Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1The 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 commentary', The latter author says there that ‘he has taken cognisance of (the opinions) approved by Kulldka and Narayama, and of those entertained in their hearts by Govinda and MedhAtithi.’ As it is evident that in the second group the later author has been placed first, the assumption that the same order has been observed with respect to the first pair, and that Raghavananda, applying the principle of uttarottaragariyastva, i.e. naming the more important persons later, intends the whole series to be read backwards ?, is not unreasonable. In its favour speaks also the fact that Narayana quotes Govindaraga on Manu VIII, 123. In order to fix the date when Narayana wrote, we have to rely chiefly on some quotations. His opinions on law are first quoted by Kamalakara, who wrote in the beginning of the seventeenth century ®. But a Namanidhana by Nardyaza Sarvagiia is mentioned by Rayamukuéa in his commentary on the Amarakosha, which was composed in 1431 A.D.‘ The only MS. of the Manvarthavivriti® hitherto found (Deccan College Collection of 1879- 1880, No. 238) bears at the end of Adhy4ya VIII, the date Sam. 1544 kaitra badi g ravau, which corresponds to Sunday, March 27, 1497 A.D. Hence it follows that Nardyaza cannot have written later than in the last half of the fourteenth century. Possibly he may be somewhat older. The Manvarthavivriti is not a running commentary which explains every word of the text. It confines itself to the elucidation of selected difficult passages and words. It was written with the avowed intention of undoing the work of the author’s. predecessors. At the end of chapters 1 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 11; the passage has been printed in Dr. Burnell's Tanjore Catalogue, p. 126. ? This manner of enumerating a series of persons or of arguments is also found occasionally in older Sanskrit works; see e.g. Vasishéha XIII, 58. > Aufrecht, Catalogue Sansk. MSS. Bod]. Libr. p. 279. * See Professor Aufrecht’s Analysis in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxviii, p. 114. 5 This MS., which has been used for the notes to the translation, is a very fair copy, containing the commentary alone, Fols. 1-8 have been half eaten by rats. Fols. 192-3 have been lost. [25] i CXXxX LAWS OF MANU.
2xxviii, p. 114. 5 This MS., which has been used for the notes to the translation, is a very fair copy, containing the commentary alone, Fols. 1-8 have been half eaten by rats. Fols. 192-3 have been lost. [25] i CXXxX LAWS OF MANU. I, VI, and VIII we find a verse, apparently belonging to Narayana, which says,‘ This commentary of the Manu-smriti, composed by the illustrious Narayana Sarvagiia, thrusts far away the exposition given in contemptible compilations 1.’ Again, at the end of chapter IV we read, ‘ Direct your attention to the good words of N&ardyaza Sarvagiia, which propound the real meaning of Manu and repel the exposition given in contemptible compilations®’” As might be expected from these utterances, Narayana shows a great anxiety to find explanations differing from those of Medhatithi and Govinda. Sometimes he attains this aim by returning to views which Medhatithi mentions and rejects; but more frequently his explanations have been either taken from commentaries inaccessible to us, or represent opinions formed by him independently. All his peculiar interpretations deserve careful attention. In many cases they are decidedly preferable to those of the other commentators, and have therefore been not rarely followed in the translation. Ndr&yaza seems to have been not only deeply versed in the sacred law, but to have possessed also a knowledge of various other Sastras. As we learn from his commentary on Manu V, 56, 80, 104, XI, 72, he also wrote two other works on Dharma, a KA4madhenudipika and a Suddhidipika. His Kosha has been mentioned above. Commentaries of his on parts of the Mahabharata, e. g. on the Udyogaparvan, on the Svargérohavaparvan §, and on the Sanatsugattya, are still extant ‘. 1 wtarerraeataga ofa: ager: | yfrweugrerertieg gt fac waft Thus at the end of chapter I; in the other two passages the MS. has the faulty form farcera. 2 Ig MAgirerinirergrrerarafgereT rey | ATTY afk aarergeve WW Three other boastful verses occur at the end, 1. of chapter H, Wrrrnretyafedetstararn: | aqefarfrcrerd (t] aferat _ Wa. of chapter V, Wrarcrquraaafafatat dtea PC it a wig faratd aa wearergtafary W 3. of chapter IX, wrarcraaaaate nerdirenrey | atten wa act aa a[ fala we aa [ar] ayn * Weber, Berlin Catalogue, Nos. 394, 399; Aufrecht. Catalogue, Bodl. Libr. p. 2. ‘ Telang, Sacred Books of the East, vol. viii, p. 148. INTRODUCTION. CXXXi
3of chapter IX, wrarcraaaaate nerdirenrey | atten wa act aa a[ fala we aa [ar] ayn * Weber, Berlin Catalogue, Nos. 394, 399; Aufrecht. Catalogue, Bodl. Libr. p. 2. ‘ Telang, Sacred Books of the East, vol. viii, p. 148. INTRODUCTION. CXXXi The fourth work on our list, the well-known Manvarthamuktavali of Kulldkabha/¢sa, the son of Divakarabha/ta, was considered until lately the most trustworthy guide for the exposition of Manu. In the introductory verses to his commentary Kullika informs us that he was a Gauda or Bengali by birth, his father residing in Nandana in Varendri1, and that he wrote his work at Benares with the assistance of other Pazdits. As regards his times, we only know that Narayama Sarvagiia and another commentator, Dharazidhara ?, stood between him and Govindaraga, and that Raghunandana, who wrote in the beginning of the sixteenth century, is the earliest author who quotes him >. He, therefore, lived probably in the fifteenth century. The Manvarthamuktavali is, as Professor Jolly has been the first to recognise‘, little more than an improved edition of Govindaraga’s ManuZika. In spite of the asperity with which Kulldka repeatedly inveighs against his predecessor, he has not disdained to copy very large portions of the Manufika, sometimes verbatim and sometimes in very insufficient extracts, where the omissions make the meaning obscure. Moreover, even where the wording of the two commentaries differs, the influence of Govinda is distinctly visible. Under these circumstances the value of the Mukt4vali is, since the recovery of the Manu/ika, not very great, though it is undeniable that in certain cases Kullika’s independent remarks or criticisms of the earlier works are useful. Its great fame in India and its frequent occurrence in the libraries of native lawyers in all parts of the Peninsula may be explained by the fact that it was written and approved at Benares, which town has, since remote times, been a most important literary centre and the chief source from which the Pazdits draw their supplies of books. For the notes I 1 In the colophon of chapter XII, the place is called Varendranandana. The district of Varendra lies between Dinajpur and the Ganges, Cunningham, Arch. Reports, XV, Plate 1, and p. 40. ® See concluding verses at the end of chapter XII. * Aufrecht, loc. cit. p. 292. * Die Juristischen Abschnitte aus dem Gesetzbuche des Manu, p. 3, des Separatabdrucks; Tagore Lectures, p. 10. i2 CXXXii LAWS OF MANU, have used no MSS. of the MuktAvali; but two editions, Gibanand’s reprint of the earlier Calcutta edition! and the Bombay lithographed edition of Sakasamvat 1780. The latter-is by far the better one, but leaves, like all other editions which I have seen, much to desire from a critical point of view. There are a good many passages in which the text does not agree with the commentary.
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.
1The 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 commentary', The latter author says there that ‘he has taken cognisance of (the opinions) approved by Kulldka and Narayama, and of those entertained in their hearts by Govinda and MedhAtithi.’ As it is evident that in the second group the later author has been placed first, the assumption that the same order has been observed with respect to the first pair, and that Raghavananda, applying the principle of uttarottaragariyastva, i.e. naming the more important persons later, intends the whole series to be read backwards ?, is not unreasonable. In its favour speaks also the fact that Narayana quotes Govindaraga on Manu VIII, 123. In order to fix the date when Narayana wrote, we have to rely chiefly on some quotations. His opinions on law are first quoted by Kamalakara, who wrote in the beginning of the seventeenth century ®. But a Namanidhana by Nardyaza Sarvagiia is mentioned by Rayamukuéa in his commentary on the Amarakosha, which was composed in 1431 A.D.‘ The only MS. of the Manvarthavivriti® hitherto found (Deccan College Collection of 1879- 1880, No. 238) bears at the end of Adhy4ya VIII, the date Sam. 1544 kaitra badi g ravau, which corresponds to Sunday, March 27, 1497 A.D. Hence it follows that Nardyaza cannot have written later than in the last half of the fourteenth century. Possibly he may be somewhat older. The Manvarthavivriti is not a running commentary which explains every word of the text. It confines itself to the elucidation of selected difficult passages and words. It was written with the avowed intention of undoing the work of the author’s. predecessors. At the end of chapters 1 Jolly, Tagore Lectures, p. 11; the passage has been printed in Dr. Burnell's Tanjore Catalogue, p. 126. ? This manner of enumerating a series of persons or of arguments is also found occasionally in older Sanskrit works; see e.g. Vasishéha XIII, 58. > Aufrecht, Catalogue Sansk. MSS. Bod]. Libr. p. 279. * See Professor Aufrecht’s Analysis in the Journal of the German Oriental Society, vol. xxviii, p. 114. 5 This MS., which has been used for the notes to the translation, is a very fair copy, containing the commentary alone, Fols. 1-8 have been half eaten by rats. Fols. 192-3 have been lost. [25] i CXXxX LAWS OF MANU.
2xxviii, p. 114. 5 This MS., which has been used for the notes to the translation, is a very fair copy, containing the commentary alone, Fols. 1-8 have been half eaten by rats. Fols. 192-3 have been lost. [25] i CXXxX LAWS OF MANU. I, VI, and VIII we find a verse, apparently belonging to Narayana, which says,‘ This commentary of the Manu-smriti, composed by the illustrious Narayana Sarvagiia, thrusts far away the exposition given in contemptible compilations 1.’ Again, at the end of chapter IV we read, ‘ Direct your attention to the good words of N&ardyaza Sarvagiia, which propound the real meaning of Manu and repel the exposition given in contemptible compilations®’” As might be expected from these utterances, Narayana shows a great anxiety to find explanations differing from those of Medhatithi and Govinda. Sometimes he attains this aim by returning to views which Medhatithi mentions and rejects; but more frequently his explanations have been either taken from commentaries inaccessible to us, or represent opinions formed by him independently. All his peculiar interpretations deserve careful attention. In many cases they are decidedly preferable to those of the other commentators, and have therefore been not rarely followed in the translation. Ndr&yaza seems to have been not only deeply versed in the sacred law, but to have possessed also a knowledge of various other Sastras. As we learn from his commentary on Manu V, 56, 80, 104, XI, 72, he also wrote two other works on Dharma, a KA4madhenudipika and a Suddhidipika. His Kosha has been mentioned above. Commentaries of his on parts of the Mahabharata, e. g. on the Udyogaparvan, on the Svargérohavaparvan §, and on the Sanatsugattya, are still extant ‘. 1 wtarerraeataga ofa: ager: | yfrweugrerertieg gt fac waft Thus at the end of chapter I; in the other two passages the MS. has the faulty form farcera. 2 Ig MAgirerinirergrrerarafgereT rey | ATTY afk aarergeve WW Three other boastful verses occur at the end, 1. of chapter H, Wrrrnretyafedetstararn: | aqefarfrcrerd (t] aferat _ Wa. of chapter V, Wrarcrquraaafafatat dtea PC it a wig faratd aa wearergtafary W 3. of chapter IX, wrarcraaaaate nerdirenrey | atten wa act aa a[ fala we aa [ar] ayn * Weber, Berlin Catalogue, Nos. 394, 399; Aufrecht. Catalogue, Bodl. Libr. p. 2. ‘ Telang, Sacred Books of the East, vol. viii, p. 148. INTRODUCTION. CXXXi
3of chapter IX, wrarcraaaaate nerdirenrey | atten wa act aa a[ fala we aa [ar] ayn * Weber, Berlin Catalogue, Nos. 394, 399; Aufrecht. Catalogue, Bodl. Libr. p. 2. ‘ Telang, Sacred Books of the East, vol. viii, p. 148. INTRODUCTION. CXXXi The fourth work on our list, the well-known Manvarthamuktavali of Kulldkabha/¢sa, the son of Divakarabha/ta, was considered until lately the most trustworthy guide for the exposition of Manu. In the introductory verses to his commentary Kullika informs us that he was a Gauda or Bengali by birth, his father residing in Nandana in Varendri1, and that he wrote his work at Benares with the assistance of other Pazdits. As regards his times, we only know that Narayama Sarvagiia and another commentator, Dharazidhara ?, stood between him and Govindaraga, and that Raghunandana, who wrote in the beginning of the sixteenth century, is the earliest author who quotes him >. He, therefore, lived probably in the fifteenth century. The Manvarthamuktavali is, as Professor Jolly has been the first to recognise‘, little more than an improved edition of Govindaraga’s ManuZika. In spite of the asperity with which Kulldka repeatedly inveighs against his predecessor, he has not disdained to copy very large portions of the Manufika, sometimes verbatim and sometimes in very insufficient extracts, where the omissions make the meaning obscure. Moreover, even where the wording of the two commentaries differs, the influence of Govinda is distinctly visible. Under these circumstances the value of the Mukt4vali is, since the recovery of the Manu/ika, not very great, though it is undeniable that in certain cases Kullika’s independent remarks or criticisms of the earlier works are useful. Its great fame in India and its frequent occurrence in the libraries of native lawyers in all parts of the Peninsula may be explained by the fact that it was written and approved at Benares, which town has, since remote times, been a most important literary centre and the chief source from which the Pazdits draw their supplies of books. For the notes I 1 In the colophon of chapter XII, the place is called Varendranandana. The district of Varendra lies between Dinajpur and the Ganges, Cunningham, Arch. Reports, XV, Plate 1, and p. 40. ® See concluding verses at the end of chapter XII. * Aufrecht, loc. cit. p. 292. * Die Juristischen Abschnitte aus dem Gesetzbuche des Manu, p. 3, des Separatabdrucks; Tagore Lectures, p. 10. i2 CXXXii LAWS OF MANU, have used no MSS. of the MuktAvali; but two editions, Gibanand’s reprint of the earlier Calcutta edition! and the Bombay lithographed edition of Sakasamvat 1780. The latter-is by far the better one, but leaves, like all other editions which I have seen, much to desire from a critical point of view. There are a good many passages in which the text does not agree with the commentary.
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.