From the archive

The Laws of Manu — SBE Vol. 25 (trans. Georg Bühler, 1886)

English·1879–1910·trans. Georg Bühler·567 passages

The text · part 5 of 27

In my opinion the mutual relations of the castes, as described in the two law-books, cannot be used to prove a priority of the one to the other.

4 E. g. in the doctrine concerning the Niyoga.

cvi LAWS OF MANU.

a certain importance only as auxiliaries to the chief argument derived from the imperfect development of the method or formal treatment of the law. But considering all that has been said in the preceding discussion, it is, I think, not too much to say that there is no obstacle against, and some reason for, our accepting as true the assertion, which is made in the Manu-smriti itself and supported by the tradition preserved in the Skanda-pur4va, that Bhvigu’s! Samhita is the first and most ancient recast of a Dharmasastra attributed to Manu, which latter, owing to the facts pointed out in the first part of this Introduction, must be identified with the Manava Dharma-sdtra. Though this recast must be considered the work of one hand, the possibility that single verses may have been added later or altered, is of course not excluded. <A perfectly intact preservation of an Indian work which has been much studied, is a priori improbable, and the divergence of the commentators with respect to certain verses shows that some of those contained in our text were suspected by the one or the other of them. But the number of Slokas with regard to which real doubts can be entertained is comparatively small, and hardly amounts to more than a dozen?,

The above discussion has also to a certain extent defined the relative position of our Manu-smr#ti in Brahmanical literature, and has thus opened the way for the consideration of the last remaining problem, the question when the conversion of the M4nava Dharma-sitra into a metrical law-book

' A clear and definite explanation of the question why the Hindu tradition ascribes the promulgation of Manu’s laws to Bhrigu has hitherto not been traced. Bhrigu’s only connexion with Manu is that mentioned in the text, according to which he is one of the mind-born sons or creatures of the father of mankind. ‘This version of the legend of his origin is, however, by no means common. In the Mahabhfrata XII, 182-192, we find ‘a condensed DharmasAstra,’ which is said to have been revealed by Bhrigu to Bharadvaga. It includes an account of the creation, but makes no mention of Manu. As Bhvigu appears also elsewhere as the author of a Dharmasastra, it is just possible that the legend may be based on Bhrigu’s fame as a legislator and as the offspring of Manu.

2 Many more verses are left out partly in Medhatithi’s BhAshya and partly in Nandana’s commentary. But see below, pp. cxxvi and cxxxv, where it has been shown that omissions in the accessible MSS. of these two works alone do not mean much.

INTRODUCTION. cVvii

may have taken place. The terminus a quo which has been gained for the composition of Bhrigu’s Samhita is the age of the Mahabhirata, and the terminus ad quem the dates of the metrical Smritis of Yagiavalkya and Narada. Though we are at present not in a position to assert anything positive regarding the period when the Mahdbharata and especially its twelfth and thirteenth Parvans were written, and though the date of Yagvavalkya’s Dharmasdstra is very doubtful, yet some facts known regarding the Narada-smriti are not without importance for framing our answer to the difficult question now proposed. Both Professor Jolly and myself! have lately discussed the significance of the mention of golden dindras or denarii in the longer and more authentic version of Narada and of the circumstance that Asah4ya, a predecessor of Manu’s earliest commentator, Medhatithi, explained it and have arrived at a very similar conclusion, viz. that the Narada-smriti dates either shortly before or shortly after the middle of the first thousand years of our era. If that is so, Bhrigu’s Samhita must, in consideration of the arguments just stated, be placed not only earlier, but considerably earlier, and the assertion that it must have existed at least in the second century of our era is not unwarranted. This latter inference is also made inevitable by the discovery that we have to admit the former existence of very ancient commentaries, and of at least one ancient Varttika or K4rika which referred to the text of Manu, known to us. With respect to the commentaries, Medhftithi, the author of the Manubhashya, is a most valuable and clear witness. This author, who probably wrote in the ninth century A.D.’, very frequently quotes opinions and various readings, expressed or men-

1 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 56; West and Biihler, Digest, p. 48. To the arguments adduced there I would add that Basa, the friend of Sriharsha- Harshavardhana (606-7-648 A.D.), makes a pretty clear allusion to the N4radiya Dharmasastra in the Kadambart, p. 91, 1. 13 (Peterson's edition), where he calls a royal palace nfradiyam ivavarzyamanaragadharmam, ‘similar to the Naradfya (Dharmasdstra), because there the duties of kings were taught (by the conduct of the ruler) just as they are taught (in the law-book).’

2 For the details, see below, pp. cxxi—cxxiii.

eviii LAWS OF MANU.

cxxi—cxxiii.

eviii LAWS OF MANU.

tioned by his predecessors, and shows by the number of the conflicting explanations which he sometimes adduces for a passage of the text, that in his time a very large number of commentaries on the Manu-smriti existed. Among the persons thus quoted, he designates some by the terms Parva and Kiramtana. Parva, which means both ‘former’ and ‘ancient,’ is an ambiguous word. It can be applied to all persons who wrote before the author, though it frequently is used in speaking of those who lived centuries ago. Kiramtana, ‘long previous or ancient, is much stronger, and, according to the usage of Indian authors, denotes a predecessor belonging to a remote antiquity. As Medhétithi, writing in the ninth century, knew of commentaries to which he was compelled to assign a remote antiquity, it is only a moderate estimate if we assume that the earliest among them were in his time from three to four hundred years old. But if in the sixth or even in the fifth century A.D. glosses on our text existed, its composition must go back to much earlier times. For the widely divergent and frequently very questionable explanations of the more difficult passages, which Medhatithi adduces from his predecessors, indicate that even the earliest among them were separated by a considerable interval from the compilator of the Manu-saszhit4, an interval so great that the real meaning of the text had been forgotten.

The merit of the discovery that one of the lost metrical DharmasAstras, the Brzhaspati-smrzti, was a Varttika on our text of Manu, belongs to Professor Jolly, whose careful investigation of the fragments of the lost law-books, contained in the modern Digests, has contributed very materially to the elucidation of a difficult chapter in the history of Indian legal literature. He shows! that Brzhaspati not only allots to Manu’s Smriti the first place among all lawbooks, but that he explains, amplifies, and occasionally corrects its rules on various portions of the Vyavahara. The particulars from Manu which Brzhaspati mentions are such as to leave no doubt that the text which he knew in

' Tagore Lectures, pp. 60-62; see also above, p. xvi.

INTRODUCTION, cix

The particulars from Manu which Brzhaspati mentions are such as to leave no doubt that the text which he knew in

' Tagore Lectures, pp. 60-62; see also above, p. xvi.

INTRODUCTION, cix

no way differed from that known to us. He explains, as Professor Jolly points out, the curious terms, used Manu VIII, 49, for the various modes by which a creditor may recover a debt, as well as the expression asvamin, which occurs in the title of law, called Asvamivikraya. He further mentions that Manu IX, 57-68 first teaches and afterwards forbids the practice of Niyoga, and gives, as it seems to me’, the correct explanation of this contradiction. He also notes that Manu IX, 221-228 forbids gambling, which other writers on law permit under due supervision, and he corrects Manu’s rules regarding the indivisibility of clothes and other objects enumerated IX, 219. An apparent contradiction in Brihaspati’s rules with respect to subsidiary sons * proves that he knew and accepted Manu’s teaching on this subject. He declares that the substitutes for a legitimate son of the body are forbidden in the Kaliyuga, and yet admits the rights of a Putrika or appointed daughter, who mostly is reckoned among the substitutes. This difficulty is easily solved, if it is borne in mind that Manu, differing from the other ancient law-books, does not reckon the Putrika among the subsidiary sons. He separates her, IX, 127-140, from the Gauna Putras, IX, 158-181, and strongly insists on her rights, while he restricts those of the others very much. The list of instances where Brihaspati alludes to, annotates, or amplifies rules of Manu might, I think, be enlarged still further, and it seems to me that a comparison of those verses of his, which Colebrooke’s Digest contains, with Manu gives one the impression that Brihaspati’s work is throughout a revised and enlarged edition of the Bhrigusamhita, or, to use the Indian expression, a Manuvarttika or Manukériké. Professor Jolly, finally, has pointed out that this evidence concerning the relation between Manu and Brzhaspati agrees with and gives some weight to the tradition preserved in the Skanda-puraza, according to which Brthaspati composed the third of the four versions of Manu’s Dharmasdstra. The age of the Brzhaspati-smriti

1 See also above, p. xciv.
3 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 158.

cx LAWS OF MANU.

The age of the Brzhaspati-smriti

1 See also above, p. xciv.
3 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 158.

cx LAWS OF MANU.

is circumscribed by its definition of the value of golden dindras, and by the quotations from it which occur already in the oldest commentaries and Nibandhas from the ninth century A.D. downwards. Since the latter period it has been considered as a work of divine origin, revealed by the teacher of the gods. Hence Professor Jolly’s supposition, that it must have existed some two or three hundred years earlier, places it not too early, but, in my opinion, rather too late. But even if the Brzhaspati-smvzti dates only about 600 A.D., its statements regarding the high authority of Manv’s teaching show that our version of the latter must have preceded it by many centuries.

The three points just discussed are, in my opinion, the only ones that are really useful for fixing the lower date of our Manu-smriti.. All the other facts known to me which -bear on the question are made valueless by flaws of one kind or the other. Thus if we find that another metrical Dharmasastra,the KAty4yana-smziti,which probably belongs to the same period as the Brzhaspati-smriti, repeatedly quotes doctrines of Manu or Bhrigu found in our text, it is nevertheless not permissible to assume confidently with Kullika on Manu VIII, 3501, that its author knew and explained our text. For, as Professor Jolly has shown’, there are other cases in which the teaching attributed by Katy4yana to Bhyzgu or Manu differs from the opinion advanced in our Smriti. It is, of course, possible that the author, who assumes the name of K&aty4yana, may have made a slip, or may have known several Manu-smritis or Bhrigu-smritis, and have referred in different places to different works. But, making every allowance for such possibilities, it cannot be said that his references furnish a really conclusive argument. Again, it has been pointed out’ that the author of the Bhavishya-pur4wa has largely drawn on the first three chapters of our Manu, whom he also names, and nobody who carefully compares the two

1 SraTaTS PTAA AAA TL SH ars ITSM Ul

? Tagore Lectures, p. 62, ll. 22 and 24, Brihaspati has been printed twice by mistake for Katyayana.

* Professor Aufrecht’s Catal. Sansk. MSS, Bodl. Libr. p. 30,

INTRODUCTION. cxi

Tagore Lectures, p. 62, ll. 22 and 24, Brihaspati has been printed twice by mistake for Katyayana.

* Professor Aufrecht’s Catal. Sansk. MSS, Bodl. Libr. p. 30,

INTRODUCTION. cxi

texts can have any doubt who the borrower is, as the Puraza regularly substitutes easy readings for difficult ones, and adds numerous explanatory verses. Besides, Nérdyaaa, as well as Kullika!, quotes verses of the Bhavishya-puraza from a section on penances not found in the accessible MSS., which likewise are clearly intended to explain the text of our Samhit4. All this is however useless, as for the present it is impossible to determine the date of the Puraza even approximatively. Professor H. H. Wilson *, who has a very mean opinion of the book, declares that it cannot lay claim to a high antiquity, and seems to consider it a production of the ninth or tenth century A.D. Professor Aufrecht’s discovery® that the Matsya-purdza, which mentions a Bhavishya-purdza in 14,500 verses, contains actually several sections which have been borrowed from the portions of the latter work preserved in the MSS., makes Professor Wilson’s estimate improbable. For the Matsya-puraza was considered a canonical work about the year 1000 A.D., and used by AlbirQni for his work on India*. Though it, therefore, becomes probable that the Bhavishya-puraza is much older than Professor Wilson was inclined to assume, the data thus gained are much too vague for inferences regarding the age of our Manu-smriti.

Equally unsatisfactory are the results which an examination. of the quotations from the Manu-smriti, found in various Sanskrit works, yields us. Perfectly indisputable quotations are not very common, and they occur mostly in works of comparatively recent date, e. g. in the Yasastilaka of the Digambara-Gaina poet Somadeva, 959 A. D.5, in Sankara#arya’s Sarirakabhashya, 804 A. D.°, and in Kshi-

1 See e.g. his remarks on Manu XI, 101, and N&rayama’s on XI, 131.

* Vishvu-purdma, vol. i, pp. Ixii-lxiv, and Reinaud, Mémoire sur I’Inde, P. 396.

> Catalogue, p. 43.

* I owe the knowledge of this fact also to the kindness of Professor Sachau.

5 See Professor Peterson’s Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS., 1883-84, PP. 42-43.

* Deussen, Vedanta, p. 36. With respect to the date of Sankara#arya’s work, I follow the Hindu tradition, which places the birth of the author in 788 A. D. According to the statement of the late Yag#esvara SAstri, with whom I discussed the passages which he adduces in the Aryavidyasudhdkara, p. 226, the sampra-

cxii LAWS OF MANU.

D. According to the statement of the late Yag#esvara SAstri, with whom I discussed the passages which he adduces in the Aryavidyasudhdkara, p. 226, the sampracxii LAWS OF MANU.

rasvamin’s Amarakoshodgh4fana?. Other cases, where we find verses from the Manu-samhita quoted in ancient works, are made inconclusive by the vagueness of the reference or by the circumstance that the same passages occur also in other works. Thus we find Manu VIII, 416, with a slight verbal difference at the end of the first line?, in the Sabarabh4shya on Mim. SQ.VI,1, 12. Though the exact date of the latter work is uncertain, we know that it preceded Kumirilabhaffa’s Tantravarttika, and its style, which closely resembles that of Patafigalis Mahd4bhashya, makes it probable that its author lived not much later than the beginning of our era. Hence its testimony would be of the greatest interest, provided it were perfectly clear. Unfortunately the Bhashya introduces the verse merely by the words evam ka smarati, ‘and thus he records or states in the Sm~riti,’ without specifying the author. As the doctrine of the verse which declares a wife, a son, and a slave to be incapable of holding and acquiring property is found, though expressed differently, also in the Naradasmriti, Vivadapada V, 39, it may be that Sabara took the passage from some other work than the Manu-smriti. Again, though Patajigali in the Vy4karazamah4bhdshya on Pézini VI, 1, 84 adduces Manu II, 120 without any variant’, it would be extremely hazardous to conclude that he quotes from our text of Manu. For the Mahabharata (XIII, 104, 64>-65*) has exactly the same words.

daya, referred to in his work, is that of Sriigeri, where also documentary evidence for its correctness is said to exist. Hence I hesitate to accept Mr. Telang’s conclusions, who places Sankara in the latter half of the sixth century, Mudrarakshasa, Appendix, and Ind. Ant. vol. xiii, p. 95 seqq.

1 Aufrecht, Journal of the Germ. Or. Soc. vol. xxviii, p. 107. The date of this author, who used to be identified with the teacher of Gayaptda of Kasmir (779-813 A. D.), seems, according to the latest researches, more recent.

2 See the edition in the Bibl. Ind. vol. i, p. 611: TAT Sree ara fortar: B8 ea ti we wafwrenter wet A Wa ASAT W At the end of the first line Manu has WQ SaTwat. Sat: tt

3 See vol. iii, p. 58 of Professor Kielhorn’s edition. I may add that the same work on Pasini II, 3, 35 (vol. i, p. 457, Kielhorn) quotes another verse, the first line of which agrees with Manu IV, 1514, while the second entirely differs. In this case, too, the Mahabharata XIII, 104, 82 has a version closely resembling that of Manu.

INTRODUCTION. cxili

i, p. 457, Kielhorn) quotes another verse, the first line of which agrees with Manu IV, 1514, while the second entirely differs. In this case, too, the Mahabharata XIII, 104, 82 has a version closely resembling that of Manu.

INTRODUCTION. cxili

More important are some allusions to the laws of Manu found in several works of considerable antiquity, and in inscriptions. Taken by themselves they would, indeed, not prove much. But considered in conjunction with the results of the three chief arguments, they certainly furnish a confirmation of the latter. The clearest case, perhaps, occurs in the Kiratargunitya of Bharavi, a poet, whose fame on the evidence of the Aihole inscription was well established in 634 A.D., and who, therefore, cannot possibly have lived later than in the beginning of the sixth century, but may be considerably older. He makes (Kir. I, 9) Yudhish¢zira’s spy say, ‘He (Duryodhana), conquering the six (internal) foes, desiring to enter on the path, taught by Manu, that is difficult to tread, and casting off (all) sloth, since by day and by night he adheres to the (prescribed) division (of the royal duties), shows increased manly energy in accordance with the Niti.’ At first sight it might seem as if this passage contained nothing more than an expression of the ancient belief according to which Manu settled the duties of mankind, and among them also those of kings. But if we keep in mind the inferences made unavoidable by Medhtithi’s statements regarding the ancient commentaries and by the character of the Brthaspati-smriti, it becomes more probable that Bh4ravi alludes to the seventh chapter of Bhvigu’s version of the Manu-smziti, which declares vinaya, humility or self-conquest, i. e. the conquest of the six internal foes, to be one of the chief qualities requisite for a king, and which carefully and minutely describes the employment of each watch of the day and the night. Other much less explicit allusions occur in the land-grants. It will suffice to adduce those found in the commencement of the Valabhi inscriptions of Dhruvasena I, Guhasena, and Dharasena II, to which I have called attention some time ago’. The oldest of them is dated Samvat 207, i.e. not later than 526 A.D.? There it is said in the description

4 See West and Biihler, Digest, p. 46, and for the inscriptions, Indian Antiquary, vols. iv, p. 104; v, 28; vi, 11; vii, 67, 69, 71; viii, 302. For other passages, see Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xi, pp. 243-249.

* This is on the supposition that the era of the Valabht plates began in 319 A. D., the latest date ever assigned to it.

[25] h cxiv LAWS OF MANU.

104; v, 28; vi, 11; vii, 67, 69, 71; viii, 302. For other passages, see Hopkins, Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. xi, pp. 243-249.

* This is on the supposition that the era of the Valabht plates began in 319 A. D., the latest date ever assigned to it.

[25] h cxiv LAWS OF MANU.

of Dronasimha, the first Mahar4ga of Valabhi and the immediate predecessor of Dhruvasena I, that ‘like Dharmaraga (Yudhish¢Hira) he observed as his law the rules and ordinances taught by Manu and other (sages).’ Strictly interpreted, the passage says nothing more than that in Dronasimha’s times various law-books existed, one and the chief of which was attributed. But, considering what we know from other sources, it is not improbable that it refers to our Samhita, which is acknowledged by Brzhaspati as the paramount authority. This is all I am able to bring forward in order to fix the lower limit of the Manu-smriti. But the facts stated are, I think, sufficient to permit the inference that the work, such as we know it, existed in the second century A. D.

For an answer to the question whether our Manu-smriti can go back to a higher antiquity, and how much older it may be, we have at present very scant data. Its posteriority to the twelfth and thirteenth Parvans of the Mahabhdrata teaches us, as already stated, nothing definite. But there is a passage in its tenth chapter, vv. 43-44, which has been frequently supposed to convey, and probably does contain, a hint regarding its lower limit. There the Kambogas, Yavanas, Sakas, and Pahlavas are enumerated among the races which, originally of Kshatriya descent, were degraded to the condition of S(dras in consequence of their neglect of the Brahmazas'. As the Yavanas are named together with the K4mbogas or K4bulis exactly in the same manner as in the edicts of Asoka’, it is highly probable that Greek subjects of Alexander’s successors, and especially the Bactrian Greeks, are meant. This point, as well as the mention of the Sakas*® or Scythians, would

' The verse contains also the name of the Atnas, which formerly has been taken to be valuable as a chronological landmark. More modem researches have proved this view to be untenable; see A. von Gutschmid, Journal of the German Or. Soc. vo]. xxxiv, pp. 203-208 ; Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p.131; Rig-veda, vol. iv, p. li.

7 See e. g. the fifth rock-edict, where the Yona-Kamboga-Gamdhara or Gamdhala are mentioned as Asoka’s neighbours, the most distant being placed first.

® The earliest mention of the Sakas probably occurs in a Varttika of KAtyayana on Pz. VI, 1, 94,where sakandhu is explained by saka + andhu. According to the traditional explanation the compound means ‘the well of the Saka king.’

INTRODUCTION. CXV

indicate that the Slokas could in no case have been written before the third century B.c. This limit would be still further and very considerably contracted if the mention of the Pahlavas were quite above suspicion, and if the deductions of my learned friend, Professor Néldeke!, regarding the age of this word were perfectly certain. Pahlava and its Iranian prototype Pahlav are, according to the concurrent testimony of the most distinguished Orientialists, corruptions of Parthava, the indigenous name of the Parthians*. Relying on the fact that the change of the Iranian #2 to & is first traceable in the name Meherdates, mentioned by Tacitus, and in the word Miiro, i. e. Mihira, on the coins of Kanishka or Kanerki*, Professor Néldeke concludes that the form Pahlav cannot have originated among the Iranians earlier than in the first century A. D., and that it cannot have been introduced into India before the second century of our era. If this inference were unassailable, the remoter limit of the Manu-smrtti would fall together with its lower one. But, with all due deference to the weight of Professor Néldeke’s name, I must confess that it appears to me very hazardous. For, first, the foundations of his theory are very narrow: secondly, one of his own facts is not quite in harmony with his assertions. However late we may place Kanishka, he cannot be later than the last quarter of the first century A.D. Kanishka was not a Parthian, and his coins probably were struck in the North of India. Hence it would appear that Iranian word-forms with the softening of t2 to # were known in India towards the end of the first century. Moreover, the word Pahlava occurs in the Girnér inscription of Rudraddman ¢, which was incised shortly before the year 72 of the era of the Western Kshatrapas. This era, as has been long ago conjectured, and is now incontestably proved by Mr. Fleet’s important discoveries, is

} Weber, History of Indian Literature, pp. 187-8, note 201°.

® Olshansen, Parthava und Pahlav, Mada und Mah (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie, 1877), and Noldeke, Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxxi, p. 557.

® Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. p. 197.

‘Ind. Ant. vol. vii, p. 261. Rudradaman’s lieutenant at Gimfr was the
Pablava Kulaipa (Khoraib?), son of Suvisakha.

h 2 exvi LAWS OF MANU.

xxxi, p. 557.

® Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. p. 197.

‘Ind. Ant. vol. vii, p. 261. Rudradaman’s lieutenant at Gimfr was the
Pablava Kulaipa (Khoraib?), son of Suvisakha.

h 2 exvi LAWS OF MANU.

the so-called Vikramasamvat or, more correctly, the Samvat of the MAlavesas, the lords of MAlava, which began in 57 B.C. Rudrad4man’s inscription consequently dates from the year 21-22 A.D., and it is thus certain that the word Pahlava was used in India at the beginning of the first century A.D. These circumstances make it impossible to accept Professor Noldeke’s inferences from the occurrence of the softened Iranian forms. But the mere mention of the Pahlavas would show that Manu’s verse cannot have been composed before the beginning of the first century B.c. The Parthian dynasty of the Arsacides was founded in the middle of the third century B.C., and its sixth ruler, Mithradates I, according to some classical authors, invaded India about the middle of the second century?. Coins of an Arsaces Theos and of an Arsaces Dikaios, who uses also the Prakrit language and the North-Indian alphabet, have been found in the Panj4b, and belong to the same or a little later times*. As the Brahmans are ever ready to give foreign nations, with which they come into contact, a place in their ethnological system, it is quite possible that about the beginning of the first century B.C. an Indian origin might have been invented for the Pahlavas. But even this reduction of the remoter limit of the Manu-sm~‘ti is, in my opinion, not quite ‘safe. For though the evidence for the genuineness of Manu X, 43-44 is as complete as possible, and though the varia lectio for Pahlava, which Govinda offers, probably deserves no credit ®, there is yet a circumstance which raises a suspicion against the latter reading. Parallel passages, closely resembling Manu’s two verses, are found in the Mah4bharata XIII, 33, 21-23* and XIII, 35, 17-18, where the names of the degraded Kshatriya races are likewise enumerated, and the cause of their degradation is stated

1 Lassen, Indische Alterthumskunde, II*, 334.

* Sallet, Die Nachfalger Alexanders des Gr. pp. 51, 156-157.

3 The commentators and MSS. all give the two verses. If some MSS. of Medhftithi read Pabnava for Pahlava, that is a clerical mistake caused by the similarity of the subscribed Devan4gart la and na. Govinda’s var. lect. Pallava is improbable, because the other races mentioned in the second line of verse 44 all belong to the North of India, while the Pallavas are, as far as we know, confined to the South.

INTRODUCTION. CXVvii

Govinda’s var. lect. Pallava is improbable, because the other races mentioned in the second line of verse 44 all belong to the North of India, while the Pallavas are, as far as we know, confined to the South.

INTRODUCTION. CXVvii

in exactly the same or similar words. Both passages name the Yavanas, and one also the Sakas. But neither mentions the Pahlavas. Hence it becomes doubtful if the original version of these Slokas really did contain the latter name. It is further not impossible that its insertion is not due to the first remodeller of the Manava Dharma-siitra, but has crept in later accidentally, in the place of some other name. The Indian Pamdits are not strong in ethnology and history, and habitually careless with respect to the names of peoples and countries, which they frequently alter, or substitute in their works one for the other. I have, therefore, not the courage to reduce the terminus a quo by more than a hundred years on the strength of this single word, which occurs in a verse that evidently has had originally a different form. I think it safer to rely more on the mention of the Yavanas, Kambogas, and Sakas, and to fix the remoter limit of the work about the beginning of the second century A. D., or somewhat earlier.

This estimate of the age of the Bhrigu SamhitA, according to which it certainly existed in the second century A. D., and seems to have been composed between that date and the second century B.C., agrees very closely with the views of Professor Cowell! and Mr. Talboys Wheeler*. It differs considerably from that lately expressed by Professor Max Miiller, who considers our Manu to be later than the fourth century 8, apparently because a passage quoted from Vriddha Manu, which he takes to be a predecessor of our SamhitA, mentions the twelve signs of the zodiac. I do not think that it has been proved that every work which enumerates the rasis must be later than the period when Ptolemy’s astronomy and astrology were introduced into India. But irrespective of this objection, Professor Max Miiller’s opinion seems to me untenable, because, according to Professor Jolly’s and my own researches‘, the Vrzddha or Brzhat Manu, quoted in the digests and commentaries, is not earlier, but later than Bhyigu’s Samhita. Whatever may be thought

1 Elphinstone, History of India, p. 249 (edition of 1874).
2 History of India, vol. ii, p. 422.
® India, what can it teach us? p. 366. * See above, p. xcvii.

CXVili LAWS OF MANU.

of the details of my inferences and conclusions, I believe that the rudimentary state of the legal theories in our Samhita, as compared with Yagiiavalkya and Narada (fourth or fifth century A. D.), the fact that the Brzhaspati-smriti of the sixth or seventh century A.D. was a Varttika on our text, and the assertion of Medhatithi, that he knew in the ninth century commentaries belonging to a remote antiquity, force us to place it considerably before the term mentioned by Professor Max Miller.

Tif.

was a Varttika on our text, and the assertion of Medhatithi, that he knew in the ninth century commentaries belonging to a remote antiquity, force us to place it considerably before the term mentioned by Professor Max Miller.

Tif.

Tt now remains to give an account of the materials on which my translation is based, and of the manner in which they have been used. Among Sanskrit works the commentaries of Medhatithi, Govindarfga, Sarvagita-N4rayana, Kullakabha¢‘a, Raghavananda, and Nandan4farya, as well as an anonymous 7ippaza, contained in a Kasmir MS. of the Manu-samhita, are the sources on which I have chiefly relied. Among the earlier translations, Sir William Jones’ famous versio princeps and Professor J. Jolly’s annotated German translation! of chapter VIII and chapter IX, 1- 102 have been carefully used. Occasionally Mr. Loiseleur Deslongchamps’ well-known edition of the text, the English translation of chapters I-III, 33 by Tara#and Kakravarti (Kuckerbutty)?, and the M4ra¢Ai translation of Ganardan Vasudev Gurgar® have been consulted. Sir G. C. Haughton’s edition and various Indian reprints of the text have been left aside, because they mostly repeat Kullfka’s readings or give variae lectiones for which no sufficient authority is shown.

Among the Sanskrit commentaries on the Manu-smriti the oldest extant is the voluminous ManubhAshya of Bhaéfa

1 Published in the Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, vol. iii.

3 I have used the copy of the India Office Library, 19-27, 17. The name of the author is given by Professor Goldstiicker, On the Deficiencies, &c., p. 5, note.

“> Published with the text of Manu, at the Nirsayasagar Press, Bombay, 1877.

INTRODUCTION. cCxix

iii.

3 I have used the copy of the India Office Library, 19-27, 17. The name of the author is given by Professor Goldstiicker, On the Deficiencies, &c., p. 5, note.

“> Published with the text of Manu, at the Nirsayasagar Press, Bombay, 1877.

INTRODUCTION. cCxix

Medhitithi, the son of Bhaffa Virasvamin. As its title, bhashya, indicates, it is not a gloss which paraphrases every word of the text. Its aim is to show the general sense of Manu’s dicta, to elucidate all really difficult passages, and to settle all doubtful points by a full discussion of the various possible interpretations, and of the opinions advanced by others, In carrying out this plan Medhatithi displays a great amount of learning and not inconsiderable ability. He carefully uses a number of more ancient commentaries on Manu, and shows a full acquaintance with the S4stras requisite for the successful explanation of his text, with Vedic literature, grammar, Mim4msa, the Dharmasitras! and other Smritis, Vedanta, and the Mahabharata. At the same time he avoids the common fault of Sanskrit commentators,—an undue copiousness in quotations which bear only remotely on the subject under consideration. Moreover, he frequently enhances the value of his explanations by illustrating Manu’s rules by instances taken from every-day life, a point which most Hindu writers on law and on kindred subjects entirely neglect. Finally, he frequently takes up a much more independent position towards his author than the other commentators dare to assume. Thus he does not shrink from declaring that many verses are arthavadas, without legal force, and that many single words have been inserted merely vrittapdrazartham, ‘in order to make up the verse.’ His chief weakness, on the other hand, which is not unfrequently observable, and which has drawn on him Kulldka’s stricture? that he brings forward ‘both valuable and valueless’ remarks, consists in a disinclination to decide between conflicting interpretations and in his sometimes placing side

1 MedhAtithi quotes the Dharma-siitras in general, and Gautama, Baudhdyana, Apastamba, and Vasish‘Aa, as well as some other lost works, in particular. Among the lost Dharma-s(itras which he used, is a KAtyayanfya-sitra, quoted on Manu VIII, 215, which seems to have treated the civil law in detail, and probably is the original of the metrical K4tyayana-smriti, from which the digests give so numerous extracts.

* See the concluding verses of Kullfika’s commentary. Sir W. Jones’ statement that Medhatithi’s work is reckoned ‘ prolix and unequal’ (Preface to the Translation, p. xvii, St. Grady) is probably based on this remark of Kulldka.

cCxx LAWS OF MANU.

by side, as equally admissible, widely divergent opinions. This vacillation is perhaps justified in a restricted number of passages, where the text is really ambiguous or very obscure. But more commonly it seems to be due solely to an excessive veneration for the views of his predecessors }, whose commentaries, in part at least, possessed a high antiquity and a great reputation, or whom he had personal reasons to respect. On several occasions he mentions certain explanations as those of the Pdrvas or Kiramtanas, i.e. of the ancient commentators. Thus he remarks on Manu IV, 223, ‘But the exposition given above is the view of the Ancients ; hence it has also been given by us*.’ In another case, when explaining Manu IX, 141 and 147, he notes that his interpretation is that of up4dhy4ya, i.e. of his own teacher from whom he learnt the Manu-samhita. Disagreeable as this want of decision may be to those who look to a commentary for a concise and authoritative explanation of its text, yet it is not without advantages. His copiousness in quoting the opinions of his predecessors makes his work extremely important for the student of the history of the Manu-smrzti and of the Hindu law. The Bh4shya clearly proves that Manu’s text had been made for centuries an object of deep research, and that many of its verses had given rise to widely different interpretations. It shows, further, that a good many various readings existed. Finally, a comparison of the later still extant commentaries leaves no doubt that these in general are based on the Manubhdshya, and that even their divergent opinions and readings are frequently derived from the earlier work. Under these circumstances the question of

1 Though the opinions of ‘others’ are mentioned very frequently, and though sometimes those of three or four predecessors are contrasted, Medhatithi gives only once the name of an earlier commentator, Manu IX, 253, W@ araat wrferasafa: at wartare ef Braz (2) [v.1. BIC (7) ferapertat Wes wel WafMAATETTAN The name seems to be Vishwusvamin, But it is uncertain what the corrupt word, preceding it, may hide.

* ay aeeremt aerdat eetafrrearirery afi wu Compare also

the remark on Manu V, 128, WW fercwaererray ti

INTRODUCTION. cxxi

BIC (7) ferapertat
Wes wel WafMAATETTAN The name seems to be Vishwusvamin, But it
is uncertain what the corrupt word, preceding it, may hide.

* ay aeeremt aerdat eetafrrearirery afi wu Compare also the remark on Manu V, 128, WW fercwaererray ti

INTRODUCTION. cxxi

Medhftithi’s date acquires great importance. It is a matter of regret that in this, as in so many other cases, we do not possess any trustworthy historical information, but have to depend on such circumstantial evidence as can be collected from Medhatithi’s own quotations and from the quotations made by other authors from the Bhashya. If we begin with the latter, the lower limit for the composition of MedhAtithi’s work is fixed by Vig#Anesvara’s reference to his explanation of Manu IX, 1181. Vigiidnesvara wrote his commentary on Y4giiavalkya in the reign of the KAlukya king, Vikramaditya VI, who ruled at Kaly4za from Sakasamvat 997-1048, or 1073-1126-7 A.D.2 The manner in which Vigfanesvara’s reference is made, shows that in his times the Bhashya possessed an established reputation. Hence it may be inferred that it was then not of recent date. To the same conclusion points also a passage in Kulldka’s commentary on Manu VIII, 184 8, where, in a remark on the arrangement of verses 181-184, Medhatithi’s name is placed before that of Bhogaraga. As in enumerating their predecessors the commentators usually adhere to the natural order, and place the oldest name first, it is very probable that Kullika means to indicate that Medhatithi preceded Bhogaraga. If, as again is most likely, the latter is identical with the royal polyhistor who reigned at Dhara during the first half of the eleventh century A.D., it follows that Medhatithi cannot have written later than in the tenth century. With respect to the remoter limit for the composition of the Bhashya, I have formerly stated‘ that Medhatithi quotes Kumérila and Sankarafarya, the great authorities on Mimamsa and Vedanta. The former is mentioned by name in the remarks on Manu I, 3, and by his usual title Bhattapada,

1 Colebrooke, Mit. I, 7, 13.

3 See Joum. Bo. Br. Roy. As. Soc. vol. ix, pp. 134-138, and West and Biibler, Digest of Hindu Law, pp. 15-17, third edition.

* Wh fagatranfedtwaqera Veg Va Tew Aurfafetrafefirfafegm: W See also Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 8.

* West and Biihler, Digest, p. v, first edition.

CXxil LAWS OF MANU.

3 See Joum. Bo. Br. Roy. As. Soc. vol. ix, pp. 134-138, and West and Biibler, Digest of Hindu Law, pp. 15-17, third edition.

* Wh fagatranfedtwaqera Veg Va Tew Aurfafetrafefirfafegm: W See also Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 8.

* West and Biihler, Digest, p. v, first edition.

CXxil LAWS OF MANU.

‘the venerable Bha/sa,’ in the commentary on Manu II, 181. As regards Sankarékarya, I find that Medhatithi’s acquaintance with his writings is by no means as certain as I formerly thought. For in the passage where my own copy, a transcript of a Puza MS., makes Medhatithi quote the Sdrirakabhashya, the older and better MSS. of the India Office read Sariraka, which probably implies a reference to the Sariraka-sdtras?. Under these circumstances it is no longer possible to assert that the Bhashya is later than the works of the great Ved4ntist, who wrote in the beginning of the ninth century A.D. We have now only the quotations from Kumirila to fall back upon, whose date is much less certain. We know that Kuméarila preceded Sankara- Aarya 5, but the length of time which lies between them has hitherto not been exactly ascertained. Mr. Colebrooke, Dr. Burnell, and Professor Max Miiller believe, for various reasons, that he lived in the seventh century or not later than 700 A.D.* Though, as far as his quotations go, Medhatithi might have written earlier than the ninth century A.D., I still feel inclined to adhere to my former opinion. For a closer examination of the Bhashya has revealed some other points which speak in favour of my view. Medhatithi repeatedly quotes the metrical law-books of Yagiavalkya, Narada, and Pardsara, as well as the version of the Kat#aka Dharma-siitra, known as the Vishzu-smriti, and considers all as canonical. None of these works has, however, a claim toa high antiquity ; and the Vishzu-smriti, in particular, which mentions the Greek name of a weekday, cannot be older than the fifth or sixth century A.D.

11, 5, gfe qaricerre: 1, 18, HS gaa! freer & fant ger grace [ar?] | aft yfaqet wren [wren] Ye [a7] wrargta:

* Manu XII, 19, Tq] @ Winntitfcat afr fafa [re] Sud Stati war afgtt grees [v.1. of my MS. erctenra] wae wat Bargqed wae ae Mahacaeia | wal reracATNTA UTA Efe srafesat u

® See Professor Cowell’s note to Colebrooke’s Essays, I, p. 323. * See Professor Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p. 308, note.

INTRODUCTION. CXXill

of my MS. erctenra] wae wat Bargqed wae ae Mahacaeia | wal reracATNTA UTA Efe srafesat u

® See Professor Cowell’s note to Colebrooke’s Essays, I, p. 323. * See Professor Max Miiller, India, what can it teach us? p. 308, note.

INTRODUCTION. CXXill

If MedhAtithi, nevertheless, considers it to be an inspired work, revealed by the god Vishzu, it is only reasonable to assume that a very considerable interval lies between the date of its composition and- his own times. This is so much more probable, as the Vishzu-smriti was probably written in Kasmir, which, as will be shown presently, was also Medhatithi’s home. A more definite result with respect to Medhatithi’s date is, I fear, at present not obtainable. His references to other works, such as a Vakyapradipa by one—rimisra!,an Abhidhanakosha?, Pingala’s treatise on metrics °, a work of the ancient writer on Samkhya, Vindhyavasin, and so forth, are, in the present state of our knowledge of the history of Sanskrit literature, not particularly useful. The Bhashya furnishes, however, two interesting details regarding Medhfatithi’s personal history. First, we hear that he wrote a metrical treatise on the sacred law, called Smritiviveka. Secondly, it appears that the valley of Kasmir, which has produced so many Indian men of letters, was his native country. The Smritiviveka is mentioned repeatedly in the Bhashya as a comprehensive work in which difficult legal questions were fully discussed *. As regards the other point, there is no direct statement in the Bhashya which mentions Medhatithi’s birthplace. But the author refers so frequently to Kasmir, its laws, its Vedic Sakh4, and even to its language, that the inference that it was his native country becomes unavoidable. Thus in explaining the word svardshsre, ‘in his own kingdom’ (Manu VII, 32), and the term ganapadaZ, ‘country or province’ (Manu VIII, 41), he introduces the

1 Manu X11, 118, WATOT ACARI TEATS YR: WTR fefae: an es BM) SST TNATT a Aefer & WaTatenfe nu

Professor Kielhorn informs me that the verse does not occur in Hari’s Vakyapadiya, which sometimes is called Vakyapradipa.

* Mann IX, 185-6 ; the words quoted are, STOTS wafarer’ 0

* Manu IX, 42, UW foyaoa 1 warfafe [e] arafa nu Pingale

VIII, 1; see Weber, Indische Studien, VIII, 147. * See e.g. comm. on II, 6, frguarata afeuitanertta: oyfafeaa t and ibidem, AEMAHATSTHET NT | frercey Vfrfets gees: u

CXXIV LAWS OF MANU.

* See e.g. comm. on II, 6, frguarata afeuitanertta: oyfafeaa t and ibidem, AEMAHATSTHET NT | frercey Vfrfets gees: u

CXXIV LAWS OF MANU.

name of Kasmir as an illustration’. Again, in giving examples of royal monopolies in the remarks on Manu VIII, 399, he states correctly that the sale of saffron is a prerogative of the king of Kasmir. Further, he repeatedly refers to the K4tsaka S4kh4 of the Black Yagur-veda, which for a long time has been confined to Kasmir alone; and, when trying to prove in the notes on Manu I, 58, that the Manava Dharmasdstra may be called Manu’s, though it was first taught by Hirazyagarbha, he adduces as an analogous instance the K4¢/aka, which, though studied and taught by many others, is named after Katha. Such an illustration would hardly occur to anybody but a student of the Ka¢kaka Sakh4. Still more decisive, finally, is his remark in the commentary on Manu IV, 59, where he says that the rainbow is called in Kasmir vinakAayé *.

As regards the history of the text of Medhatithi’s commentary, Mr. Colebrooke states in the preface to the Digest, p. xv (Madras edition), that ‘the Bh4shya’ having been partly lost, has been completed by other hands at the court of Madanapala, a prince of Digh. This assertion probably rests on the authority of a stanza in the Sarddlavikridita measure, found in a number of copies at the end of a good many chapters, which says that ‘the Bhdshya being mutilated, prince MadanapAla, the son of Saharana, brought a MS. from another country and made a girnoddhara, or restoration of the ruin, by causing copies to be taken from that *’ Considering the wording of the verse,

1 VIL, 22, fagfarmrerfemarrat Ty aateg: | areitoret ae T] Taare terse wu VI, 41, Fearhrargttafetyfaraarafwat- TIE:

* ergy qeughtararatc at agtity wert 1 must note that Professor Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 6, offers a different opinion, and takes Medhftithi to be a southerner. His reasons—the termination svamin in the name of Medhitithi’s father’s name, Virasvamin, and the attention paid by the ancient southern authors to the Bhashya—do not seem to me sufficiently strong. For, as the Kasmirian name Kshirasvamin and scores of Svamins in the northern inscriptions show, the title was, at least, formerly not confined to the south. Further, the intercourse between Kasmir and southern India in the time of Bilhawa and of Harshadeva accounts for the introduction of a Kasmirian work to the notice of the southern Payzits.

* Professor Jolly states, Tagore Lectures, p. 7, that he has found the verse,

INTRODUCTION. CXXV

Further, the intercourse between Kasmir and southern India in the time of Bilhawa and of Harshadeva accounts for the introduction of a Kasmirian work to the notice of the southern Payzits.

* Professor Jolly states, Tagore Lectures, p. 7, that he has found the verse,

INTRODUCTION. CXXV

I can only agree with Professor Jolly (loc. cit.) that Madanap4la did not cause portions of the Bhashya to be recomposed, but merely completed the defective MS. of his library from a copy purchased in some other part of India. The place where this girzoddhara was made, was KAshzA, near Delhi. For as the verse says that Madana was the son of Sah4raza, it is not doubtful that this person is identical with Madana or Madanapala, the patron of Visvesvarabhaffa, who wrote the Subodhini on the Mitakshar4 and the Prayoga- or Madanapfarigata. Visvesvara gives, in the introduction to the latter work, a portion of his patron’s genealogy’, and states that Madana belonged to the family of the chiefs of K4sh7#4, and was the second son of one Sadharava. It is easy to see that in the verse quoted above the Prakritic form Sahdraza has been used instead of SAdh4rava for metrical reasons. This Madana has been identified by Mr. Colebrooke with the homonymous author of the Madanavinoda, which is dated in Vikramasamvat 1431 or 1375 A.D., and Mr. Sarvadhikari? confirms this identification, by telling us that the Madanavinoda contains the same pedigree of Madana as the Parigata. Hence ‘the restoration’ of the Bhashya must have occurred about five hundred years ago.

more or less correctly given, in seven old MSS. from various parts of India. In my opinion it should be read as follows: AT’ Wife mrent Aurfre: ar ata fafuagranaata mrarraepeT ay | Wrahhgt Rea: werngm Wercegi wulscadtacen maqearsesfar: WI differ from Professor joiiy at the end of the second pada, where he reads with a Benares MS. WIG @ QAYRHA, and at the end of the third pada, where he changes the reading of the MSS. wet or wet to wrga:.

1 Aufrecht, Cat. Sansk. MSS. of the Bodleian Library, p. 274.

3 Tagore Lectures of 1880, p. 389. Mr. Sarvadhikari wishes to read the date brahma (1) gagat (3) yuga (4) indu (1), (Magha sudi 6, Monday,) as 1231. He thinks that yuga may also denote the figure 2, and that the reading Vikramasamrvat 1231 is necessary, because the Parigfta is quoted by Kandesvara, who wrote in the thirteenth century. He is, however, mistaken, as the astronomical calculation shows that MAgha sudi 6 of Vikramasamvat 1431 did fall on a Monday (Jan. 8, 1375), while the same day in V.S. 1231 was a Thursday. The

Parigata quoted by Aamdesvara must, therefore, be some other work on law. The title is a not uncommon one.

CXXV1 LAWS OF MANU.

8, 1375), while the same day in V.S. 1231 was a Thursday. The

Parigata quoted by Aamdesvara must, therefore, be some other work on law. The title is a not uncommon one.

CXXV1 LAWS OF MANU.

It would, however, seem that it either was not thorough, or that its effects were not lasting. For all the copies of Medhatithi’s commentary which I have seen or used are throughout more or less corrupt, and in some parts, especially in chapters VIII and IX, as well as at the end of chapter XII, in a desperate condition. The latter portion is in great confusion, some pieces being missing, and others being given twice over. In chapters VIII and IX many verses are left out, though it is evident from cross-references, or from remarks made by Kullika, that they must have been explained by Medhatithi. In the parts of the commentary still extant, the corruptions are often very bad, and the sense frequently doubtful or only to be made out conjecturally. Under these circumstances I believe that it would be unwise to attach too much weight to the omission of verses with respect to which the Bhashya stands alone. Before we can attempt to come to a decision regarding the exact state of the Manu-smriti in Medhatithi’s times, we require, I think, better MSS. of his work. The officers in charge of the search for Sanskrit MSS. in India could render a very great. service to the history of the Indian law, if they would direct their efforts to the acquisition of really good MSS. of the Bhashya, and if thus a competent scholar were enabled to publish a trustworthy edition. The MSS. used for the notes to my translation are, my own apograph of chapters I-VI and X-XII, made in 1864 from a Pusza MS., and the copies of the India Office Library, Nos. 934-935, 1407-1409, 1414, 1551-1552. All of them go back to one codex archetypus, derived from Madana’s restored copy, and the best is that contained in the Indian Office Library, Nos, 1551-1552, which is dated Samvat 1648, margasirsha sudi 3, somavdsare, or Monday, November 18, 1591 A.D.

Next, after the Manubhashya, but probably at a considerable interval, follows the Manusiké of Govindaraga,

1 For this and some other calculations of dates I have to thank Dr. Schram, Privat-Docent of astronomical chronology in the University of Vienna,

INTRODUCTION, CXXVil

Next, after the Manubhashya, but probably at a considerable interval, follows the Manusiké of Govindaraga,

1 For this and some other calculations of dates I have to thank Dr. Schram, Privat-Docent of astronomical chronology in the University of Vienna,

INTRODUCTION, CXXVil

the son of Bha¢#fa M4dhava. The exact date of this author is likewise not ascertainable. He is extremely reticent about himself and his predecessors, and quotes, with the exception of Smr#tis, not a single work on law except his own Smriti-mafgari or Smriti-mavigaripafigika, a compilation of rules on penances!, derived from various Dharmasdstras. The remoter limit of his age can, however, be deduced from Kullfka’s remarks on Manu VIII, 184, whence it appears that Govindaraga was later than Bhoga of Dhara (first half of the eleventh century). The lower limit is fixed by the mention of his name in Gim@tavéhana’s Dayabhaga? and in S(lapdzi’s work on penances®. I can only agree with Professor Jolly, who thinks that he lived in the twelfth or thirteenth century‘. The termination of Govindaraga’s name has induced several scholars (see Jolly, loc. cit.) to assume that he was a prince, and it has been proposed to identify him with a Govindakandra of Benares or with a homonymous king of Kanog. But the son of a Bhaféa can only be a Brahmaza, and it must not be forgotten that Govindar4ga is the equivalent of Govindrao, a name very common among the Maratha Brahmazas.

The Manuf@ika is a very concise, but by no means obscure ° in the concluding verses of his commentary, @N& WwW fargrerrwarnfareITaT wn. It is only what might be expected from a plagiary who bitterly hated the man whose work he wished to supersede.

1 Commentary on Manu III, 247 and 248; see also Kullika on Manu IV, 21a. A copy of this work, written at Vasuravt in Samvat 1467, 4svina badi-—— sanau, during the reign of Maharawa Udayasimha, is preserved in the India Office Library, No. 1736. Colebrooke thought that the date had to be referred to the Vikrama era, and the editors of the series of facsimiles issued by the Palaeographical Society, No. III, have followed him. But it is not doubtful that the prince mentioned in the colophon is Maharaaa Udayasimha of Mevad, who ascended the throne in 1541 A.D. Hence the date of the MS. refers to the Saka era, and corresponds to 145 A.D. The Smriti-maagart contains no quotations from other law-books than Smritis. The name of Govindardga’s father, Bhatfa Madhava, occurs frequently in the colophons of the several sections.

2 Colebrooke, Day. XI, 2, 31, where Govinda’s name is also placed after Bhogaraga’s.

3 Aufrecht, Cat. Sansk. MSS. of the Bodleian Library, p. 2834.

4 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 9.

5 ‘Obscure’ is the epithet appliedto it by SirW. Jones, Pref. tothe transl. of Manu, p. xvii. (St.Grady). This estimate is probably derived from Kullfika’s utterance

CXXViil LAWS OF MANU.

xvii. (St.Grady). This estimate is probably derived from Kullfika’s utterance in the concluding verses of his commentary, @N& WwW fargrerrwarnfareITaT wn. It is only what might be expected from a plagiary who bitterly hated the man whose work he wished to supersede.

CXXViil LAWS OF MANU.

verbal paraphrase of Manu’s text. In the main it is an abstract of Medhatithi’s Bhashya from which Govinda has appropriated whatever seemed to him most valuable. He has discarded the greater number of his predecessor’s optional explanations, as well as his lengthy controversial disquisitions on difficult points of law, while he has greatly condensed others. He has added explanations of those words on which MedhAtithi does not comment, and he sometimes also puts forward opinions, not traceable in the earlier work, which may be either his own or derived from sources inaccessible to us. But in such cases he is occasionally unlucky, and arrives at results which his successor Kulldika ridicules, not without reason. Thus in his remarks om, Manu III, 50, where the text says that a man who reftricts conjugal intercourse to a minimum, is equal in chastity to a student ‘in whichever order he may live,’ Govinda takes the last words in too literal a sense and enunciates the, for a Hindu, monstrous doctrine that Manu intends to permit ascetics, whose children have all died, to return to conjugal life and to repair the loss which they have suffered. Some other strange errors have been pointed out by Professor Jolly in his Tagore Lectures, p. 9, note 1. These occasional eccentricities do not, however, seriously diminish the usefulness of the Manu@ika. It re- . mains not only the earliest, but the best complete explanation of Manu’s text. It frequently assists the student to find his way through the tangled forest of the Bhashya, and it contains many valuable interpretations of words left unexplained by Medhatithi. The MS. used for the notes is the unique copy, acquired by myself for the Government of Bombay (Deccan College Library, Coll. of 1879-1880, No. 239). It is in a very fair condition, and contains the whole text and the commentary, excepting that on IX, 71- 336. It was written at Stambhatirtha or Cambay, probably about 250-300 years ago.

The chronological position of the next commentary on our list, Sarvagiia-N4rayaza’s Manvarthavivrti or Manvarthanibandha, is fixed, as Professor Jolly has first pointed out, by a passage in the introduction to Raghavananda’s

INTRODUCTION. CXXxix