Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1of 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.
2* 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
3Further, 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.
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.
1of 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.
2* 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
3Further, 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.
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.