________________
CXX
LAWS OF MANU.
by side, as equally admissible, widely divergent opinions. This vacillation is perhaps justified in a restricted number of passages, where the text is really ambiguous or very obscure. But more commonly it seems to be due solely to an excessive veneration for the views of his predecessors1, whose commentaries, in part at least, possessed a high antiquity and a great reputation, or whom he had personal reasons to respect. On several occasions he mentions certain explanations as those of the Purvas or Kiramtanas, i. e. of the ancient commentators. Thus he remarks on Manu IV, 223, 'But the exposition given above is the view of the Ancients; hence it has also been given by us".' In another case, when explaining Manu IX, 141 and 147, he notes that his interpretation is that of upâdhyaya, i. e. of his own teacher from whom he learnt the Manu-samhitâ. Disagreeable as this want of decision may be to those who look to a commentary for a concise and authoritative explanation of its text, yet it is not without advantages. His copiousness in quoting the opinions of his predecessors makes his work extremely important for the student of the history of the Manu-smriti and of the Hindu law. The Bhashya clearly proves that Manu's text had been made for centuries an object of deep research, and that many of its verses had given rise to widely different interpretations. It shows, further, that a good many various readings existed. Finally, a comparison of the later still extant commentaries leaves no doubt that these in general are based on the Manubhâshya, and that even their divergent opinions and readings are frequently derived from the earlier work. Under these circumstances the question of
1 Though the opinions of 'others' are mentioned very frequently, and though sometimes those of three or four predecessors are contrasted, Medhâtithi gives only once the name of an earlier commentator, Manu IX, 253, ant काचित्कलचुतिः सा सर्वार्थवाद इति कावर (?) [v. 1. कार (?)] विष्णुस्वामी । यदत्र तवं तद्दर्शितमधस्तात् ॥ The name seems to be Vishrusvamin. But it is uncertain what the corrupt word, preceding it, may hide.
3
यत्तु प्राग्व्याख्यातं तत्पूर्वेषां दर्शनमित्यस्माभिरपि वर्णितम् ॥ Compare also the remark on Manu V, 128, तत्र चिरंतनैव्याख्यातम् ॥
Digitized by Google
