DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.53500#0013
PREFACE.
V
for by the addition of Kulluka and Ramachandra to the
list. It is true that the late Hon’ble Rao Saheb’s truly
colossal work, on a close examination, has proved deficient
in many ways, and does not come up to the standard of a
scholarly and critical edition. This becomes particularly
conspicuous in Medhatithi’s Manubhashya, for editing
which Mr. Mandlik has used a small number of very in-
different MS. copies only; but the other Commentaries also
exhibit a great many faulty readings, etc., in the Hon’ble
Mandlik’s edition, as may be easily seen, e.g., from a compa-
rison of the third book, as printed in his edition, with the
present work. Much less still can the Bombay text of the
Code of Manu be said to stand the test of modern criticism,
as it agrees generally with the hitherto printed editions of
the Code and differs widely in many instances from the
readings vouched for by all the Commentaries, or at least by
the leading works of Medhatithi and Govindaraja. Under
these circumstances, I might feel justified in quietly going
on with my own work, leaving it to the public to make
their choice between the Manutikasahgraha and the volu-
minous Bombay edition. Another course open to me would
have been this, to confine myself, in the remaining por-
tions of the work, to an edition of Medhatithi’s Manu-
bhashya only which has been mentioned as a special desi-
deratum by high authority1 and for which I had nine
valuable MSS. at my disposal. In spite of these ample
materials, however, the attempt to work out a really satis-
factory edition of Medhatithi’s voluminous work might have
proved a failure, as all the hitherto available copies differ
considerably, and are hopelessly corrupt in the eighth, ninth,
and twelfth chapters. Such being the case, it might seem
the best course to bring the present work to a close with the
1 See Buhler, ibid., p. cxxvi.
V
for by the addition of Kulluka and Ramachandra to the
list. It is true that the late Hon’ble Rao Saheb’s truly
colossal work, on a close examination, has proved deficient
in many ways, and does not come up to the standard of a
scholarly and critical edition. This becomes particularly
conspicuous in Medhatithi’s Manubhashya, for editing
which Mr. Mandlik has used a small number of very in-
different MS. copies only; but the other Commentaries also
exhibit a great many faulty readings, etc., in the Hon’ble
Mandlik’s edition, as may be easily seen, e.g., from a compa-
rison of the third book, as printed in his edition, with the
present work. Much less still can the Bombay text of the
Code of Manu be said to stand the test of modern criticism,
as it agrees generally with the hitherto printed editions of
the Code and differs widely in many instances from the
readings vouched for by all the Commentaries, or at least by
the leading works of Medhatithi and Govindaraja. Under
these circumstances, I might feel justified in quietly going
on with my own work, leaving it to the public to make
their choice between the Manutikasahgraha and the volu-
minous Bombay edition. Another course open to me would
have been this, to confine myself, in the remaining por-
tions of the work, to an edition of Medhatithi’s Manu-
bhashya only which has been mentioned as a special desi-
deratum by high authority1 and for which I had nine
valuable MSS. at my disposal. In spite of these ample
materials, however, the attempt to work out a really satis-
factory edition of Medhatithi’s voluminous work might have
proved a failure, as all the hitherto available copies differ
considerably, and are hopelessly corrupt in the eighth, ninth,
and twelfth chapters. Such being the case, it might seem
the best course to bring the present work to a close with the
1 See Buhler, ibid., p. cxxvi.