prominent in the administration of justice in India under British rule and in
Independent India (see below).
TheNa ̄radsmr.tihas been preserved in three versions. A shorter text was trans-
lated by Jolly from an unpublished Sanskrit source (London, 1876). A longer one
was edited, with Asaha ̄ya’s partly preserved commentary, in the Bibliotheca
Indicaseries (work 102) in 1885, and translated in volume XXXIII of the Sacred
Books of the East in 1889, both by Jolly. A third text was published (1929) under
the title Na ̄radiyamanusam.hita ̄, the readings of which are largely corroborated by
those attested in manuscripts written in Newa ̄rı ̄ script found in Nepal. Jolly’s
longer recension has received most scholarly attention and has most often been
referred to as the Na ̄radasmr.ti. Yet, in a new edition and translation (Philadelphia
1989) Richard Lariviere has shown that many verses included in Jolly’s edition
and translation are not part of the Na ̄radasmr.ti, but of Asaha ̄ya’s commentary,
and that the Na ̄radı ̄yamanusam.hita ̄Newa ̄rı ̄ recension may well represent the
original text. Na ̄rada is the only dharmas ́a ̄stra that is totally and exclusively
devoted to one single aspect ofdharma, “law.” After an introductory section
(ma ̄tr.ka ̄) on legal procedure, the text proceeds systematically through the 18
heads of litigation, more or less in the order in which Manu established them.
TheNa ̄radasmr.tibecame known for its detailed treatment of ordeals (divya) to be
used as one of the types of admissible evidence in courts of law. The fact that
Manu knows two forms of ordeal, Ya ̄jñavalkya five, and Na ̄rada nine, has often
been used as an argument to consider the Na ̄radasmr.timore recent than the
Manusmr.tiand the Ya ̄jñavalkyasmr.ti. In view of Lariviere’s conclusions some
forms of ordeal may, however, have been added by the commentator Asaha ̄ya.
In that case, Na ̄rada may antedate Ya ̄jñavalkya. The Na ̄radasmr.tiimpressed
comparative legal historians, to the point of unnecessarily assuming contact
with or influence from Roman law.
Less well known and less widely read than the dharmas ́a ̄stras attributed to
Manu, Ya ̄jñavalkya, and Na ̄rada, the Pa ra ̄s ́arasmr.ti, edited, with the extensive
gloss (vya ̄khya ̄)by Ma ̄dhava ̄ca ̄rya, in the Bombay Sanskrit Series (1893–1911)
and in the Bibliotheca Indica series (work 94, 1890–9), deals with a ̄ca ̄ra and
pra ̄yas ́citta only. The commentator Ma ̄dhava does introduce an important
section on vyavaha ̄ra, but only on the occasion of Para ̄s ́ara’s brief reference to
thedharma of the ks.atriyas. Even though Ya ̄jñavalkya (1.4–5) includes Para ̄s ́ara
in a long list of composers ofdharmas ́a ̄stras, the preserved Pa ra ̄s ́arasmr.timust be
far more recent. The text specifically claims to be a dharmas ́a ̄stra for the kaliyuga,
the last and worst of the four world ages within the current cycle, in which we
live at the present moment. Among the practices for which it is known to deviate
from those prescribed in other dharmas ́a ̄stras is a brief eulogy ofsatı ̄, “widow
burning.”
Subsequent to the four preserved dharmas ́a ̄stras reference must be made to a
text on dharma that has created more problems of categorization and interpre-
tation than most. It is variously called Vis.n.udharmasu ̄tra,Vis.n.udharmas ́a ̄stra,or,
with the neutral term, Vis.n.usmr.ti. The text was edited and translated by Jolly in
theBibliotheca Indica series (work 91) in 1881, and in volume VII of the Sacred
108 ludo rocher