Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1Govinda’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.
2was 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
3iii. 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.
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.
1Govinda’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.
2was 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
3iii. 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.
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.