Age of the Manusamhita
Summary
The debate over the age of the Manusmriti (Manusamhita) centers on conflicting scholarly theories. Max Müller proposed dating it to the 4th century CE, while Bihler suggested a broader range between the 2nd century BCE and 2nd century CE, a view widely accepted. However, closer analysis of quotations in other texts challenges these limits. Critics argue that the Manusmriti incorporates pre-existing popular parables ("Spruchweisheit") and may reference a lost prose version (Manava Arthashastra) rather than a metrical Dharmasastra. Bihler’s theory rests on a single passage in the Vasistha Dharmasutra (Vas. 14,5), which he interprets as quoting a lost prose Manus Dharmasitra. However, this passage likely summarizes the metrical Manusmriti, as seen in parallels with Baudhāyana’s quotations (Baudh. 1.1.15-16), where paraphrasing precedes direct quotes. The absence of "iti Manavam" in all Vasistha Dharmasutra recensions further weakens Bihler’s claim. Additionally, the Ramayana’s Kiskindhya Kanda (18.30-32) quotes verses attributed to Manu, matching the metrical Manusmriti (M. 8.314-316). These verses, consistent across Ramayana and Baudhāyana, suggest direct quotation from the Manusmriti rather than interpolations. The Naradasmriti’s opening verse, resembling M. 1.87-104, implies a metrical Manusmriti predating its prose
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This analysis challenges prevailing theories on the Manusamhita's chronology, demonstrating that its dating cannot be confidently confined to Bihler's proposed second-century B.C.-A.D. range. By critically examining quotations in later texts like the Vasishtha Dharmasutra and Mahabharata, it exposes the fragility of assumptions about the work's lost prose predecessor or its reliance on oral parables. The study establishes that a metrical Manusamhita existed before 300 B.C., pushing its probable composition further back than earlier estimates. The findings underscore the need for rigorous textual analysis over speculative reconstructions, affirming the Manusamhita's unique status as a foundational Dharmasastra while highlighting the risks of overreliance on fragmented references. This conclusion reframes the text's historical significance, emphasizing its enduring influence and the complexity of its transmission.