Professor Stenzler enumerates[6] forty-six distinct Dharma ŚÁstras or recognised codes of Hindu law and ritual, scil.

Of the above list, twenty (distinguished by one cross) are in YÁjnavalkya's list:[7] seventeen of these are named by ParÁśara, viz. all except Yama, Brihaspati and VyÁsa, instead of whom he gives Kaśyapa, GÁrgya and Prachetas: the Padma PurÁṇa gives those named by YÁjnavalkya, with the exception of Atri, and seventeen others, (distinguished by two crosses) three of whom, Prachetas, Kaśyapa and GÁrgya, are on ParÁśara's list, and the remaining fourteen, not before mentioned: MadhusÚdana SaraswatÍ names the same nineteen of YÁjnavalkya's list, also Devala, NÁrada, PaiṭhÍnasi: RÁma Krishṇa, in his gloss to the Grihya SÚtras of PÁraskara, mentions thirty-nine, of whom nine (distinguished by three crosses) are new ones. There is also a Dharma ŚÁstra attributed to Śankha and Likhita jointly, thus making forty-seven in the whole. The professor considers all to be extant; and has himself met with quotations from all, except Agni, Kuthumi, Budha, ŚÁṭyÁyana, and Soma.

To those may be added several recensions of the same Dharma ŚÁstras, of which professor Stenzler speaks to having read of twenty-two.

The entire forty-seven are independent sources of and authorities upon Hindu law.

The Digest of JagannÁt'ha TarcapanchÁnana, as translated by Colebrooke, is a valuable repertory of texts; but, detached and isolated as they necessarily are, those texts can with difficulty be appreciated or applied.

YÁjnavalkya is second in importance to Manu alone: and, with the commentary, is the leading authority of the MithilÁ school.

The resident of British India needs not to be informed, that the orthodox Hindu regards his Dharma ŚÁstras as direct revelations of the Divine will: still less need such an one be told, that, among this people, law is entirely subservient to the mysterious despotism of cast,[8] a religious, rather than a political ordinance.

With the Hindu, all religious tenets and aspirations are centred in the idea of BRAHMA, the one, pervading, illimitable substance, without multiple, division or repetition. This idea has two modes or phases, 1st. as representing the absolute, self-included BrahmÁ; 2nd. as representing BrahmÁ in connection with, relative to, the world. In the latter, BrahmÁ is creator of the world, or, the very world, a semblance or a development of the former, the absolute idea. Man's highest aspiration and aim is, to know BrahmÁ absolutely: to have attained this knowledge implies a total renunciation of worldly concerns, to coalesce with, to be ultimately absorbed in, reunited with, BrahmÁ. BrÁhmaṇas are held to possess, to represent, this knowledge. Again, BrahmÁ is the creator, the preserver, also, the objects created and preserved. Kshattriyas represent BrahmÁ, the preserver: VaisyÁs, BrahmÁ the preserved. The dogma is otherwise explained: in the secondary or relative notion, BrahmÁ is Sattwa, Rajas, Tamas, i. e. goodness, activity, darkness,—respectively represented by the BrÁhmaṇa, Kshattriya, and VaisyÁ casts.

When the Hindus dwelt in the country of the five rivers, and were worshippers of the powers and phenomena of material Nature, as of Indra, VÁyu, Agni &c., cast was necessarily unknown, for the notion of BrahmÁ was undeveloped.

The divisions or classes among them were conventional; there were princes, priests, and peasants or cultivators.

But class distinction had not then crystallized into cast, into immiscible, uncongenial yet co-ordinate elements of a so called revealed constitution.

So soon however as the idea of BrahmÁ had attained fixity in the Hindu mind, and simultaneously with it, cast was developed, as we find it (but imperfectly) in the earliest records of Hindu philosophy, the Upanishads.

Thus, cast governs and is antecedent to law, which must bend and adapt itself to cast, as the overruling, intrinsic, unalterable condition of Hinduism, of Hindu life. There is one law, one phase of obligation for the twice-born, another for the ŚÚdrÁ. In Manu, cast is not so fully and severely developed: Manu permits to the BrÁhmaṇa four wives, of whom one may be a ŚÚdrÁ, necessarily permitting, therefore, a transition or quasi-amalgamation between the highest and the lowest in the scale. YÁjnavalkya permits this BrÁhmaṇical communion with the Kshattriya and VaisyÁ, but not with the ŚÚdrÁ. Later promulgators of law,[9] restrict the BrÁhmaṇa to his own class.

But although cast, once developed, admitted not of change, juridical rules, subservient to cast, might and did progress: civil laws and procedure became more comprehensive and exact, the criminal code more regulated, lenient, and enlightened. And as universally, (for such is human,) breaches and occasional disregard of rules have, silently though surely, worked a change, or caused exceptional accessions to the rules themselves.

The rule of the ŚÁstras, that kingly power should belong to the Kshattriya alone, was, even in the halcyon days of Hindu polity, repeatedly set aside. Chandragupta, a ŚÚdrÁ, and his dynasty, held sway over India from 315 to 173 B. C.: afterwards came BrÁhmaṇical kings, the KÁnwas, from 66 to 21 B. C.: whilst the mighty Gupta kings, from 150 to 280 A. C., were VaisyÁs.

The code of Manu presents a disarranged mass of regulations, in so much that some have supposed the disorder to have been designed.

That conclusion, however, is repelled by the comparatively succinct arrangement of YÁjnavalkya and other sages. It is more consistent to suppose, that Manu, as originally promulgated, was, from time to time, added to, with an accidental disregard of method.

ÁchÁra, ritual, comprises the distinctive cast-ceremonies, domestic and social usages, rites of purification, of sacrifice.

VyavahÁra, may be called the juridical rules, embracing as well substantive law as the procedure and practice of legal tribunals.

PrÁyaschitta, expiations, are the religious sanctions, or penalties of sin; the divine visitation upon offenders, and the mode in which the sinner may avert, by atonement, the consequences of divine vengeance.

The date of YÁjnavalkya's Dharma ŚÁstra is not definitely or satisfactorily fixed. From internal evidence, it is doubtless much subsequent to Manu.

The data for conjecturing the period of YÁjnavalkya are;

1. Reference is made to Buddhist habits and doctrines, viz. the yellow garments, the baldhead, the SwabhÁva (B. I. sl. 271, 272, and 349).

Hence, this Dharma ŚÁstra must have been promulgated later than B. C. 500.

2. Reference is made to a previous Yoga ŚÁstra promulgated by YÁjnavalkya (B. III, sl. 110). Now, the Yoga philosophy was first shaped into a system by Patanjali who, according to Lassen, probably flourished about 200 B. C.

3. Mention is made of coin as nÁṇÁka (B. II, sl. 240). Now, the word nano occurs on the coins of the Indoscythian king, Kanerki, who, according to Lassen, reigned until 40 A. C.

The result, though indefinite, places the earliest date of YÁjnavalkya's code towards the middle of the first century after Christ.

SELECTED SLOKAS