Vishnu-smriti

formerly have consisted of prose and verse, while the available MSS. show Sûtras and Anushtubhs in one chapter only, and Slokas alone in the remainder1. There are, further, such works like the two Âsvalâyana Smritis and the Saunaka-smriti, evidently versifications of the corresponding Grihya-sûtras, with or without the additions of extraneous matter. In short, among all the general propositions concerning the origin of the metrical Smritis, which Professor Max Müller advanced, only one, the assertion that during the Sûtra period of 600-200 B. C. works written in continuous epic verse were unknown, has proved untenable in its full extent. It seems no longer advisable to limit the production of Sûtras to so short and so late a period as 600-200 B. C., and the existence of metrical school-manuals at a much earlier date has been clearly demonstrated 3. It is now evident that the use of the heroic metre for such works did not begin all of a sudden and at a certain given date. But it seems, nevertheless, indisputable that the use of aphoristic prose was adopted earlier than that of verse. For in all known cases a Sûtra, not a metrical Samgraha, Vârttika, or Kârikâ, stands at the head of each series of school-books, and some of the most salient peculiarities of the Sûtra style reappear in that of the metrical manuals. With respect to the conjectures specially affecting the Mânava Dharmasastra, the former existence of a Mânava Dharmasûtra, consisting of prose mixed with verses in several metres, has been established by the discovery of some quotations in the Vâsishtha Dharma-sûtra, and their contents show that the work known to the author of the latter Sâstra was closely related to our Manu-smriti. As regards the connexion of this Dharma-sûtra, and consequently of our Manu-smriti with the Sûtrakarana of the Mânavas, the results of the late researches have not been equally satisfactory. The recovery of the writings of the Mânavas has not only not furnished any facts in support of the supposed connexion, but, on the contrary, has raised difficulties, as it

1 West and Bühler, Digest of H. L. p. 40, third edition.

2 West and Bühler, loc. cit. p. 51.

3 Goldstücker, Mânavakalpa-sûtra, p. 78.

West and Bühler, loc. cit. pp. 42, 44.

appears that the doctrines of the Mânava Grihya-sûtra differ very considerably from those of our Mânava Dharmasâstra. All that has been brought forward in substantiation of this portion of Professor Max Müller's hypothesis is that as close an affinity exists between the Vishnu-smriti, the modern recension of the Kâthaka Dharma-sûtra, and our Manusmriti, as is found between the Kâthaka and Mânava Grihya-sûtras and between the Kâthaka and Mânava Samhitâs, and that hence the Vedic original of the Manusmriti may be supposed to have belonged to the Mânava school1. The conclusive force of this argument is no doubt somewhat weakened, as Dr. von Bradke has pointed out, by the fact that the Vishnu-smriti is not the original Kathaka Dharma-sûtra. But to reject it altogether on account of this circumstance would be going too far. For the agreement between the Smritis of Manu and Vishnu extends to many subjects where the latter shows no traces of recasting, and may be reasonably supposed to faithfully represent the original Dharma-sûtra. Nevertheless a full reconsideration of this point is indispensable. Before we proceed to that, it will, however, be advisable first to supplement Professor Max Müller's arguments against the antiquity of our Manusmriti by the discussion of some of its passages which clearly admit an acquaintance with a large body of older legal literature and particularly with Dharma-sûtras, and, secondly, to re-examine and complete the proof for the former existence of a Mânava Dharma-sûtra and for its having been the precursor of the metrical law-book.

Among the passages of the Manu-smriti which disprove the claim, set up by its author, to be the first legislator, and which show that he had many predecessors, the first place must be allotted to its statements regarding controversies and conflicting decisions on certain points of the ritual and of the law. Such cases are by no means rare. Thus the observances of 'some,' with respect to the order of the several ceremonies at a Srâddha 2 and to the disposal

1 Professor Jolly, Sacred Books of the East, vol. vii, pp. xxvi-xxvii; and Dr. von Bradke, Jour. Germ. Or. Soc. vol. xxxii, pp. 438–441.

2 The same difference of opinion is mentioned in Sânkhâyana Grihya-sutra IV, 1, 10.

of the funeral cakes, are mentioned Manu III, 261. Discussions of the ancient sages, exactly resembling those met with in the Dharma-sûtras 1, are given IX, 31-55 regarding the long-disputed question whether a son begotten on a wife by a stranger, but with the husband's consent, belongs to the natural parent or to 'the owner of the soil.' In the same chapter it is stated, just as in Gautama's Dharma-sûtra, that 'some' permit the procreation of a second son with an appointed widow. Manu X, 70-71, we find a decision on the question whether, as 'some assert, the seed be more important, or, as 'others' state, the soil, or, as 'again others' maintain, the seed and the soil have equal importance, and, XI, 45, we are told that the sages, i, e. all sages, are convinced of the efficacy of penances for atoning unintentional offences, while 'some declare that they even destroy the guilt of him who sinned intentionally. The latter point is discussed in exactly the same manner Gaut. XIX, 3-6. In other cases the author is less explicit. He merely places conflicting opinions side by side without indicating that they belong to different authorities, and hence he has mostly succeeded in misleading the commentators as to his real meaning. Thus we read Manu II, 145, that the teacher is less venerable than the father and the mother, while the next following verses teach exactly the contrary doctrine. The commentators are much perplexed by this contradiction. But if we turn to Gautama II, 50-51, where it is said, 'The teacher is chief among all Gurus; some say (that) the mother (holds the first place),' it is not doubtful that the Manu-smriti gives in the first verse the opinion of Gautama's 'some' as the pûrvapaksha, and adduces the following one in order to prove its incorrectness. A similar case occurs Manu III, 23-25, where three opinions regarding the permissibility of certain marriage-rites are enumerated, the last of which is the siddhânta or the author's own view.

It might be contended that these passages, the list of

1 See especially Vas. XVII, 6-9, where one of the verses of the Manu-smriti

occurs.

2 Gaut. XVIII, 8.

which might be considerably enlarged, do not necessarily force on us the conviction that they refer to actual lawbooks which preceded our Manu-smriti. If they stood by themselves, they might possibly be explained as showing nothing more than that legal and ritual questions had long engaged the attention of the learned. But this subterfuge becomes impossible, as we find in other verses the explicit confession that the author of the Manu-smriti knew Dharmasâstras. Three passages allude to their existence in general terms. The first occurs in the definition of the terms Sruti and Smriti, Manu II, 10, 'But by Sruti (revelation) is meant the Veda, and by Smriti (tradition) the Institutes of the sacred law.' In the text the last word, dharmasâstram, stands in the singular. But it must doubtlessly be taken, as Kullûka1 and Nârâyana 2 indicate, in a collective sense. Another mention of law-books is found Manu XII, 111, where a dharmapâthakah, 'one who recites (the Institutes of) the sacred law,' is named among the members of a parishad or assembly entitled to decide difficult points of law. The commentators are unanimous in explaining dharma, literally 'the sacred law,' by 'the Institutes of the sacred law' or 'the Smritis of Manu and others,' and it is indeed impossible to take the word in any other sense than that of law-books 3.' The third passage is perfectly explicit, as the word Dharmasâstra is used in the plural. It occurs in the section on funeral sacrifices, Manu III, 232, ' At a (sacrifice in honour) of the manes he must let (his guests) hear the Veda, the Institutes of the sacred law (dharmasâstrâni),' &c. Here the existence of many earlier law-books is plainly acknowledged. The character of the Institutes of the sacred law, known to the author of our Manu, may be inferred

2

धर्मशास्त्रं प्राधान्येन । यत्रानुशासनीयं तद्धर्मशास्त्रम् ॥

3 Medh. धर्मपाठको मन्वादिस्मृतिशास्त्राणामध्येता ॥ Gov. मानवादिधर्माध्येता ॥ Kull. मानवादिधर्मशास्त्रवेदी | Nand. धर्मशास्त्रपाठकः ॥ The full significance of this passage will be shown below, p. lii.

See also Professor Stenzler in the Indische Studien, vol. i, p. 245; Dr. Johanntgen, Das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 76.