BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME PROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF Henrg W, Sage XS91 .AjJfj>.x.:^.3 irMi IJMj... ON THE SOICES OF THE liRMASiSTEAS OP MAOT AND YAJNAVALKYA BY GEORQE BUBNHAM BEAMAN. °" iiniiiS°iiiiS?i^,Sl'. "'^ Dharma-sastras of 3 1924 023 015 120 , ■LEIPZIG , OTTO HAERASSOWITZ 1895.. ' Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924023015120 ON THE SOICES OF THE DHARMA-SASTRAS OP MANU AND YAJNAVALKYA m GEORGE BUBNHAM BEAMAN. LEIPZIG OTTO HARRASSOWITZ 1895. 3i ^1% ^-l-SJi-& A, f PRESBHTBD TO THE UNIVBESITY OF LETPZIG FOE THE DE&KEE OF DOCTOB OF PHILOSOPHT, SEPTEMBER 6, 1896. CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. Page A. The Mdnava Dharma-^dstra 1 Historical accownt of critical opinion, Prof. Max MuUer 2 Profs. Weber and Stenzler 2 Dr. Johaentgen 2 Prof. B. W. Hopkins 2 Dr. BurneU and Prof. J, JoUy 3 Prof. L. von Schroeder 3 Prof. Georg Biihler . 4 B. The Ydjnavalkya Dharma-^astra 5 Sistorical account of critical opinion, Prof. A. F. Stenzler 6 Prof. M. Miiller and Dr. Johaentgen 6 Dr. B. von Bradke 6 Prof. BuUer and Jolly 7 C. Concerning both Dharma-^dstras 8 Author's views defined I. Concerning the sources of the Manava Dharma-aastra ... 8 II. Concerning the sources of the Yajnavalkya Dharma-sastra . 9 The sources of Manu I 9 Limits of the Comparison defined 10 Relations between Manu II and Ya. I 1—51 10 General remarks ■ 10 COMPARISON IN DETAIL. Manu Chapter II. I. Dharmamulani (1 — 25) 11 II. Varnadharmah (26—35) 14 III. Upanayana (36—68) 18 IV. Brahmacarya (69—124) 31 — IV — CONCLUSION. Summary : Page I. with regard to the Manava-Dharma-Bastra 44 II. with regard to the Tajfiavalkya Dhanna-saetra 44 Concluding remarks 45 Bibliography 45 Vita 48 INTRODUCTION. A. The Manava Dharma-sastra. It was through the translation of the Manava Dharma-Sastra hy Sir William Jones, which appeared in 1794, that the attention of European scholars was first drawn to the now much disputed question as to the origin of this the greatest of all Hindu Law Books. The question arose, as is well known, in the statements contained in the first chapter and elsewhere, according to which the author of these Institutes was Manu Prajapati son of the Svayambhu, from whom he obtained them, and then taught them to Bhrgu, to be promulgated by the latter to mankind. It need scarcely be remarked that however this account may have been accredited in India, and in spite of the ex- planations offered by the commentators it was immediately re- cognized in Europe as purely mythical — a fabrication of the real author, evidently meant to enhance the value of the work by settling beyond dispute the infallibility of its laws. Since a complete detailed presentation of the account as viewed in India, and the attempts by the commentators at a rational explanation has been given by Professor Btihler •, it seems best to pass over this part of the discussion here in silence. Setting aside then as interpolations, all in this work that is fabulous or otherwise artificial, it has been the endeavor up to the present time, to discover what were the real sources of those portions that are known to be genuine, and without discussing the arguments pro and con, I will now outline as briefly as the demands of this paper will permit, and in chronological order, some of the most 1 SBE. vol. XXV Introduction, pp. xi— xviii. — IV — CONCLUSION. Summary: Vage 1, -with regard to the Manava-Dharma-sastra 44 11. \Tith regard to the Yajnavalkya Dharma-sastra 44 Concluding remarks 45 Bibliography 45 Vita 48 INTRODUCTION. A. The Manava Dharma-sastra. It was through the translation of the Manava Dharma-sastra by Sir William Jones, which appeared in 1794, that the attention of European scholars was first drawn to the now much disputed question as to the origin of this the greatest of all Hindu Law Books. The question arose, as is well known, in the statements contained in the first chapter and elsewhere, according to which the author of these Institutes was Manu Prajapati son of the Svayambhii, from whom he obtained them, and then taught them to Bhrgu, to be promulgated by the latter to mankind. It need scarcely be remarked that however this account may have been accredited in India, and in spite of the ex- planations offered by the commentators it was immediately re- cognized in Europe as purely mythical — a fabrication of the real author, evidently meant to enhance the value of the work by settling beyond dispute the infallibility of its laws. Since a complete detailed presentation of the account as viewed in India, and the attempts by the commentators at a rational explanation has been given by Professor Bllhler •, it seems best to pass over this part of the discussion here in silence. Setting aside then as interpolations, aU in this work that is fabulous or otherwise artificial, it has been the endeavor up to the present time, to discover what were the real sources of those portions that are known to be genuine, and without discussing the arguments pro and con, I will now outline as briefly as the demands of this paper will permit, and in chronological order, some of the most • SEE. vol. XXV Introduction, pp. xi— xviii. — 2 — important views and hypotheses that have been advanced in so- lution of this problem. To Peofessoe Max MtrLLEE is due the credit of making the first conjecture vrhich, because of its trustworthiness, has formed the basis of all succeeding arguments. In a letter to Mr. Morleyi dated in 1849, he made known his discovery that in general, the Sutras are the chief source of the metrical Law Codes, and that thus there must have been a Dharma-sutra be- longing to the family of the Manavas which adhered to the Black Yajur-veda, of which the MSnava Dharma-^astra is the last redaction 2. Later, similar views were likewise arrived at independently by Peofessoes Webee and Stenzlee.3 The next step in advance is taken by De. Johaentgen, who explains that the name Manava has not been derived from "Manu" the hero, but it has come directly from the school to which the original Sutra belonged, which bore the name of Manava.* He points out that Professor Miiller's expression "Sutra- Works or Kula-dharmas" is too restricted because the Manava Dharma-^astra comprehends not only the law proper as con- tained in the Samayacarika sutras, but the contents of the Grhya-sutras as well^. He then proceeds to prove (pp. 109 seqq.) that the Sutra which is the basis of our Manu-smyti, belonged to the school of the Manavas. This Manava-carana was, as indicated by Professor Schroeder^, identical with the Carana of that name which belonged to the Maitraya^il^akha '. Peoeessoe E. W. Hopkins 8 has explained the composition of the Manu-smrti as being a collection of moral precepts, float- ing aphorisms, etc. popularly current as "Manu's Laws" and at- tributed to Manu Prajapati, together with the "laws of the Manava sect" or school. 1 Keprinted in SBE. vol. 11. pp. ix — xi. 2 cf. also M. M. Hist. Sans. Lit. pp. 61, 132—134, 200. On the merits of his hypothesis, see Buhler, loc. cit. pp. xix seqq., and West and Biihler, Digest. Introd. pp. 43—47. 3 Indische Studien, I. Band, pp. 69, 143, 243—4. 4 Ueber das Gesetzbuch des Manu; (1863), p. 100. 6 loo. oit. p. 108, and M. Muller, loc. cit. p. 183. 6 Gesammt-Sitzung (Berlin) vom 24. Juli 1879, p. 701. ^ of. E.W. Hopkins, The Mutual Eel. of the Pour Castes, p. IV. 8 Journ. Am. Or. Soo. vol. XI, p. 267, or Proceed. Am. Or. Soc. in Oct. 1883, p. xix. In the Introduction to his translation of the Manava Dharma- Sastra (1884), Dk. Buenell has accepted the former theories, or those preceding Professor Hopkins', hut has added nothing new. In his Tagore Lectures i delivered in 1883, Peopessoe J. Jolly wavers from the generally accepted theory that the Manava Dharma-sutra was the basis of the Manu-smj-ti, main- taining that the principal Maitrayaniya Manava wor^s which have been recovered, do not show any resemblance, in point of style or contents with the Code of Manu^. He says further, "The examination of the works produced in the Manava Maitrayaniya School has, however, disclosed another important fact, viz., their close connection with the compositions of the Kathas, another ancient school studying the Black Yajur-veda. As the Yisnu- smrti appears to be a recast of the ancient Dharma-sutra of the Katha School, and as the Code of Manu has a great deal in common with the Visnu-smrti, the existence of a connection, whether direct or mediate, of the Code of Manu with the Vedic Schools studying the Black Yajur-veda is far from improbable." ^ In speaking of the close connection between the Manu-smrti and the Dharma-sutras generally, he cites the Visnu-siitra as an example of those which seem to have furnished in many in- stances, the very Sutras which have been versified by the com- piler of the Manu Code. And finally, "Practically speaking, as much of Manu's Laws as may be traced to the existing writings of the Sutra period, and a great deal more which appears to have been derived from Sutras now lost, is very old". The re- mainder, he holds has been added by the author of the Smfti and by subsequent interpolators.* This position was likewise held by Peofessoe L. von Scheoedbe, s who reiterates, more definitely indeed, that it cannot be doubted that the Dharma-sutras have been the chief sources of the Manu- smrti. He remarks in general (p. 739), that as sources of the 1 Hindu Law, 1885, pp. 47—48. 2 Jolly, On the Kathaka and Visnu Sutras, in Sitz. ber. d. phUos.-philol. Classe d. k. b. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Miinchen 1879, and P. von Bradke, Ueber d. Man. Grh. Sutra. ZDMG. 1882. 3 See SBE. Introd. to vol. VII. * loc. cit. p. XXV. 5 Indians Cult, und Lit. p. 742. Although this work, published in the form of a series of lectures, appeared in 1887, as an authority on the sub- ject under discussion, it evidently helongs to a date prior to that year. 1* — 4 — metrical law-books are to be regarded, abore all the Dharma- sutras, but not these alone; we find here also the most important rules of the Grhya-sutras, much from the law of custom, certain opinions of the prominent lawyers and philosophers and the like, incorporated in a single whole with that which the Dharma- sutras furnish. Finally, Peofessoe GtEOeg BtjhiiEE, in support of Professor Max Mtiller's hypothesis, has proved conclusively, and largely from internal evidence, that the Manava Dharma-Sastra is based on a Manava Dharma-sutra, which probably was the exclusive property of the Maitrayaniya-Manava school, which adheres to a redaction of the Black Yajur-veda'. In answer to the problem as to how the conversion of the Manava -Dharma-sutra into the Manu-smrti was effected 2, he considers at length three questions, a. which portions of our Manu-smrti are ancient and which are later additions? p. whence have the additions been derived? f. have they been added at one time or successively? In brief, his answers are as follows: a. "In our attempting to distinguish between the old and the modem elements in our Manu-samhita, we must be guided, except where we have quo- tations from the old Dharma-sutra, by the analogies which the other existing Dharma-sutras furnish. For it may be assumed as a general maxim, that the rules and other statements of our Manu, which find counterparts in the critically unsuspicious por- tions of the Sutras of Gautama, Bandhayana, Apastamba, and Vasishtha, probably occurred also in the Manava Dharma-sutra." Single exceptions, he says are of course possible, on account of the differences in the details, existing in the Dharma-sutras, and for this reason, the other Dharma-sutras may occasionally contain a rule which did not occur in the Manava-sutra, but was added on its revision. On the other hand, those rules and discussions which cannot be traced in one of the old Sutras, must be con- sidered with care, the safest criterion being always the character of ideas which they express. "If these are entirely foreign to the Sutras or to Vedic literature, they may be confidently re- jected as interpolations. A good deal depends also on their po- sition and on the manner in which they fit into the context." 1 SBE. vol. XXV, Introd. pp. xviii— xlv. 2 loo. cit. pp. Ixv seqq. — 5 — p.i The additional materials hare been deriyed from the then existing stock of floating sayings attributed to Manu. Thus far then, Professor Btihler agrees with Professor Hopkins' hypo- thesis (see page 2), excepting that the latter would attribute these sayings to "Manu the father of mankind". But this re- striction Professor Btihler shows to be unadyisable, "because among the mass of corresponding pieces found in the Mahabha- rata, comparatively few are attributed to the Prajapati", and because a Hindu would not hesitate to ascribe to that sage all the maxims which seemed to him to be authentic, even if others attributed them to other authorities. The third question (y)^, whether the conversion of the Manava Dharma-sutra was effected at one time or by degrees, and whether Bhrgu's recension has to be considered as the immediate off- spring or as remoter descendant of the Sutra", Professor Buhler answers, after careful consideration of all former views and ar- guments, in the sense of the first alternative. In this respect he differs from the view generally accepted by Professor Jolly s, and others who have expressed opinion on this point, according to which the text of our Manu-smrti has from time to time under- gone different recensions and suffered changes under various hands. B. The Yajnavalkya Dharma-sastra. Although the Smrti of Yajnavalkya, like its more celebrated predecessor, the Manava-Dharma-^astra, claims for itself a divine origin, and although it has contributed much toward the modem development of Indian Law, having even been chosen in prefe- rence to the Manu-smrti, by Vijnane^vara and Apararka* as a basis for their systematic works on Indian Law, the question of its human origin seems to have attracted far less attention in Europe than that of the greater work. A sufficient cause for this is, if nothing else, its smaller degree of importance, but it has nevertheless not as yet received the amount of attention which it deserves. 1 loc. cit. p. xci. 2 loc. cit. pp. xcii — cvi. 3 loc. cit. and Hindu Law, p. 48. * See JoUy, Hindu Law, p. 48. — 6 — The first European translation of this Smrti is the wellknown one, edited with the Sanskrit text, hy Peopessoe A. P. Stenzlee, which appeared in 1849. Regarding the origin of the Smrti he thus expresses himself in his Vorrede, S. vm — ix, „Die vielfache iihereinstimmung beider gesetzbiicher in sachen wie in ausdriicken fiihrt allerdings zu der annahme, dass Manu's gesetzbuch dam gesetzhuche des Yajnavalkya als grundlage gedient habe." He further calls attention to the references in the first chapter to the Buddhists, and finally shows that Yajnavalkya's law book is younger than the Manu-Smrti, that it marks indeed, the next step after Manu in the development of the metrical Smrtis.* As in the case of Manu, Peofessoe M. Mtolee was the first to discover that the Sutras are the principal source of the met- rical Smrtis^, or, as he says later (p. 200) ^ "it is chiefly in the Dharma-stitras that we have to look for the originals of the later metrical lawbooks, such as Manu, Yajnavalkya and the rest". In 1863 De. Johaentgen* called attention to the connection between the Yajnavalkya-Smrti and the White Yajurveda as a generally recognized and undeniable fact, and then shows that, just as Manu Prajapati was not the author of the Manu-smrti, it is likewise a mistake to attribute this work to the alleged author of the Brahmana of the White Yajur-veda. "Ln Gegen- theil miissen wir auch hier, wie friiher bei dem Msnava-Gresetz- buch, annehmen, dass das Werk nichts ist als eine versifizirte Zusammenstellung der — wahrscheinlich nicht mehr erhaltenen — Grrhya- und SamayacSrika-Sutra einer auf Yajnavalkya zuriick- gehenden Schule des weissen Yajur-veda." The philosophical system represented in this Smrti is the Yoga of PatanjaU. De. von Beadkes discusses the probability of the depen- dence of the Yajnavalkya-smrti on a Dharma-sutra of the White Yajur-veda, in a comparison with the Vajasaneyi-Samhita, but was unable to come to a definite conclusion, as he says, "Neh- men wir aber AUes in Allem, so glaube ich, dass sich das Ver- haltniss der in Yajnavalkya's Gesetzbuch vorkommenden Mantra zur Vajasaneyi-Sainhita zwar nicht als Ai-gument gegen, aber eben 1 See Jolly's Narada, Introd. SBE. vol. XXXIII, p. xvii. 2 Letter to Mr. Morley, SBE. vol. II. 3 Hist. San. Lit. pp. 132—134, 200, also p. 330, n. 2. 4 Ueber das Gesetzbuch des Manu, p. 113. » Ueber d. Manava Grhya-sutra, ZDMG. 1882, S. 424—426. so wenig als Argument fur die Annahme verwerthen lasst, dass das Yajnavalkya Dharma-^astra die Bearbeitung eines Toraus- gesetzten Dharma-sutra des weissen Yajus sei." After a com- parison of Ya. I, 270—291 with Man. Gr. 2, 14, both of which passages treat of the ceremony Vinayaka G-ane^a \ he concludes (S. 433), "Fassen wir das Eesultat der soeben angestellten Unter- suchung zusammen, so werden wir zunachst gem zugestehen, dass die Theorie von der Entstehung der metrischen Gesetzbiicher aus den gleichnamigen Sutra eine ausserordentlich fruchtbare Hypothese genannt werden kann." In 18842, Peofessok Buhlbe was decidedly of the opinion that the Yajnavalkya-smrti belonged to the school of the Vajasa- neyins who study the White Yajur-veda. At the same time he shows its dependence on the Vajasaneyi-Samhita, and offers the conjecture that the Sutra on which the Smrti is based belonged to one of the Vajasaneyi Caracas, or that it may even have been composed by the foimder of this Oarana himself. Pkopessor Jolly likewise acknowledges the close connection of the Yajnavalkya-smrti with the White Yajur-veda, and through its laconism and pregnancy of style, with the Sutra period 3. He states further, in agreement with Dr. von Bradke* that "a very considerable portion of the subject matter contained in this work is traceable to the Sutra works of the Black Yajur-veda, espe- cially to the Vishnu-smrti and to the Manava Grhya-stitra, but it is impossible to ascertain whether they have been derived from this source mediately or immediately." Since presenting my Dissertation to the Faculty, I have re- ceived, through the kindness of Professors Windisch and Jolly, the proofsheets of the latter's contribution to Btihler's Grund- riss, now in the press, entitled "Eecht und Sitte", and it is with great pleasure that I note in some respects a close agreement of my hypothesis with his latest views on the sources of these two Dharma-sastras. Under § 5 p. 18, Professor Jolly says: "Es besteht daher kein Bedenken gegen die Annahme, dass M. Werke aus ver- 1 Of. SteHzler, Vorrede, S. IX; JoUy, SEE. vol. VII, p. xxi, and Hindu Law, p. 49. 2 West and Biihler: Digest. Third Edition, p. 47. 3 Of. West and Biihler: Digest., p. 44. 4 loc. cit. cf. also SBE. vol. VII, p. xxi. schiedenen Sohulen beniitzt hat, als er daran ging, ein fur alle Stande verbindliches Lehrgedicht des dharma zu schreiben und dasselbe mit dem Namen des Manu zu schmucken, der als der von Brahman, der Weltseele, abstammende oder mit ihr identi- ficirte Urvater der Menschheit, als der Begriinder der sittUchen Weltordnung , als der Erfinder der Opfergebrauche und als re- ligioser Gesetzgeber schon lange gefeiert war, ebe die Sutra- schule der Manavas entstand, die wohl auch nach ihm be- nannt ist." And concerning Ys., § 6 p. 21: "Es wird hienach wabr- scheinHch, dass die Smfti des T. auf ein dharmasutra aus der Schule des weissen Yajurveda zuriickgebt, aber mit gleicbzeitiger Beniitzung andrer Sutrawerke und unseres M. Als ein TJberrest aus den zu Grunde liegenden Sutras ist vieUeicht auch der la- koniscbe Stil des Y. anzusehen." C. Concerning both Dharma-sastras. As the basis of my investigations I have used almost ex- clusively Professor Biibler's Introduction and Professor Stenzler's edition of Ysjnavalkya, particularly the former, as being the latest authority and containing the most exhaustive treatment of the subject of Manu. But before making a statement of the con- clusions I have drawn concerning the Manu-smrti, I owe it to Professors J. JoUy and L. von Schroeder, to say that my in- vestigations had come to an end before I was aware of their views, (see pages 3 — 4) with which my own discoveries have many points in common, for to these eminent scholars must al- ways belong the credit of these discoveries, though also made by me quite independently; still the following paper may serve to verify them, which, to my knowledge has not yet been done in detail. After a careful examination of the texts of the Dharma- ^Sstras of Manu and Ysjnavalkya, and a comparison of them with each other and with the various works, two theories have presented themselves to me with regard to their origin. First, the Mdnava Dharma-sastra, in addition to its being based on a Manava Dharma-siitra, is also a compilation from all the Sutras, in the widest sense of the term, then existing into a universally binding code of laws. In favor of this hypothesis, it — 9 — may be observed in general that the contents of Manu's 6astra, or of the genuine portions even, are far too comprehensive, both in fulness and variety of treatment, to have been derived from any one Dharma-sutra if we may take as a standard the size and general contents of the Dharma-sutras which have come down to us 1. That this Smrti was composed for universal usage has never been questioned^. Even if other evidence were want- ing, it seems to me the fact that these laws were ascribed to Manu Prajapati, Lord of Creation, and that they have been col- lated from the works of the various 6akhas, is sufficient to establish the truth of this assertion. The latter argument like- wise gives evidence of the same truth with regard to the Yajna- valkya-smrti. Second, contrary to the universally accepted, or at least, so far as I have been able to discover, unrefuted theory that Tajnavalkya's Dharma-sastra is based on that of Manu, it likewise is a later compilation of the Sutras, in the widest sense of the term, existing at the time of its composition, and of the Manava Dharma-sastra, and in aU probability having as its starting point a Yajnavalkiya Dharma-sutra, as already indicated by Dr. von Bradke and others. It would clearly be to Yajnavalkya's advan- tage in composing his work, to draw his materials as far as possible from the original SUtra works, and not from Manu's Smrti, the true character of which he must have recognized. The first Chapter of Manu is well known to be spurious ^ being almost wholly a philosophical Introduction to the Sastra proper which begins with Chapter II, based on the Sankhya Philosophy of Kapila*, while all those passages, not of this Chap- ter alone, but as weU those occurring throughout the Smrti which find parallels in the Mahabharata have found their sour- ces, as explained by Professor Biihler^, not in the Mahabharata, but, together with the passages of this work, in the previously existing proverbial wisdom current in popular form, and proceed- ing from the various philosophical and legal schools. I have confined the limits of the main part of my comparison 1 cf. Joliaeiitgen, loc. oit. p. 108. 2 cf. Jolly, Hindu Law, p. 41. 3 cf. Biililer, Introduction, p. Ixvi. < cf. Oolebrooke: Essays, I, p. 249, and Johaentgen, loc. cit. 5 Introduction, pp. Ixxiv, seqq. — 10 — to the second Chapter of Manu, vr. 1 — 124, as showing in a fair degree the conglomerate character of the composition, and illus- trating the variety of sources used by the authors of the Smrtis. It has also seemed sufficient for my purpose, to treat only those verses of the Yajnavalkya-smrti which show an affinity to those verses in Manu which fall under the comparison, i The Second Chapter of Manu contains in all, 249 Slokas and discusses four topics, as follows: Bharmamuldni, 1 — 25, Var- riadharmah, 26 — 35, Upanayana, 36 — 68, and Brahmacarya, 69 — 249. In the Yajnavalkya-smrti the same topics are treated in the same order, in the first 51 ^lokas of the Eirst Chapter, of which 38 correspond to ^lokas in Manu which number 65, or, in other words, of the 249 slokas in Manu, 65 find counter-parts in 38 Slokas of Yajnavalkya. Thus, at first glance it might seem that the latter author must have drawn largely from Manu, but in fact, as will be shown hereafter, this was not the case. These figures do indicate however, the great difference between the styles of the two authors — Yajnavalkyas conciseness of expression as against the looseness and greater freedom of expression in the Manu-smrti, also that in the latter work the subject matter itself is far more thoroughly treated, and with greater regard for details. The close connection which amounts often to verbal agree- ment, between both these Dharma-^astras and the Yisnu-smrti has already been illustrated by Professor Jolly in his Introduc- tion to Visnu2, and later as regards Manu in his History of Hindu Law, p. 48. The list of Sanskrit texts and references used in the follow- ing comparison has largely been taken from Professor Biihler's Synopsis of Parallel Passages, appended to his Translation, but as the texts of the Grhya-sutras of Apastamba and Hiranya- ke^in have since been edited by Dr. M. Winternitz and Dr. J. Kirste, respectively, I have supplemented these to the Hst, and have further made some minor changes in the references as occasion demanded. • of. Synopsis of Parallel Passages, SBE. XXV, pp. B33 seqq. and marginal references to Manu in Stenzler's Ed. of Ya. 2 SBE. vol. VII, pp. XX seqq. of. also P. von Bradke, loc. cit. pp. 439 seqq. and M. M., History, p. 331. — 11 — COMPARISON IN DETAIL. Manu Chapter II. /. Dharmamulani. 1 — 5. These introductory verses, together with vv. 7—11 and 13 are all purely philosophical in character, and as such may he classed with the many philosophical verses to he found scattered singly and in sections throughout all the twelve chapters of the Smrti, which Dr. Johaentgen in his book "Ueber das Gesetzhuch des Manu", has shown to be based on the Sankhya Philosophy of Kapila. Professor Biihler likewise, in his Intro- duction (Ixvii), cites these verses as interpolations '. 6. Ref. Ba. I, 1, 1—6; Ga. I, 1—3; Ap. I, 1, 1—3; Va. I, 4—6; Ya. I, 7. a. The agreement here with Ga. is so close that there can be little doubt that his sutra is the source of this line, which differs from it only in the use of vedo 'khilo, to fill out the meter. b. Manu's term dtmanas tustir-, and priyam atmanah, of equivalent signification used by Ya. have no authority whatever in the Dharma-sutras, all of which hold that the Yedas, in the broadest sense of the term, are eventually the only source of law. Thus, these two terms must be of later origin in this connection, and have apparently been used by these Smrti writers as a subterfuge, and as a source for certain laws which were not authorized by the ancient treatises on sacred law. Dr. Johaentgen, in his work on Manu, p. 46, quotes this verse as showing the value placed by Hindu lawgivers on 'Selfsatisfaction' as "Be- gleiterin und Folge einer guten Handlung"; but by 'lawgivers' must be unterstood the later writers or compilers of the law, because as above shown, none of the extant Dharma-sutras and therefore, very likely, none of those which are now lost, re- cognize such a source of sacred law. Textually, the rest of this line is not found elsewhere in the Sutras, but, for the meaning, authority is found in Ba. thus showing that it has come from a genuine source. The terms 1 The term "interpolate" is used here as elsewhere, to designate aU that material which is to be found only in the Manu, resp. Ya. Smrti. — 12 — sila and dcara are synonymous ', and one of them is therefore unnecessary, being interpolated possibly to fill out the meter. But as a whole, this ^loka has evidently been based on good authority, the first line as shown above, on Ga,, and the second on Ba. There is httle or no evidence that Ya. has drawn from this verse, but for further treatment, see under v. 12. 12. Ya. I, 7a. a. This line agrees literally with that of Ya., differing only in the use of one word, viz., vedah for Srutih, as Ya. reads. For this close similarity, two reasons may be adduced. Either Ya. has copied from Manu, or else both authors have drawn from the same source, which may have been the Ma. Dh.-sutra or a Ya. Dh.-sutra. The latter alternative seems the more tenable, for if not why should Ya. have changed vedah to srutiJ}? No reason is apparent. On the other hand, it was evidently the purpose of the author of Manu's ^loka to conceal as far as possible aU authority for his rules so far as the Msnava School was concerned, other than the original Manu, "Father of Mankind". Hence it seems not unlikely that this line has been taken bodily from a Ya. Dh.-sutra or some other non-extant Dharma-sutra. It is of course possible, that for a like reason, but with less excuse, Ya. may have drawn from the Ma. Dh.-sutra, or even from the Manu-smrti. As shown under v. 6 the term priyam dtmanah must be regarded as spurious. b. This line is merely explanatory of the meaning of the first, which would not have occurred in a Sutra, and hence it may be regarded as an iuterpolation. 13. Philosophical, see under w. 1 — 5. 14. Ga. I, 4; Ap. I, 30, 9. There is no agreement here between the Dh.-siitras, either in wording or meaning. Manu agrees with Ga. essentially, though there is no textual evidence of his having drawn from this source. The looseness of the style marks it as a late versification of a sutra taken from some Dharma-sutra not now extant. 15. The material of this verse has apparently been drawn from an ancient source, possibly from an unknown Dh.-sutra, if ' On tlie opinion of the oommentatorB concerning these terms, see Buhler, SBE. XXV, p. 30, v. 6, footnote. — 13 — not from the Veda itself as the author claims. Cf. KuUuka's Commentary. 16. The nature of this verse shows it to be an interpolation, i 17 — 21. Three of these verses, 17, 19 and 21, are geographi- cal descriptions, and are probably interpolations, as there is no parallel description in the Sutras, and as Dr. Johaentgen^ has pointed out, the names Brahmavarta (v. 17), and Brahmarsi (v. 19) are undoubtedly of later origin. Likewise, v. 18 is spu- rious, as it contains only some more or less general comments on the peoples of the country described in v. 17. Yerse 20 also furnishes strong evidence in the use of the phrase prfhivyam sarvamanavah, that it has been composed by the author of this Dharma-sastra, inasmuch as this phrase expresses plainly the uni- versal design of this work, that it is to b e binding on "all men on earth". ^ 22. Ba. I, 2, 9—10; Yas. I, 8—9. On the situation of the country of the Aryas, these two authorities agree in the main. They use similar terms, but the wording is very different, giving evidence that both have drawn from the same source independently of each other. Manu's des- cription does not agree with either of these, but Yas. in sutra 9, quotes from some unknown authority a description which does agree in part with Manu's, hence it may be safely said that this unknown work was the source of Manu's sloka. 23. Ba. I, 2, 12; Yas. I, 13—15; Ya. I, 2b. Here, as in the preceding verse, the Sutras agree almost literally. Both use the Anustubh sloka, the fii-st lines of which agree throughout, but the second lines contain some slight differences. Manu's account differs considerably from that given by these writers, and as there is furthermore, no textual evidence whatever that he could have drawn on them, his source must have been a Sutra work not now extant. In Ya.'s line there is but one term which agrees with Manu's text, and not with that of Yas. and Ba., namely, dese. The last 1 cf. Biihler: Introduction, p. Iv, and Ixvii. 2 loc. cit. p. 109. 3 Dr. Johaentgen (loc. cit. Anm. 169) is of the opinion that sarvama- navah is to be translated in the pregnant sense by "aU Manavas", but for the reason already given, it seems doubtless that the rendering of this phrase as given by Dr. BurneU and Professor Biihler is the correct one. cf. also SEE. Introd. pp. xliv— xlv. — 14 — phrase in the line, dharmdn nibodhata, evidently is an interpola- tion of the author of the Smirti although the Imperative nibodhata is similarly employed by Manu in v. 25. Of what remains, there is too little to form conclusive evidence that it was taken from the Man. Dh.-^astra; the possibility, if not the probability that it came from some Dh.-sutra, now unknown, would still remain. 24. Ba. I, 2, 13—16; Ap. I, 32, 18; Vi. LXXXIV 2,4. The general import of all of these passages, including M. 24 a, is essentially the same, but there is no evidence textually that Manu could have made use of any of them, hence the source of his first as weU as second line may have been some other Sutra. Still it is possible that Manu's first line is but a free rendering of the above passages; but the second line still remains un- accoimted for. 25. This verse, being introductory to the next topic is an interpolation. II. Varnadharmdh. 26. Ga. Vni, 14—20; Ya. I, 10b. Manu has evidently not borrowed from Gi-a., who gives simply a list of forty sacraments to be observed, but nothing is said of the performance vidth Mantras. The style of Ya. is very concise and aphoristic and may well have been taken from a Sutra not now extant, while Manu's verse is loosely constructed. Both have one term in common, namely, nisekddi, but otherwise are wholly unlike, still it is possible that both have drawn from the same work, which is now unknown. 27—35. The section included by these verses treats of the various sacraments in more or less irregular order, so that it seems best to treat it according to the sacraments as they occur, and not as usually, according to the verses. This topic is sparingly handled in the Dharma-sutras: Vi. alone describes briefly the eight sacraments, while Ga. (VIH, 14), only names them. The Grhya-sutras, on the other hand all give more or less detailed accounts, yet differing among themselves as to the number and selection. The seven treated by Manu are: 1. Gdrhhahoma, mentioned only, 2. Jdtakarman, 3. [Cau^] Oudakarman, 4. Maunjinibat^hana, mentioned only, 5. Ndmadheya, 6. Ni^Jcramana, 7. Annaprasatia. — 15 — 1. Qarbhahoma. M. v. 27; Yi. XXVII, 1—3; Hir. Gj-., 11, 1—2; Ap. Gr. 14,9; Ya. I, 11. This term occurs only in this place, and is itself not the name of one Sacrament, but a general expression meant to in- clude all the ceremonies as far as the Jatakarman, which are, according to Vi., Nisekakarman, Pamsavana and Slmantonnayana. But whatever may have been the source of these terms, they are here used for a purpose foreign to the character of the discussion in the preceding, and, after v. 28, succeeding verses. This verse is in nature similar to v. 27. Thus both may be regarded as interpolations. Contrary to Manu, Ya. not only names these three sacra- ments, but describes them briefly also. There are however some variations in his text from the expressions used by Vi., thus, he reads, garbhadhdnam, pumsah savanam, and simanto, while in each case the sense in both texts remains identically the same. Further, it is easy to trace the source of these three descriptions of Ya. to Vi.'s text. The influence of Vi.'s term nisekakarma may be seen in Ya.'s nisekddi- of v. 10, while his term garbhadhctnam may well have been selected for metrical reasons from Ga., as it does not occur elsewhere. The term rtau in 11 contains the gist of the longer sutra in Vi. ^- Ya. has evidently divided the term pumsavana as it is written everywhere else, for a purely metrical purpose; otherwise this term as well as the rest of the line is exactly the same as Vi.'s second sutra. Like- wise, the latter's third sutra is almost identical with the third pada of Ya.'s verse, the chief difference being, as pointed out above, in Ya.'s using the shorter form simanto to suit his meter. Both the Gr.-sii.'s disagree with Ya. as to the time of perfor- mance. Thus it seems quite evident that Vi. was the source of these three descriptions of Ya.'s. 2. Jatakarman. M. v. 29; Mah m, 180, 35»; Vi. XXVH, 4; A^. I, 15, 1—3; Sa. Gr. I, 24, 1—3; Pa. Gr. I, 16, 3—4; Go. Gr. n, 7, 21; Kha. Gr. II, 2, 32; H. Gr. II, 3, 2; Ap. Gr. 15, 1; Ya. I, 11. This ceremony is briefly described by Vi. but more fully in the Gr.-sutras, which at the same time differ among themselves considerably. The gist of Manu's first line, excepting jdtakarma, 1 cf. JoUy: SEE. vol. VII, p. 113, n. 1. — 16 — which of course is understood is found in KhS. Grr-, the terms used being almost identical, thus, j^ran nahMva/rdhanat occurs in Kha. QfX- as pran nabhikrntandt. This entire Une is found with a slight variation, in the passage quoted from the Mah., but, as Professor Biihler has shown in his Introduction', Manu has not drawn from the Mah., but the authors of both works have drawn from the same source, which in this instance seems to have been the KhS,. Gr.-sutra. Manu's second line has probably been ver- sified from A^.'s sutra; the noun prdsanam occurs in the Sutra as a verb prdsayet, the triple compound composing the fourth pada, occurs in A^., but in the accusative construction, and mantravat may be explained by the mantras themselves which are given in full by A^. There is no parallel reading to Ya.'s phrase, ete jdtakarma ca, hence it is impossible to define his source, further than that it must have been some unknown Grhya-sutra. 3. Namadheya. M. 30—33; Vi. XXVIT, 5—9; A^. Gr. I, 15, 4; Sa. Gr. I, 24, 4—6; Pa. Gj-. I, 17, 1-^; Go. Gr. U, 8, 8; H. Gr. n, 4, 10 seq.; Ap. Gr. 15, 2, 8, seq.; Ya. I, 12. This term as such occurs only in Vi. and Go., but it is variously treated by all the above authorities. There is no authority for the statements given by Manu, v. 30, as to the time for this ceremony, excepting for the tenth day which is given in three Gr.-su.'s, viz., Sa., Pa. and Go. The latter mentions also besides the tenth day from birth, the 100*^ and at the end of a year. Thus it seems possible that for a small part of this verse, Manu has used the Gr.-sutras, but the rest has come from some other source, or sources. Ta. differs from all authorities on this point, as he reads, ahany ekddase ndma. Inasmuch as there was so much diBference of opinion as to the number of days, and Yi. expresses in more general terms the apparent meaning of all the passages, it is pos- sible though perhaps not probable, that Ya. follows Vi. here, in sense, by using ekddase, thus splitting the difference between the authorities for dasamydm, and dvddasydm. It is at any rate quite evident that Ya. has not drawn from Manu's ^loka. The description of names found in vv. 31 — 33, has parallels in all of the above authorities excepting Ya. A comparison of 1 SEE. XXV, pp. Ixxiv seqq. — 17 — the texts of Manu and Yi. shows plainly that v. 31 is but a versification of Vi.'s four sutras 6 — 9- But vv. 32 — 33 have evidently been taken from an unknown Sutra as there is little or no agreement here with the Gr.-sutras or Vi. 4. Niskramam. M. 34; Vi. XXVII, 10; Pa. Gr. I, 17, 5; Ya. I, 12. The Ni^hramana is found only in two other authorities, under this title, viz. Ya. and Pa. It is otherwise given by Vi. as Adityadarsana. No two authors give exactly the same form, thus, in M. it is niskramana, in Ya. niskramah and in Pa. nis- kramanikd. All agree that it must be performed in the fourth month. Thus, Manu has probably drawn from either of these authorities, as the evidence in both cases is equal. 5. Anmprdsana. M. 34; Vi. XXVII, 11; M. Gr. I, 16, 1; ^a. Gv. I, 27, 1; Pa. Gr. I, 19, 1; Hir. Gr. II, 5, 1; Ap. Gr. 16, 1; Ya. I, 12. AU of the above authorities agree as to the time of per- formance of this ceremony, and with the exception of Vi. and Pa. all agree verbally. Vi. omits masi, and Pa. reads mdse. Since the agreement is so close, it is impossible to tell which sutra is the source of Manu's pada, while it is quite evident that one of them is. The rest of Manu's line appears undoubtedly to have been interpolated, as it has no parallel in any of the Sutras; still it is possible that it is based on good authority. Ya.'s reading is precisely the same as Manu's, but as the similarity likewise extends practically to four Gr.-su.'s, it is impossible to tell, as in the case of Manu, just which one Ya. has used, if he has not drawn on Manu. 6. Cudakarman. M. 35; Vi. XXVII, 12; ki. Gr. I, 17, 1; ^a. Gr. I, 28, 1—2; Pa. Gr. II, 1, 1—2; Go. Gr. H, 9, 1; Hir. Gr. II, 6, 1; Ap. Gr. 16, 3; Ya. I, 12. This ceremony is first mentioned by Manu in v. 27 (q. v.) under the name of cauda, which does not occur in the other authorities. The general, awkward character of this verse as well as the next, and other reasons cited under 1, (p. 15), show these verses to be interpolations. The Cudakarman is properly treated in v. 35. In the above texts there is quite a variety of readings, and some difference of opinion as to the time for the performance of the ceremony — even the name itself occurs in five different forms. Sa. and Hir. are the only authorities besides Manu, 2 — 18 — for the fotm cudaikarma, and it is probable that one of these texts is the source of Manu's term, in as much as none of the other forms would as well suit the meter. In sense, Manu's ildka, agrees with Pa., who reads samvatsanhasya, but there is nothing in the text to show that Manu is indebted to him for any thing more than the fact contained in the expression prathame 'Me, but this he may just as well have gotten from Sa.'s text which reads samvatsa/re. Manu's text agrees most closely with Vi.'s, and it is not unlikely that he has borrowed from him the two words, cibde and trtiye, or we may say that Vi.'s sutra was probably the basis of this sloka, the addition of prathama and the change of name to Gud&harma seing due to §a. or Hir., as above. Ya. alone reads cuda and expresses his rule by the more general statement, yathdkulam, thus he has probably written independently of Manu. Still, since Manu has laid down the general law ia the preceding verse (34), yadvestam mahgalam Tiule, it is possible that it served as the source of Ya.'s phrase. One other authority KL has a similar reading, yathakuladharmam, and Ya. may have borrowed from him, but this is doubtful, be- cause the latter reads caulam, which would suit Ya.'s meter just as well as cuda. Still, as these terms are essentially equal, and were both in vogue, (cf. also Ap. Grr. loc. cit.) the choice of one over the other may have been simply a matter of taste. The seventh ceremony, or fourth as numbered on page 14, the Maunjinibandhana, is not treated by the other authorities, and is only mentioned by Manu in v. 27, which has been shown to be an interpolation. III. Upanayana. 36. Ap. 1, 1, 18; Ga. I, 5, 11 ; Va. XI, 49—51; Ba. I, 3, 7—9; Vi. XXVII, 15—17; Sa. Gr. H, 1, 1-4; Ai Gr. I, 19, 1-4; PS. Gr. II, 2, 1-3; Kh. Gr. II, 4, 1-5; Go. Gr. X, 1-3, Hir. Gr. I, 1, 1 seqq. Ap. Gr. 10; Ya. I, 14. All of these authorities agree on the time of performance for the ceremony of Initiation, but all retain in general, their individuality of expression. Barring some slight changes which were necessary for versification, Manu agrees word for word with Vi., hence there can be little doubt that Vi.'s sutras are the source of this ^loka. Ya.'s reading is very much like that of M. and Vi., and it is not — 19 — improbable that he too has borrowed from the latter, but there is also evidence that he has used some other text or texts, in the option which he allows in the case of a Brahmana, which he expresses by garhhastame ^stame vabde, and in his expression eke yathakulam. The former he has very likely taken from A^. who is the only other authority allowing this option. But there is no other authority for Ya.'s second phrase, referred to, unless it be M. 34, as in v. 12, (cf. under 6 of preceding topic). 37. Ap. I. 21; Ga. I, 6. Both of these authorities differ with each other both in text and manner of treatment. Manu has one term in common with Ap., viz., hrahmavarcasaJcama, but Manu has probably not used Ap. here because the latter reads saptame, while Manu has pancame. Ga. gives authority for pancame, together with navame, but the fact that navame is given first seems to point to the existence at that time of another Sutra authority for paficame, which is not now extant, and it is probably this unknown Sutra that Manu has used. 38. Vi. XXVn, 26; Ga. I, 12—14; Ba. I, 3, 12; Ap. I, Jl, 27; Va. XI, 71—73; M. Gr. I, 19, 5—6; Sa. Gr. H, 1, 6-8; Pa. Gr. n, 5, 36—38; Khad. Gr. H, 4, 2—6; Go. Gr. H, 10, 4. The passage in Yi. is a ^loka which is word for word iden- tical with that of Manu, and it is possible that Vi.'s is the original one, and Manu has borrowed from him. But Manu's text likewise agrees essentially with the Sutras of Ap. and Va., either of which may have been and probably was the original source of this ^loka. 39. Yi. XXYn, 27; Ga. XXI, 11; Ya. XI, 74; A^. Gr. I, 19, 8; ga. Gr. II, 1, 9—13; Pa. Gr. II, 5, 39, 43; Go. Gr- H, 10, 5; Ya. I, 38. This verse likewise occurs word for word in Yi., and as in the preceding case, Manu has possibly if not probably drawn from him. The agreement with the other authorities is not close. Ya.'s reading in part closely agrees with Manu's as well as Yi.'s, but these two being alike it is impossible to tell from which text Ya. has drawn. The fourth pada agrees in sense with Pa. 43, which may well have been its source; but for the second pada, sarvadharmahahiskrtdh, there seems to be no authority extant. 40. Ap. I, 1, 28; 2, 6; Ya. XI, 75; A^. Gr. 1, 19, 8; Sa. Gr. n, 1, 9—13; Pa. Gr. n, 5, 39; Go. Gr- H, 10, 5; Ya. I, 38. 2* — 20 — Va. and the Gr.-sutras agree very closely, almost word for word, but as Manu does not resemble any of them in the text, the authority for this verse may have been an unknown Sutra, or, it is an interpolation, based on the above authorities, and the aphoristic expressions of the Sutras have been crowded out in the general treatment of the subject matter. 41. Ga. I, 16—21; Ba. I, 3, 14; Ap. I, 2, 39; 3, 9; Va. XI, 61—67; Vi. XXVn, 19—20; Ai. Gv- I, 19, 10; ga. Gr. U, 1, 2, 4-5; Pa. Gr. H, 5, 16—19; Go. Gr. H, 10, 8—9; Hir. Gr- I, 4, 7; Ya. I, 29. All authorities, except Ya. agree in the main as to the three skins composing the upper garments of the twice-born, but differ considerably as to the lower garments. There is no close agree- ment of text between Manu's verse and the passages in any one of the other authorities, but evidence is strong that in compos- ing, the author has used several of them. Thus, raurava- has probably come from Ap., Ya., ga., or Gobh. ; so, bdstani and car- mdni, as well as avikani also, from Vi.; sdna from Ga. or Gobh.; karma is not found elsewhere, but its equivalent is generally krsna. On the other hand, Ys. whose statement is very general, combining as he does, the contents of Manu's ^lokas 41 — 47 m one line, has certainly not borrowed from Manu, but rather from one or more of the Sutras, because he uses ajina instead of Manu's carmdni, and Ya.'s term is the one most used in the Sutras. 42. Ga I, 15; Ba. I, 3, 13; Ap. I, 2, 33—37; Va. XI, 58 —60; Vi. XXVn, 18; A^. Gr. I, 19, 12; ga. Gr. II, 1, 15—17; Pa. Gr. n, 5, 21—23; Go. Gr. II, 10, 10; Hir. Gr. I, 1, 17. Ya. I, 29. As in the preceding verse, nearly all the authorities agree essentially with regard to the girdles worn by the three castes, yet each retains its individuality of expression. Also, as in the preceding verse, M. does not verbally agree with any one of them throughout, but with aU in part. The term maunji is found in seven of the Sutras ; trivrt only in Ap. ; mekhald in Ga., Ba., and Ap.; maurm in Ga. and Pa., but these authors have used the term to describe the girdle of the Vai^ya caste, and so cannot have been used by Manu; jyd in Ga., Ap. and Vi. while Ba., Va. and ga. use dhanurjyd; finally, mnatdntavl only in Va. The — 21 — other terms used by Manu are plainly for metrical purposes. Thus, if we include an unknown Sutra as authority for maurvt, we may say that he has borrowed from, the Sutras generally. As under the preceding verse, Ya. has likewise probably drawn from the Sutras. 43. Pa. Gv- n, 5, 24. The first line agrees with Pa. essentially, and has very likely been borrowed from him. By M.'s insertion of Jcartavydh, plainly for the sake of the meter, Pa.'s genitive compound has been changed to an instrumental. The change from munjabhdve to munjdlabhe might easily have crept in of itself, these terms being synonymous. The second line seems genuine and was probably taken from some unknown Sutra. 44. Ba. I, 8, 5; Vi. XXYH, 19; Ya. I, 29. Of the first two authorities, Yi. gives the fuller account, agreeing literally with Manu in the use of the principal terms used in describing the sacrificial cord, thus, kdrpdsa, upamta, sana and dvika. Ba. agrees only in the use of one word, upamta, and likewise Ya. But for the other terms of definition, urdhvavrta and trivrt, there is no authority, but they have probably come from an unknown Sutra. As above, the rest may well have been taken from Vi. Ya. as explained under v. 41 has probably drawn from one of the Sutras. 45. Ga. I, 22—24; Ba. I, 3, 15; Ap. I, 2, 38; Va. XI, 52 —54; Yi. XXYn, 21, 23; A^. Gr. I, 19, 13; ga. Gr. II, 1, 18 —20; Pa. II, 5, 25—28; Go. Gr. n, 10, 11; Hir. Gr. I, 1, 17; Ap. Gr. 16, 6; Ya. I, 29. Among these authorities there is great difference of opinion as to the kind of wood to be used for the staves. Manu unlike any of the others, gives a choice of two kinds for each caste. H. and Ga. give this choice to the Brahma^ia; in fact, the same as that given by Manu, and the latter reads, hailvapdldsau, so it is not unlikely that this is the original of Manu's expression. All but three authorities agree in the use of avdunibara, and all, including Ya. in using danda for "staff". The expression lailva is used by A^. to describe the staff of a Yai^ya, and by Pa. and Go., that of a Ksatriya. There is no authority for the word vdta, 'fig-tree', but, as Ga. and Go. both use dsvattha, 'fig- tree', Manu may have and probably did use the shorter term — 22 — for the sake Of the meter. Khddira, Manu must have taken from Vi. as there is no other authority for it. The Ap. Grr. gives to the Vai^ya the choice between the Mdara and the udumbara wood, but he does not wholly agree with Manu. "Whence he has taken pailava is not apparent. The word audimibara is used by all but Ga., Ba. and Go. Thus, as none of the Sutras contain all of the terms used by Manu, it is most likely that the Manava-Sutra also did not, and hence the source of this verse must have been Ga., Vi., and some unknown Sutra. Ya. as explained under v. 41, has probably drawn from one of the Sutras. 46. Ga. I, 26; Ba., I, 3, 15; Va. XI, 55—57; Vi. XXVH, 22; A^. Gr. I, 19, 13; ^5. Gr. H, 1, 21—24. As regards the length of the staff for each caste, the authori- ties vary slightly. The four principal terms which come under consideration are, kesa, laldta, ndsa and pramdna. Of these the first three are found in both ^a. and Vi., the similarity of Manu's readings to that of each of these being about equal, for where Manu has kesdntiko, Vi. has kesdnta-, and Manu's laldta- sammito is exactly the reading given by ^a. But in this descrip- tion of the staves, the latter has reversed the order of castes given by aU the other writers, and hence must be disregarded as a source for Manu's verse. Now, Va. also gives the reading laldtasammitah as well as the usual order of castes and hence may be regarded as the source of this expression. From the similarity above referred to, kesdntika probably came from Vi. as well as ndsdntika, although only ndsa is used by Vi. The term 'pramuna occurs only in Ga. and Ba. and hence may have been borrowed from either. Thus, as sources of this ^loka may be regarded the Sutras of Vi.,Va, and Ga., or Ba. 47. Ga. I, 25; Vi. XXVII, 24. In content these two authorities agree in one condition only, viz., that the bark should be on the staves, but there is no ver- bal agreement. In this respect also Manu agrees with both, and uses the same term that Vi. uses, satvacah,. Manu further agrees with Vi., that the staves should be straight, and with Ga., that they should be without blemish, but other than the instance quoted there is no verbal agreement whatever, hence we may attribute this verse to Sutras not now extant — 23 — 48. Ga. n, 8, 35; Ap. I, 3, 25; Hir. Gx. I, 7, 11—12; ^a. Gv. II, 6, 4; Pa. Gr. II, 5, 1; Go. Gr. II, 10, 41-42; Ya. I, 29, b. Ga. simply mentions 'begging' as a restricted occupation for students. Ap. giyes the same a little fuller, and Pa. is equally as brief as Ga. Hir. reads Vhaiksam cara, and Go. reads hhaik- sam carati, which resembles M.'s cared hhaiksam somewhat more closely in personal construction, and thus may have been M.'s source. The reading pradaksinam .... agnim agrees with 6a., the further disagreement being explained by the fact that in part at least, Sa. places the action on the side of the teacher, while Manu, to preserve the harmony of narration has transferred the action to the student. Thus, with this explanation, there is nothing to oppose the assumption that this line has been derived from Go. and 6 a. In Go. Gr. v. 41, the content is virtually the same as that in Manu's first line, if it can be assumed that by susravah the sun is meant, the lack of verbal agreement as ex- plained above, seems plainly to be due to difference in the style of treatment, as Go. likewise places the action on the side of the teacher. Ya. has probably drawn his entire line from Manu, as cared bhaiksam agrees exactly with the latter's reading, and the term anindyesu covers the contents of M. II, 183. 49. Ga. II, 36; Ba. I, 3, 16—17.; Ap. I, 3, 28—30; Va. XI, 68-70; Vi. XXVH, 25; A^. Gr. I, 22, 8; Pa. Gv- H, 5, 2—4; Ya. I, 30. The principal genuine terms used in this verse are Vhavat- purva, occurring also in Ba., Va., and Pa.; cared hhaiksam- resembhng ya.'s hhiksam ydcet; hhavanmadhya used also by Ba., Va., Vi. and Pa.; and bhavaduttaram occurring nowhere else. The remaining terms have either been moulded or inserted to suit the meter. As the chief authority for this verse, preference must be given to Ba. as Hs reading resembles M.'s in more respects than that of the other writers. He has M.'s reading bhavad madhyam{tu) rdjanyo entire, with the exception of tu. Manu has doubtless changed Ba.'s bhavadantyam to °uUaram for the sake of the extra syllable. Neither the text nor general treatment of Ya.'s verse resem- bles Manu's enough to warrant the assertion that he has drawn from him, but the evidence is quite convincing that Ga. was his real source. They agree verbally in four readings, viz., ddimadhyd- — 24 — bhavacdhaMa-, and in placing the first compound in the geni- tive plural. 50. M, Gr. I, 22, 6—7; Sa. Gr- H, 6, 5—6; Pa. Gr. II, 5, 5—7; Go. Gr. H, 10, 43; Hir. Gr. I, 7, 13—14. These writers differ here considerably and none go so much into detail as Manu. Sa., Hir. and Pa., the latter however, by way of quotation, aU give authority for Manu's mdtaram praih- amam. Professor Biihleri has called attention to the similarity of the rule contained in this verse with that in the Ma. Gr.- sutra, I, 22 (end). There appears to be little in the text of this passage to identify it with Manu's ^loka, unless the expression yascanyah suhrdo may be interpreted as meaning relatives as well as friends, which our author seems to have done, and ex- panded the phrases in order to fill out the verse, otherwise there is no explanation for the terms svasaram, matur hhaginim, etc., for since there is no authority for them in the extant Sutras, it is not likely that there is in those which coexisted with them. It is possible then, if not probable that this Gr.-sutra, together with one of the three mentioned above, were the sources of this ^loka. 51. Ga. n, 39— 40; Ap. I, 3, 31— 42; Vi. LXVin, 40—41; M. Gr. I, 22, 10; Sa. Gr. H, 7; Pa. Gr. II, 5, 8; Go. Gr. H, 10, 44; Hir. Gr. I, 7, 18; Ya. I, 31a. These authorities differ somewhat, though there is a general verbal agreement among the Gr.-sutras, but the latter have almost nothing in common with Manu. Authority is not found for all the apparently genuine portions of this verse, but more than haff of the terms, five including the first three padas, are found either in Ap., Ga., or Yi., and may have been borrowed from them; but the last pada has no parallel in the extant Sutras, but as it appears to be genuine, it may have been taken from an unknouTi Sutra. Ya.'s line has not a single word in common with Manu. Two terms, hJiunjltd and anujnayd may be traced to Ga. and Sa., but, as the Dharma-siitras do not mention the fire-sacrifice krtdgni, while the Gr--sutras do, though not in exactly these terms, it seems likely that Ya. has drawn from Sa. as well as from Ga. who also reads vdgyata. It is at any rate evident that Ya. has not used Manu's text here. 1 Introd. p. xxxix, n. 8. — 25 — 52. Mah. Xm, 104, 58b and 59a. These two lines from the Mah. correspond literally with this ^loka, with one exception, the former work reads dhanyam where Manu has sriyam, but the meaning is the same in both. But this Tariation seems to illustrate Professor Btihler's second con- clusion ', that the authors of both these works have not drawn from any law treatises, but from the floating sayings of the legal and philosophical schools, which already existed in metri- cal form. 53. Ga. n, 41; Ba. II, 5, 21; 12, 7; Vi. LXVIH, 34—35. Though these authorities agree in general as to meaning, yet there is no similarity in the text. Manu especially has little or nothing in common, textually, with any of them, so it is not probable that he could haye used them. But from the general agreement in sense, it is quite evident that he has drawn this verse from some unknown Dharma-sutra. 54. Va. in, 69; Ba. H, 12, 7; Vi. LXVIH, 42-43; Ya. I, 31b. In this vdrse there is apparently little that is genuine. Thus, if we take out pujayed asanam, akutsayan and hrs^yet, the rest is superfluous, or at least does not add essentially to the sense, and is hence an interpolation. Authority is found only for the words quoted, thus pujayet is found in both Va. and Vi., but with abhi-, which does not change the meaning, but would inter- fere with the meter. It is probable that Manu has borrowed from Va. because he also reads asanani, and rocate, which is the only and nearest authority for the idea expressed in Manu's hsryet prasidet and pratinandet. The word akutsayan occurs in a ^loka which Ba. quotes from some other authority, possibly from a Ya. Dh.-su., in as much as Ya. also uses this word. Thus we may assume that Va. and Ba. (?) were the sources of this verse. Again it is clear that Ya.'s line has not been borrowed from Manu, but probably from a Ya. Dh.-su., because there is no authority whatever for the first pada, and hence we may assume that it with the second pada, containing the word akutsayan, above explained, has been taken from the Sutra, or if not, cer- tainly from some other unknown Dharma-siitra. 1 Introd. p. xc. — 26 — 55. There is no authority for this verse, and as it is of a very general character, it may be regarded as an interpolation. 56. Ba. II, 12, 9; 13, 11. Ap. H, 1, 2—3; Vi. LXVIII, 48; Ya. I, 112 b 2. There is no important verbal agreement with any of these authorities, who still, among themselves, agree quite closely. The only two cases in which Manu's text shows any similarity with these are, antard, which occurs in a ^loka quoted from some other source by Ba., and ati used by both Ba. and Vi. There is no authority extant for Manu's ucchistam etc. and ucdstah Jcvacid vrajet, but there being no reason for supposing these to be later interpolations, it may be assumed that the source of this verse was a Dharma-sutra not now extant. Ya.'s pada contains but one word in common with the other authorities, viz., ati, but this does not afford sufficient evidence that he has used any of them, and certainly not Manu, but he has probably drawn rather from some unknown Dharma-sutra. 57. This verse is but an expansion, philosophical in character, of the preceding verse, and theref being no other authority for its contents, it has with little doubt been interpolated by the author. 58. Ba. I, 8, 14; Ya. in, 26; Yi. LXII, 6; Ya. I, 18b. Of these authorities, Ya. agrees most closely with Manu, in that he uses upasprset where the rest use acdmet, yet both of these writers may have changed this word for the sake of the meter, and probably did, as, in v. 60 Manu uses dcdmed- in the same sense. , The words brahmem and tirthena he has probably taken from Ba. and not from Yi., because, like Manu, the former says nothing of sipping three times. Ya. uses the same terms, but in the ace. sing. There is no authority for the rest of this verse or the remaining apparently genuine portions of it, viz., kdyatraidasikddhydm and pitryena, which were very likely found in some unknown Dh.-sutra. Ya.'s reading agrees so closely with Manu's, that it is not improbable that he has drawn from the Manu-smfti in this case: still it is possible too that he has also used Ba.'s text. 59. Ba. I, 8, 16—16; Ya. HI, 26; Yi. LXII, 1—4; Ya. I, 19. If Manu has drawn from Ba. which is probable, from the use of pracaksate, he has succeeded very well in concealing the fact. In text-reading he most closely resembles Ba., but in sense, — 27 — Vi. In the first line, however, he evidently has taken aingustha . . . brdhmawi from Vi-, changing the loc. into the gen. and inserting for the sake of the meter, the superficial term tale, or, as per- haps is more probable, from the use of the following tlrtham, he has changed Ba.'s ace. construction into the gen. while the use of tale remains the same in either case. The second line is more confused ; Kayam angulimule agrees in sense with Yi., while Ba. says nothing about Ka, or Prajaigati, thus we may call M.'s ex- pression the briefest form of that of Vi. The phrase {a)gre daivam agrees with both Ba. and Vi. in sense, and may have been abbreviated from either, for they both use the full form angulyagre, or "am. Utryam tayoradhah agrees in sense with Vi. but is not found in Ba. and may have been derived, as above, from the former. Ya. agrees with Manu throughout in matter, but similarity in text can be shown only in the case of a few words, angustha- muldny agram, hrdhma and tlrthdni Three apparently genuine terms are not found in the other authorities, and hence it is possible they may have been taken from a Ya. Sii. It is evident that Manu was at least not the only source for Ya.'s verse, while it is not improbable that Ya. found all his material in a Ya. Sii. 60. Ba. I, 8, 19—21; Ga. I, 36; Ap. I, 16, 2—10; Va. IH, 27—29; Vi. LXII, 6—8; Go. Gr. I, 2, 5—9; Ya. I, 20. Regarding the matter contained in this verse there is gene- rally pretty close agreement among the above authorities. The text readings are also very similar, in many cases agreeing literally. Hence it is not unlikely that the Ma. Dh.-su. contained all the materials of this verse, especially as there is no authority, direct, for Mann's term, dtmdnam, or indeed for mukham, and both seem to be genuine. Still there are some very close ana- logies between M.'s and Vi.'s texts; e. g. Vi. reads with Manu, trir dcdmet, dvih pramrjydt, which in just this form is nowhere else found, and Jchdny adbhir sprset. Further close agree- ments might be pointed out, but it seems unnecessary as the evidence is so strong that this verse may have been reproduced from the Ma. Sii. Ya. has condensed into one line nearly all that is contained in Manu's verse. Five terms which do not easily admit of change of form without alteriug the meaning, agree exactly with Manu, while the remaining three have evidently served in moulding the — 28 — meter. Thus, prdsya is used for the usual dcdmet; unmrjya for the most frequent form pratimrjydt, and Manu's and Vi.'s form pramrjydt; and samupasprset which combines into one, all the occurring forms, sprset of M. and Vi., upa° and sam° of the other writers. While it is not unlikely that Ya. has borrowed from Manu, still, the last three forms treated seem to lead to the other conclusion that he has drawn from the Sutras in general, and this especially, because as far as the meter is concerned, at least, there is no reason why he should have changed pramrjdt to unmrjya, if he were using Manu's work. 61.' Ba. I, 8, 17; Ap. I, 15, 4—7; Va. IH, 31; Vi. LXH, 5; Go. Gr- I, 2, 5, 22—23; Ya. I, 18a, 20b. The apparently genuine portions of this verse, are the first line as far as dharmavit, and in the second line dcdmed- and prdgudanmukhah. All are found in one or other of the above authorities, whose accounts agree in the main with that of Manu. The term anusnabhir- probably came from Vi. although he further defines it by the insertion of agni. Ba. and Go. use the particle na instead of a privative. Aphenabhir- likewise is probably ab- breviated from Vi.'s aphenilabhir-, or, this word with adbhis- may have come from Va. just as it is. The reading dcdmet is given by Vi., and prdgudanmukhah is also doubtless abbreviated from Vi.'s prdnmukhascodanmukho vd. Thus, the possible if not prob- able sources of this verse are Vi-, Ba. and Va. There is no evidence that Ya. has made use of Manu here; but like Manu he has also borrowed from the other authorities, though some of his readings cannot be reconciled to them. In 18% his sucan dese is exactly Ga.'s reading. Or, better still, this with the preceding phrase, antarjdnuh and udanmukhah with prdgvd are all found in Vi., the last term however, in the from prdumukhas-. The only word remaining is upaviste of four syll- ables instead of Vi.'s dsina, to fill out the meter. Verse 20'' is more difficult to explain, as but three words are traceable in the Sutras, adbhih, and phenahudbudaih. The compound is construed with Mndbhih instead of with the more usual a privative. Va. reads adbhirdbuMmddbhiraphendbhir- and is probably the source of this Mne, though Ba.'s reading is also somewhat similar. There is little or no resemblance to the other authorities, and the rest of the line is most likely an inter- polation, as there is no other authority for it. — 29 — 62. Ba. I, 8, 23; Vi. LXH, 9; Ga. I, 36; Va. IH, 31—34; Go. Gr. I, 2, 29; Ya. I, 21. With the exception of Ga. and Go. who do not treat the subject fully, all the authorities agree with Manu, excepting that they class a woman with the Sudra Caste, while Manu says nothing about women. The text agreement likewise, so far as separate expressions are concerned, is very close. Ba. quotes a Sloka from some other source, which could not have been the Ma. Su. because it differs from our author's reading. Vi. also has written in this meter, but it likewise cannot have been the source of this verse, as the differences of reading are even greater than in the case of Ba. Manu uses the three syllable hhu- mipah, where the other writers use ksatriyah; no reason is ap- parent for this change. Finally, the entire verse seems to be genuine as it stands. Thus, the general agreement of all the authorities, and the above facts, seem to bear evidence that this verse has been taken bodily from the Ma. Dh.-su. or some other, not now extant. Ya.'s verse is word for word the same as Vi.'s, and has probably been taken from him. 63. Ba. I, 8, 5—10; Ap. I, 6, 18—19; Go. Gr. II, 2, 1—3. Ap. has nothing in common vrith Manu. The other two authorities show but little similarity to each other in text read- ing, while both contain the most important terms used by Manu though in a different construction. The presence of ucyate in this verse shows that it is not genuine. The term uddhrta is used by both Ba. and Go. as well as daksina und savya. TJjpa- mfi has probably been shortened from Go.'s yajnopamtt for the sake of the meter, and for the same reason, he uses praclnamd- vitl instead of Go.'s shorter form prdcmdvtti\ niviti and JcantJia have probably been taken from Ba. Thus, all the facts and conditions being satisfied by these two authors, they may be regarded as the source of this ^loka. 64. Vi. XXVn, 29; Ba. I, 6, 6—9. This verse corresponds to Vi.'s, word for word, while the description given by Ba. is very imperfect and concerns only the Jcamandalu. Vi.'s verse, as it occurs with three others at the end of this chapter must be regarded as suspicious. There is > The Ku. MS. gives this form, but so divided as to furnish the desired extra syllable, thus, prdclna dviti. of. Jolly, Text. Notes, p. 289.' — 30 — nothing about this verse to suggest that it has been tampered with by a late hand, so if it is true that Vi. has borrowed it from Manu, the latter has probably taken it from some other Sutra. 65. Ga. II, 9; A^. Gj-., I, 18, 2; Pa, Gr. II, 1, 3; Go. Gr. in, 1, 1; ^a. Gr. I, 28, 19—20; Hir. Gr, H, 6, 15; Ap. Gr. 16, 12; Ya. I, 36. Ga. simply refers to the Oodana, which is the same as the Kesanta ceremony. The first line of this verse finds counterparts in the other authorities as follows: kesantah is given only by Pa., sodase varse by At., Pa. (in the gen. case), Hir., Ap. Gr. and 6a. Thus Pa.'s text is probably the source of this Hne. The second line must be regarded as suspicious, at least, as there is no authority for its contents anywhere. StiU, it is of course possible that the Ma. Su. alone made the distinction between the Castes in this ceremony. Ya. agrees both with Pa. and Manu and reads Icesdntas- caiva sodase, but preference must be given to the former as source, because nothing is said of the different castes. 66. Yi. XXYII, 13; Al Gr- I, 15, 10; 16, 6; 17, 19; Ya. I, 13. Authority is found only in Vi. for amantrikd .... strindm, though A^, says essentially the same thing. The rest of the verse is probably spurious, as no authority whatever is given for any part of it, and its general tone and character show it to have been interpolated for the purpose of filling out the ^loka. Ya. reads tusmm etdh kriydh strindm, thus bearing more resemblance to Vi., who also uses kriydh, than to Manu. Thus both authors have drawn from the same source. 67. Vi. XXII, 32; XXVII, 14; Ya. I, 13. This verse is probably a later interpolation based on Vi.'s two sutras, in the first of which he reads, strindm. rivdhah sams- kdrah,, which nearly resembles Manu's much expanded reading, vaivdhiko vidMJj, strindm samskdro vaidika^ smrtah. In the second instance, Vi. has nothing in common with Manu. The source of Manu's second line was probably the customs 'prevalent at the time it was written. It does not seem Ukely that the material was found in a Dh.-sutra, as all the existing Dh.- sutras are silent on this entire question. Ya. gives word for word VL's reading -with the order re- — 31 — Tersed, thus vivdhastu samantraJcah, so it must be that Vi.'s sutra was his source. 68. This verse is introductory to the next topic, Brahmacarya and hence is clearly a later interpolation. IV. Brahmacarya. 69. Ga. n, 6, 8, 10; Al Gv. I, 22, 1—2; Ya. I, 15. There is no evidence of any influence on Manu by Ga. or Ai, the only agreement in text with Ga. being samdhya. The general style of this verse gives evidence that it was intended to continue the introduction to the new theme, and is hence, a later interpolation, though based on ancient authority, possibly on the Sutras generally, or possibly on the prevalent custom. From the close agreement of text, Ya. has probably based his verse on M.'s, or possibly on the same sources as Manu's as there are some differences which cannot well be explained, excepting as in the case of Manu's ^loka. 70. There is no authority apparent for the contents of this verse. But like the preceding, it has the semblance of having been based on genuine Sutras and serves here in the general introduction, as is seen by its very summary character. 71. Ba. I, 3, 25—28; Ap. I, 5, 19, 23; Vi. XXX, 32; Sa. Gj-. n, 7, 4— 6; lY, 8, 15. The accounts of the contents of this verse as given by the different authorities are quite dissimilar. Not a single word of Ba.'s text agrees with M., and practically the same may be said of Ap. and Sa., though all agree in a general way. Yi., on the other hand, has all of the principal readings of the first line, the only diffence being in construction and the use of the ygrabh. Hence it is not unlikely that Yi.'s text is the source of this half of the verse. For the other half there is no authority; as it appears to be genuine, it may be attributed to some unknown Sutras, or perhaps to custom. 72. Ga. I, 46; Ap. I, 5, 22; Ba. I, 3, 25 ; Yi. XXX, 32. Authorities vary here also, but the closest agreement is between M. and Ba. but this only in the second line of M.'s ^loka. Ba.'s construction is a little different from Manu's, in the use of the ace. instead of the nom., thus, savyam and daksinam. M.'s sprastavya does not occur elsewhere, and is plainly an inter- polation for the meter's sake, as it is superfluous, after the use — 32 — of the genuine term Jcaryam upasamgrahanam, which has ap- parently been borrowed from Vi. Likewise the compound vyatyastapanina occurs nowhere else and is superfluous with the fuller account in the next line, and must therefore be re- • garded as spurious. The genuine portions then have come from Vi. and Ba. 73. Ga. I, 46: Sa. Gr- IV, 8, 12, 16—17. The only similarity in text reading is in the use of the phrase adhlsva hJio iti, and even this has probably been changed from the genuine form as given by both Ga. and Sa., who read adhihi hho ity-. It was probably done to gain an extra syllable. For the rest of this line it is likely that the source was an un- known Sutra, because §a. quotes other authority for the term virdmas, thus, virdmas tdvad ityeke, which does not much resemble Mann's reading. Mann's first line is probably an interpolation, but is of course necessary for the explanation of the second line, which as demonstrated, has probably been drawn from Ga. or Sa. and some other, non-extant Sutra. 74. Ga. I, 57; Ap. I, 13, 6—7; Vi. XXX, 33; §a. Gr. IV, 8, 12—13. There is little or no evidence that Mann has used any of these authorities, who agree with each other in the main. Ap. is the only one who expressly says that the syllable Om is to be pronounced at the beginning of a lesson, and none say it must come at the end of a lesson. There is not ext agreement between Manu and the rest, excepting Vi. who also uses pranava. Thus the source of this verse must have been either a non- extant Sutra, and of these the latter must have the preferance, because of the silence of the other Sutras in the points mentioned. 75. Ga. I, 48—50; Ba. n, 7, 5—7; Va. XXV, 13; Vi. LV, 9. Manu agrees most nearly with Ga. in both meaning and text. The other authorities have little or nothing which could have been used by Manu, but Va. and Vi. both give ^lokas des- cribing the prdndydma, which agree with each other verbally. But this only tends to prove the genuineness of Vi.'s ^loka. Those terms which also occur in Ga. and which probably have been drawn from him are prdJctiilan, prdndydmaih and tribhih, but all are used in a different construction. There is no authority for pavitraih, pdvitah, or for omkarmnarliati, but as they appeal" to be genuine, they may have occui'red in some Sutra not now extant, — 33 — and been borrowed from it. Thus, as sources of this verse may be regarded Ga. and some unknown Sutra. 76—87. Vi. LV, 10—21; Ba. II, 11,6; 7, 15, 22; lY, 1, 29, 26; Va. XXVI, 4; 9-11; X, 5; XXV, 11; Ya. I, 23; 22. With very few variations in reading this entire section is found in Vi., the passage referred to. The subject matter of this as well as of the following section, w. 88—100, is entirely foreign to the subject under discussion and a comparison of the verses immediately preceding, with those immediately following, clearly shows them to have been interpolated, as they are simply semi-parenthetical, philosophical reflections which have been sug- gested by the syllable om treated in the preceding verse (75). Verse 76 undertakes to define the origin of this sacred syllable, and also seems to serve as an introduction to the matter treated in the following verses as far as 87. But in spite of the appar- ently logical sequence of this verse from the preceding, it must nevertheless be classed with those following as an interpolation, first, because it belongs with the section as given by Vi., and second, because the logical sequence is much more natural and evident between vv. 75 and 101, for in the latter verse the nar- ration begun in v. 73 is continued in the same style and in the same legal diction. The question now arises whence came these verses which agree so closely with Vi.? Has Manu borrowed them from Vi. or has Vi. taken them from Manu or, have both drawn from a common source? In Vi. these verses occur in a section at the end of Chap. LV, composed of 15 ^lokas. Of these 15 slokas (7 — 21), are those already referred to as agreeing with M's section (10 — 21); the first (v. 7) occurs with a slight change in reading, in Manu XI, 261, but the other two, 8 and 9 are not found in M. Manu quotes this section under the topic "Brahmacarya", while Vi. quotes it in his chapter on "Prayascittdni", and these verses, excepting 7 and 8 are as far removed in character, from the matter discussed in the preceding sutras of Vi. as from that discussed in Manu; hence we must conclude that Vi. too has interpolated them. The logical sequence of M. 76 with the verse preceding has already been pointed out. So in the case of Vi., there seems to be no connection between the last sutra and the opening verse of the metrical passage, but it is clear that this first verse (7) is properly inserted under the title of "Prayasdt- 3 — 34 — tdni", even if Manu too had not introduced it under the same heading in Chap. XI. Likewise v. 8 is in place and may have been suggested by the phrase in v. 7, sarvapdpdpanodakam. Why it did not also occur to the author of the Manu-smrti to insert this verse is not apparent. Further, verse 9, being a description of prdfidydma of the preceding verse, follows it quite naturally; and in like manner, v. 10 follows v. 9, as it explains the syllable Om. Now, in just the same way, the syllable Om in M. 75 has suggested to our author to introduce in the next verse the same description of this syllable as that given by Vi. Then follows the long discussion, parallel in both works, which is merely a philosophical exposition of the proper use of the sacred syllables and vedic texts. Thus, this section being shown to have been interpolated by both authors independently of each other, evi- dently the only conclusion to be drawn is that both authors have quoted these verses from a common authority, which is still unknown to us. As above mentioned, there are here and there in this section, certain variations in the text reading, but instead of discussing them verse by verse as they occur, it may be well to deviate from the usual plan, and subjoin a table of the changes and treat them as a whole, for it seems evident that all must be treated aUke Vi. 10, niraduJiad- = niravrhad- M. 76. 11, ?=al 77. 12, s= 78. 13, = 79. 14, etattraya = etayarcd 80. — vipra = hrahma — — jdtir- = yonir- — 15, gdyatrl = sdvitn 81. 16, = 82. 17, nanyan- = ndsti 83. 18, sarva = sarvd 84. 19, 20, 21 = 85, 86, 87, All of these variations are unimportant as far as the sense is concerned, for in no case is the meaning of the verse essenti- ally altered; and in view of the discussion above, it seems most natural to attribute them to the slight changes of text which must have crept in at all times in the verbal transmission. These variations too, may serve to strengthen the conclusion that both — 35 — authors have quoted independently of each other, or more cor- rectly, that Vi. wrote independently of Manu, for these changes could not have crept in if he had copied from Manu's written text; thus it is more evident still that both authors have drawn from a common source. Some of the Mss.i of Manu give the reading of Vi. 10, niraduhad, and others, (G. E. and Nd.), that of Vi. 15, gdyatrl, and similarly, some of the Vi. Mss.2 give in V. 17, the reading of M. 83, param ndsti, and so on, but a dis- cussion of this subject would only lead at most, to a decision as to jwhich of the two authors had [quoted the more accurately, but as this evidently would in no way change the aspect of the question at issue, it seems best to pass over it. There is little or nothing of importance to be gathered from a comparison with the parallel passages quoted from Va. and Ba. The latter has nothing in the text common with Manu. Of those in Va., the first, X, 5 agrees with M. 83 exactly, only as far as the first line. As the aphorism therein contained seems to have been fundamental and universally accepted, it is not improbable that it existed apart from those in whose con- nection it occurs in M. and Vi., and hence Va. has acquired it independently of this ^loka section. But not so with the ^lokas XXVI, 9, 10 and 11, for these agree word for word with M. 85, 86, 87, and the corresponding verses of Vi., with the exception of one term, drawibha-, which has clumsily been inserted, there- by spoUing the meter, for the two-syllable term vidhi; of M. and Vi. This entire section has been shown to be not genuine by Professor Biihler^, hence it may be that the author of Va. has likewise drawn these verses from the same source that M. and Vi. have used. It is interesting to note that Va. like Vi. has introduced these verses under the heading of "Frdyasdttdni". As regards the two quoted passages from Ya., there is no evidence in the text that he has borrowed from Manu, nor is it at all certain that he has made use of the other Sutras, although some six words are traceable to G-a., Vi., Va., and Ba.; thus japaJi (22) occurs in Ga. XXIII, 21; gdyatrim sirasd, vyahrti- and pranava- in Va. XXV 13, and Ba. IV, 1, 28, both of which are verbally equivalent ^lokas and are quoted ; and finally, japed- 1 Ku. K. and V.; of. JoUy, Text, p. 289. 2 of. Jolly: Visnu Text, footnote, p. 129. 3 SEE. vol. Xiv, p. xxiii. 3* — 36 — occurs in Vi. LXTV, 36 in a similar connection in which the first word smtas- might have suggested Ya.'s snanam, v. 22. Two of these terms are useless as a means to be employed in the present purpose, for they occur at random in all the autho- rities, Manu included, and the remaining five, japah, sirasa, pra- nava-, japed- and snatas, occurring as they do in passages but slightly allied in meaning with those of Ya., can only serve to show that the latter did not draw from Manu, but rather, if not from the Sutras in general, extant and non-extant, then probably from the generally prevalent custom. 88 — 100. This section deals with matter of a philosophical nature which is entirely foreign to the discourse in the preceding and following verses, being one of those philosophical sections already referred to under w. 1 — 5 which are based on the Sankhya Philosophy of Kapila. 101. Ga. n, 10—11; Ba. II, 7, 12—14; Ap. I, 30, 8; Va. Vn, 16; Vi. XXVni, 2—3; §a. Gr. H, 9, 1—3; A^. Gr. HI, 7, 3—6; Ap. Gv- H, 8; Ya. I, 24—25. The descriptions of the morning and evening devotions as found in the above works, vary considerably. All but those, in the Gr.-siitras are more or less brief. The latter alone give full descriptions, and in this respect more nearly resemble Manu's verse. As far as the text is concerned, four of Manu's terms, arka, samyak, fksa and vibhdvandt are wanting in the other autho- rities, but the rest are all found now in one, now in another. Thus it is not likely that all were found in the Ma. Dh.-su. A^., or Sa, as they are alike here, and Vi. seem to have exerted the strongest influence on Manu, but their influence has been separate, as shown by the fact that the terms found in each are not in all cases the same. But it wiU not do to assert that these writers were the only sources, because in nearly every case, terms used by them are also found in one or more of the other authors, and hence, these too must be acknowledged as sources. The four terms above mentioned which are unaccounted for, may have occurred in the Ma. Sii. or some other unknown Sutra, or the author may have inserted them as suiting metrical purposes better than the more usual and genuine ones. Though in a number of cases Ya.'s text resembles Manu's quite closely, still it cannot be said that he used M. exclusively, if at all, both because all of these terms are also found in the — 37 — other works, and because fully half of the words used are not found elsewhere, thus pointing to some other unknown yet strongly influential source, not unlikely the Ya. Su. 102. Ba. n, 7, 18, 20; Va. XXYI, 2—3. It is not improbable that this verse has been built up from the Ma. Dh.-sii. or some other unknown Sutra, as well as those of Va. which occur in one of the four suspicious chapters of that work, inasmuch as M. and Va, agree in the use of five terms, viz. purvdtn, samdhyam, vyapoTiati, pascimam and (sam-)dsinah. M. agrees in sense with Ba., but only one term, samdhyam is common to both, and Ba. has openly quoted his verses from some other source. Thus, it is clear that this verse has been com- posed independently of either Va. or Ba. 103. Ba. n, 7, 15. Ba. has quoted his verse from some other source. Only four of his terms are used by M., viz: purvdm, pascimam, nopds(a)te and sudra, and the sense is essentially the same in both. Thus it is possible that both have drawn from the same source, probably some unknown Dh.-su. Another possibility is, if Ba.'s ^loka is older than M.'s, it may have been responsible for M.'s verse. But judging from the tenor of Ba.'s ^lokas and from his manner of introducing them, saying that they have been proclaimed by Prajapati, they have been taken bodily it would seem, from some very ancient work. If this work were the Ma. Dh.-su. there seems to be no reason why our author should not have copied both verses verbatim, as Ba. has done, likewise if he has copied from Ba., especially because Prajapati was claimed to be the original source. — Thus, the first possibility seems to come nearer the truth, i. e. both authors have composed their Slokas independently, but using as a foundation some sutra which was ascribed to Prajapati. 104. Ba. n, 11, 6. There is no similarity of text between this verse and that of Ba., and in the absence of other authorities, we may attribute this verse, though not necessarily in its present metrical form, to some Dh.-su. not now extant. 105. Ap. I, 12, 9; Va. XTTT, 7. There is no indication, either as regards meaning or text, that Manu has in any way made use of these authorities, but as — 38 — the contents are apparently genuine, the source of this verse might have been a Satra not now extant. 106. Ap. I, 12, 3—5. Ap.'s sutras are similar to a passage from the Vajasaneyi- brShmana', hut have apparently not been used by Manu in com- posing the main theme of this verse, although he may have been famiUar -with them, as is evident from the expression vasatkrtam. On what source this ^loka in its entirety is based is not certain, but possibly on a Dh.-sH. which is not now extant 107. Vi. XXX, 34—88; M. Gr. IH, 3, 1—3; Ya. I, 41—46. There is evidence that Manu has drawn at least parts of this verse from Vi. and A^., who do not entirely agree with each other textuaUy. Some of M.'s expressions occur in both these authorities, such as adhlte, payas and madhu, but as many others, svadhydyam-, (upa-)]csarati and ghrtam occur only in A^.; thus it is not unlikely that all were taken from A^., for there are none in Vi. which are not also in A^. The term dadhi together with other apparently genuine terms such as abdam niyatah and sudh seem to point to another Sutra work as a second or third source of this verse; though it is still possible that these terms have been interpolated, niyatah being suggested by the preceding discussion (88 — 100) on 'restraining the organs', and siidh is perhaps unnecessary, but dbdam is not so easily to be accounted for, because the sense of the entire verse is essentially modified by the insertion of it. In fact the main difference between this verse and those of Vi. and A^., lies in the use of this word, so that evidence is strong that another source must be attributed to this verse, which was used either indepedently of, or in con- nection with Vi. and A^. This of course must have been some unknown Sutra. A mere glance at the section quoted from Ya. is sufficient to show that he has in no respect borrowed from M. or even taken him as a pattern, but that he has rather imitated Ak or Vi. But a careful text comparison with these authors shows differences which cannot be accounted for otherwise than by attributing another source to Ya.'s section, which was probably not the same as that used by Manu, because these two texts have so little in common. It is however, possible if not probable 1 Sat. Brah. XI, 5, 6, 9. of. also Buhler, SBE. II, p. 45, v. 3, foot- note, and SBE. 5XY, p. 49, v. 106, footnote. — 39 — that Ya. has borrowed from A^. or Vi., as well as from a Sutra which is unknown to us. 108. Ga. II, 8, 30, 35; Ba. I, 3, 16; 4, 4—8; Ap. I, 4, 16, 23; 5, 25; Va. VH, 9, 15; Vi. XXVHI, 4, 7, 9, 12; Ta. I, 25b. In this verse there are immistakable traces of the texts of Ga. and Vi., while the other authorities, agreeing in general as to sense, differ among themselves more or less in their forms of expression. M.'s first compound, agmndhanam is found in Ga.; hhaiksacaryam a four syllable compound has doubtless been cut down for metrical purposes from Ga.'s five-syllable form UiaiJcsa- carane, or °am, (also in Vi.); adhah sayyam occurs also in Vi.; finally, gurorhitam has likewise been abbreviated for the sake of the meter from Vi.'s form, gurah priyahitd-. Of the remaining terms in this verse, the only important one for our purpose seems to be samdvwrtanat, for which there is no authority in the other writers. This being so, it is not very bkely that it occurred in any Sutra, but it may have crept in through the iofluence of the custom prevalent at the time of our author's writing. Ya.'s reading agrees with Manu's in the use of one word only, kurydt. If he were borrowing from Manu, he might have used his term agmndhanam, which is used in precisely the same sense and contains the same number of syllables as agnikdryam. What the source of this verse may have been is not clear. In sense it agrees practically with Vi. 4, but there is no similarity of text whatever. It is at any rate evident that he has not drawn from M.'s text. 109. Ya. I, 28. Both authors claim the Dharma as the source of their slokas, but nearer than that, it is impossible to determine, as all the extant Sutras are silent on this subject. Both authors designate ten persons who may be instructed in the Veda, but as to who these ten persons are, the two texts agree in only four instances, namely, sucih, dptah, sakta and sddhuh. Thus, whatever M.'s source may have been, Ya. did not borrow from him, nor have both used the same source. 110. Ba. I, 4, 2; Ap. I, 32, 22—24; Va. H, 12. There is very little in the above references to identify with Manu's verse — nothing whatever in Ap. The passages in Ba. and Va. are both Slokas, which, though differing somewhat in — 40 — the position and construction of many of the terms, practically agree as to meaning. Va. has quoted his ^lota entire from some other authority unknown. These facts are significant in showing that these ^lokas are genuine and that there must have been one common source for both. AU possible connection with these ^lokas lies in M.'s first line which seems to be an attempt to boil down the idea more formally expressed by the other writers. If this is so, Ba. is probably responsible for the terms (a-)prstal and bruyan na, especially the latter, because Va. uses prahruydc-. In the process of abbreviation it was necessary to use some such general expression as canydyena prcchatah. The second line carries out the same idea, but whether it is based on genuine authority, or is a later interpolation, is not apparent. 111. Vi. XXIX, 7. Manu agrees with Vi. here word for word, and as there seems to be no reason to doubt the genuineness of the latter's ^loka, or better, of the entire chapter, it may be considered as the source of Manu's Sloka. Likewise the following verse, 112. VL XXIX, 8; Ba. I, 4, 1 ; Sa. Up. m, (p. 30, Bumell). agreeing word for word with Vi., may have been borrowed from him. The passage ia Ba. also agrees literally with M.'s and Vi.'s first lines. Ba.'s second line agrees both in meaning and essential wording with M. 112'' and 113. Thus the greater compactness of Ba.'s verse seems to show clearly that it is the original one from which one of the other two authors has drawn. There is no reference in Vi. to Ba.'s expression vidyd saJia mar- tavyam, whereas Manu has taken it for the theme of a new verse, 113, but the source of this expression as well as the rest of Ba.'s second line is ia all probability the passage referred to in the Sa. Up. As there seems to be no reason to doubt the priority to Manu, of the passages of both Ba. and Vi., we may regard Ba. as the source of Vi.'s Sloka perhaps, and this in turn, the source of M. 112, while v. 113 has been built up from Ba. l*, but why Vi. has ignored this line is not apparent. Thus, as sources for w. Ill and 112 we may adduce Vi. and of v. 113, Ba. 114—115. Nir.i n, 4; Sa. Up. m, (pp. 29—30 Bui-n.), Va. n, 8—9; Vi. XXIX, 9—10. 1 Ed. Both, p, 41. Calcutta Ed., vol. II, p. 172. — 41 — These two verses belong together, and may receive the same treatment. "With the slight exception in the use of the encUtic ma for the fuller form mam, in Nir. the above authorities ex- cepting Sa. Up. agree with each other verbally, all using the Tristubh meter. The first of these two Tristubh verses occurs in meaning in the Sa. Up., but as there is little similarity in it to Manu's ^loka, this work may be disregarded. Of the three remaining authorities, the Nirukta may safely be regarded as the source of the two Tristubh verses. That Manu's ^okas are reversifications of these into the Anustubh meter, there can be little or no doubt whatever, as is evidenced by the many points of verbal agreement throughout, and the meaning being exactly the same in all cases. While it is possible to claim the Mr. as the ultimate source of M.'s ^lokas, still it seems more probable that he has drawn directly from Vi.; first, because as shown above, he owes to Vi. the two preceding ^lokas, and second, because he discontinues with Vi. the matter under discussion, whUe both the authorities Va. and the' Nir. still carry it on to some length. 116. Vi. XXX, 41—42. The two passages in Vi. are sutras, the contents of which correspond exactly to the contents of M.'s Soka, and not only that, but the identity of half of Manu's expressions with those of Vi. seems to give ample evidence that Manu has simply ver- sified his two sUtras. The differences in expression and gram- matical form may be explained on purely metrical grounds. 117. Vi. XXX, 43; and others. In this verse, M.'s text agrees literally vnth that of Vi. as far as the end of the third pada. In the fourth pada the chief difference lies in the use of abhivddayet by Manu where Vi. uses na druhyet, while kaddcana fills out the meter, corresponding to M.'s piirvam-. Of the two readings, that by Vi. seems to be the original one, and hence the source of Manu's verse, for the fol- lowing reasons. 1. Vi.'s verse follows immediately upon the two sutras from which Manu has made up the preceding sloka, thus showing by continuity that it was there when M. versified the two sutras. 2. In the metrical passage of Visnu the topic Al- hivddana is not under discussion, but on the contrary, stress seems purposely to be laid on druhyet, as it occurs again in the very last line, thus being honored, obviously for the sake of — 42 — emphasis by a first and last position [in the discussion, 3. and finally, in the case of Manu, the topic under discussion in the verses following is Ahhivadana, and hence this verse of Vi.'s may very properly be regarded as having been changed by Manu to serve his purpose as an introductory verse. 118. For this verse there is no parallel passage in the other extant Sutras, but it is quite apparent, from a divergence which it shows from the main theme, that it is an interpolation, though probably based on good authority. 119. Ga. n, 21, 25; Ap. I, 8, 11. These passages taken together are essentially the equivalent of Manu's ^loka, and may be regarded as the foundation of it. They are all in sutra form and it may be readily shown how our author has expanded them into verse. Thus, beginning with Ap. whose reading sayydsane cdcarite ndviset contains the elements of M.'s first line. The latter, not needing the ca has inserted in its stead the preposition adJii; sreyasd, being supplied by the author serves to fill out both the meter and the sense; and Ap.'s dviset has been lengthened to samdviset for metrical purposes only. Manu's second line seems a little more complicated in construction, but most of the terms are traceable to Ga. Thus, sayydsanastlias- is but a slight change from Ga.'s sayydsana- sthdndni in sutra 25 ; caivainam fills out the meter if not the sense, and pratyutthdya is a slightly altered and lengthened form of Ga.'s utthdyl in su. 21; this expression was probably suggested to Manu by the preceding adhah sayydsanl in the same sutra; finally, Manu has substituted for Ga.'s form, pratisravanam, the more appropriate abhivddayet, for the same reason as in v. 117, it is his purpose here to treat the topic alhivddana. Thus Manu is indebted for this verse to both Ap. and Ga. 120. Mah. Xni, 104, 66. The two passages agree with each other literally with but one slight difference in reading, viz., Manu has pratyuUhdna, instead of dbhyutfhdna as in the Mah. But just as in the other cases, (vv. 29 and 52) where so close agreement with the Mah. occurs, Manu has not borrowed from it, but the authors of both works have drawn on the same source. 121. Ap. I, 5, 15; Ba. I, 3, 26. Though in contents Manu's verse resembles in some measure those of both of these authors, still there is no evidence that he — 43 — coTild have drawn from them, the only point of text-similarity being in Ap.'s use of ihe word dyus. Thus the source must have been some unknown Dh. Su. 122. Ga. VI, 5; Ba. I, 3, 27; Ap. I, 5, 12; Va. XIU, 44; Vi. XXVin 17; ^a. Gr. IV, 12, 5; Ya. I, 26. There is but little in the text of this verse to identify it with any of the above quoted passages, nothing whatever in the first Kne, which has never-the-less apparently been taken from some Sutra, probably a Dh.-sii. In the second line the formula asau namahamasmiti is nowhere else found in just this form which is doubtless lengthened for metrical reasons. The nearest approach to it is perhaps the expression used by Ap., Ba., and Sa., viz., asdvdham bho iti, where the main point of difference lies in the use of hJio, while M.'s term ndma also does not occur. The exclamation ihoh does not seem to have been a universally necessary part of the salutation, from the fact that Ga. omits it, and as he is the oldest authority, it is not unlikely that the formula later underwent this change. If this is so it is sufficient reason for the alleged "Manu Prajapati" to omit it. Finally, svam ndma pariklrtayet nearly resembles in meaning if not in form, Ga.'s sva ndma procya-, and it is possible that Manu has borrowed here, using the lengthened form pariklrtayet to fill out the meter. Thus it is possible that Manu has made use of Ga. and one of the other three authors Ap., Ba. and l^a. in compos- ing the second line though the evidence is not conclusive. There is some evidence here that Ya may have drawn on M. 121 — 122 for the first line of his ^loka inasmuch as the essential terms occur also in these two verses, and like M. he has omitted hhoh in the formula, besides reading asau. It is stiU possible, however, that the author of the Ys.-smrti has made these changes for reasons similar to those given above for Manu, and this seems the more probable from the presence of the un- necessary terms tato and hruvan, unnecessary in a double sense, if the author were copying from Manu, on account of the ex- cessive amount of material in the latter's Sloka 122. Ya.'s se- cond line is not represented in the Sutras, but it may have come from an unknown one. 123. Ya. XTTT, 45. Ya.'s stitra is very brief, and while it is intended to convey a meaning similar to that of M.'s ^loka, there is no text simil- — 44 — afity whatever, between the two. Thus the source of this verse must be in some other Dh.-su. not now extant. 124. Vi. XXVin, 17. The passage from Vi is a sutra and agrees very closely with the first line of M.'s ^loka, both in meaning and in text, and is apparently its source. Manu has made some necessary changes for metrical purposes, the most important one being the substitution of klrtayed-, of three syllables to nivedayet. Other- wise, the entire line is represented in Vi. word for word. The second Hne does not appear in the extant Sutras, and its source is therefore unknown. I have discontinued the comparisons in Chap. II at this point with the conviction that further investigations would only add to the bulk of this article without affording any new im- portant evidence in support of what has already been established in the preceding discussion. But to satisfy myself that the ana- lysis would yield the same results if carried throughout the work, I have made a similar comparison of one verse chosen at random from each of the ten succeeding chapters, which however, may be omitted in pubhcation. CONCLUSION. The preceding comparative analysis may be briefly sum- marized as follows: First, with regard to the Manu-smpti. In aU, 134 Slokas have been brought under discussion, but since the matter therein contained has been treated, not entirely in order according to ^lokas, but variously, sometimes in sections of ^lokas, sometimes in lines, padas and even single terms, it seems best for the sake of convenience, to designate these various subdivisions by a single term, such as passage. Thus the total number of passages treated is 167. Of these, there are 46, the sources of which were un- doubtedly some Sutra or Sutras which are not now extant. The sources of 7 others are for various reasons either doubtful, or unknown. Sixteen passages, of which twelve are entire Slokas, are pure interpolations by the author or compiler of the work, while four more have been derived from KapUa's Sankhya-System — 45 — of Philosophy. But there are 99 passages or more than half the total number treated, the sources of which have been traced with a greater or less degree of certainty to one or more of the ex- tant Dharma- or Grhya-siitras. Second, in the Yajnavalkya-smrti, the total number of passages treated is 46. One third of these, or 15 have been drawn, with- out doubt from unknown or non-extant Sutras, while in the case of 5 others, the sources may possibly have been unknown Sutras. Twenty-six passages (again more than half of the total number) have as their sources, with more or less certainty, one or more of the extant Dharma- or Gi-hya-sutras. But there are but four passages in which evidence is clear that they have been taken from the Manu-smrti, while it is possible that five others have come from that source. Thus, finally, if the sections chosen from these two Smrtis may be taken as being fairly representative of the entire works, and although in some cases where there is verbal agreement between the texts of Manu and Yajnavalkya and two or more Dharma-siitras, it is of course possible that the Msnava and Yajhavalklya Dharma-sutras likewise contained the same reading, still, these figures will serve, in a measure, to show to what ex- tent the authors of these metrical Smrtis have drawn on the Dharma- and Grhya-sutras, and how far they are indebted to the philosophical schools and those "other sources", which must always remain unknown, for that mass of material which has been employed in welding together the genuine Sutra portions of these Smftis into their present conglomerate form, and has contributed largely in giving to them their universal character. BIBLIOGRAPHY. Apastamba: Aphorisms on the Sacred Laws of the Hindus; Text, ed. by Dr. George Biihler CLE. Part L Bombay, 1892. BSS. No. XLIY. — Translated by Georg Biihler in Sacred Books of East, vol. LC, Oxford, 1879. — 46 — Baudhayanadharmasdstra: Text ed. by E. Hultzsch, Ph. D., in Abh. f. d. Kunde des Morgenlandes. VUT. Band. No. 4. — Translated by Georg Biihler in SEE., vol. XIV. Oxford, 1882. Gautama: The Institutes of, Text ed. by Adolf Friedrich Stenzler. London, 1876. — Translated by Georg Buhler in SBE., vol. 11. Oxford, 1879. Manava-Dharma-sastra : Text ed. by J. Jolly, Ph. D. London, 1887. — Tranlated by Q. Buhler in SBE., vol. XXV. Oxford, 1886. Vasishta: Aphorisms on the Sacred Law of the Aryas etc Text ed. by Eev. Alois Anton Fiihrer, Ph. D. Bombay, 1883. — Translated by Georg Buhler in SBE., vol. XIV. Oxford, 1882. Vishnu: The Institutes of. Text, ed. by Julius Jolly, Ph. D. Calcutta, 1881. — Translated by Julius JoUy, in SBE., vol. YU. Oxford, 1880. Tajnavalkya's Gesetzbuch: Sanskrit und Deutsch, herausgegeben von Dr. Adolf Friedrich Stenzler. London, 1849. Berlin. ApastamUya Grhya-sutra, The; Text ed. by Dr. M. Winternitz. Vienna, 1887. — Translated by Hermann Oldenberg in SBE., vol. XXX. Ox- ford, 1892. Asvalayana Grhya-sutra: Text, herausgegeben von Adolf Friedrich Stenzler, in Abh. f. d. Kunde d. Morgenlandes. m. Band. No. 4. Leipzig, 1864. — Translated by Hermann Oldenberg in SBE., vol. XXTX , Oxford, 1886. G^oftMa Grhya-sutra: Text, herausgegeben von Friedrich Knauer. Dorpat, 1884. — Translated by Hermann Oldenberg in SBE., vol. XXX. Ox- ford, 1892. Hiranydkesin: Grhya-sutra of, Text ed. by Dr. J. Kirste. Vienna, 1889. — Translated by Hermann Oldenberg in SBE. vol. XXX . Oxford, 1892. Khadira Grhya-sutra: Text and Translation by Hermann Olden- berg, in SBE. vol. XXIX. Oxford, 1886. Paraskara Grhya-sutra; Text. Bombay Samrat 1946, (1889). — Translated by Hermann Oldenberg in SBE. vol. XXTX. Oxford, 1886. — 47 — Sanhhayana G-rhya-sutra: Text (und Uebersetzung) herausge- geben von Dr. Albrecht Weber in Indische Studien XV. Band. Leipzig, 1878. — Translated by Hermann Oldenberg in SEE. vol. XXIX. Oxford, 1886. Jaska's NiruJcta sammt den Nighantavas, herausgegeben von Rudolph Eoth. Grottingen, 1852. Samhitopanishadbrahmana of the Sama Veda. Sanskrit Text &c. ed. by A. C. BurneU Ph. D. Mangalore, 1877. Mahabhdrata. Text, 4 vols. Calcutta, 1834—1839. Jolly: Outliaes of an History of the Hindu Law. Calcutta, 1885. M. Muller: A History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature. London, 1859. V. Schroeder: Indiens Literatur und Cultur in Historischer Ent- ' wickelung. Leipzig, 1887. Burnell-Hopkitis : The Ordinances of Manu. (Introduction). London, 1884. JoJmentgen : Ueber das Gesetzbuch des Manu. BerUn, 1863. HopMns: The Mutual Eolations of the Four Castes according to the Manavadharma^astram. Leipzig, 1881. West and BUhler: A Digest of the Hindu Law. Third edition. Vol. L Bombay, 1884. Indische Studien, I Band, herausgegeben von Dr. Albrecht Weber. Berlin, 1850. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. XI, New-Haven, 1885. Zeitschrift d. d. Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft. XXXVI Band. Leipzig, 1882. VITA. I, George Burnham Beaman, was bom on the first day of April 1870, in Cincinnati, Ohio, U. S. A'. My father, Rev. Edmund A. Beaman is a minister of the Swedenborgian Faith. At the age of six years I was placed in the Public Schools of Oincinnati,- where I pursued the regular course of instruction offered in the District, Intermediate and High Schools, and then entered the University of Cincinnati, from which I graduated with the degree of Bachelor of Arts in June 1893. During the winter of 1892 I traveled in the capacity of private tutor, through the Souttern States and CaHfornia. In August 1893, I came abroad and matriculated first in the University of Jena, and the following Semester, in the University of Leipzig. I have heard courses of lectures by Professor WindiscK, Lindner, Volkelt, Brugmann, Bibbeck, Delbriick, Cappeller, Goetz, Hirzel, Schrader and Gaedechens. While in Leipzig, my progress in Sanskrit studies has been largely due to Professor Windisch, for whose generous assistance and encouragement I feel duly and warmly grateful. Pbihtxd bt W. Dboodlin, IlSIPZIO.