________________
INTRODUCTION.
xxxvii
science of government, ' because the science of dialectics or reasoning is a subdivision of the threefold (Vedic lore');' while Manu VII, 43 enumerates five branches of learning, or at least four, if either Medhåtithi's or Narayana's explanation of the term atmavidya, rendered in the translation by the knowledge of the (supreme) Soul,' is accepted?. Again, we hear, Kamandaki XI, 67, that Manu fixed the number of ministers (amatya), which the king must appoint, at twelve. But according to Manu VII, 54, no more than seven or eight are required. These quotations show that Kamandaki knew a work, attributed to Manu, which contained rules on the duties of kings, and in some respects agreed with the seventh chapter of our Manu-smriti. If I conclude that this must have been the old Månava Dharma-sútra, it is because Kamandaki twice alludes to it by the title Mânavah, literally those who study a work proclaimed by Manu,' or, more freely rendered, 'the Månava school.' It is a very common practice of Indian authors to refer in this manner to the books restricted to special schools. But I know of no case where the doctrines of the Mänava Dharmasastra, or of any other work which is destined for all Aryans and acknowledged as authoritative by all, are cited in the same or in a similar way. Nor is it usual to contrast, as Kamandaki does, the rules taught by Manu with those of other teachers and afterwards to reject them. If a Hindu writer on law finds it necessary to set aside an opinion of Manu, he either passes by it in silence or he interprets the passage where it occurs in accordance with the principles of some other Smriti with
यो वाही दण्डनीतिरिति विद्या हि मानवाः । पय्या रख विभागोयं सेयमान्वीक्षिकी मता ॥३॥
• With respect to Medhatithi's and Narayana's explanations, see the note to the translation. I will add that Kâm. Nft. II, 7, RRASTAR • The science of dialectics (is) a means of fully recognising the Soul or Self, speaks in favour of Narayana's explanation, and that it would perhaps have been better if I had placed the latter in the text.
As the learned editor of the Nitisara (Preface, p. 2) asserts that its author was a Buddhist, it might be conjectured that the latter treated Manu with small respect, because he belonged to a heterodox sect. But it ought to be noted that no proof is offered for the above assertion, and that the work contains no trace of Buddhism.
Digitized by Google
