________________
JULY, 1916]
THE MANUSMRITI
115
there is no possibility of there being a ! Further on, the same smriti tells us that the total number of verses in the original composition amounted to one lakh. That total was reduced to 12,000 by Nârada, and his pupil Mârkandeya cut the number down to 8,000: Sumati, the son of Bhrigu, followed the example, and left the Manusmriti in 4,00) verses. Accordingly, Bhrigu has nothing to do with the Manusmriti! Moreover there are certain accounts in the Purânas which, though they differ from the Narada in other ways, yet agree that the original code of Manu consisted of one lakh of
verses.
To reply: These statements find no support from the Manusmriti. We have no longer 4,000 verses in it, but only 2,684 (5.) We have shown in the beginning with the help of Manusmriti I 58-60, XII 117, and the colophon that Bhrigu learnt directly from Manu, and he himself reproduced all that he had learnt from Manu. Therefore our position remains unshaken in spite of other assertions.
We trust to have now settled the questions as regards the authorship and the original form of the Manusmriti. Now we come to the question of its date.
Tradition assigns the book to the distant ages of the past. Manu I 58 declares that it was taught by Prajapati himself to Manu. We have the statements of the Nâradasmriti and the Purdnas to the effect that the laws of Manu were much greater in volume than they are to-day; but there is no convincing evidence on these points.
Dr. Bühler has assigned the Manusmriti to the time from 200 B. c. to A. D. 200. This is what the learned doctor says: ".. ... it certainly existed in the second century A. D. and seems to have been composed between that date and the second century B. c. (S. B. E. Vol. XXV, 1886 Introd. p. cxvii), It should not be forgotten that this is supposed to be the date of Bhrigu's redaction. The date of the original in no way be determined.
can
For getting nearer the truth a verse in the first canto of the Buddhacharitam by Asvaghosha is the first stepping stone.
The authority of Asvaghosha cannot be impeached. He wrote about 1,800 years ago (the most recent and authoritative treatises on his accurate time are, we fear, unfortunately inaccessible just now; but we trust to be on the safe side in fixing this date somewhere between 27-200 A. D. We may well assume that he, being a Buddhist monk, was free from the prejudices of Brâhmanism. He had no need to fabricate evidence or to change the accounts current in his day.
His statement (we give it just below), therefore, that Sukra was the son of Bhrigu (or an illustrious member of Bhrigu's) must be accepted as true. It is corroborated by another one which we give below in note No. 6 (h). His further assertion as regards family Brihaspati is borne out by the Mahabharata, Drora (V 18, Bombay University ed. and V 151 Calc. ed.) which is given in the same note (i. e. 6 b.).
Hence, we must place Bhrigu always earlier than Sukra, wherever the name of this sage or his Nitisastra is quoted.
The above referred to verse of Buddha (ed. by the late Sâstri Râsîvadekar and Prof. Soani, first ed.) I 47 runs as follows:
'यद् राजशास्त्रं भृगुरङ्गिरा वा न चक्रतुर्वशकरावृषी तौ । तयोः सुतौ तौ च ससर्जतुस्तस्कालेन शुक्रश्च बृहस्पतिश्च ॥| " (To be continued.)
