DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0025
10
NEW MATERIALS FOR HISTORICAL STUDY OF HINDU LAW.
Lectube Sarvajna or Sarvajna Narayana comes next. This is a
brief but ambitious Commentary. It explains selected pas-
sages only, and does not repeat the whole text of the Code
of Manu. Narayana differs from his predecessors wherever
it is possible to do so, add a Cloka recurring at the end of
several sections of his work claims for him the merit of
having entirely superseded through his gloss the bad Com-
mentaries composed by other authors.1 ‘Though Narayana’s
explanations deserve careful consideration in every case, as
we shall have occasion to observe in the course of these
Lectures, the desire to be original has sometimes tempted
him into interpreting his text in a highly artificial manner.
The native country of Narayana may perhaps be inferred
from the circumstance that all the MSS. hitherto discovered
of his work have turned up in Western India.2 The earlier
limit of the composition of his work is furnished by the
fact that he quotes Govindaraja (in the gloss on VIII. 123)
and the lower limit by the time in which the MS. dis-
covered by Professor Buhler has been written, A.D.
1497.
Kuiiuka. All the Commentaries hitherto mentioned have been unde-
servedly put in the shade by the renowned gloss of Kulluka-
bhatta, called Manvarthamuktavali. This work has been
used as the sole basis of all hitherto published editions and
translations of the Code of Manu, excepting perhaps M.
Loiseleur Deslongschamps’s French translation, for which
the Commentary of Raghavananda has now and then been
used along with Kulluka’s gloss. Kulluka states in the pre-
face to his work, that he compiled it in Benares, whilst Bengal
was his native country. His countryman Raghunandana
is the earliest author with a known date who quotes
Kulluka, whereas Jimutavahana, who lived before Raghu-
nandana, does not quote Kulluka, but his predecessor
Govindaraja. Kulluka’s epoch therefore would fall between
the early part of the 16th century, when Raghunandana
1 I
II
2 Thus in III. 16, he interprets the genitive forms occurring- in this
ploka as genitivi origins, denoting descendants of Gautama. Caunaka, and
Bhrigu. instead of recognizing the correctness of the interpretation
adopted by all the other commentators, that they contain ’tne names of
law authors, who are referred to as authorities by Mann. See P. von
Bradke on the Manava Grihyasutra, Journ. Germ. O. S.. vol. xxxvi.
NEW MATERIALS FOR HISTORICAL STUDY OF HINDU LAW.
Lectube Sarvajna or Sarvajna Narayana comes next. This is a
brief but ambitious Commentary. It explains selected pas-
sages only, and does not repeat the whole text of the Code
of Manu. Narayana differs from his predecessors wherever
it is possible to do so, add a Cloka recurring at the end of
several sections of his work claims for him the merit of
having entirely superseded through his gloss the bad Com-
mentaries composed by other authors.1 ‘Though Narayana’s
explanations deserve careful consideration in every case, as
we shall have occasion to observe in the course of these
Lectures, the desire to be original has sometimes tempted
him into interpreting his text in a highly artificial manner.
The native country of Narayana may perhaps be inferred
from the circumstance that all the MSS. hitherto discovered
of his work have turned up in Western India.2 The earlier
limit of the composition of his work is furnished by the
fact that he quotes Govindaraja (in the gloss on VIII. 123)
and the lower limit by the time in which the MS. dis-
covered by Professor Buhler has been written, A.D.
1497.
Kuiiuka. All the Commentaries hitherto mentioned have been unde-
servedly put in the shade by the renowned gloss of Kulluka-
bhatta, called Manvarthamuktavali. This work has been
used as the sole basis of all hitherto published editions and
translations of the Code of Manu, excepting perhaps M.
Loiseleur Deslongschamps’s French translation, for which
the Commentary of Raghavananda has now and then been
used along with Kulluka’s gloss. Kulluka states in the pre-
face to his work, that he compiled it in Benares, whilst Bengal
was his native country. His countryman Raghunandana
is the earliest author with a known date who quotes
Kulluka, whereas Jimutavahana, who lived before Raghu-
nandana, does not quote Kulluka, but his predecessor
Govindaraja. Kulluka’s epoch therefore would fall between
the early part of the 16th century, when Raghunandana
1 I
II
2 Thus in III. 16, he interprets the genitive forms occurring- in this
ploka as genitivi origins, denoting descendants of Gautama. Caunaka, and
Bhrigu. instead of recognizing the correctness of the interpretation
adopted by all the other commentators, that they contain ’tne names of
law authors, who are referred to as authorities by Mann. See P. von
Bradke on the Manava Grihyasutra, Journ. Germ. O. S.. vol. xxxvi.