Fetching
One moment.
Fetching
One moment.
Romanised transliteration as printed by the translator, not the original script. This is what we hold.
1I, 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 confession of his having done violence to the traditional text. The verses which Nandana adds are, I think, all interpolations, some of which perhaps go back to early times, as they occur also in the Southern MSS. and in the Kasmir copy. With respect to the omissions, Nandana sometimes follows one or several of the other commentators, In other cases he agrees with the Southern MSS. alone, and again in others he stands quite by himself. One of the omissions of the last class, Manu V, 61, is, as has been pointed out in the notes, purely due to an accidental lacuna in the MS. which Nandana used. With respect to numerous other cases it must be noted that the two copies of the Manuvy4khyana which European scholars have examined, Mr. Raghunathrao’s and Dr. Burnell’s (chapters VITI-IX, now in the India Office Library), differ very considerably. Thus in chapter VIII, Dr. Burnell’s copy omits, according to Professor Jolly’s collation !, verses 8, 11, 14, 74, 81, 103, 227-228, 231, 332, while Mr. Raghunathréo’s MS. has them all excepting verses 8, 228, and 231, and gives even notes on 11, 14, 81, 103, 227. These differences between the two copies seem to extend also to readings in Manu’s text and to explanations. But it is not rarely difficult to give a definite opinion on these points, because Mr. Raghunathrao’s MS. sometimes gives only the Pratikas of the verses, and is often so corrupt that the sense can be made out only by means of conjectural emendations. Under these circumstances it will not be advisable to attach too much weight to variae lectiones, derived from the Manuvy4khydna, which are not supported by the authority of other commentaries. The anonymous 7ippaaa, or collection of detached explanatory remarks, in the Kasmir birch bark MS.? is of very small importance. It looks as if it owed its origin to the marginal notes of some learned Pandit, which, later, were copied with the text and placed after the verses to * Compare also Professor Hopkins, Notes on the Nandint, Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October, 1883, p. xviii, where, however, only verses 8, 11, 74, 81, and 332 are enumerated as missing. * Deccan College Collection of 1876-1877, No. 355. CXXXVI LAWS OF MANU.
2xviii, where, however, only verses 8, 11, 74, 81, and 332 are enumerated as missing. * Deccan College Collection of 1876-1877, No. 355. CXXXVI LAWS OF MANU. which they refer. Professor Jolly! has pointed out that in one case it characteristically agrees with Govindaraga ; and other instances, e.g. the remarks on Manu I, 52, may be added. There are also some cases (see e.g. the explanation of dimbha, Manu V, 91) where the Kasmir commentary agrees with curious explanations given by Nandana. The text also agrees occasionally with peculiar readings adopted by Nandana or by Narfyama and Nandana*. But I should consider it hazardous to draw from these instances any conclusions regarding the sources of the 7ippaza. The Kasmir MS., which has been very carefully written and corrected, is mutilated at the end, about one-third of each of the last dozen leaves being torn off. The loss falls on Manu XI, 218-XII, 126. The above remarks on the materials which I had at my disposal show that, in spite of their undeniable importance, they were insufficient for a radical change in the treatment of Manu’s text. As the recension, given by Kullika, was the only one accessible in its entirety and in tolerably trustworthy copies, I could not do anything else than take that for the basis of my translation. Practical reasons, too, especially the consideration that the Indian public has been accustomed to Kullika’s text, and that the numerous references in the translations of Hindu law-books point to the Manu of Kullika, made the adoption of this principle highly desirable. I have, therefore, retained every verse which Kullika explains, though the weight of the authorities might be against its genuineness, and I have refrained from receiving into the text any verse which he omits. In cases of the former kind the names of the dissenting commentators have been given in the notes, where also translations of the best accredited and more important additional verses, given by other commentators, will be found®. I have, moreover, 1 Tagore Lectures, p. 11. ® See e.g. notes on Manu I, a; III, £9. 73, 195. * I may add that I have paid no attention to those verses which the medieval Nibandhas on law quote as Manu’s, but which are not traceable in the recension approved of by the commentators. These verses are in my opinion all spurious. In most cases we have simply to deal with misquotations caused by the careless- INTRODUCTION. exxxvil adhered to Kullfika’s order of the verses, except in some cases where he is evidently in the wrong, and the transposition causes no great inconvenience. On the other hand, I have tried to remove the numerous palpable blunders in the readings of the editions, which are mostly due, not to Kulldka himself, but to the editors of his text. The notes show what has been changed, and on whose authority it has been done. I have, finally, added a selection of the more important various readings given in the other commentaries.
3The notes show what has been changed, and on whose authority it has been done. I have, finally, added a selection of the more important various readings given in the other commentaries. With respect to the translation, my proceeding has been somewhat different. Though I should have liked to follow in the text Kullaka’s commentary alone, and to give the renderings of the other commentators in the notes, I found that to be impracticable. The bulk of my volume would have become enormous, and in very many passages I should have been compelled to declare the rendering placed in the text to be utterly erroneous. In order to escape these difficulties I have generally, except in very doubtful passages, translated in accordance with that exposition which seemed to me most reasonable, and have placed some of the other particularly noteworthy explanations in the notes. In a certain number of verses where the real meaning of the text is very doubtful, I have not gone beyond a literal rendering of Manu’s words, which, like the original, may be interpreted in different ways. In such cases the notes exhibit all the various interpretations found in the commentaries. In a very small number of verses the explanations of the commentators have been set aside altogether for reasons duly stated in the notes. The length of my notes varies very much, according to the interest or difficulty of the subject treated in the text. Thus the summary of the opinions of the commentators on the practically important titles of the Hindu law, Manu IX, 1-219, is as complete as the state of the MSS. allowed me to make it. Almost all the explanations of the difficult philosophical portions of chapters I and XII have likewise ness of the Nibandhak Aras, who are as little to be depended upon for accuracy as Indian writers on other scientific subjects or as the European medieval writers on classical philology. They quoted mostly, if not invariably, from memory. [25] CXXXViii 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.
1I, 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 confession of his having done violence to the traditional text. The verses which Nandana adds are, I think, all interpolations, some of which perhaps go back to early times, as they occur also in the Southern MSS. and in the Kasmir copy. With respect to the omissions, Nandana sometimes follows one or several of the other commentators, In other cases he agrees with the Southern MSS. alone, and again in others he stands quite by himself. One of the omissions of the last class, Manu V, 61, is, as has been pointed out in the notes, purely due to an accidental lacuna in the MS. which Nandana used. With respect to numerous other cases it must be noted that the two copies of the Manuvy4khyana which European scholars have examined, Mr. Raghunathrao’s and Dr. Burnell’s (chapters VITI-IX, now in the India Office Library), differ very considerably. Thus in chapter VIII, Dr. Burnell’s copy omits, according to Professor Jolly’s collation !, verses 8, 11, 14, 74, 81, 103, 227-228, 231, 332, while Mr. Raghunathréo’s MS. has them all excepting verses 8, 228, and 231, and gives even notes on 11, 14, 81, 103, 227. These differences between the two copies seem to extend also to readings in Manu’s text and to explanations. But it is not rarely difficult to give a definite opinion on these points, because Mr. Raghunathrao’s MS. sometimes gives only the Pratikas of the verses, and is often so corrupt that the sense can be made out only by means of conjectural emendations. Under these circumstances it will not be advisable to attach too much weight to variae lectiones, derived from the Manuvy4khydna, which are not supported by the authority of other commentaries. The anonymous 7ippaaa, or collection of detached explanatory remarks, in the Kasmir birch bark MS.? is of very small importance. It looks as if it owed its origin to the marginal notes of some learned Pandit, which, later, were copied with the text and placed after the verses to * Compare also Professor Hopkins, Notes on the Nandint, Proceedings of the American Oriental Society, October, 1883, p. xviii, where, however, only verses 8, 11, 74, 81, and 332 are enumerated as missing. * Deccan College Collection of 1876-1877, No. 355. CXXXVI LAWS OF MANU.
2xviii, where, however, only verses 8, 11, 74, 81, and 332 are enumerated as missing. * Deccan College Collection of 1876-1877, No. 355. CXXXVI LAWS OF MANU. which they refer. Professor Jolly! has pointed out that in one case it characteristically agrees with Govindaraga ; and other instances, e.g. the remarks on Manu I, 52, may be added. There are also some cases (see e.g. the explanation of dimbha, Manu V, 91) where the Kasmir commentary agrees with curious explanations given by Nandana. The text also agrees occasionally with peculiar readings adopted by Nandana or by Narfyama and Nandana*. But I should consider it hazardous to draw from these instances any conclusions regarding the sources of the 7ippaza. The Kasmir MS., which has been very carefully written and corrected, is mutilated at the end, about one-third of each of the last dozen leaves being torn off. The loss falls on Manu XI, 218-XII, 126. The above remarks on the materials which I had at my disposal show that, in spite of their undeniable importance, they were insufficient for a radical change in the treatment of Manu’s text. As the recension, given by Kullika, was the only one accessible in its entirety and in tolerably trustworthy copies, I could not do anything else than take that for the basis of my translation. Practical reasons, too, especially the consideration that the Indian public has been accustomed to Kullika’s text, and that the numerous references in the translations of Hindu law-books point to the Manu of Kullika, made the adoption of this principle highly desirable. I have, therefore, retained every verse which Kullika explains, though the weight of the authorities might be against its genuineness, and I have refrained from receiving into the text any verse which he omits. In cases of the former kind the names of the dissenting commentators have been given in the notes, where also translations of the best accredited and more important additional verses, given by other commentators, will be found®. I have, moreover, 1 Tagore Lectures, p. 11. ® See e.g. notes on Manu I, a; III, £9. 73, 195. * I may add that I have paid no attention to those verses which the medieval Nibandhas on law quote as Manu’s, but which are not traceable in the recension approved of by the commentators. These verses are in my opinion all spurious. In most cases we have simply to deal with misquotations caused by the careless- INTRODUCTION. exxxvil adhered to Kullfika’s order of the verses, except in some cases where he is evidently in the wrong, and the transposition causes no great inconvenience. On the other hand, I have tried to remove the numerous palpable blunders in the readings of the editions, which are mostly due, not to Kulldka himself, but to the editors of his text. The notes show what has been changed, and on whose authority it has been done. I have, finally, added a selection of the more important various readings given in the other commentaries.
3The notes show what has been changed, and on whose authority it has been done. I have, finally, added a selection of the more important various readings given in the other commentaries. With respect to the translation, my proceeding has been somewhat different. Though I should have liked to follow in the text Kullaka’s commentary alone, and to give the renderings of the other commentators in the notes, I found that to be impracticable. The bulk of my volume would have become enormous, and in very many passages I should have been compelled to declare the rendering placed in the text to be utterly erroneous. In order to escape these difficulties I have generally, except in very doubtful passages, translated in accordance with that exposition which seemed to me most reasonable, and have placed some of the other particularly noteworthy explanations in the notes. In a certain number of verses where the real meaning of the text is very doubtful, I have not gone beyond a literal rendering of Manu’s words, which, like the original, may be interpreted in different ways. In such cases the notes exhibit all the various interpretations found in the commentaries. In a very small number of verses the explanations of the commentators have been set aside altogether for reasons duly stated in the notes. The length of my notes varies very much, according to the interest or difficulty of the subject treated in the text. Thus the summary of the opinions of the commentators on the practically important titles of the Hindu law, Manu IX, 1-219, is as complete as the state of the MSS. allowed me to make it. Almost all the explanations of the difficult philosophical portions of chapters I and XII have likewise ness of the Nibandhak Aras, who are as little to be depended upon for accuracy as Indian writers on other scientific subjects or as the European medieval writers on classical philology. They quoted mostly, if not invariably, from memory. [25] CXXXViii 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.