Customer Reviews

The Laws of Manu (Penguin Classics)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

The 1991 Penguin Classics translation of "The Laws of Manu," by Wendy Doniger (thus on the cover; earlier known as Wendy Doniger O'Flaherty, and often so listed) and Brian Smith, is one of two relatively recent translations of the text. The other is "The Law Code of Manu: A New Translation," by Patrick Olivelle, in the Oxford World's Classics (2004), which was also published elsewhere with a new critical edition of the Sanskrit original. Olivelle had earlier translated four other, related, works as "Dharmasutras: The Law Codes of Ancient India" (1999), for the same series.

The reader may want to give precedence to Olivelle's newer translation, which has an elaborate commentary offering access to more recent literature. However, the Penguin version is still worth consulting; and I find some sections of it much more readable that Olivelle's version, although the reverse is sometimes true of other passages. Both are annotated (the Penguin with footnotes; there is some overlap with Olivelle's end-notes, but they tend to be complementary), and both have extremely detailed indexes (the Penguin volume's being in rather more legible type). Their introductions take different approaches, but cover much the same territory.

Those already somewhat familiar with the legal literature of ancient India may want to skip to the end for the rest of my comparison of these two to each other, and to an older (1886) translation, which has also been in paperback in recent years; and some general observations on its reputation.

For those unfamiliar with the work, even by reputation, or with the Western study of India:

The "Manavadharmashastra" or "Manusmrti" ("Manu's Dharma-Treatise" or "The Manu-Tradition"), or just "Manu," was revealed to the Western world in 1794 in a translation by Sir William Jones, who had been assigned by the Honorable East India Company to organize the judiciary for some of the vast territories it "managed" under contract to Indian rulers, both Muslim and Hindu. (One of the most strikingly original forms of imperial conquest; producing logical contradictions not resolved until Victoria was proclaimed Empress, and the Company was replaced by direct rule from London, with complications lingering until Independence, and still yielding problems, like the status of Kashmir.)

For some reason, Jones decided to consult the Indians themselves about their laws; particularly the Hindus (or Hindoos, as it would have been written at the time), under the impression that they were, after all, an Ancient and Highly Civilized people, not a gaggle of beastly heathens whose silly ideas could (and should) be disregarded by good Christians.

This required Jones to learn Sanskrit, the language of high culture; which introduced him to the brilliant Sanskrit grammarians, and, as a by-product, to the invention of modern Indology. And also made possible his demonstration of the relationship of Sanskrit to Avestan Persian, to Greek, to Latin, and indeed to most of the languages of Europe. The latter had momentous consequences, both good and bad, particularly when "Aryan" was treated as a biological rather than a linguistic classification.

However, Jones' original, judicial, project went a bit astray. Instead of working with the living legal traditions of different parts of (then) contemporary India, he was directed by his learned teachers to a legal manual, which, he was assured, was regarded with veneration by all good Hindus, and attributed to "the Indian Adam," the Father of Humankind (manava), Manu, himself. (Well, actually to one of the fourteen Manus; but that is another set of stories!)

Also, according to Olivelle, he was shown a local (Calcutta) text, which turns out to be less than reliable. (Deference to a manuscript has been a constant problem with European scholarship; a Brahmin was supposed memorize everything, anyway...) By all accounts, Jones was also greatly impressed by the elaborate traditional commentaries, which supplied ready solutions to problems; too impressed, setting a bad precedent, in some views.

It also didn't seem to have occurred to Jones to ask whether this remarkably comprehensive and well-ordered legal code, so reminiscent of the Code of Justinian, on the one hand, and the Five Books of Moses on the other, and thus familiar in concept, had recently, or indeed EVER, been applied by actual judges in India to real life. (Which was sort of the point of the exercise.)

Apparently it hadn't. And some of the actual familiarity of its contents to traditionally educated Hindus was due, not to pious consultation of "Manu," but to big chunks of it appearing, in virtually identical form, in the Sanskrit epic "Mahabharata." (The literary relationship of these passages is still open to debate.) This is made clear by Doniger and Smith and by Olivelle; although both focus on the work as an example of, and influence, in, the Indian cultural tradition.

In fact British jurisprudence in India seems to have gone its own way, as an ad-hoc mixture of observed customs, "common sense" (meaning what seemed obvious to an educated Englishman), and Common Law; with "Manu" now available for rhetorical flourishes on policy issues, if used at all.

Jones' translation was more influential in shaping educated European views of India, and its caste system; and, somewhat indirectly, to an emerging concept of "race" and "racial purity." It was rapidly translated into other European languages. And, thanks to its success, a variety of later, generally better translations of "Manu" appeared, in the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. However, for several decades the only form readily available in English was the old-fashioned "Sacred Books of the East" version of 1886 by Georg Buehler, which had been reprinted by Dover in 1969.

Besides a rather clumsy English, and a tendency to insert traditional commentaries into the translated text, Buehler's version was marked by the assumption of superiority common to later nineteenth-century Indologists. Apparent contradictions were taken at face value, and held to demonstrate the illogical nature of the Oriental Mind, or sloppy editorial work by a compiler, or both. (This attitude closely resembled, in a particularly raw form, the nineteenth-century German Higher Critical approach to the Bible. It is not true that "the Higher Criticism was actually the Higher Anti-Semitism," but some of its practitioners made no secret of their general disdain for "the Hebrews" and modern Jews alike.)

The Doniger-Smith version was innovative compared to Buehler in that (a) it translated sections as prose paragraphs, instead of offering autonomous sentences, and (b) tried to translate the text as it stood, rather than as explained away by later commentators; their views were cited, not interpolated (even in brackets).

They also assumed that there was a logical coherence to the parts. A general rule followed by a contradiction and then another rule was treated not as a set of blunders, but as sharing the practice of the Sanskrit grammarians. In their works, a general rule is stated as it would be without exceptions, followed when necessary by empirically observed exceptions, and often by a rule to resolve contradictions with other rules. In this light, a "confused" text is shown to be a clear look at complex realities, as well as an exposition of preferred doctrines.

Olivelle's more recent version is quite similar in approach, although he often differs in details. As mentioned, he also translates from a new critical text, not the "received" version, which he claims is based on an atypical and inferior group of manuscripts which happened to be available when the work was first printed, and given undue precedence ever since.

Meanwhile, the association with Jones, and its resulting prominence in Indological literature, has made "The Laws of Manu" available as a target for those who, understandably, still resent British rule, criticizing it either for failing to respect the REAL India, or for showing TOO MUCH respect for traditions now found objectionable. And the translations are convenient targets for those who object to foreigners talking about their culture at all. Fair enough; but, to be consistent, shouldn't they refrain from talking in any detail about those foreigners and THEIR culture?

Doniger is unable to see the context in which Laws of Manu were written. She takes them as representing the ancient laws of India, and that is not true. Indian tradition knows of several competing smritis. Furthermore, community law always held precedence over normative books such as Manu Smriti. She is also overly literal and this causes her to often miss the import of the verses.

The book was supposed to be a translation, but the author has ended up publishing her biases in the garb of presenting it in narrative form. A quick search on the author reveals that she is a controversial character and that Encarta removed her contribution after investigating her scholarship.

As someone interested in learning about Hinduism, I was looking for someone who could just give me the facts instead of a polemicist. The book was a huge disappointment. I wish I had known about Encarta yanking her piece on the grounds of poor scholarship before I embarked on reading her "translation."

Wendy doniger has recently received a lot of flak for her so called "research". For the past 2 decades she virtually ruled the field of indology unchallenged. With the emergence of a new set of Indian scholars who have disputed the various premises of her work, Doniger has been caught o the back foot. An obessive desire to interpret virtually every fable or fact of hinduism using freud's psyco-analytical theories brings to light truely ridiculous conclusions. It is a well known fact that the Manu-smriti is not the final say of indian laws and opinions. People who do not know the difference between strutis and smritis should not have the arrogance to project hinduism in less than factual ways. For authoritative studies on indology read books by carl jung and Rajiv Malhotra. Doniger's books will only satisfy your appetite for tabloidy scandalous reports on hinduism.

The shortcomings of Doniger's general Indological scholarship have been detailed by Michael Witzel and Rajiv Malhotra. This book suffers from the same flaws. The translations are idiosyncratic, and she is obsessed with finding sex, even in situations that none is called for.

The Laws of Manus provide a concrete set of norms that are spelled out by the high ancestral man/god Manu. The laws are very comprehensive, and can speak to essential aspects of human morality, but can also advocate the most unfair and unequal practices of oppression and inequality based upon caste or gender. Doniger and Smith provide an (overly) extensive introduction of footnotes, and additional explanatory notes throughout. If one is to understand Hinduism, and its spiritual heights and low-points, one must read the Laws of Manu at some point, as well as the Bhagavad-Gita. Suffice it to say, there is some material to love, and some to loathe in this ancient Hindu classic.

I know Doniger drives people nuts, but I dig her. I found this translation of the Laws of Manu easy to comprehend and a balanced treatment of complex source material. I could have used more commentary, but at 300 pages I'm not complaining.

Wendy Doniger's translation of the Hindu Moral Law is fairly lucid and readable. The Manu Smriti maybe only one of the Smritis in the Hindu tradition, but it is the primary Smriti accepted as the authoritative text on Dharma within the Hindu canon. In the ancient Indian social and cultural structure, the Laws of Manu constitute the Vaidika Dharma, applicable to those enfolded within the way of the Vedas. While this may not encompass the entirity of the habitants of ancient India, there is no justifiable reason to belittle the importance of the Laws of Manu, as has been done by the previous reviewers here. Their reviews betray a lack of knowledge of the structure of Hindu society, and appear to be biased. The Manu Smriti is traditionally accepted as one of the supplementary arms of the Vedas.

Doniger's translation is refreshingly objective. It is remarkably free of Western bias that one often finds in works by Western authors on Indian texts. It is also free of the bias introduced by apologetic Indians, and other modern Indians trying to appear politically correct in an age of humanistic leanings.

There are many things in the Laws of Manu that a modern reader would find revolting; but there are many things too that are as timeless as they were during the time it was written, especially the openess in the applicability of Law depending on situational, cultural and historical contingencies. Whatever may be one's opinion on these matters, Doniger has given us a narrative translation of a book that is as important to us today as the Upanishads are if we are to understand ancient Indian culture in its totality. The Manu Smriti also gives us the four-fold structure of Hindu "classes", the "Varnas", which have been the object of much malignment in recent times. But it would be interesting to study this living phenomenon in comparision to that ideal Republic posited by Plato. Here, in Doniger's translation, one may find information on this singularly unique "experiment" in human civililazation, on this unique structure of a human society, with which was bound intimately the Law of Manu.

I wish Doniger had used the original Sanskrit terms for "Brahmin" and "Kshatriya" and other classes instead of the English "priest" and "warrior". The "priest" at best evokes an imperfect and partial meaning of the word "Brahmin" -- the Brahmin, in ancient Hindu India, was also the custodian of the timeless "Logos" of God through the purity of Vedic chanting, of Hindu metaphysics and culture, and of the Vedic Law.

Wendy Doniger has done a disservice to an important Hindu work. She has misinterpreted the work in important passages.

Poor showing Wendy!

Manusmriti is not the ancient Indian lawbook as this claims it to be. It is just one of many smriti's written. This was popularised by the british who wanted to impose one single law ove India where none existed. And, so they could claim that they ruled India using Indian laws. In India community law is always more important then manusmriti or any of the other number of smritis. To assume that manusmriti is The ancient lawbook of India would be a folly.