DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.53500#0011
PREFACE.
iii
perhaps as his boastful assurance might lead one to expect.
Jddghavananda appears to have lived in the sixteenth, or
first half of the seventeenth, century. He was, therefore,
posterior to Kullukabhatta, to whose opinions he adheres
mostly, though not exclusively. Nandana’s gloss is very
brief, but it contains a comparatively large portion of ori-
ginal matter. Nandana seems to have been a Southerner ;
his date is uncertain, but apparently recent. The Kasmir
Commentary is hardly more than a collection of marginal
notes, but it contains a number of interesting varies lec-
tionesd
After having succeeded in securing a sufficient number
of reliable MSS.2 of all these Commentaries, I had to make
up my mind about the way in which they should be edited.
Though a new edition of Kulluka’s Manvarthamuktavalf
might be dispensed with, for the abovementioned reasons,
the size of the six remaining Commentaries was far too
large to admit of my entertaining the hope of finding a
publisher for a complete edition of these works. Moreover,
it appeared quite doubtful whether a judicious selection
from the glosses of the Commentators would not be in itself
preferable to a publication of them in extenso, as it would
facilitate for the reader the laborious task of gathering the
really useful portions from among the vast amount of rub-
bish contained in the Commentaries. The Commentators
of Manu, like most of their brethren in India, are only too
fond of making a display of their learning, and are con-
stantly indulging in learned but superfluous discussions and
endless quotations of every sort. By omitting all such ex-
1 For further details regarding the Commentators of Manu, see my volume
of Tagore Law Lectures, pp. 6 — 12, and particularly Professor Buhler’s Manu,
pp. cxviii—cxxxvi,
2 A full account of them has been given in the Preface to my edition of the
Manava Dharmasastra.
iii
perhaps as his boastful assurance might lead one to expect.
Jddghavananda appears to have lived in the sixteenth, or
first half of the seventeenth, century. He was, therefore,
posterior to Kullukabhatta, to whose opinions he adheres
mostly, though not exclusively. Nandana’s gloss is very
brief, but it contains a comparatively large portion of ori-
ginal matter. Nandana seems to have been a Southerner ;
his date is uncertain, but apparently recent. The Kasmir
Commentary is hardly more than a collection of marginal
notes, but it contains a number of interesting varies lec-
tionesd
After having succeeded in securing a sufficient number
of reliable MSS.2 of all these Commentaries, I had to make
up my mind about the way in which they should be edited.
Though a new edition of Kulluka’s Manvarthamuktavalf
might be dispensed with, for the abovementioned reasons,
the size of the six remaining Commentaries was far too
large to admit of my entertaining the hope of finding a
publisher for a complete edition of these works. Moreover,
it appeared quite doubtful whether a judicious selection
from the glosses of the Commentators would not be in itself
preferable to a publication of them in extenso, as it would
facilitate for the reader the laborious task of gathering the
really useful portions from among the vast amount of rub-
bish contained in the Commentaries. The Commentators
of Manu, like most of their brethren in India, are only too
fond of making a display of their learning, and are con-
stantly indulging in learned but superfluous discussions and
endless quotations of every sort. By omitting all such ex-
1 For further details regarding the Commentators of Manu, see my volume
of Tagore Law Lectures, pp. 6 — 12, and particularly Professor Buhler’s Manu,
pp. cxviii—cxxxvi,
2 A full account of them has been given in the Preface to my edition of the
Manava Dharmasastra.