It is no doubt a somewhat late form of Brahmanic cosmogony which is recited in this introduction. We hear no more of the Manu of the Rigveda, the progenitor of the Aryas; he is elevated in the priestly system to be the first being beside Brahman, and made the creator of the world. He is now called Manu Svayambhu, _i.e._ the self-existent Manu, and creates from himself the ten Rishis, the seven other Manus, who in their turn create living creatures and plants. The seven Manus are all denoted by special epithets--the seventh is known as the ancient Manu; he is called the son of Vivasvat, Vivasvata (p. 30). If Manu Svayambhu had already imparted the law to the great saints, to whose number Bhrigu belongs, and taught it especially to Bhrigu, it was unnecessary for the great saints to ask it from Manu once more. This difficulty is as little felt in the book as the still more striking contradiction that the collection, though emanating from the first Manu or Brahman, is based upon and even expressly appeals to the utterances of Vasishtha, Atri, Gautama, Bhrigu. This is further explained by the fact that the introduction is completely ignored in the text of the book. In the text we see the civic polity on the Ganges at an advanced stage. The monarchy which rose up from the leadership of the immigrant hordes, in conflict partly against the old inhabitants and partly against the newly-founded states, has maintained this supreme position, and extended it to absolute domination. It is in full possession of despotic power. The Brahmanic theory, so far from destroying it, has, on the contrary, extended and strengthened it. The Brahmans, it is true, demanded that the king should regulate worship, law, and morals according to their views and requirements; they imposed upon him duties in reference to their own order, but, on the other hand, they were much in need of the civic power to help them in carrying through their demands against the other orders. This doctrine of submission to the fortune of birth, of patient obedience, of a quiet and passive life, in connection with the reference to the punishments after death, and the evils to come, were highly calculated to elevate the power of the kings, and lull to sleep energy, independence of feeling and attitude, boldness and enterprise, in the castes of the Kshatriyas and Vaiçyas. The interest in another world and occupation with the future must thus have become more prominent than the participation in this world or care for the present. In such circumstances the world was gladly left to those who had once taken in hand the government of it. When the nation had gradually become unnerved by such doctrines and cares, the monarchy had an easy game to play. Its rule might be as capricious as it chose. In weaker nations, unaccustomed to action, the need of order and protection is so great that not only acts of violence against individuals but even the