Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 25.djvu/42

 our Manu-smriti, partly in better versions. As the Grihya-sûtra agrees also in a number of its rules very characteristically with Manu, it is not improbable that its author may have drawn on the original of the latter. But before one can be perfectly confident on this point, it is necessary that some difficult questions regarding the critical condition of Sâṅkhâyana's text should be cleared up more fully than has been done hitherto. More important than the passages from the last work is the evidence which the Kâmandakîya Nîtisâra furnishes, where twice opinions of the Mânavâh and once an opinion of Manu are quoted, but rejected in favour of the views of the author's teacher, Kânakya Kautilya. In one case the doctrine, attributed to the Mânavâh, agrees with the teaching of our Manu-smriti. We read in the discussion on the number of the prakritis, the constituent elements of the mandala or political circle to which a king must pay attention, Kâm. Nît. VII, 24–25, 'With respect to this (question) the Mânavas record that five constituent elements, the ministers and the rest, belong severally to each of the twelve kings. But those original twelve (kings) and those (others), the ministers and the rest, (are) seventy-two (in number, and form) the whole circle of constituent elements .' Our Manu-smriti states, VII, 155–156, that twelve kings belong to the mandala, and adds ver. 157, 'The minister, the kingdom, the fortress, the treasury, and the army are five other (constituent elements of the circle); for these are mentioned in connexion with each (of the first twelve); thus the whole circle (consists), briefly (speaking, of) seventy-two (constituent parts).' The other two passages differ. According to Kâmandaki II, 3, the Mânavas teach that the sciences, which a king must study, are three only, the threefold (Veda), the theory of professions and trades, and the