Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Tagore 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.
2D. 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. 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
3i, 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Tagore 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.
2D. 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. 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
3i, 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.
The source text as printed, transcribed diplomatically. Where the source language uses a non-Latin script that reaches us only through a Victorian romanisation, this layer is labelled transliteration, because that is what we hold.
No commentary for this page.