Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1* 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
2BIC (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.
33 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
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.
1* 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
2BIC (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.
33 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
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.