The priesthood is the conceiver, and the noble is the doer.

This alliance between the King and the priest seems, at all events in theory, never to have been abandoned. And, whether we look at the Smṛti or the drama, at the Kāma-sūtra or the Gentoo Code, we shall everywhere find, I imagine, abundant indications of the two privileged classes keeping apart from and lording it over the masses. Indeed, judging from the materials at my disposal, I should suppose that Sanskrit works generally have been composed for the two first classes alone: mainly, of course, for the Brahmans.

It is no doubt owing to the exclusion of Çudras and women, and the lower classes generally, 'from immediate access to the more original sources of information' that the epics and similar compositions were intended for their edification, as is pointed out by Sayana in his commentary on the Black Yajur Veda. See Burnell, Introduction to Manu, p. xxiii.

For Çudras, women, and heretics, therefore, and practically for almost all but virtuous Brahmans and kings, Manu has no information to give as to their proper conduct in life, other than that 'usage is highest dharma'; and it only remains for them to ascertain, each for himself, as best he may, what his own particular usage may be.

The twice-born man, as we have already seen, is to search the scriptures and his own conscience for his usage; and in order to facilitate such search for the future, the author of Manu gives his reader some

information as to usage in respect to sundry matters, such, e.g. as partition.

But, he does not say that this information is in any degree obligatory on all twice-born men: or that the ' recollections' (Smṛtis) of other writers like himself are to be ignored. On the contrary, he expressly says that the Veda is the supreme authority for those who would know dharma (II. 13); and that there may be opposite texts in the Veda, each of which is dharma because each was declared by the wise (II. 14). Where, therefore, the author reminds' readers of what is in accord with one of two opposite texts in the Veda, another author may remind his readers of what is in accord with the other; and what each says will be right, and (in certain circumstances) proper

to be followed.

Thus, admittedly, divergences of excellent usage are to be looked for in different countries. And, if it be asked where may the best usage be found? answer is made by II. 17, 18: The (country) which is between the divine rivers Sarasvati and Dṛsadvati, that land, fixed by the gods, (the wise) call Brahmavarta. What custom of the (four) castes (and) the mixed castes has been handed down by course of succession in that country, that is called good custom.' The next verse gives the names of four countries that are 'next' to the best, that is (according to the commentators), inferior. And then comes the important declaration : 'All men in the world should learn their own proper behaviour from a Brahman born in that country,' i.e. Brahmavarta.

So far, therefore, the author of Manu teaches three things (1) Dharma depends upon usage, which is to be found in both Cruti and Smrti, ultimately, of course, and mainly in the former. See below, p. 133. (2) The best usage is that of the Brahmavarta country. (3) All twice-born men should learn their usage from a Brahman born in that country.

As we have seen above, it is clear that the expression all men in the world' must be limited in the first place to the twice-born. A further limitation seems to be intended by II. 7, 8, which point out that a 'learned man' should certainly be firm in his own dharma, because a man performing the dharma declared by revelation and tradition obtains fame here and after his death extreme happiness.' I gather from this that the author writes almost entirely for a small class of learned men, principally Brahmans, and solely for their spiritual benefit. If they learn each his own proper usage or dharma (blessedness) from a duly qualified teacher like himself, they will obtain eternal happiness.

In this view of the aim and object of the author of Manu, law,' as we understand the phrase, or (as I have defined it) 'an aggregate of rules of conduct that courts of justice habitually recognise and enforce,' is not to be looked for in his teachings. If, here and there, we find in Manu what looks like the setting of a law proper, we should regard it as a mere recommendation to the wise to follow the established and best usage of Brahmavarta, rather than a command to any to do or forbear from some act.

D

And thus to treat the Manava-dharma-çāstra as a religious essay on usage, rather than as a code of positive law, is to act entirely in accordance with the history of the work as ingeniously constructed by Burnell in his Introduction thereto. According to him, this çastra (or treatise) on dharma most probably, almost certainly, was published by some Panjab Brahman about the year 500 A.D., under the Calukya sovereign Pulakeçi, at Kalyāṇapuri, with the object of popularising Brahman teaching, and particularly of instructing the king of a Mleccha (or beyond the pale) country as to the right mode of making all men do their religious duty. And it was called 'Manava,' not from the mythic sage Manu, but from the Brahman gotra called Manava'; and by way of compliment to the Calukyas, who claimed to be 'Mānavyas.'

6

Burnell thinks that the work was also 'intended for practical use in the tribunals,' though not in the way supposed by English lawyers, being 'essentially a religious book, and not, as in England, and most of Europe, a profane treatise on mere law. The ordeals mentioned are all, e.g. religious ceremonies.'

The only text of Manu cited by Burnell in support of his proposition, that it was also intended for practical use in the tribunals, is VIII. 3, which runs as follows, namely: Day by day (he should judge) separately (cases) under the eighteen titles by reasons (drawn) from local usage and the treatises.' Now, the word for treatises' here is çastra,' which (according to the note) means a body of teaching on

a subject, whether ascribed to divine or human origin; and it seems to me to be very doubtful whether it may not mean here the Vedic compositions, generally, rather than the Manava-d.-ç and other Smrtis. For, in verse 8 of the same Lecture it is declared that the King should determine suits 'relying on the eternal law'; and in verse 11 it is declared that the three assessors of his deputy should be 'learned in the Veda'; which (it will be remembered) is stated in II. 13 to be 'the supreme authority' of those who would know dharma. I do not forget, of course, that, according to II. 6-12, tradition, as embodied in the dharmaçãstras, is one of the constituents of dharma. Still, I cannot help thinking that we cannot safely infer from VIII. 3 that the author intended his work for practical use in the tribunals.'

In connection with this point, VII. 43 may be consulted with profit. It is to the effect that the King should learn the Vedas from those who know them, as also policy, logic, and knowledge of self: 'but business from the people.' This text agrees with VIII. 41: A king knowing dharma should cause his own dharma to be established, after making careful inspection of the dharm of the different castes and country folks, and of the dharma of the (different) guilds, and of the dharma of the (different) families.' This must not be supposed to mean that the King is to set aside the dharmas of the castes, &c., but that he is to ratify and confirm, or (as Jones renders it) establish them,' as his own. Compare Gautama XI. 12-22, which declares amongst other