Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

manu and arthasastra

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

http://www.kluweronline.com/issn/0022-1791/contents

PATRICK OLIVELLE

MANU AND THE ARTHA ´S ¯ ASTRA

A Study in ´ S¯astric Intertextuality

An individual belonging to and writing within a tradition of expert knowledge

(´s¯astra) is likely to compare and contrast his or her views to other

exponents of that tradition. Modern scholars do this by means of bibliographical

notes. Ancient Indian scholars resorted to several strategies,

including citation of authoritative works, as well as presenting and

combating opposing (p¯urvapaks. a) views. Within the expert tradition of

dharma, the earliest extant texts, the Dharmas¯utras, frequently cite opinions

of other experts with which the authors often disagree. This strategy is

also evident in the Artha´s¯astra (A´S) and must have been a common practice

among the early ´s¯astric writers. The overlap between topics dealt with

in the ´s¯astric texts devoted to dharma and artha, especially with regard

to the king and government, has been noted in previous scholarship.1

This paper, however, explores a different kind of ´s¯astric intertextuality:

an author’s use of and dependence on a pre-existing textual tradition in the

creation of a new text. The author of the M¯anava Dharma´s¯astra evidently

used pre-existing sources in composing his treatise.2 Here I explore the

connections between Manu and the Artha´s¯astra of Kaut.alya.3

Given the problems inherent in the dating of these two texts, it is not

possible to assert with a high degree of confidence who is borrowing from

whom. I do agree with Kangle, however, that it is most likely that at least

sections of the Artha´s¯astra are older than Manu and are the source for

some of the passages and vocabulary I will discuss below.4 The vocabulary

1 See, Jolly, 1913; Winternitz, 1926–1928. The relationship of the K¯aty¯ayanasmr

°

ti to

the A´ S was dealt with briefly by Kane (p. xiii) in the introduction to his edition of that smr

°

ti

(Poona: Oriental Book Agency, n.d.).

2 There has been an ongoing debate about whether the metrical text we possess was a

versification of an earlier M¯anava Dharmas¯utra, a theory first proposed by Max Müller

and given wide publicity by Bühler. The theory was rejected by Kane and has now

few supporters. See, Olivelle (forthcoming) for Manu’s dependence on the Gautama

Dharmas¯utra, and also my introduction to Olivelle, 2004.

3 Kaut.alya refers to a school of M¯anavas to which he ascribes several opinions. It

is doubtful that this Artha´s¯astric school of M¯anavas has any connection to the M¯anava

Dharma´s¯astra: see, Kangle, 1964: 49–50; 1965: III: 80.

4 See, Trautmann, 1971: 185–186; Kangle, 1964, 1963–1965: III: 80–83. I do not accept

all of Kangle’s arguments, some of which are rather weak. Nevertheless, a good case

Journal of Indian Philosophy 32: 281–291, 2004.

© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

282 PATRICK OLIVELLE

analysis does not support Jolly’s (1923) and Fezas’s (1996) contention

that the A´ S is contemporaneous with the late smr

..

ti texts of Y¯ajñavalkya

and N¯arada. My intent, however. is to show that Manu borrowed from the

Artha´s¯astric tradition in his treatment of the king and civil administration,

and of criminal and civil law (r¯ajadharma and vyavah¯ara) rather than to

demonstrate his direct dependence on the extant Artha´s¯astra, although this

appears likely in at least in some passages. This study will also show that

it is not possible to understand the vocabulary of Manu without reference

to the technical terms developed within the Artha´s¯astric tradition.

Perhaps the clearest interconnection betweenManu and the Artha´s¯astra

at the level of both text and vocabulary is found in the following passages

dealing with judicial procedure and reasons for losing a case.5

Manu 8.52–57

apahnave ’dhamarn. asya deh¯ýty uktasya sam. sadi /

abhiyokt¯a di´sed de´sam. karan. am. v¯anyad uddi´set // 52

ade´sam. ya´s ca di´sati nirdi´sy¯apahnute ca yah. /

ya´s c¯adharottar¯an arth¯an vig¯ýt¯an n¯avabudhyate // 53

apadi´sy¯apade´syam. ca punar yas tv apadh¯avati /

samyak pran. ihitam. c¯artham. pr

°

s. t.ah. san n¯abhinandati // 54

asam. bh¯as. ye s¯aks. ibhi´s ca de´se sam. bh¯as. ate mithah. /

nirucyam¯anam. pra´snam. ca necched ya´s c¯api nis. patet // 55

br¯uh¯ýty ukta´s ca na br¯uy¯ad uktam. ca na vibh¯avayet /

na ca p¯urv¯aparam. vidy¯at tasm¯ad arth¯at sa h¯ýyate // 56

s¯aks. in. ah. santi mety uktv¯a di´sety ukto di´sen na yah. /

dharmasthah. k¯aran. air etair h¯ýnam. tam api nirdi´set // 57

52When the debtor, told in court to pay up, denies the charge, the plaintiff should produce

a document (de´sa) or offer some other evidence. 53When the plaintiff produces something

that is not documentary evidence (ade´sa); produces and then disavows it; does not realize

that his earlier points contradict the ones he makes subsequently; 54states his case and then

backs away from it; does not acknowledge under questioning a point that has been clearly

established; 55secretly discusses with witnesses a document (de´sa) which is prohibited

from being discussed; objects to a question clearly articulated; retreats; 56does not speak

when he is ordered ‘Speak!’; does not prove what he asserts; and does not understand what

goes before and what after – such a plaintiff loses his suit. 57When a plaintiff says ‘I have

people who know’, but when told ‘Produce them’ does not produce them, the judge should

declare him also the loser for these very reasons.

A´S 3.1.19

(a) nibaddham. v¯adam utsr

°

jy¯anyam. v¯adam. sam. kr¯amati, (b) p¯urvoktam. pa´scimen¯arthena

n¯abhisam. dhatte, © parav¯akyam anabhigr¯ahyam abhigr¯ahy¯avatis. t.hate, (d) pratijñ¯aya

can be made, I believe, for the Arth´s¯astra being prior to Manu. At least in the sections

on the king and jurisprudence, Manu appears to have leaned heavily on the Artha´s¯astric

tradition.

5 Kangle, 1964 already drew attention to this parallel, but he did so only briefly and

without analysing the text or the vocabulary.

MANU AND THE ARTHA ´ S ¯ ASTRA 283

de´sam. nirdi´setyukte na nirdi´sati, (e) h¯ýnade´sam ade´sam. v¯a nirdi´sati, (f) nirdis. t. ¯ad de´s¯ad

anyam. de´sam upasth¯apayati, (g) upasthite de´se ’rthavacanam. naivam ity apavyayate,

(h) s¯aks. ibhir avadhr

°

tam. necchati, (i) asam. bh¯as. ye de´se s¯aks. ibhir mithah. sam. bh¯as. ate, (j) iti

paroktahetavah. //

(a) When someone casts aside the plaint as recorded and moves on to another plaint;

(b) does not make a point made later accord with what was stated before; © after

challenging an unchallengeable statement of the opponent, remains (stubborn); (d) promises

to produce a document (de´sa), but when told ‘Produce it’, does not produce it;

(e) produces a defective document (h¯ýnade´sa) or something that is not documentary

evidence [or a false document: ade´sa]; (f) puts forward a document (de´sa) different from

the document (de´sa) specified; (g) denies a significant statement in the document (de´sa) he

has put forward, saying ‘It is not so’; (h) does not accept what has been ascertained through

witnesses; (i) secretly discusses with witnesses a document (de´sa) which is prohibited from

being discussed. (j) These are the reasons for loss of suit.

Manu’s discussion is clearly longer and includes items not noted by the

Artha´s¯astra; but the connection between the two passages is unmistakable.

The closest parallels are:

Manu 52–53 and A´ S (d)–(f),

apahnave ’dhamarn. asya deh¯ýty uktasya pratijñ¯aya de´sam. nirdi´setyukte na nirdi´sati

sam. sadi / abhiyokt¯a di´sed de´sam. karan. am. h¯ýnade´sam ade´sam. v¯a nirdi´sati, nirdis. t. ¯ad

v¯anyad uddi´set // ade´sam. ya´s ca di´sati de´s¯ad anyam. de´sam upasth¯apayati

nirdi´sy¯apahnute ca yah. / ya´s c¯adharottar¯an

arth¯an vig¯ýt¯an n¯avabudhyate //

Manu 54 (p¯adas b–c) and A´ S (i):

asam. bh¯as. ye s¯aks. ibhi´s ca de´se sam. bh¯as. ate asam. bh¯as. ye de´se s¯aks. ibhir mithah.

mithah. / sam. bh¯as. ate

What binds the two passages together, however, is the obscure and

obsolete word de´sa, whose meaning appears to have been long forgotten by

the time of Manu’s commentators. Indeed, many commentators of Manu,

including Kull¯uka, and most printed editions substitute the reading de´sya

for de´sa.6 Following this reading, Bühler translates p¯adas c–d of verse 52:

"the complainant must call (a witness) who was present (when the loan was

made), or adduce other evidence". The many parenthetical words indicate

the problem Bühler had with the term. He takes it as a roundabout way of

referring to an eye witness, without explaining why Manu did not use the

perfectly clear word s¯aks. in. In a footnote, Bühler notes the variant reading

de´sa of Medh¯atithi and others and states that the meaning would then be

that the plaintiff "(must point out) the place", giving de´sa its common

6 The reading de´sa is adopted by Jolly (1887) and by me in my forthcoming critical

edition (Olivelle, 2004).

284 PATRICK OLIVELLE

meaning. The latter meaning is ascribed to the term also by Derrett (1975),

and here he follows Bh¯aruci’ s explanation of the term.7 The commentators

generally follow the one or the other interpretation: ‘place’ in Bh¯aruci,

Sarvajña-N¯ar¯ayan. a, and Nandana; ‘witness’ in Medh¯atithi, Govindar¯aja,

Kull¯uka, R¯aghav¯ananda, R¯amacandra, and Man. ir¯ama.

In the A´ S, the reading is clearly de´sa and the context provides better

clues as to its meaning. That the term refers to some form of evidence

is clear. Kangle (1965–1972) takes it to mean evidence in general8 and

translates the sections (d)–(g) as follows: "after making an affirmation does

not indicate the evidence when asked to do so, indicates weak evidence or

false evidence, produces evidence other than that indicated, when evidence

is produced denies a statement in the matter saying ‘it is not so’ ".9 I think

Kangle is right in taking de´sa to be a term referring to evidence; but he is

wrong in taking it to mean evidence in general. In s¯utra (d), for example,

Kangle takes pratijñ¯aya as standing alone; I think it should govern the

following accusative de´sam: "having promised a de´sa." It is superfluous

to note that a plaintiff would promise to produce evidence in support

of his claim; this would be expected by the normal rules of procedure.

Further, taking de´sa as evidence in general makes it difficult to understand

the meaning of ade´sa and h¯ýnade´sa occurring in the very next s¯utra (e).

Kangle’s translation ‘weak evidence’ and ‘false evidence’ does not seem

plausible. Under his interpretation of de´sa, the expressions should mean

‘non-evidence’ and ‘deficient evidence’, both somewhat problematic.

A comparison with Manu 8.52 helps us narrow down the meaning.

abhiyokt¯a di´sed de´sam. karan. am. v¯anyad uddi´set //

The plaintiff should produce a de´sa or offer some other evidence.

The plaintiff is required either to produce a de´sa or to offer another karan. a.

It is clear that de´sa is viewed here as a sub-category of karan. a.10 The

latter term, of course, has many meanings; but within the judicial context

it refers to an evidentiary instrument, including a written document, as seen

7 The same meaning is found also in the translations by Burnell (1884) and Doniger

(1991), although she takes it to be a reference to a witness who was at the place where the

transaction took place.

8 See the note to his translation of s¯utra 3.1.15: "In s. 19 below, de´sa seems distinguished

from s¯aks. in. It may be understood as evidence in general". The term de´sa occurs

at A´ S 3.16.29; 4.6.9 as title of ownership, and here also a written proof of ownership may

have been meant. See, Kangle, 1965: III: 218.

9 Shamasastry (1915) clearly did not understand the meaning of the term and translates

it as ‘question’ at issue.

10 That karan. a could also refer to documentary evidence is indicated by its use at A´ S

3.1.16, where a later karan. a annuls an earlier one. See, Kangle, 1965: III: 218.

MANU AND THE ARTHA ´ S ¯ ASTRA 285

in many A´ S passages.11 I believe that in this context of evidentiary instruments,

de´sa means a piece of documentary evidence. The term lekhya for

a document produced as evidence, a term that becomes standard in later

dharma texts,12 is not found in either the A´ S or Manu within the context of

judicial proceedings, even though the A´S uses the term for other kinds of

writing.13 The conclusion then is that de´sa was an old term for a document

produced in a court of law, possibly related to di´s in the sense of pointing

out; see the expression di´set desam in Manu 8.52. Within this context

it is easier to understand the meanings of ade´sa and h¯ýnade´sa. The first

is a document that does not count as a proper legal document, and the

second is a document that is in some way deficient, for example, without

the signatures of the witnesses or damaged at some significant point. We

cannot say more than this without a clearer idea about the physical makeup

of early Indian court documents.

This passage is also the only place where Manu uses the Artha´s¯astric

term dharmastha for a judge; elsewhere he uses the normal Dharma´s¯astric

term pr¯ad. viveka.14 In this passage, we see a clear dependence of Manu on

the A´ S both textually and in terms of vocabulary.

Several other textual parallels can be cited with regard to the dependence

of Manu on the A´ S.

Manu 8.279

yena kenacid aÿngena him. sy¯ac cec chres. t.ham antyajah. /

chettavyam. tat tad ev¯asya tan manor anu´s¯asanam //

When a lowest-born man uses a particular limb to injure a superior person, that very limb

of his should be cut off – that is Manu’s decree.

A´S 3.19.8

´s¯udro yen¯aÿngena br¯ahman. am abhihany¯at tad asya chedayet /

When a ´S¯udra uses a particular limb to injure a Brahmin, he [the judge] should have that

limb of his cut off.

In the above passage, one can see that Manu has given greater rhetorical

elaboration to the terse s¯utra of the A´ S.

Manu 8.242

anirda´s¯ah¯am. g¯am. s¯ut¯am. vr

°

s. ¯an devapa´s¯um. s tath¯a /

sap¯al¯an v¯a vip¯al¯an v¯a na dan. d. y¯an manur abrav¯ýt //

11 In the A´ S 3.1.17 the term appears to mean title of ownership; in 3.1.15–16 documents

drawn up during a transaction; and in 3.12.37–38, 4.8.13 evidence of a general sort.

12 See, for example, N¯arada Smr

°

ti 1.114–126; Y¯ajñavalkya Smr

°

ti 2.84–94.

13 See, A´ S 1.16.25; 2.7.28; 5.2.9; 11.1.52; 12.2.21. The term is missing in the MDh,

although we have lekhitam in MDh 8.168.

14 See, MDh 8.79, 181; 9.234.

286 PATRICK OLIVELLE

A cow within ten days after giving birth, bulls, and animals dedicated to gods are not

subject to punishment, whether they are attended by a herdsman or not – so has Manu

declared.

A´S 3.10.24

gr¯amadevavr

°

s. ¯a v¯a anirda´s¯ah¯a v¯a dhenur uks. ¯an. o govr

°

s. ¯a´s c¯adan. d. y¯ah. /

Bulls belonging to a village or temple, a cow within ten days after giving birth, and stud

bulls are not subject to punishment.

The verbal correspondences between the texts in these two examples are

clear, but especially noteworthy here is that in both cases the author of

Manu thought it necessary to explicitly ascribe this to Manu, with the two

standard phrases manur abrav¯ýt and manor anu´s¯asanam.

Manu 8.332

sy¯at s¯ahasam. tv anvayavat prasabham. karma yat kr

°

tam /

niranvayam. bhavet steyam. kr

°

tv¯apavyayate ca yat //

When an act is committed with force and in the presence (of the victim), it is ‘violence’;

when it is committed outside his presence, it is ‘theft’, and so is an act that someone

commits and then denies.

A´S 3.17.1–2

s¯ahasam anvayavat prasabhakarma / niranvaye steyam apavyayane ca /

When an act is committed with force and in the presence (of the victim), it is ‘violence’;

when it is committed outside his presence, it is ‘theft’, and also when it is denied.

In this passage also the A´ S is terse and precise and Manu, as usual, is more

verbose. We have here a clear statement defining two forms of stealing:

robbery that involves violence in the presence of the owner (what we

would call today ‘mugging’), and theft that is done clandestinely when

the owner is not present. The two significant and obscure terms, anvaya

and niranvaya, are used only here in the A´ S, whereas in Manu we have

two other occurrences: 8.198, 331. These terms have been subject to much

misunderstanding; they clearly mean "in the presence of" and "outside the

presence of", respectively. The occurrence of these two terms in Manu and

the A´ S is even more significant, because they fell out of use in later texts.15

Textual convergence is also found in the discussion of the two forces

that impact on the success of enterprises, fate and human effort.

Manu 7.205

sarvam. karmedam ¯ayattam. vidh¯ane daivam¯anus. e /

tayor daivam acintyam. tu m¯anus. e vidyate kriy¯a //

15 Only the K¯aty¯ayanasmr

°

ti (796) has this term, probably in a verse that is a paraphrase

of Manu: s¯anvayas tv apah¯aro yah. prasahya haran. am. ca yat | s¯ahasam. ca bhaved evam.

steyam uktam. vinihnavah. ||.

MANU AND THE ARTHA ´ S ¯ ASTRA 287

All activities here depend on divine and human dispensations. Of these, however, the divine

is inscrutable; action is possible only with respect to the human.

A´S 6.2.6–12

m¯anus.am. nay¯apanyau daivam ay¯anayau / daivam¯anus.am. hi karma lokam. y¯apayati /

adr

°

s. t.ak¯aritam. daivam / . . . dr

°

s. t.ak¯aritam. m¯anus.am / . . . tac cintyam / acintyam. daivam //

Good policy and bad policy are acts of human agency; good fortune and bad fortune are

acts of divine agency, for acts of divine and human agency are what keeps the world going.

The divine is that whish is caused by an invisible agency . . . The human is that which is

caused by a visible agency. The latter can be scrutinized, while the divine is inscrutable.

Manu here appears to be a metrical synopsis of the longer A´ S statement,

with the significant terms cintya/acintya occurring in both.

The connection between Manu and the A´ S, however, goes deeper than

the mere presence of parallel texts.16 They share a common and unusual

vocabulary. I have already noted the term de´sa for documentary evidence

presented in a court of law, dharmastha for judge, and the terms anvaya

and niranvaya in the context of robbery and theft. Another significant term

in the vocabulary unique to the two is verb prav¯asayet and the related

nouns prav¯asa/prav¯asana. These terms are employed frequently in the A´ S

both with the ordinary meaning of sending someone into exile and with

its more technical, perhaps euphemistic, meaning of putting someone to

death. The use of these terms in their technical meaning has been overlooked

by the translators and commentators of Manu alike, creating much

confusion and misunderstanding. Take, for instance, Manu 8.123:

kaut.as¯aks. yam. tu kurv¯an. ¯am. s tr¯ýn varn. ¯an dh¯armiko nr

°

pah. /

prav¯asayed dan. d. ayitv¯a br¯ahman. am. tu viv¯asayet //

When individuals of the three classes give false testimony, a righteous king should first fine

them and then execute them; a Brahmin, on the other hand, he should send into exile.

The major difficulty in interpreting this verse lies in the distinction between

prav¯asa (prescribed for the three lower classes) and viv¯asa (prescribed for

Brahmins). Bühler, Doniger, and Burnell take both to mean ‘banish’; the

difference then is that Brahmins are only banished, whereas the others are

both fined and banished. This is the interpretation offered by the commentators

N¯ar¯ayan. a, Kull¯uka, and R¯aghav¯ananda. Medh¯atithi and Govindar¯aja,

on the other hand, take viv¯asa to mean depriving of clothes, i.e., making

16 See also the parallels at Manu 7.99, 101 and A´ S 1.4.3 (see, Scharfe, 1993: 46–47);

Manu 8.87–101 and A´ S 3.11.34–37; Manu 8.299–300 and A´ S 3.3.8–9; Manu 9.153 and A´ S

3.6.17; Manu 8.224 and A´ S 3.15.14; Manu 8.159 and A´ S 3.16.9; Manu 8.367 and A´ S 4.12.3;

Manu 9.217 and A´ S 4.11.9; Manu 9.277 and A´ S 4.10.1; Manu 9.279 and A´ S 4.11.17; Manu

9.282 and A´ S 2.36.26–27; Manu 9.294–295 and A´ S 8.1.19; Manu 11.14 and A´ S 3.14.37;

Manu 7.105 and A´ S 1.15.60; Manu 11.14 and A´ S 3.14.37.

288 PATRICK OLIVELLE

him naked. Medh¯atithi thinks that the term may also mean depriving a

man of his house, taking v¯asa in the sense of a residence. I think all these

are mistaken. The correct interpretation is offered by the commentators

Bh¯aruci and Nandana, both significantly representing the southern tradition

where, I believe, the Artha´s¯astric traditions survived longer than in the

north. The term prav¯asayet in this verse of Manu has the same meaning

as parallel statements in the Artha´s¯astra,17 where it refers to execution.

Indeed, Medh¯atithi (on 8.284) calls this meaning an Artha´s¯astra usage

(artha´s¯astray¯a). Like the modem military-inspired term ‘liquidate’ or the

more common "get rid of", prav¯asayet may have been an euphemism for

imposing the death penalty. This meaning of the term is supported by the

very next section (8.124–130) that deals with corporal punishment. The

only other time that viv¯asa is used by Manu (9.241) it means exile; there

also it deals with Brahmins who should be sent into exile without confiscating

their property. The use of the term prav¯asayet with the technical

meaning of capital punishment becomes obsolete in later texts.18

Another technical term common and unique to Manu and the A´ S is

prakr

..

ta. The term is used in the A´ S at 2.7.10 and 2.8.24 with the clear

meaning of a government official or appointee of the king.

prac¯aracaritrasam. sth¯an¯any anupalabham¯ano hi prakr

°

tah. / (A´S 2.7.10)

For an officer not conversant with the activities, customs, and rules . . .

prac¯are c¯avaghos. ayet "amun¯a prakr

°

tenopahat¯ah. prajñ¯apayantu" iti / (A´S 2.8.24)

And he (the king) should make a proclamation within the (region of his) activity: "Those

wronged by that officer should make it known (to me)".

This is quite an unusual and possibly technical meaning of this term.

It occurs nowhere else in the legal literature except in Manu. At Manu

8.11 we have the expression rajña´s ca prakr

..

tah. with the meaning "an

officer/appointee of the king", here the judge. The inability to understand

this meaning of the term has led scribes and commentators to change

it to adhikr

..

ta, which Bühler translates as an adjective ‘appointed’ with

an implied noun: "the learned (judge) appointed by the king".19 Manu

also uses the verb prakurv¯ýta with the technical meaning of "appointing

officials" at 7.54, 60, 61, 63, an expression that is absent in the A´ S:

17 See, A´ S 1.18.16; 4.13.8, 9, 20, 21; 7.7.13; 11.1.33, 47; 12.3.4; 12.4.4; 12.5.23; 13.4.29.

Kangle correctly interprets this term to mean execution.

18 Indeed, even the modern Sanskrit dictionaries do not give this as one of the meanings

of the verb. They give the meaning of killing for prav¯asana, however, Böhtlink-Roth and

Monier-Williams ascribing this meaning simply to lexicons.

19 In my forthcoming critical edition of Manu (Olivelle, 2004), the original reading of

prakr

°

ta has been restored.

MANU AND THE ARTHA ´ S ¯ ASTRA 289

maul¯añ ch¯astravidah. ´s¯ur¯am. l labdhalaks. ¯an kulodgat¯an /

saciv¯an sapta c¯as. t.au v¯a prakurv¯ýta par¯ýks. it¯an // 7.54

The king should appoint seven or eight counselors. They must be individuals who are

natives of the land, well-versed in the Treatises, brave, well-accomplished, and coming

from illustrious families, individuals who have been thoroughly investigated.

any¯an api prakurv¯ýta ´suc¯ýn pr¯ajñ¯an avasthit¯an /

samyagarthasam¯ahart¯r

°

n am¯aty¯an supar¯iks. it¯an // 7.60

He should also appoint other officials. They must be individuals who are honest, intelligent,

steadfast, and able to collect revenues properly, individuals who have been thoroughly

investigated.

Once again it appears that this technical meaning is derived from the

Artha´s¯astric vocabulary.

Another Artha´s¯astric term used by Manu (7.207) and by no other

Dharma´s¯astric writer is p¯ars. n. igraha, "the heel-catcher", the technical term

for a king’s ally at the rear of an enemy who is attacking that king. This

ally can be called upon to launch an attack at the rear of the enemy, thus

relieving some of the pressure on his own forces,

The expression ´suddhavadha ("clean killing") as a technical term for

beheading is, in all probability, also from the Artha´s¯astric vocabulary.

Among the authors of Dharma´s¯astras, it is used only by Manu at 9.279.

Its meaning becomes clear only in its use within the A´ S,20 where this

expression is contrasted to citravadha (A´S 4.11.1), used once by Manu

(9.248) also, which refers to the execution of a criminal using torture,

dismemberment, and impalement, described in A´ S 4.11.7, 11, 13, 19.

The A´ S does not deal with ordeals at all in connection with deciding

cases brought before a court. Neither doesManu, except that he permits the

use of ´sapatha or oath. The A´ S uses the term ´sapatha seven times,21 mostly

with the meaning of simply oath. But at A´ S 3.1.46, where five means of

deciding a lawsuit are given, ´sapatha appears to imply also ordeals. Manu

also uses the term to cover some forms of ordeal. In the four verse (8.109–

112) he clearly employs the term simply for an oath. At 8.115, however,

he appears to refer to the fire and water ordeals with the term ´sapatha.

yam iddho na dahaty agnir ¯apo nonmajjayanti ca /

na c¯artim r

°

cchanti ks. ipram. sa jñeyah. ´sapathe ´sucih. //

When the blazing fire does not burn a man, the water does not push him up to the surface,

and no misfortune quickly strikes him, he should be judged innocent by reason of his

oath.22

20 A´ S 4.9.2; 4.10.16; 4.11.2, 15, 26.

21 A´ S 1.10.3; 3.1.46; 3.20.17; 7.17.3, 5, 7, 8.

22 For a description of these ordeals, see, N¯arada Smr

°

ti 20.1–24.

290 PATRICK OLIVELLE

Ordeals may also be implied in the use of the term at 8.190. It is remarkable,

however, that neither Manu nor the A´ S uses the word divya, which

becomes the standard term for ordeals in later legal literature.23

On a broader structural level, furthermore, it is clear that the eighteen

grounds for litigation (vyavah¯arapadas) that appears in Manu (Ch. 8–9)

for the first time within the Dharma´s¯astric tradition are derived from the

Artha´s¯astric tradition. The direct connection between the A´ S and Manu,

however, is less evident, because both the number and the order in which

the vyavah¯arapadas are enumerated in the two texts differ greatly.

The A´ S (1.19.6–25), furthermore, recommends that the king develop

a routine for the day and the night. He is asked to divide the day and the

night into eight parts each and to perform specific tasks during each period.

For example, during the first part of the day he reviews matters of defense

and revenue; during the second, looks into the affairs of the citizens; and

during the third; takes his bath and the midday meal. Likewise, during the

first part of the night he interviews secret agents. This admonition of the

A´ S, perhaps, was the inspiration for the structure that Manu gives to his

central section (Manu 7.145–226) on the duties of a king (r¯ajadharma). In

this section, Manu devices a narrative scheme to span a single day, from the

morning when the king wakes up until nightfall when he goes to bed.Manu

squeezes into a single day the description of all the duties of a king spread

over 182 verses: meeting with counselors, political strategies, conduct of

war and peace, strategies in the aftermath of a victory and conquest, as

well as the more commonplace matters of exercise, eating, recreation, and

sleep. The morning routine extends from 7.145 to 7.215; the afternoon

routine from 7.216 to 7.222; and the evening routine from 7.223 to 7.226.

This part concludes with the king going "to bed at the proper time and rise

up refreshed".

Although it is clear that Manu depended heavily on the Artha´s¯astric

tradition for his material on the king, government, law, and the judiciary,

Manu did not slavishly borrow from his sources. As I have shown elsewhere,

24 the M¯anava Dharma´s¯astra was written by a single individual

of great talent. He gave a deliberate and unique structure to his treatise.

The same attention to organization and systematic presentation is evident

also in his treatment of the material that overlap with the concerns of

the Artha´s¯astric tradition. Manu borrowed no doubt, but he integrated the

material he borrowed into his own organizational scheme, presenting thus

quite a unique text within the literary tradition of Dharma´s¯astra.

23 The A´ S uses the term divya at 13.1.8 but with a very different meaning.

24 See, Olivelle, 2002 and the introduction to my forthcoming critical edition of Manu

(Olivelle, 2004).

MANU AND THE ARTHA ´ S ¯ ASTRA 291

REFERENCES

Bühler, G. (Tr.) 1886. The Laws of Manu. Sacred Books of the East, 25. Oxford: Oxford

University Press.

Burnell, A.C. (Tr.) 1995. The Ordinances of Manu. Completed and edited by E.W.Hopkins,

1884. Reprint. Delhi: Mushiram Manoharlal.

Derrett, J.D.M. (Ed. and Tr.) 1975. Bh¯aruci’s Commentary on the Manusmr

°

ti (The Manu-

´S¯astra-Vivaran. a, Books 6–12), 2 vols. Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner.

Doniger, W. (Tr.) 1991. The Laws of Manu. London: Penguin.

Fezas, J. 1996. ´su´sr¯us. ¯a dans l’Artha´s¯astra: Obéissance, devoir conjugal ou maison du beaupère?

In N. Balbir and G.-J. Pinault (eds), Langue, Style et Structure dans le Monde

Indien: Centenaire de Louis Renou (pp. 385–412). Paris: Librairie Honoré Champion.

Jolly, J. (ed.) 1887. M¯anava Dharma-´s¯astra: The Code of Manu. Original Sanskrit Text

Critically Edited according to the Standard Sanskrit Commentaries. London: Trübner.

Jolly, J. (ed.) 1913. Artha´s¯astra und Dharma´s¯astra. Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morganländischen

Gessellschaft 67, 49–96.

Jolly, J. (ed.) 1923. Artha´s¯astra of Kaut. ilya. 2 vols. Lahore: Motilal Banarsidass.

Kangle 1964. Manu and Kaut.ilya. Indian Antiquary, 3rd series, 1, 48–54.

Kangle 1965–1972. The Kaut. il¯ýya Artha´s¯astra. 3 Parts. Bombay: University of Bombay.

Olivelle, P. 2002. Structure and composition of the M¯anava Dharma´s¯astra. Journal of

Indian Philosophy 30, 535–574.

Olivelle, P. 2004. Manu’s Code of Law: A Critical Edition and Translation of the M¯anava-

Dharma´s¯astra. New York: Oxford University Press.

Olivelle, P. (Forthcoming). "Manu and Gautama: A Study in ´S¯astric Intertextuality." In

Wilhelm Halbfass Commemoration Volume, ed. K. Preisandanz and E. Franco. Vienna:

Verlag der Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften.

Shamasastry, R. (Tr.) 1961. Kaut.ilya’s Artha´s¯astra. 7th ed. of 1915 original. Mysore:

Mysore Printing and Publishing House.

Winternitz, M. 1926–1928. Dharma´s¯astra and Artha´s¯astra. Sir Asutosh Memorial Volume.

Patna 1, 25–48.

The University of Texas at Austin

m kishore mohanhttp://www.geocities.com/siva_sai19/vedashttp://www.http://www.

 

India Matrimony: Find your life partner

online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...