________________
cxxxii
LAWS OF MANU.
have used no MSS. of the Muktâvali; but two editions, Gîbânand's reprint of the earlier Calcutta edition 1 and the Bombay lithographed edition of Sakasamvat 1780. The latter is by far the better one, but leaves, like all other editions which I have seen, much to desire from a critical point of view. There are a good many passages in which the text does not agree with the commentary.
On the Manvarthamuktâvali rests the Manvarthakandrika, written by Râghavânanda Sarasvati, an ascetic of Sankarakarya's school, and a pupil of one Visvesvarabhagavatpâda. Though the author asserts, as stated above, that he used four older commentaries, he mostly adheres to Kullaka's opinions. It is only rarely that he prefers Nârâyana's interpretations or recurs to views of Govindaråga and Medhâtithi, which Kullûka refuted or left unnoticed. His exposition of the philosophical portions of the text is, however, mostly independent, and he interprets them throughout in such a manner as to agree with the Vedanta doctrines of his school. The Kandrikâ is not a running commentary which paraphrases every word of Manu, but gives mostly, besides a short summary of the general meaning, merely remarks on difficult words and passages. It is probably a modern work, dating from the sixteenth or the beginning of the seventeenth century 3. I have not met with any quotations from it in other law-books. The oldest known MS. is that brought by Anquetil from Gugarât and deposited in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris (Devanâgarî 49, fonds d'Anquetil, No. 16). Its date, Samvat 1706 varshe kârttika badi 10 somadine, corresponds, according to Dr. Schram's
1 The reason why I used this very incorrect text, was that Professor Jolly kindly lent me his copy in which he has entered the various readings of Medh., Gov., Nâr., Râgh., of the Kasmir copy and other MSS.
According to H. H. Wilson, Works, I, pp. 202-3 (ed. Rost), the ascetics, bearing the title Sarasvati, follow the sampradâya of Sankarâkârya. See also Aufrecht, Catalogue Sansk. MSS. Bodl. Libr. p. 227.
Mr. Loiseleur Deslongchamps' attempt (Lois de Manou, p. xvi) to identify Raghavânanda with Raghunandana, the bhattakarya of the sixteenth century, is an unlucky guess. It seems to me that the author of the Kandrikâ is identical with the ascetic Raghavânanda, pupil of Advayânanda, pupil of Visvesvara, who is mentioned as an author on Sâmkhya and Vedanta philosophy by Dr. F. E. Hall, Catalogue, pp. 6, 91, &c.
Digitized by Google
