what portion, if any, of the authority of any of them survives ?

This list of topics of inquiry of course is by no means exhaustive, and might without difficulty be added to but I believe that I have suggested enough for my purpose, and will now go on to explain with some fulness the precise nature of each of the questions above proposed, so that readers may perceive its special bearing upon the principal question, What is the Hindû law of Madras?

CHAPTER II.

Inquiry must begin with the Dharmaśástras—The Aryan split into Kulas -The prose Sûtras—Their probable time-Effect of the triumph of Buddhism-Parisishtas-Writing in India-Interval between the Sútra era and 'Menu's Code'—Megasthenes' account of the Indians-Four metrical redactions of Manu-The Java Code of Manu-The Burmah Code of Manu-Vriddha and Brihan Manus—Hiouen Thsang's account of India-Fa Hian—The extinction of Buddhism—Probable age of 'Menu's Code' —Its object—The Yájñavalkya Dharmaśástra—Its author —The white Yajur-Veda—Saivites Yogis―The Smritis-Mádhava's pious fraud-Sir William Jones' golden egg-The Indians have no laus -Anquetil Duperron-Vijñána-The Mitáxará.

As regards the first topic, the Dharmasastras,1 it will be apparent to all that since the modern treatises on Hindû law profess to be based on the commentaries and so-called digests, and to derive all their authority from those works, and the commentaries and so-called digests profess merely to give the meaning of the Dharmasastras, no study of the Hindû law could be thorough and fruitful that did not begin with an inquiry into the origin, history, and authority of these latter compositions.2 Such an

1 For the meaning of Dharma see p. 40, n, below. Śâstra means a didactic or explanatory work.

2 Thus Bühler says (Digest, Introd. xxxv.): 'For the lawyer of the present day the Veda has little importance as a source of law.

But a careful investigation of the state of the law as it was in the Vedic age, will no doubt yield important results for the history of Hindû law.' Burnell says in his Note to the Dâyadaçaçlokî, 5: 'The small part of Hindû law that has still a practical value is not the only part that is of importance. the whole system is of immense use.'

inquiry, therefore, shall be my first subject of consideration. It seems to have been satisfactorily established by Max Müller and Bühler that, many centuries before the Christian era, the Aryans split up into numerous kulas or divisions, each of which thought fit to compose and publish orally a set of prose works for the purpose of justifying and securing its separate entity. A set of prose works so composed and published was always threefold, and consisted of three separate and distinct parts; one, the Kalpa, on the great Vedic sacrifices; another on the sacrifices, rites, and ceremonies proper for households; and a third on laws and customs proper for individuals. The two last parts, with which alone we are concerned, were styled Grihiya- and Dharma-Sûtras respectively, and may be supposed to have contained the very quintessence of the knowledge accumulated by successive generations, parts of their forms being about the only things owing to their actual authors. With the Grihiya-Sûtras1 are connected the Dharmaśâstras; and as Weber tells us 2: Most of the names current as authors of Grihiya-Sûtras are at the same time given as authors of Dharmaśâstras. The distinction, as a commentator remarks, is simply this, that the Grihiya-Sûtras confine themselves to the points of difference of the various schools, whereas the Dharmasastras embody the precepts and obligations common to all.' Whilst Grihiya-Sûtras are common in different parts of India, and whereas com

1 The meaning of 'sûtra' appears to be uncertain.
2 In his History of Indian Literature, p. 278.

plete sets of the threefold works are known to have been once very numerous, but six Dharma-Sûtras at present exist, namely, the Apastamba, Hiranyakeśin, Baudhayana, and Kâṭhaka, which still form part of the Sûtras of those schools that study the 'black Yajur Veda,' and the Gautama and Vasishtha. This is a remarkable circumstance, because one would naturally expect to find the surviving Dharma-Sûtras to be at least as numerous as the Grihiya-, and to be connected, some of them, with the 'white YajurVeda.' Can it be that the proclamation of the latter Veda marks the commencement of a new era in which respect for the individual, and for law as Europeans understand the phrase, was destined to die out, or at all events to be minimised ?

6

It is not yet known when these prose Sûtras were composed and published, but Max Müller thinks it possible that their dates may be referred roughly to the time between 600 and 200 B.C., and that the contents of the Dharma-Sûtras seem to prove them to be the latest of all. And, according to Burnell1: There is no reason to doubt that the Dharma-Sûtras are referred to in the Mahâ-Bhâshya, the date of which (viz., 140–120 B.C.) has been determined by Dr. Goldstücker, and they must therefore have been in existence about two thousand years ago.' Now, the date of Aśoka and of the triumph of Buddhism is stated by Max Müller to be 250 B.C.; and the question naturally arises, how far and in what manner did the consummation of that triumph affect

1 Introduction to Daya-Vibhaya, vii.

the course and aim of Brahmanic literature? If Max Müller is right in supposing that the object of the Vedic Charanas (religious fellowships) in composing the Sûtras was to remove, or at least to simplify, the difficulties of their teaching,' because Buddhism was beginning to attract attention and win frequent adherents, then, since the new faith nevertheless triumphed, it would seem to be likely that the Brahmans would have perceived in time the necessity of adopting a more popular and agreeable vehicle of instruction than the dry and fantastic Sûtra, and accordingly would have brought out some new justificative works in the centuries immediately preceding and following the birth of Christ. But if so, probably those works were not very successful or of considerable importance, and at present there would appear to be no reason to suppose that any such works composed about that time have come down to us. The Parisishtas seem to be of much later date than 250 B.C., since their writers had known the success of Buddhism and decay of Brahmanic learning; 1 and it is desirable to know what Brahmanic writings came next after the Parisishtas.

Readers will have observed that I speak of the Sûtras as having been composed in prose: perhaps it would have been more correct to say, in the words of Burnell, 2 that 'the original Sûtra works consist almost entirely of prose.' And it appears from Max Müller 3

1 See Max Müller, Ancient Sans. Lit., pp. 260 et seq.

2 Introduction to Dâya-Vibhaga, i.

3 Ancient Sans. Lit., pp. 520 and 507.