DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0022
COMMENTARIES AND DIGESTS.
7
old tradition to that effect was already known toColebrooke, Lecture
stat?ng as he does that the Commentary of Medhatithi
having been partly lost has been completed by other hands
at the Court of Madanapala, a Prince of High. This
meritorious deed of Madanapala, Who appears to have reigned
in the 14th century,1 is extolled in a Sanskrit verse,
which I have met with in seven old MSS. of Medhatithi’s
Commentary, from Olivers parts of India.’2 That the original
work of Medhatithi should have undergone any consider-
able change at the hands of King Madanapala or his
advisers is far from probable. It is true that the now
existing MSS. of Medhatithi’s Commentary differ occasion-
ally from one another and from the textus receptus. ’Thus
the 8th chapter has only 348 Clokas in one India Office
MS. to the 420 Clokas of the textus receptus, and the 9th
chapter is wanting altogether in most of the MSS. But
the fact of the Sanskrit verse referred to occurring in so
many MSS. renders it very likely that all the now existing
copies of Medhatithi’s Commentary are derived fibm the
copy prepared by King Madanapala or by his adlatus, the
well-known Jurist Vigvegvara. The discrepancies referred
to must, therefore, be of modern growth. Nor does that
Sanskrit verse imply that the original composition of Me-
dhatithi was altered or added to by Madanapala, though
one might be led to think so from the terms used by Cole-
brooke. The whole traditional statement about King
Madanapala really comes to this that he procured MSS. of
1 See post, p. 15.
21 am indebted to Professor Biihler for communicating to me his opinion
about this stanza, which is more or less incorrectly given in all MSS.
The best readings on the whole, I think, are those found in an old
Benares MS. »
sfiTfqr ^T^I
m uiti i
vidky Benares MS.)
“ Any Smriti of Mann should be respected, as well as the current gloss
on it by Medhatithi. The latter had been destroyed by the decree of fate. •
King Madanx the Son of Sadharana, acquired the merit of jirnoddhara
(restoring what had been destroyed) in regard to this book, which was
not to be found anywhere, by causing a copy to be taken of it after he
had procured it from a different country.”
9
7
old tradition to that effect was already known toColebrooke, Lecture
stat?ng as he does that the Commentary of Medhatithi
having been partly lost has been completed by other hands
at the Court of Madanapala, a Prince of High. This
meritorious deed of Madanapala, Who appears to have reigned
in the 14th century,1 is extolled in a Sanskrit verse,
which I have met with in seven old MSS. of Medhatithi’s
Commentary, from Olivers parts of India.’2 That the original
work of Medhatithi should have undergone any consider-
able change at the hands of King Madanapala or his
advisers is far from probable. It is true that the now
existing MSS. of Medhatithi’s Commentary differ occasion-
ally from one another and from the textus receptus. ’Thus
the 8th chapter has only 348 Clokas in one India Office
MS. to the 420 Clokas of the textus receptus, and the 9th
chapter is wanting altogether in most of the MSS. But
the fact of the Sanskrit verse referred to occurring in so
many MSS. renders it very likely that all the now existing
copies of Medhatithi’s Commentary are derived fibm the
copy prepared by King Madanapala or by his adlatus, the
well-known Jurist Vigvegvara. The discrepancies referred
to must, therefore, be of modern growth. Nor does that
Sanskrit verse imply that the original composition of Me-
dhatithi was altered or added to by Madanapala, though
one might be led to think so from the terms used by Cole-
brooke. The whole traditional statement about King
Madanapala really comes to this that he procured MSS. of
1 See post, p. 15.
21 am indebted to Professor Biihler for communicating to me his opinion
about this stanza, which is more or less incorrectly given in all MSS.
The best readings on the whole, I think, are those found in an old
Benares MS. »
sfiTfqr ^T^I
m uiti i
vidky Benares MS.)
“ Any Smriti of Mann should be respected, as well as the current gloss
on it by Medhatithi. The latter had been destroyed by the decree of fate. •
King Madanx the Son of Sadharana, acquired the merit of jirnoddhara
(restoring what had been destroyed) in regard to this book, which was
not to be found anywhere, by causing a copy to be taken of it after he
had procured it from a different country.”
9