Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1and 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. On the Manvarthamuktavali rests the Manvarthasandriké, written by Raghavananda Sarasvati, an ascetic of Sankarékarya’s school’, and a pupil of one Visvesvarabhagavatp4da. Though the author asserts, as stated above, that he used four older commentaries, he mostly adheres to Kulldka’s opinions. It is only rarely that he prefers Narayana’s interpretations or recurs to views of Govindaraga and Medhftithi, which Kullika refuted or left unnoticed. His exposition of the philosophical portions of the text is, however, mostly independent, and he interprets them throughout in such a manner as to agree with the Ved4nta doctrines of his school. The Kandrik4 is not a running commentary which paraphrases every word of Manu, but gives mostly, besides a short summary of the general meaning, merely remarks on difficult words and passages. It is probably a modern work, dating from the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century *. I have not met with any quotations from it in other law-books. The oldest known MS. is that brought by Anquetil from Gugarat and deposited in the Bibliothéque Nationale at Paris (Devanagari 49, fonds d’Anquetil, No. 16). Its date, Sawevat 1706 varshe karttika badi 10 somadine, corresponds, according to Dr. Schram’s 1 The reason why I used this very incorrect text, was that Professor Jolly kindly lent me his copy in which he has entered the various readings of Medh., Gov., Nr., Ragh., of the Kasmir copy and other MSS. * According to H. H. Wilson, Works, I, pp. 202-3 (ed. Rost), the ascetics, bearing the title Sarasvatt, follow the samepradaya of Safkarafarya. See also Aufrecht, Catalogue Sansk. MSS. Bodl. Libr. p. 227. * Mr. Loiseleur Deslongchamps’ attempt (Lois de Manon, p. xvi) to identify Raghavananda with Raghunandana, the bhasfaéarya of the sixteenth century, is an unlucky guess, It seems to me that the author of the Xandrik4 is identical with the ascetic Raghavananda, pupil of Advayananda, pupil of Visvesvara, who is mentioned as an author on Samkhya and Vedanta philosophy by Dr. F. E. Hall, Catalogue, pp. 6, 91, &c. INTRODUCTION. CXXXili calculation, to Monday, November 29, 1649. Another old MS. of about the same date is mentioned by Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p.126. For the notes I have used the Paris MS., which was kindly lent to me by the French Government, as far as Manu IX,187. It contains both the commentary and the text, the former being, however, left out on I, 45-78. For the remaining portion I have consulted a very old, but much damaged copy of the Deccan College Collection of 1882-1883, acquired by Professor Bhazdarkar for the Government of Bombay.
2It contains both the commentary and the text, the former being, however, left out on I, 45-78. For the remaining portion I have consulted a very old, but much damaged copy of the Deccan College Collection of 1882-1883, acquired by Professor Bhazdarkar for the Government of Bombay. The name of the sixth commentary is, according to the MS., the loan of which I owe to the courtesy of Divan Bah4dur Raghunathraéo of Madras, Manuvydkhyana, but according to Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 126, Nandini. Its author calls himself Nandana (Nandanasarya according to Dr. Burnell), the son of Lakshmaza, a member of the Bh4radvaga gotra, and the dear friend of the illustrious Viramalla?. In all probability he was a native of Southern India. For his work is, as far as I am aware, known in Southern India alone; its MSS. are met with only in the Madras Presidency, and Professor Jolly (loc. cit., p. 12) has found that many of his peculiar readings agree with those found in Southern MSS. of the Manu-smriti. As his name is not quoted in any commentary on Manu or in any work on law, known to me, it would seem that he is either of very modern date or that his opinions were not held in any great esteem. Mr. Raghunathr4o’s MS. is dated Sakasamvat 1724, Magha sudi pratipad, or 1803 A.D. The Manuvydkhydna is a very short commentary, which mostly repeats and explains only a few words or phrases of the text. It dismisses many verses which stand in need of elucidation with the curt remark spash/a4, ‘clear,’ and 1 The colophon of chapter XII runs as follows: xfa shrcrrnt ta Ween wtiewfaaed whoeaa facet aqurent afearat wreyeana: UW Viramalla was probably a prince or chief, and the mention of his name will eventually aid to ascertain Nandana’s time. A third variety of the latter's name occurs in the Madras edition of Cole- brooke’s Digest, p. xv, note 6, where the editor speaks of a commentary on Manu, Nandaragkrit (?) by Nandaraga. CXXXiV LAWS OF MANU.
3A third variety of the latter's name occurs in the Madras edition of Cole- brooke’s Digest, p. xv, note 6, where the editor speaks of a commentary on Manu, Nandaragkrit (?) by Nandaraga. CXXXiV LAWS OF MANU. passes by others without any note. Though no names are ever quoted, most of the explanations have been taken on purely eclectic principles from the earlier commentaries, among which the first four of our list must certainly be reckoned. The favourite among them is the Manvarthavivviti. The notes to the translation show a considerable number of cases where ‘Nar. and Nand.’ form a separate group, and on important points advocate opinions opposed to those of Medhatithi, Govinda, and Kullfika. But there are also other passages, concerning which Nandana agrees either with Medhatithi alone, or with ‘others,’ quoted by Medhitithi, with Kullaka or even with Govinda. Finally, he offers in a certain number of cases expositions not traceable elsewhere, some of which, especially those on the philosophical pieces, deserve attention. The text which Nandana follows, differs not inconsiderably from the vulgata. It shows, besides very numerous, more or less important variae lectiones, some omissions, additions, and transpositions of entire verses. Many of Nandana’s various readings are derived from Medhatithi, Narayaza, and other older commentators, who either themselves follow them or at least mention their existence. As regards those which Nandana alone offers, the majority seem to be either corruptelae or conjectures, and sometimes very unlucky ones’, The transpositions, which partly occur in passages regarding the order of which the other commentators agree, appear to have sometimes at least no better authority than guesses made by Nandana. Thus if he places Manu I, 27 after verse 19, and X, 14 after verse 6, and adds in each case that, ‘if some read the verses further on, that must be due to an error of the copyists,’ I can only see in this remark a 1 To the first class belongs exatfart: for qatfact: M. III, 114, the senseless WITHA for BTYA M. VIII, 154 (not given in the notes), WTF for WA IX, 202, and so forth ; to the second, ercenargat for ercanifa AYA M. I, 5, TH aTHTe for WHTHAT M. VIL, 54, WTA: for WSU: M. VILL, 162, ATPTMTAT: for STSATAT: M. VIII, 283 (not given in the notes), TAMAS for waaay mfg M. IX, 126, wearer (loc. sing. of STATAT |) for GHTAANY M. X, 28, and so forth. INTRODUCTION. CXXXV
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.
1and 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. On the Manvarthamuktavali rests the Manvarthasandriké, written by Raghavananda Sarasvati, an ascetic of Sankarékarya’s school’, and a pupil of one Visvesvarabhagavatp4da. Though the author asserts, as stated above, that he used four older commentaries, he mostly adheres to Kulldka’s opinions. It is only rarely that he prefers Narayana’s interpretations or recurs to views of Govindaraga and Medhftithi, which Kullika refuted or left unnoticed. His exposition of the philosophical portions of the text is, however, mostly independent, and he interprets them throughout in such a manner as to agree with the Ved4nta doctrines of his school. The Kandrik4 is not a running commentary which paraphrases every word of Manu, but gives mostly, besides a short summary of the general meaning, merely remarks on difficult words and passages. It is probably a modern work, dating from the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century *. I have not met with any quotations from it in other law-books. The oldest known MS. is that brought by Anquetil from Gugarat and deposited in the Bibliothéque Nationale at Paris (Devanagari 49, fonds d’Anquetil, No. 16). Its date, Sawevat 1706 varshe karttika badi 10 somadine, corresponds, according to Dr. Schram’s 1 The reason why I used this very incorrect text, was that Professor Jolly kindly lent me his copy in which he has entered the various readings of Medh., Gov., Nr., Ragh., of the Kasmir copy and other MSS. * According to H. H. Wilson, Works, I, pp. 202-3 (ed. Rost), the ascetics, bearing the title Sarasvatt, follow the samepradaya of Safkarafarya. See also Aufrecht, Catalogue Sansk. MSS. Bodl. Libr. p. 227. * Mr. Loiseleur Deslongchamps’ attempt (Lois de Manon, p. xvi) to identify Raghavananda with Raghunandana, the bhasfaéarya of the sixteenth century, is an unlucky guess, It seems to me that the author of the Xandrik4 is identical with the ascetic Raghavananda, pupil of Advayananda, pupil of Visvesvara, who is mentioned as an author on Samkhya and Vedanta philosophy by Dr. F. E. Hall, Catalogue, pp. 6, 91, &c. INTRODUCTION. CXXXili calculation, to Monday, November 29, 1649. Another old MS. of about the same date is mentioned by Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p.126. For the notes I have used the Paris MS., which was kindly lent to me by the French Government, as far as Manu IX,187. It contains both the commentary and the text, the former being, however, left out on I, 45-78. For the remaining portion I have consulted a very old, but much damaged copy of the Deccan College Collection of 1882-1883, acquired by Professor Bhazdarkar for the Government of Bombay.
2It contains both the commentary and the text, the former being, however, left out on I, 45-78. For the remaining portion I have consulted a very old, but much damaged copy of the Deccan College Collection of 1882-1883, acquired by Professor Bhazdarkar for the Government of Bombay. The name of the sixth commentary is, according to the MS., the loan of which I owe to the courtesy of Divan Bah4dur Raghunathraéo of Madras, Manuvydkhyana, but according to Dr. Burnell, Tanjore Catalogue, p. 126, Nandini. Its author calls himself Nandana (Nandanasarya according to Dr. Burnell), the son of Lakshmaza, a member of the Bh4radvaga gotra, and the dear friend of the illustrious Viramalla?. In all probability he was a native of Southern India. For his work is, as far as I am aware, known in Southern India alone; its MSS. are met with only in the Madras Presidency, and Professor Jolly (loc. cit., p. 12) has found that many of his peculiar readings agree with those found in Southern MSS. of the Manu-smriti. As his name is not quoted in any commentary on Manu or in any work on law, known to me, it would seem that he is either of very modern date or that his opinions were not held in any great esteem. Mr. Raghunathr4o’s MS. is dated Sakasamvat 1724, Magha sudi pratipad, or 1803 A.D. The Manuvydkhydna is a very short commentary, which mostly repeats and explains only a few words or phrases of the text. It dismisses many verses which stand in need of elucidation with the curt remark spash/a4, ‘clear,’ and 1 The colophon of chapter XII runs as follows: xfa shrcrrnt ta Ween wtiewfaaed whoeaa facet aqurent afearat wreyeana: UW Viramalla was probably a prince or chief, and the mention of his name will eventually aid to ascertain Nandana’s time. A third variety of the latter's name occurs in the Madras edition of Cole- brooke’s Digest, p. xv, note 6, where the editor speaks of a commentary on Manu, Nandaragkrit (?) by Nandaraga. CXXXiV LAWS OF MANU.
3A third variety of the latter's name occurs in the Madras edition of Cole- brooke’s Digest, p. xv, note 6, where the editor speaks of a commentary on Manu, Nandaragkrit (?) by Nandaraga. CXXXiV LAWS OF MANU. passes by others without any note. Though no names are ever quoted, most of the explanations have been taken on purely eclectic principles from the earlier commentaries, among which the first four of our list must certainly be reckoned. The favourite among them is the Manvarthavivviti. The notes to the translation show a considerable number of cases where ‘Nar. and Nand.’ form a separate group, and on important points advocate opinions opposed to those of Medhatithi, Govinda, and Kullfika. But there are also other passages, concerning which Nandana agrees either with Medhatithi alone, or with ‘others,’ quoted by Medhitithi, with Kullaka or even with Govinda. Finally, he offers in a certain number of cases expositions not traceable elsewhere, some of which, especially those on the philosophical pieces, deserve attention. The text which Nandana follows, differs not inconsiderably from the vulgata. It shows, besides very numerous, more or less important variae lectiones, some omissions, additions, and transpositions of entire verses. Many of Nandana’s various readings are derived from Medhatithi, Narayaza, and other older commentators, who either themselves follow them or at least mention their existence. As regards those which Nandana alone offers, the majority seem to be either corruptelae or conjectures, and sometimes very unlucky ones’, The transpositions, which partly occur in passages regarding the order of which the other commentators agree, appear to have sometimes at least no better authority than guesses made by Nandana. Thus if he places Manu I, 27 after verse 19, and X, 14 after verse 6, and adds in each case that, ‘if some read the verses further on, that must be due to an error of the copyists,’ I can only see in this remark a 1 To the first class belongs exatfart: for qatfact: M. III, 114, the senseless WITHA for BTYA M. VIII, 154 (not given in the notes), WTF for WA IX, 202, and so forth ; to the second, ercenargat for ercanifa AYA M. I, 5, TH aTHTe for WHTHAT M. VIL, 54, WTA: for WSU: M. VILL, 162, ATPTMTAT: for STSATAT: M. VIII, 283 (not given in the notes), TAMAS for waaay mfg M. IX, 126, wearer (loc. sing. of STATAT |) for GHTAANY M. X, 28, and so forth. INTRODUCTION. CXXXV
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.