DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0024
COMMENTARIES AND DIGESTS.
9
decidedly posterior and inferior in authority to those Lecture
two ancient authors, and in many passages of his Comnien- L
tary Kulluka may be seen engaged in refuting the opinions
of Govindaraja, which, as I have found, has not prevented
him from transcribing verbatim Jxrge portions of his work
without acknowledgment. To Govindaraja, and not to his
follower Kulluka, belongs by right the rather exaggerated
eulogium bestowed $n the latter work by Sir AV. Jones, who
says of Kulluka’s Commentary that it is the shortest, yet
the most luminous; the deepest, yet the most agreeable
Commentary ever composed on any author, ancient or
modern, European or Asiatic. Again, it is not Kulluka as
Haughton has asserted, but Govindaraja, by whom >“ the
gist of Medhatithi’s remarks has been condensed in an
admirably clear and masterly style.” Where Govindaraja
has departed from the opinions of his predecessor, he has
not always done so with success.1 As regards the date
of Govindaraja’s work, it must be decidedly more recent
than the lost Commentary of Bhojaraja, which belongs-«to the
11th century. The lower limit is furnished by the fact
that Govindaraja’s Manu-tika is quoted in the Dayabhaga
and in Narayana’s Commentary, both of which works
cannot be placed later than the 15th century. The fact
of Govindaraja being quoted in the Dayabhaga stands
in the way of his supposed identity2 with Govinda-
chandra, a king of Benares, who was contemporaneous
with Nrisinha, a law-writer of the 1 5th century. He might
rather be identified with another Govindachandra, who
reigned in Canouj in the 12th century.3 The MS. of his
work gives no clue to his date and parentage except that
it styles him the son of Madhava, and it is not certain that
he was a royal author.
The Manvarthavivriti, or Manvarthanibandha,of Narayana Narayans
1 Thus the order of the three cl okas, VIII. 182 — 84, is strangely inverted
in the Commentary of Govindaraja. By doing^So, says Kulluka, he has
disturbed the natural order of ideas in that passage, and has offended
a.gainst the ancient tradition, as represented by the works of Medhatithi,
Bhojaraja, and others. The correctness of the®latter observation is con-
firmed by the MSS. of Medhatithi’s Commentary. In commenting
on VIII. 123, Govindaraja interprets <T by “ He
shall strip (a Brahman who is a false witness) of his clothes.” Accord-
ing to all the other commentators it means “ he shall banish him.” This ®
is no doubt th'fe correct explanation.
2 Rajkumar Sarvadhikari,
3 Colebrooke.
9
decidedly posterior and inferior in authority to those Lecture
two ancient authors, and in many passages of his Comnien- L
tary Kulluka may be seen engaged in refuting the opinions
of Govindaraja, which, as I have found, has not prevented
him from transcribing verbatim Jxrge portions of his work
without acknowledgment. To Govindaraja, and not to his
follower Kulluka, belongs by right the rather exaggerated
eulogium bestowed $n the latter work by Sir AV. Jones, who
says of Kulluka’s Commentary that it is the shortest, yet
the most luminous; the deepest, yet the most agreeable
Commentary ever composed on any author, ancient or
modern, European or Asiatic. Again, it is not Kulluka as
Haughton has asserted, but Govindaraja, by whom >“ the
gist of Medhatithi’s remarks has been condensed in an
admirably clear and masterly style.” Where Govindaraja
has departed from the opinions of his predecessor, he has
not always done so with success.1 As regards the date
of Govindaraja’s work, it must be decidedly more recent
than the lost Commentary of Bhojaraja, which belongs-«to the
11th century. The lower limit is furnished by the fact
that Govindaraja’s Manu-tika is quoted in the Dayabhaga
and in Narayana’s Commentary, both of which works
cannot be placed later than the 15th century. The fact
of Govindaraja being quoted in the Dayabhaga stands
in the way of his supposed identity2 with Govinda-
chandra, a king of Benares, who was contemporaneous
with Nrisinha, a law-writer of the 1 5th century. He might
rather be identified with another Govindachandra, who
reigned in Canouj in the 12th century.3 The MS. of his
work gives no clue to his date and parentage except that
it styles him the son of Madhava, and it is not certain that
he was a royal author.
The Manvarthavivriti, or Manvarthanibandha,of Narayana Narayans
1 Thus the order of the three cl okas, VIII. 182 — 84, is strangely inverted
in the Commentary of Govindaraja. By doing^So, says Kulluka, he has
disturbed the natural order of ideas in that passage, and has offended
a.gainst the ancient tradition, as represented by the works of Medhatithi,
Bhojaraja, and others. The correctness of the®latter observation is con-
firmed by the MSS. of Medhatithi’s Commentary. In commenting
on VIII. 123, Govindaraja interprets <T by “ He
shall strip (a Brahman who is a false witness) of his clothes.” Accord-
ing to all the other commentators it means “ he shall banish him.” This ®
is no doubt th'fe correct explanation.
2 Rajkumar Sarvadhikari,
3 Colebrooke.