30. The Smritis
Volume I: Part I pp. 299–306
The term smṛti is understood in two principal senses: it refers broadly to all orthodox ancient non-Vedic works, encompassing texts like Pāṇini's grammar, Śrauta sūtras, and the Mahābhārata. Within the Manusmṛti itself, Manu Prajāpati is frequently referenced, appearing as a primeval figure among ten Prajāpatis. While scholarly critiques, such as those by Hopkins, exist concerning Manu, the text meticulously details the world's creation by Paramātman. Internal evidence, including mentions of human authors like Atri and Bhṛgu, and to dasyus speaking mleccha and Ārya languages, suggests the extant Manusmṛti is not older than 200 B.C. This dating is corroborated by external evidence from early commentators like Medhātithi—whose is the first extant commentary—and citations by Viśvarūpa, Śaṅkara, Kumārila, Śabara, Bṛhaspati, Aśvaghoṣa's Vajrasūci, and the Rāmāyaṇa. Thus, the extant Manusmṛti is generally dated to between the 2nd century B.C. and the 2nd century A.D. The Manusmṛti exhibits earlier and later strata, evident in contradictory statements regarding a Brāhmaṇa marrying a śūdra woman, appropriate forms of marriage, niyoga, and flesh-eating. Bühler's analysis identifies cosmological and philosophical portions in the 1st and 12th books, and rules concerning mixed castes in the 10th book, as later additions, all integrated before the 3rd century A.D., though the text did not suffer multiple recasts. Vṛddha Manu and Bṛhan-Manu are considered later compositions. The relationship between the Mahābhārata and Manu is intricate, with conflicting scholarly views. While Manu mentions names and stories traceable to Vedic antiquities, it never explicitly names the Mahābhārata, which, in turn, often refers to 'rājadharma' or 'śāstra of Manu'. The final conclusion posits that a dharmasastra attributed to Svāyaṁbhuva Manu and a rājadharma work attributed to Pracetasa Manu existed long before the 4th century B.C., likely as one work, which was subsequently recast into the extant Manusmṛti between 200 B.C. and 200 A.D., with the extant Mahābhārata being a later composition. The influence of Manu spread significantly, extending to countries like Cambodia beyond India. This pivotal text has attracted numerous commentators, including Medhātithi, Govindarāja, Kullūka, Nārāyaṇa, Rāghavānanda, Nandana, and Rāmachandra, alongside others such as Asahāya, Udayākara, and Dharaṇīdhara, who enriched its exegesis. Works cited as Vṛddha Manu and Bṛhan-Manu, if distinct, are understood to have been composed before the 7th century A.D.
— Synopsis by P.V. Kane, from History of Dharmaśāstra
30. The Smritis
30. The Smṛtis
The word smṛti is used in two senseṣ It is applied to all ancient orthodox non-Vedic works such as Pāṇini’s gram-mar, to the śrauta, gṛhya and dharma sūtras, to the Mahābhā-rata, to Manu, Yājñavalkya and otherṣ In a narrower sense smṛti and dharmaśāstra are synonyms, as Manu sayṣ304 The word smṛti occurs in Taittirīya Āraṇyaka ( I. 2). Gautama (Dh. S. I. 2) and Vasiṣṭha (Dh. S. I. 4) speak of smṛti as one of the sources of Dharma. Āp. Dh. S. (II. 6. 15. 25) employs the word smṛti and has in view Gautama’s Dharma-sūtra according to Haradatta. In the Pūrvamīmāmsā-sūtra the word smṛti occurs (vide VI. 8. 23 and XII. 4. 42).305 In the Vedantāśūtras the word smṛti is employed in a wide sense, in one place as referring even to the sāṁkhya systeṃ306 In that work the word is used, according to Śaṅkara, with reference to the Mahābhārata or the Manusmṛti (Vedānta- sūtra II. 3. 47, III. 1. 14, IV. 2. 14).
Manu applies the word Smṛti also to works that are opposed to and beyond the pale of the Veda ( on XII. 95 ).4 But the word is used in this work in a narrower sense viz. Smṛti means a work that is not opposed to the Veda or that does not treat the Veda as not authoritative and treats of varṇa, jāti, āśramas and cognate topicṣ The word Smṛti occurs in the Mahābhārata (Śāntiparva 85. 10). But the more frequent word is Dharmaśāstra, though Manu (II. 10) says ‘Smṛti is Dharmaśāstra.’ On Pāṇ. I. 2. 645 there is a vāṛtika ‘Dharmaśāstram ca tathā’ (39 in vol. I. p. 242 of Kiel- horn’s eḍ). Passages in the Mahābhāṣya show that Patañjali jali had before him a large smṛti literature. Vide I. H. Q. vol. II. pp. 67 ff; I. A. vol. 14. pp. 326–27 (Kielhorn), I. H. Q. vol. XI. pp. 79–90; Dr. F. W. Thomas Presentation Volume pp. 128–133 on ‘Mahābhārata verses and very ancient Dharma- sūtras and other works’ ( by the present author ). The Mahā- bhārata is spoken of as dharmaśāstra, Arthaśāstra and Kāma- śāstra (in Ādi. 2. 383). The word Dharmaśāstresu or Dhar- maśāstrāṇi (in the plural ) occurs frequently in the great epic ( vide Vanaparva 207. 83, 293. 34, 313. 5; Śānti. 24. 13, 297. 40, Anuśāsana 90. 34 ). The extant Manusmṛti also (in III 232) mentions “Dharmaśāstrāṇi.” Dharmaśāstra is a much wider term than Dharmasūtra. The Dharmasūtras are only a few while there are dozens of Dharmaśāstraṣ Vide p. 21 above for points of difference between Dharmasūtras and Dharmaśāstraṣ
It may be stated that Inscriptions from comparatively early times refer to Smṛtis, particularly to the Smṛti of Manu. The Valabhi grant of Dhruvasena of Valabhi year 207 (i. e. 525 A. D.) published in I. A. vol. II. p. 205 qualifies the king as ‘Manvādi-praṇīta-vidhi vidhāna-dharma.’ The Palitana plates of Simhadeva in the year 255 of the Valabhi era (i. e. 574 A. D.) in E. I. Vol. XI. pp 16–20 of the Sāmanta-Mahārāja-Simhā- ditya speaks of Varāhadāsa (the father of the ruling chief) as ‘one whose intellect was purified by plunging into the, waters of the several Smṛtis composed by Manu and otherṣ Similarly, in the Palitana plates of Dharasena II of (Gupta Samvat ) 232 (i. e. 571 A. D. ) in E. I. Vol. XI. pp. 80 at p. 82, we have the striking description of Guhasena (father of Dharasena) as one in whose case the title ‘rāja’ was significant because he pleased the hearts of his subjects by properly observing the path laid down by all Smṛtis (sakala-smṛti- praṇīta-mārga-samyak-paripālana-prajā-hṛdaya-rañjanād- anvartha-rāja-śabdaḥ). In the Pulibumra plates of the Estern Cālukya king Jayasimha I (632–663 A. D.) occur the words ‘Bṛhaspatiriva nayajño Manuriva vinayajñaḥ, Yudhiṣṭhira- iva dharmaparāyaṇaḥ’ (E. I. vol. 15 at p. 256).
The same words (i. e. those in E. I. Vol. XI. at p. 82) occur in the Wala plate of Guhasena of Saṁvat 246 (of the Valabhi era, i. e. 565 A. D.). A much later grant of Chāha- māna Ratnapāla of the Vikrama year 1176 (1119–20 A. D.) in (E. I. XI. pp. 304–313) speaks of the donee as devoted to . the study of Itihāsa–Purāṇa–Rāmāyaṇa–Bhārata–pada–vākya Yājñavalkya–Kātyāyana–Bhrgu Angiro–Mārkaṇḍeya – Bhat-tadarśanādi–ṣaṭśāstrābhiratasya ' (on p. 311). Here the Smṛti authors Yājñavalkya, Kātyāyana, Bhrgu (meaning probably ‘Manu’), Angiras and Mārkaṇḍeya are specially mentioned, besides the six Philosophical systems of Bhatta (i.e. Kumārila ) and otherṣ
Smṛtis mirrored the beliefs and practices of people and also influenced writers and ordinary people. For example, Dr. Sternbach in Journal of Bhāratiya-Vidȳā, Vol. XI. ( 1961 pp. 221-309 ), shows how the Pañcatantra stories are often based on or relate to separate judicial problems of civil and criminal law as well as procedure, although it does not solve any of the problems raiseḍ The Raghuvaṁśa ( I. 17 ) states that the subjects of Dilīpa did not swerve in the least from the beaten path laid down from the days of Manu. In Raghu-vaṁśa XIV. 67 Kālidāsa says that Manu laid down that the Dharma of a king was to safeguard varṇas and āśramas ( vide Manusmṛti VII. 35 ). The drama Mṛcchakaṭika ( Act IX ) shows that a Brāhmaṇa guilty of murder was not to be sentenced to death and the judge refers to the dictum of Manu ( pro-bably Manusmṛti VIII. 380 ) to that effect.
In ancient times the number of smṛtis ( i. e. works on dharmaśāstra ) must have been very small. Gautama men-tions by name no smṛtikāra except Manu, though he speaks of dharmaśāstras ( XI. 19 ). Baudhāyana names seven (besides himself ) authors on dharma, viz. Aupajanghaui, Kātya, Kāśyapa, Gautama, Prajāpati, Maudgalya and Hārīta. Vasi-ṣṭha names only five authors, Gautama, Prajāpati, Manu, Yama and Hārīta. Āpastamba mentions a large number, viz. ten, some of whom like Eka, Kūṇika and Puskarasādi are no more than mere names to uṣ Manu speaks of only six ( besides himself ) viz. Atri, the son of Utathya, Bhrgu, Vasiṣṭha Vaikhānasa ( or rather Vikhanas ) and Saunaka. But in all these works the writers are mentioned only casually and there is no regular enumeration or list of writers on dharma in one place. Aparārka quotes (p. 7) a sūtra of Gautama (not found in the printed G. Dh. S.) in which sixteen authors of dharmaśāstras including himself are enumerateḍ6 The same sūtra with slight variations is ascribed to Śaṅkha-Likhita in the Viramitrodaya (Paribhāṣā-prakāśa p. 16). Yājñavalkya is probably the earliest writer who enumerated in one place (I. 4-5) twenty expounders of dharma (including himself and counting Śaṅkha and Likhita as two distinct persons). It will be noticed that Yāj. omits Baudhāyana. Parāśara also gives a list of 19 expounders of dharma (excluding himself), but his list differs slightly from that of Yāj. Parāśara omits Bṛhaspati, Yama and Vyāsa and adds Kāśyapa, Gārgya and Pracetaṣ The Tantra-vartika (p. 125) of Kumārila speaks of eighteen dharmasamhitāṣ Viśvarūpa quotes a verse of Vrddha-Yājñavalkya, who adds ten names to the list of Yājñavalkya (vide note 262 above).7 The Caturvimsatimata is a work which professes to give the views of 24 sages on dharmaśāstra, viz. all those listed by Yāj. (except Kātyāyana and Likhita) and six more, viz. Gārgya, Nārada, Baudhāyana, Vatsa, Viśvāmitra, Śaṅkha (Sānkhyāyana?), Angiras as quoted in the Smṛticandrikā (I. 1), Hemādri (Dānakhaṇḍa p. 528), the Sarasvativilāsa (p. 13) and other works mention Upasmrtiṣ8 There is a smṛti called Sattrimśanmata quoted by the Mit., Aparārka and other workṣ Paithinasi as quoted in the Smṛticandrikā, the Samskāramayūkha and other works enumerates 36 smṛtis9 Aparārka says that the Bhavisyatpurāṇa speaks of 36 smṛtis and his enumeration of them is slightly different from that of Paithīnasi.313 The Vṛddhagautamasmṛti (Jivananda part II. pp. 498-499) gives a list of 57 dharma-śāstraṣ The Prayoga-pārijāta as quoted in the Vīramitrodaya enumerates 18 principal smṛtis, 18 upasmṛtis and 21 other smṛtikāraṣ314 If all the smṛtis cited in the later nibandhas such as the Nirṇayasindhu, the Mayūkhas of Nīlakaṇṭha and the Viramitrodaya be taken into account, the number of smṛtis will be found to be about 100.
The smṛtis thus relied upon are the products of different and widely separated ageṣ Some of them are entirely in prose or in mixed prose and verse, while the large majority are in verse. A few of them are very ancient and were composed centuries before the Christian era. Such are the dharma-sūtras of Gautama, Āpastamba, Baudhāyana, and the Manusmṛti. Some were composed in the first centuries of the Christian era such as the smṛtis of Yājñavalkya, Parāśara, Nārada. Most of the smṛtis other than the above fall between the period from 400 A. D. to 1000 A. D. The chronology of all these smṛtis presents perplexing problemṣ Some of the metrical smṛtis are remodellings of older sūtras as in the case of Śaṅkha. There are sometimes as many as two or three different smṛtis going under the same name, e. g. Śātātapa, Hārita, Atri. Then the confusion is worse confounded by the fabrications of sectarian zeal, such as the Hāritasmṛti which is full of Vaiṣṇavite teachingṣ There are several works going under the names of well-known smṛtikāras with the prefixes Vṛddha, Bṛhat, Laghu. In many cases the works going under these names are different from the smṛtis that are without these prefixes and this differentiation took place at a very early date in certain cases; for example, so early a writer as Viśvarūpa distinguishes between Yājñavalkya and Vṛddha-Yājñavalkya, Gārgya and Vṛddha-Gārgya. Similarly, Viśvarūpa quotes (on Yāj. I. 69) Vṛddha-Manu and (on Yāj. I. 19) Vṛddha-Vasiṣṭha, which latter probably was different from the Vasiṣṭhadharmasūtra, as the latter does not contain the details given by Viśvarūpa.13 In some cases the works designated Vṛddha or Bṛhat are larger and in all cases later than the works without those prefixeṣ For exam- ple, vide Parāśara and Bṛhat-Parāśara (Jīvānanda part II. pp. 53-309), Gautama and Vṛddha-Gautama (Jīvānanda part II. pp. 497-638). Some of the works with the prefix Vṛddha are versified compilations of prose works e. g. Mit. on Yāj. III. 267 quotes a verse from Vṛddha-Viṣṇu which is merely the versified equivalent of Viṣṇu-dharmasūtra chap. 50, 6, 12-14. It appears that sometimes the same work is cited with the prefix Vṛddha or Bṛhat, e. g. the Mit. on Yāj. II. 135 quotes a passage from Bṛhad-Viṣṇu which is the same as the Viṣṇudharmasūtra 17. 4-7.
As most of the writers quote from memory and had recourse to msṣ and not to standard editions, even well-known verses are ascribed to different authors in different workṣ The verses 'bhrātṛṇām-aprajāḥ' &c. which are quoted as Nārada's (Nārada 16. 25-26) in the Vyavahāramayūkha are attributed to Śaṅkha in the Madanapārijāta (p. 680). The three verses about bandhus are ascribed to Baudhāyana by Mādhava and to Vṛddhaśātātapa by the Madanapārijāta (p. 674).
In spite of all these drawbacks, an attempt will be made in the following pages to arrange some of the leading versified smṛtis in chronological order beginning from the Manusmṛti. All these smṛtis are not equal in authority. Most of them are obscure and are only rarely cited by ancient commentatorṣ Exclusive of the dharmasūtras hardly a dozen smṛtis have found commentatorṣ If we are to judge of the authority of a smṛti by the commentaries thereon, then the Manusmṛti stands pre-eminent. Next to it is the Yājñavalkyasmṛti.