place among Indian law-books which the first chapter sets up, and that they furnish a strong support to the view according to which the Manu-smriti belongs to a later stage of literary development than the Dharma-sûtras.

In turning to the second point of our supplement, it will be advisable to reconsider in detail the passages of the Vasishtha-smriti, which prove the former existence of a Mânava Dharma-sûtra, and which, as the preceding discussion has established the priority of the Vasishtha-smriti to our Manu, possess a particularly great importance. The chief passage occurs Vasishtha IV, 5-81, where we read:

5. The Mânava (Sûtra states), 'Only when worshipping the manes and the gods, or when honouring guests, he may certainly do injury to animals.'

6. 'On offering the honey-mixture (to a guest), at a sacrifice and at the rites in honour of the manes, but on these occasions only, may an animal be slain; that (rule) Manu proclaimed.'

7. 'Meat can never be obtained without injury to living beings, and injury to living beings does not procure heavenly bliss: hence (the sages declare) the slaughter (of beasts) at a sacrifice not (to be) slaughter (in the ordinary sense of the word).'

8. Now he may also cook a full-grown ox or a fullgrown he-goat for a Brâhmana or a Kshatriya guest; in this manner they offer hospitality to such (a man).'

As has been stated in the introduction to Vasishtha 2, all the four Sûtras must be taken as a quotation, because the particle iti, 'thus,' occurs at the end of IV, 8, and because the identity of Sûtra 6 with Manu V, 41, as well as the close resemblance of Sûtra 7 to Manu V, 48, shows that the quotation is not finished with Sûtra 5. If we accept this explanation

1

पितृदेवातिथिपूजायामप्येव पशुं हिंस्यादिति मानवम् ॥ ५ ॥ मधुपर्के च यज्ञे च पितृदैवतकर्मणि । अत्रैव च पशुं हिंस्यान्नान्यथेत्य ब्रवीन्मनुः ॥ ६॥ नाकृत्वा प्राणिनां हिंसां मांसमुत्पद्यते क्वचित् । न च प्राणिवधः स्वर्ग्यस्तस्माद्यागे वधोवधः ॥ ७ ॥ अथापि ब्राह्मणाय वा राजन्याय वाभ्यागताय महोक्षाणं वा महाजं वा पचेदेवमस्मा आतिथ्यं कुर्वन्ततीति ॥ ८ ॥

2 Sacred Books of the East, vol. xiv, pp. xviii-xix.

we have in our passage the usual arrangement followed in the Dharma-sûtras. First comes the prose rule, next the verses which confirm it, and finally a Vedic passage on which both the rule and the verses rest. It may be added that the explanation of the passage given by Krishnapandita Dharmâdhikârin in his commentary on Vasishtha, according to which the word Mânavam, explained above by 'the Mânava (Sûtra),' is to mean 'the (opinion) of Manu' (manumatam), cannot be upheld, for several reasons. First, the wording of the text of Sûtra 5 looks like a real quotation, not like a summary of Manu's views by Vasishtha. This becomes quite clear, if we compare Vasishtha I, 17, where undoubtedly a rule of Manu, corresponding to Mânava Dh. VII, 203, and VIII, 41, is given in Vasishtha's words, 'Manu has declared (that) the (peculiar) laws of countries, castes, and families (may be followed) in the absence of (rules of) the revealed texts1. Secondly, the great differences between several other passages, quoted by Vasishtha as Manu's, and the corresponding passages of the text of our Manu-smriti, as well as the fact that the latter, as we have seen, refers to the Vâsishtha Dharmasâstra, do not permit us to assume, with Krishnapandita, that Vasishtha knew and referred to our Manu.

If it is thus necessary to admit that Vasishtha's quotation is taken from a Mânava Dharma-sûtra, the agreement of the doctrine taught in the quotation and of a portion of the text with those of our Manu-smriti show further that this Dharma-sûtra must have been the forerunner of our metrical law-book. An examination of the other quotations from Manu, which occur in the Vasishtha-smriti, will show that this agreement was, though pretty close, not complete. The identity of the view, ascribed to Manu by Vasishtha I, 17, with the contents of Manu VII, 203, and VIII, 41, has already been mentioned. Vasishtha III, 2, a Mânava Sloka is quoted which agrees literally with Manu II, 168. The same remark applies to the quotation at Vasishtha XX, 18, which is found Manu XI, 152. Another passage,

Vas. XIII, 16, shows considerable verbal differences. According to Vasishtha, Manu's verse is: 'Be it fruit, or water, or sesamum, or food, or whatever be (the gift) at a Srâddha, let him not, having just accepted it, recite the Veda; for it is declared in the Smriti that the hands of Brahmanas are their mouths,' while we read Manu IV, 117, 'Be it an animal or a thing inanimate, whatever be the (gift) at a Srâddha, let him not, having just accepted it, recite the Veda; for it is declared in the Smriti that the hand of a Brâhmana is his mouth'.' The last quotation which occurs Vas. XIX, 37, and refers to the sulka, (exemptions from) taxes and duties 2, is in the Trishtubh metre, and, hence, cannot have a place in our Manu-smriti. But it is remarkable that the latter does not even show a corresponding Anushtubh verse, and that the contents of the quotation do not quite agree with the teaching of our Manu. The latter mentions the exemption of a sum less than a kârshâpana incidentally X, 120. It agrees also with Manu's doctrines that Srotriyas, ascetics, alms, and sacrifices should not be taxed. But there are no indications that infants, messengers, and ambassadors, or the remnant left to a plundered trader, should go free. With respect to those living by arts (silpa), our Manu teaches, VII, 138, and X, 120, just like most other ancient authors, that artisans are to do monthly one piece of work for the king. Though this corvée amounts to a pretty severe tax, it is, of course, possible to contend that Manu's rule does not exactly contradict that quoted by Vasishtha. Besides these passages, there are some other verses3 which contain the well-known phrase, ' manur abravît, thus Manu spoke,'

1 Vas. मानवं चात्र श्लोकमुदाहरन्ति । फलान्यापस्तिलान्भ क्षान्यच्चान्यच्छाद्धिकं भवेत् । प्रतिगृह्याप्यनध्यायः पाण्यास्या ब्राह्मणाः स्मृता इति ॥ Mann, प्राणि वा यदि वाप्राणि यत्किंचिच्छाद्धिकं भवेत् । तदालभ्याप्यनध्यायः पाwren fa fan: स्यास्यो हि स्मृतः ॥

2 No duty (is paid) on a sum less than a kârshâpana, there is no tax on a livelihood gained by arts, nor on an infant, nor on a messenger, nor on what has been received as alms, nor on the remnants of property left after a robbery, nor on a Srotriya, nor on an ascetic, nor on a sacrifice.'

3 Vas. XI, 23; XII, 16; XXIII, 43; XXVI, 8.

and mention Manu as the authority for the rule taught. With respect to these references it seems to me not probable that they have been taken from the Mânava Dharma-sûtra. We shall see below1 that from the earliest times the mythical Manu, the father of mankind, was considered as the founder of the social and moral order, and that he was considered to have first taught or revealed religious rites and legal maxims. Hence I believe that these four verses give nothing more than an expression of the belief that their doctrines go back to the first progenitor of men. The first three among them either contradict or find no counterpart in our Manu-smriti. The fourth agrees in substance with Manu XI, 260-261. But it occurs in a chapter which is probably spurious, or, at least, full of interpolations. Whatever view may be taken concerning these passages, the allegation that the Mânava Dharmasûtra, known to Vasishtha, closely resembled, but was not identical with our Manu, need not be modified.

If we look for other traces of the Sûtra, quoted by Vasishtha, it is possible that Gautama, who mentions an opinion of Manu, XXI, 7, refers to it. His Dharma-sûtra is even older than Vasishtha's, and long anterior to our Manu-smriti. But the possibility that Gautama refers not to a rule of the Mânava Dharma-sûtra, but to a maxim generally attributed to the mythical Manu, is not altogether excluded. Gautama says, 'Manu (declares that) the first three (crimes, the intentional murder of a Brâhmana, drinking Surâ, and the violation of a Guru's bed) cannot be expiated 3.' The wording of the Sûtra shows that it is not a quotation, but a summary of Manu's opinion. Our Manu-smriti explicitly teaches, XI, 90, the same doctrine with respect to the intentional murder of a Brâhmana, and, if my explanation of XI, 147 is accepted, also with respect to the intentional drinking of Surâ. As regards the third offence, there is no

2 The meaning of the phrase in the verse, occurring in the quotation from the Mânava Dharma-sûtra, is probably the same.

3 त्रीणि प्रथमान्यनिर्देश्यानि मनुः ॥ The same opinion is expressed in the

Mahabharata XII, 165, 34, but not attributed to Manu.

direct statement. But the expiations, prescribed XI, 104105, amount to a sentence of death. Hence our Manusmriti, too, practically declares the crime to be inexpiable during the offender's lifetime. Its original, the Dharmasûtra, may, therefore, be supposed to have had the rule which Gautama attributes to Manu. Nevertheless, owing to the circumstances mentioned above, Gautama's passage cannot be adduced as a perfectly certain proof of the early existence of the Mânava Dharma-sûtra.

Among the remaining Dharma-sûtras1 there is only the fragment attributed to Usanas which seems to quote a Sûtra of Manu. At the beginning of the first chapter 2 we find a very corrupt passage containing a prose-quotation which according to two of my MSS. belongs to Manu, but according to a third to Sumantu. As the latter copy is, however, clearly more incorrect than the other two, and as a Sûtra by Sumantu is not known from other sources, the reading of the first two seems to be preferable. The contents of the quotation which apparently prescribes that on the death of an infant, of an emigrant, of one who keeps no sacred fires, of one who kills himself by starvation or by self-cremation, and of one slain in battle, no period of impurity need be kept, agree with the teaching of our Manusmriti, V, 78, 89, 94, 98.

There is, further, one among the Vedic books on the ritual, the Sankhâyana Grihya-sûtra, which possibly refers to the Mânava Dharma-sûtra. This work quotes the verse, Manu V, 41, which, as has been shown above, occurred also in the Dharma-sûtra as well as several other Slokas of

1 Regarding the passage of Âpastamba II, 16, 1, which ascribes the revelation of the Sraddhas to Manu, see below, p. lix.

* I transcribe the whole beginning of the work, cacuqì: HÒ देशान्तरयोः शौचं दशरात्रं मातापितृभ्यः सूतकं मातुरित्येके । उपस्पृश्य मनुराह ॥ बाले देशान्तरस्थे चानग्नि के वोराध्वाने (?) अनाशकेग्निप्रवेशे युद्धहते च सद्यः ॥ शौचानष्ट पतिताभितनिन्दिताचारैर्न सह संवसेत् ॥ Thus twoMSS.; the third reads, उपस्पृश्य तु सुमन्तुराह । and further on सौचानgifa afuæ° | It is impossible to restore the whole passage. The end of the quotation may have been सद्यः शौचमिष्टामति ॥