________________
cxviii
LAWS OF MANU.
of the details of my inferences and conclusions, I believe that the rudimentary state of the legal theories in our Samhitâ, as compared with Yågnavalkya and Narada (fourth or fifth century A. D.), the fact that the Brihaspati-smriti of the sixth or seventh century A. D. was a Vârttika on our text, and the assertion of Medhâtithi, that he knew in the ninth century commentaries belonging to a remote antiquity, force us to place it considerably before the term mentioned by Professor Max Müller.
III.
It now remains to give an account of the materials on: which my translation is based, and of the manner in which they have been used. Among Sanskrit works the commentaries of Medhâtithi, Govindarâga, Sarvagna-Narayana, Kullakabhatta, Raghavânanda, and Nandanakarya, as well as an anonymous Tippana, contained in a Kasmir MS. of the Manu-samhità, are the sources on which I have chiefly relied. Among the earlier translations, Sir William Jones' famous versio princeps and Professor J. Jolly's annotated German translation of chapter VIII and chapter IX, 1102 have been carefully used. Occasionally Mr. Loiseleur Deslongchamps' well-known edition of the text, the English translation of chapters I-III, 33 by Tåråkand Kakravarti (Kuckerbutty), and the Marathi translation of Ganårdan Vasudev Gurgars have been consulted. Sir G. C. Haughton's edition and various Indian reprints of the text have been left aside, because they mostly repeat Kullaka's readings or give variae lectiones for which no sufficient authority is shown.
Among the Sanskrit commentaries on the Manu-smriti the oldest extant is the voluminous Manubhashya of Bhatta
Published in the Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, vol. ij.
I have used the copy of the India Office Library, 19-37, 17. The name of the author is given by Professor Goldstücker, On the Deficiencies, &c., p. 5, note. -> Published with the text of Manu, at the Nirnayasågar Press, Bombay, 1877.
Digitized by Google
