revision. To a certain extent we may also avail ourselves of the Vishnu-smriti for the same purpose. But a greater degree of caution will be necessary, as this work, though in the main a representative of the Kâthaka Dharma-sûtra, contains also an admixture of modern elements. On the other hand, those rules and discussions which cannot be traced in one of the old Sûtras, are at least suspicious, and require careful consideration. The ultimate decision, if such passages have indeed to be considered as additions, must depend on various collateral circumstances. The safest criterion will always be the character of the ideas which they express. If these are entirely foreign to the Sûtras or to Vedic literature, they may be confidently rejected as interpolations. A good deal depends also on their position and on the manner in which they fit into the context. Numerous cases will, however, remain doubtful.

If we examine Manu's text according to these principles, the more important results will be as follows:-The whole first chapter must be considered as a later addition. No Dharma-sûtra begins with a description of its own origin, much less with an account of the creation. The former, which would be absurd in a Dharma-sûtra, has been added in order to give authority to a remodelled version. The latter has been dragged in, because the myths connected with Manu presented a good opportunity 'to show the greatness of the scope of the work,' as Medhâtithi says. The table of contents, given at the end of chapter I, was, of course, also foreign to the original Sûtra. Chapters II-VI, on the other hand, scem to represent with tolerable faithfulness the contents of the corresponding sections of the Mânava Dharma-sûtra. Nearly all the rules are found in the other Dharma-sûtras and in the Vishnu-smriti, and more than three-fourths of the verses find counterparts in the aphorisms and verses of the older law-books. Nevertheless, the hand of the remodeller is not rarely visible. There are, besides the verses which announce the transition from one subject to the other1, a considerable number of smaller and some

1 These verses probably mark the subdivisions of the Adhyâyas, the Kandikâs or Khandas of the ancient Sûtra.

larger interpolations. To the latter belong, in the second chapter, vv. 1-11 and vv. 88-100. The first passage gives a philosophical account of the origin of actions (1-5), such as is not found in any older law-book; further, a verse (v. 6) stating the sources of the sacred law, which is unnecessary on account of v. 12, and suspicious on account of the double description of the third source of the law, by the synonymous terms sila and âkâra1. The contents of the remaining verses, the praise of the Manu-smriti (v. 7), the advice how the different authorities are to be studied (v. 8), the declaration of the reward for obedience to the revealed texts (v. 9), the definition of the terms Sruti and Smriti, and the declaration of their authoritativeness, are likewise superfluous, and clearly later enlargements. The second passage (vv. 88-1co), which enumerates the organs of sensation and action and teaches the necessity of controlling them, interrupts the continuity of the text very needlessly, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the matter treated of. Among the smaller interpolations in this chapter, vv. 13, 16, 27, 28, 142, 143, 213–215, 221, and 239 must certainly be reckoned. It also scems probable that the passage on the importance of the syllable Om, of the Vyâhritis, and of the Sâvitri (vv. 76-87), as well as that on the humility and meekness required of a Brâhmana (vv. 160-163), and that on the worship due to parents and a teacher (vv. 225–237), have been enlarged, though in each case something of the kind may have occurred in the Dharma-sûtra. In the third chapter, there is one longer passage (vv. 162-201) which, beyond all doubt, has been added by a later hand. For the classification of the Manes, which it contains, is in this form foreign to Vedic literature. More doubtful are the discussions on the duty of conjugal intercourse (vv. 46–50), on the honour due to women (vv. 55-60), on the excellence of the order of householders (vv. 79-80), and on the results of inviting sinners and men of bad conduct to Srâddhas (vv. 169-182). Possibly the ancient Sûtra contained hints on some of these subjects, but it is most improbable that it

1 See note to the translation.

should have entered into all the details which our text gives. The passage on the householders has probably been placed wrongly. Most of its verses ought to stand in the discussion on the relative importance of the orders at the end of chapter VI. In the fourth chapter the first section on the means by which a Brahmana may subsist (vv. 1-24) is exceedingly suspicious. The Dharma-sûtras, e.g. Vasishtha XII, 2–4, no doubt sometimes prefix brief hints on the manner in which a Snâtaka may support himself, to the rules regarding his behaviour. But they do not mention the curious classification of the means of subsistence, Rita, Amrita, Mrita, Pramrita, and Svavritti (vv. 5, 6), which, though common in the Purânas and other later works, is unknown in Vedic literature. As, moreover, Vasistha's rules, which enumerate the persons by whom a Snâtaka may be supported, occur further on (IV, 33-34), it is not improbable that the whole section consisting of the first twenty-four verses is a later addition. With still greater certainty the same may be said of vv. 85-91, which describe the heinousness of the offence committed by him who accepts gifts from a royal usurper and other wicked persons, and enumerate the twenty-one hells which will be the offender's portion. For it is not doubtful that, even if the Sûtrakâras were acquainted with a classification of the regions of punishment, their enumeration ought not to stand here, but, as in the Vishnu-smriti, at the beginning of the section on crimes and penances. Other probable interpolations are vv. 172-174 on the results of sin, vv. 180-185 on the reasons why quarrels with near relatives should be avoided, vv. 238–243 on the reasons why spiritual merit should be accumulated. Finally, the section on gifts and the acceptance of gifts (vv. 186-197) seems to be strongly mixed with modern elements. The next following two chapters present fewer suspicious passages. Nevertheless, the preamble to the section on forbidden food, V, 1-4, the verses 19-21, which prescribe the penances for eating mushrooms, onions, leeks, and so forth, must be certainly rejected. For the former belong to the artificial framework which has been placed round the old Sûtra, and the latter ought to stand in chapter XI. From the quotation in

Vasishtha IV, 5–8, it is further evident that the rules on the permissibility of meat have been much altered and enlarged in accordance with the growing repugnance against the slaughter of animals. The last section of the same chapter, on the duties of women, has probably had the same fate. The example of the Vâsishtha Dharmasâstra shows that some of the old Sûtrakâras treated the duties of women in two separate sections'. But it also proves that they did not, as our Manu-smriti does, go twice over the same matter. It is evident that either here or in the beginning of the ninth chapter the same verses have been needlessly repeated by the author of the remodelled version. In the sixth chapter there is only one passage, vv. 61-82, which goes beyond the range of the Dharma-sûtras. None of the latter enters into such details regarding the meditations to which an ascetic must give himself up in order to attain salvation. The subject naturally tempted the remodeller of the Smriti to expand the shorter notes of the original. Very different is the case of the next three chapters, VII-IX, which treat of the duties of a king, and of civil and criminal law. These sections probably bear only a faint resemblance to the corresponding portions of the original work. Among the 226 verses of the seventh chapter there are only fifty-four to which passages of the Dharma-sûtras and the Vishnusmriti correspond. If one pays attention to the rules regarding the king's duties, given in the Darma-sûtras of Gautama, Âpastamba, and Vasishtha, as well as to the references to the opinions of the Mânavas and of Manu, made in the Kâmandakîya Nîtisâra2, it would seem probable that the contents of this section of the Mânava Dharmasûtra cannot have differed very much from those of the third chapter of Vishnu, and that about two-thirds of the seventh Adhyâya of our Manu-smriti have been added. when it was recast. With respect to the eighth chapter and the first 224 verses of the ninth, which give the rules regarding the eighteen titles of the law, the remodeller seems to have been equally active. We must ascribe to

1 See Vas. V and XVII, 55-80.

2 See above, p. xxxvi.

him the systematic arrangement of the legal rules, which is not found in any of the ancient Dharma-sûtras, and is even neglected in the Vishnu-smriti. He is most probably also responsible for more than one-half of the verses of these chapters. In the eighth Adhyâya only three-sevenths of the rules of our Manu can be traced in the Dharma-sûtras or in the Vishnu-smriti, which latter, as far as these topics are concerned, may be considered a faithful representative of the Kathaka Dharma-sûtra'. Two of Manu's titles, concerns among partners and the resumption of gifts, are not mentioned in the older works; and the rules under a third, rescission of purchase and sale, have no resemblance to those of Vishnu. In the ninth chapter the chief topics, treated under the head, duties of husband and wife, are discussed or at least touched on in the Sûtras. But the latter place them differently, and give them much more concisely. The notes to the translation show that only one-fourth of Manu's verses corresponds to utterances of the ancient teachers. The section on inheritance has probably suffered much less, since upwards of eighty verses out of one hundred and seventeen agree with the teaching of the Sûtras, and since among those, the contents of which are not represented in the older works, only eleven, vv. 108-110, 128-129, 133, 138, 147, 184, 215, and 217, are really suspicious or clearly interpolated. Most of these latter contain clumsy repetitions of matters discussed in other places, and v. 217 gives a supplementary rule which but ill agrees with the spirit pervading the remainder of the section. Some of the other, apparently unsuspicious, verses may, of course, possibly be interpolations. But their contents are in harmony with the spirit of the Dharma-sûtras, and with the eliminations, proposed above, Manu's theory of inheritance and partition is selfconsistent. The views, expressed under the eighteenth title, on gambling and betting, agree with those of Gautama and Baudhâyana, who both strongly disapprove of these prac

1 To this conclusion points the absence of systematic arrangement in Vishnu III-V.

2 Manu's rules on this subject have probably been borrowed from a Srautasûtra, where the distribution of the sacrificial fees is usually explained.