Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 25.djvu/33

 and is confirmed by an analogous passage of the aphoristic Dharmasâstra of Usanas, the author adduces there the opinions of four older authorities, all of which are credited by the Hindu tradition with the revelation of law-books. We still possess several Smritis attributed to Atri, Saunaka, and to Gautama, as well as one said to belong to Bhrigu. With the exception of the aphoristic Gautamîya Dharmasâstra all these works are modern, some being metrical recensions of older Sûtras, and some of very doubtful origin. It is, therefore, impossible that any of the existing Dharmasâstras, Atri, Saunaka, and Bhrigu, can be referred to by Manu, and, as a matter of fact, the opinions quoted cannot be traced in them. But if we turn to Gautama's Sûtra we find among those persons who defile the company at a Srâddha dinner, and who are thus excluded from the community of the virtuous, the sûdrâpati, literally 'the husband of a Sûdra female .' The real signification of the compound seems, however, to be, as Haradatta suggests, 'he whose only wife or dharmapatnî is a Sûdrâ.' As it appears from Manu III, 17–19, that the opinion attributed to the son Utathya was the same, it is not at all unlikely that the Manu-smriti actually quotes the still existing Sûtra of Gautama. Another reference to a lost Sûtra occurs at Manu VI, 21, where it is said of the hermit in the forest, 'Or he may constantly subsist on flowers, roots, and fruit alone......., following the rule of the (Institutes) of Vikhanas.' The original Sanskrit of the participial clause is 'vaikhânasamate sthitah,' and means literally 'abiding by the Vaikhânasa opinion.' The commentators, with the exception of Nârâyawa, are unanimous in declaring that