________________
AUGUST, 1916)
MANUSMRITI
129
If other books mentioned along with the "Arteta A rr" be in verses, we may well suppose the existence of the Metrical Code of the Laws of Manu at Bhâsa's time.
It is remarkable that the colophon of the metrical Manusmriti has the phrase " Art " which is nearly the same as "mata ing" of the Pratimao
For our purpose, it is necessary to enter here into the qution of the date of Bhâsa. Mr. T. Ganapati Sastri has pointed out in his introduction to the Svapnavdaavadattárof Bhasa (T. S. S. No. 75, p xxvii) that Châņakya in his ArthasAstra (p. 365-6, ch. 250-152) quotes from Bhasa. That one has borrowed from the other is certain and the learned editor decides that Chanakya is indebted to Bhâsa.
We agree with him, because Châņakya, as a rule, quotes from other sources, discusses the various opinions and then lays down his own dicta. After all being said and done, he winds up the chapter with his own verses. From this peculiar method of his, we can confidently say, that excepting the verses at the end of each chapter, (we are not sure even of that exception), overy verse occurring in the midst of the discussion is some quotation used by him to justify indirectly, (or to amplify), his own rules, or to set them off well. Therefore, Mr. Såstri is quite right, when he says that Bhasa is quoted by Chanakya.
Whether they were contemporaries or not, we cannot say. The latest date we can assign to Bhâsa is 320 B. C. (the date of Châņakya), and the Art must be earlier than 320 B. C. We cannot assign the upper limit of its date because we do not know how many years or centuries it would require for a book to become a universal standard in the whole of India. We must have, at least, a century for a book of this nature) to be written, published and made popular in those days, when there was no printing and when there existed comparatively but few means of communication. Hence the FTTT may be placed earlier than 400 B. C.
On account of sufficient circumstantial evidence, (cf. pp. 125-27), we take it for granted that Chanakya had known the Manusmriti (in the recension by Bhrigu) and hence, at present, we place the date of Manusmriti between 400-820 B. C. According to the account of Buddhao, we can push the date beyond Sukra, his Nitišâstra and quotations from it.
It will also be seen, from the material adduced, that our date justifies the tradition which claims a high antiquity for the Manusmriti. And no one will deny that Bhrigu must have existed earlier than Asvaghosha, at least, at the beginning of the Christian era. 10 That we can rely on him (Asvaghosha) is beyond doubt, as we meet with statements similar to his (cf. note No. 6) in widely different branches of the Sanskrit literature. Again, according to the accounts of the Naradao and the Puranas, the metrical Manusmriti (whoover the author may be) must be placed before 400 B. C. (i. e. before Bhasa). On the Pa urâņic statement we would not place too much reliance, however.
We have seen, while comparing the sûtras of ter with the verses of Manusmriti how cleverly Bhrigu has preserved the laws of Manu. Taking all this into account, we recognise that the tradition rightly attributes time-honoured sacredness to the Laws of Manu, although, in course of time, they may nave changed their outward appearance.
10 Ct. Kalidasa, Raghuvam sa XIV. 67. "296777497 AR TU Cat gota: 1" with Manusmriti VII 17; 35.
