Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
18, 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
2Next, 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 ° 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 in the concluding verses of his commentary, @N& WwW fargrerrwarnfa- reITaT 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.
3xvii. (St.Grady). This estimate is probably derived from Kullfika’s utterance in the concluding verses of his commentary, @N& WwW fargrerrwarnfa- reITaT 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
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.
18, 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
2Next, 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 ° 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 in the concluding verses of his commentary, @N& WwW fargrerrwarnfa- reITaT 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.
3xvii. (St.Grady). This estimate is probably derived from Kullfika’s utterance in the concluding verses of his commentary, @N& WwW fargrerrwarnfa- reITaT 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
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.