Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 25.djvu/25

 they were more numerous. The perfectly credible tradition of the Mîmâmsâ school, which declares that originally each Vedic school or Karana possessed a peculiar work on Dharma, confirms this assumption. While the Dharma-sûtras possess a considerable antiquity, dating between 600–200, the metrical Smritis cannot be equally ancient, because there is much in their form that is modern, and especially because the epic Anushtubh Sloka, in which they are written, was not used for continuous composition during the Sûtra period. As the metrical Smritis are later than the Dharma-sûtras, it is, under the circumstances stated, very probable that each of them is based on a particular Dharma-sûtra. The Mânava Dharmasâtra in particular may be considered as a recast and versification of the Dharma-sûtra of the Mânava Sûtrakarana, a subdivision of the Maitrâyan'îya school, which adheres to a redaction of the Black Yagur-veda.

Considering the state of our knowledge of Vedic literature thirty years ago, the enunciation of this hypothesis was certainly a bold step. The facts on which it rested were few, and the want of important links in the premises laid it open to weighty objections. No proof was or could be furnished that the Sûtras of Gautama, Vasishtha, and Vishnu originally were manuals of Vedic schools, not codes promulgated for the guidance of all Âryas, as the Hindu tradition, then known, asserted. The assumption that it was so, rested solely on the resemblance of their form and contents to those of the Âpastambîya Dharma-sûtra. No trace of a Mânava Dharma-sûtra could be shown, nor could any connexion between the Mânava Dharmasâstra and the school of the Mânavas, except through their titles, be established. The assertion that the Brâhmans had turned older Sûtras, and especially Dharma-sûtras, into metrical works, written in epic Slokas, had to be left without any illustration, and no cause was assigned which would explain this remarkable change. As a set off against these undeniable weaknesses, Professor Max Müller's hypothesis possessed two strong points which secured for it from the outset a favourable reception on the part of all Sanskritists of the historical school. First, it substituted a rational theory