The Law Code of Manu

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.

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

Wendy Doniger is the doyenne of Indology today, and her translations of, and commentaries on, ancient Hindu texts testify to this. This translation is lucid and, given its subject matter, timely, displaying as it does both poetry and a variety of chauvinism that, sadly, Hindutva demagogues like to glorify (as some of the reviewers here are attempting to do).

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.