________________
JULY, 1916)
THE MANUSMRITI
113
We now come to the second question, viz. the original form of the Manusmriti. That the original work must be in Sutra style, was a conjecture made many years ago by Prof. Max Müller (cf. S. B. E. Vol. XXV, Introd. p. xviii.) and by Dr. Bühler (cf. ibid, P. xx ff.). However, with the help of the publication in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, (No. 28, 1st ed. 1913) of the fame : 1 we can get beyond a mere conjecture.
Various sútras in that book t o run parallel to the verses of the metrical Manusmriti. Even some of the sentences in the meeti sporo(Mysore Bibl. Sanscr. No. 37, 1st ed. 1909) convey the same impression. This will be clear from several quotations taken from the two books, and put side by side. The whole of the e ar is in sûtra style.) termo III 6.10. "LA A z togt fra 9° FÈTI"
Cf. Manu? VI 68. 1917° 1 2.2-3. "Fera e para sfera te
ga preta a = नियुक्तो नीचैरन्यासनशयनं कुर्यात् ।"
Cf. Manuo II 196, 198; 203. e17° III 4.6, “ sifarei EFT: Eftei qog et al"
cf. Manu° V 129-130. terae III 1.14, and III 2.12. "Ja sam ga ITT: Etretat TEI"
Cf. Manu IV 37 and IV 59. TUTE II 8.3" ForTAME TO P T Fra"
Cf. Manu" VI 54.2 4 III 2.1. "fara
fir m atat qour : "
Cf. Manu° II 138-9. To III 1.11. "E rror at sætta sitte"
Cf. Manu" IV 2. eneo I 2.7. " ist a m: ATTI"
Cf. Manuo IV 138. Fora II 11.3. a Arar staat 98v 141 1"
Cf. Manuo II 145-47.
1 The Mantısmriti mentions" " once in VI 21. In V. N. Mandlik's edition of (Bombay 1886) with seven commentaries, " " is mentioned in an additional verse given in the beginning of Chapter VI.
The account about the TUT given by J. Jolly, Recht und Sitte p. 9, and following him by A. A. Macdonell, History of Sansk it Literature, 1909, p. 262 does not agree with the contents of the ferta of the T. S. series.
The book is very important. Its style is extraordinarily clear, precise, and eloquent. The customs mentioned in II 9. 6 and in III. 15. 2 are to be found only in Southern India, in and about the Malabar district. If these two customs be proved to have been prevalent over the whole of India, the book must be referred to a period of Indian civilization, when such customs were possible in society; but in that case, it must be of an earlier date than Bhrigu's version. (cf. also Dr. Bühler on this work, S. B. E. Vol. xxv, Introd.) It must be earlier than Kalidasa who mentions" t e " in Sakuntala I 22 (27).
It should be noted that, side by side with many parallels between Surro and the Manusmiti, higher notes of othics and philosophy, which we believed to be peculiar to the Manuempiti only, find an echo in temo. The most obvious are II 11. 3 and I 2. 7 which are parallel to Manusmriti II 145-7 and IV 138.
? Who was the first to lay down this rule 1 Manu or Vikhands? Is it legitimate, indeed, to con elude that VI 54 is Manu's own injunction ?
