Manusmrti with the ‘Manubhasya’ of Medhatithi (Sanskrit Text with English Translation in Ten Volumes)

Ganganatha Jha’s Multi-volume Manusmrti, originally published by the University of Calcutta between 1920 and 1939, is, as indicated by its subtitle “The Laws of Manu with the Bhasya of Medhatithi”, mainly an edition and translation of the Mula text together with the ‘explanation’ of the most celebrated commentator. Medhatithi’s Manubhasya has been characterized by one of the leading scholars on Dharmasastra, J. Duncan M. Derrett, as a large repertory of opinion on the meaning of the ‘Smrti and on some fundamental questions of Dharma and Law.”

The present work is divided into three sets, i.e. Sanskrit Text (Mula), English Translation and Notes. These comprise of two, five and three volumes-in all the ten volumes. The first two volumes are devoted to (Mula) Sanskrit Text. The first consists of first six Adhyayas and the subsequent carries next six Adhyayas from VII to XII and a detailed Index for both volumes. The next five volumes (Vol. 3 to 7) belong to English Translation. The Vol. 3 carries Adhyayas I and II, Vol. 4 contains Adhyayas II and IV, Vol. 5 has Adhyayas V to VII, Vol 6 has Adhyaya 8, and Vol. 7 has last four Adhyayas (IX to XII). All volumes contains a detailed Index. The last three volumes (8 to 10) are devoted to detailed Notes conducive to understanding the subject of the Smrti even to an interested average reader. These belong to textual, explanation and comparative respectively. These contain much useful informations.

Dr. Ganganatha Jha (b. 1871) was a versatile Sanskrit scholar who will ever be remembered for his dedicated and selfless pioneer work and immense contribution in the field. He was Professor of Sanskrit in the Old Muir Central College, Allahabad, and later became Principal of the Government Sanskrit College, Banaras and then the Vice-Chancellor of the Allahabad University for nine years. He wrote more than fifty works on different Indian philosophical systems. He translated many important Sanskrit texts into English. He was the first scholar to write a thesis on The Prabhakara School of Purvamimamsa.

Foreword

Ganganatha Jha’s multi-volumed “Manusmrti”, originally published by the University of Calcutta between 1920 and 1929, is, as indicated by its subtitle “The Law of Manu with the Bhasya of Medhatithi” mainly an edition and translation of the mula text together with the ‘explanation’ of its most celebrated commentator. Medhatithi’s Manubhasya has justly been characterized by one of the leading scholars on Dharmasastra, J. Duncan M. Derrett, as “a large repertory of opinion on the meaning of the smrti and on some fundamental questions of dharma and law” (Dharmasastra and Juridical Literature [A History of Indian Literature, ed. By J. Gonda, ‘Vol. V, 1], Wiesbaden 1973, p. 48). Though the other parts of Jha’s ambitious and comprehensive work, viz. “Comparative” and “Explanatory Notes”, etc., contain much useful information, it is above all the edition and the translation of Medhatithi’s commentary which justify the reprint. Medhatithi’s Manubhasya is by far the most extensive and learned commentary on the Manusmrti and in fact one of the most important works of Dharmasastra literature as such. Unfortunately, the transmission of the text has not been as good as one might have wished, and thus the tradition about the text having been the object of a jirnoddhara can only be styled as trustworthy. Jha’s edition is, strictly speaking, not what we direly need, viz. a really critical one, but is by far the best one made to-date; the translation adds, of course, considerably to the extraordinary usefulness of Jha’s work in that it not only makes explicit his fellow researchers an assistance most welcome in understanding Medhatithi’s often rather complicated arguments. Like any other translation of a Sanskrit text, Jha’s ought to be used not without some critical reservation, but it should, no doubt, be used-and when it is not, as obviously e.g. by J.H. Dave in preparing his own edition of the Manusmrti with nine commentaries, it is much to one’s disadvantage.

I am most grateful to Mr. N.P. Jain of Motilal Banarsidass for unhesitatingly agreeing to my proposal to reprint and thus to again make available Jha’s pioneering, today already classical work. it will keep Indologists in general, and not only those interested in Dharmasastra, fully occupied with a remarkable stopgap until a really critical edition (hopefully) appears.

Editor’s Apologia

A few words are needed for explaining the genesis of this edition of Medhatithi’s Manubhasya.

The vicissitudes undergone by this Bhasya would appear to be unique in the history of Sanskrit Literature. The work was written, probably, in the 9th century, and yet as early as the 14th century, manuscripts of it were ‘not to be found’; and it was restored by a king named Madana, who has been identified with the king under whose patronage the Madanaparijata and Madanavinoda were written. This King was at Digh, who is believed to have lived in the 14th century. Not finding any manuscripts of the Manubhasya,-that is, apparently, not having got any complete or reliable manuscripts of it,-he got done by his court Pandits, what is called its Jirnoddhara,-as stated by Buhler in his Introduction to Manu (in the Sacred Books of the East Series). Curiously enough, though he lived in India for some time, Buhler did not know what the term ‘Jirnoddhara’ stood for in this country. He says (on p. CXXV of the Introduction to his translation of Manu) : “I can only agree with Prof. Jolly that Madanapala did not cause the Bhasya to be recomposed, but merely completed the defective MSS. Of his library from a copy purchased in some other part of India.” All this about the Jirnoddhara, we learn only from the following verse which is found at the end of some chapters of some manuscripts of the work now available; but a little pondering over this verse which is found at the end of some chapters of some manuscripts of the work now available; but a little pondering over this verse will show that what was done to the text at the court of Madana was something very different from what has been supposed by Jolly and Buhler. The Shloka runs as follows.

The statements contained herein are the following :-

(1) ‘The Smriti of Manu is a revered work’; (2) ‘The commentary on it by Medhatithi is right and proper’; (1) ‘Through fate, it has become lost’; (4) ‘Its manuscript is nowhere to be found’; (5) ‘King Madana has got the Jirnoddhara of it done with the help of manuscripts collected from another place.’

This would be very different from ‘merely completing the defective manuscripts of his library from a copy purchased in some other part of India’. It would be clear to every manuscripts-collector in India that (1) the King wished to have a copy of the Bhasya; (2) he did not find anywhere a complete copy; (3) from various parts of the country, he got what were mere fragments-some odd stray leaves, patras, it would seem of the work; (4) these fragments he got collated into what he believed to be a complete whole. This would be the ‘uddhara’-Saving from destruction,-of what was ‘jirna’, decayed dilapidated; by which term is clearly meant, torn edges of the leaves, and the consequent disappearance of the leaf-numberings and such other damages as all who deal with old MSS. Are conversant with. This would be very different from the completing of a copy wanting in certain parts. Curiously enough, Buhler himself has used the correct term on page CXXV-‘restoration’.

This ‘restored text’ is what has come down to us; all the manuscripts that have been found so far are found to have their source in this ‘restored’ text; and they are all corrupt, in places very nearly unintelligible, specially where the Bhasya is a long one. As all the manuscripts suffer from these defects, it would seem that the ‘restoration’ was done either carelessly or by incompetent hands. The work has suffered most in its longer parts, and this leads to the conclusion that the older leaves of which the numbering had disappeared were, in restoration, placed in wrong places. In several places, this is quite clear; what appears under one text should have appeared under a text several steps lover down. Buhler has justly described the condition of the MSS. In the following words:-

“All the copies of Medhatithi which I have seen or used are throughout more or less corrupt, in some parts, specially in chapters VIII and IX, as well as at the end of chapter XII, in a desperate condition. The latter portion is, in fact confusion, some pieces being missing and others being given twice over. In chapters VIII and IX, many verses are left out, though it is evident from cross-references and from remarks made by Kulluka that they must have been explained by Medhatithi. In the parts of the commentary still extant, the corruptions are often very bad and the sense frequently doubtful, or only to be made out conjecturally.

I know from bitter experience that this is too true. I have been compelled to rectify some of the most glaring defects, specially the one relating to the misplacing of portions of the Bhasya, and it is hoped that the text presented here is more understandable than that presented by the manuscripts or even by the two printed editions.

The Bhasya was printed for the first time under the supervision of Rao Sahib Vishvanath Narayan Mandlik, along with several other commentaries on Manu, all that could be got at the time. A second edition was brought out by Professor Gharpure of Poona; and the ill-luck of the work seems to have pursued it there, and we are told the entire stock of his publications was consumed by fire.

Some sort of an edition therefore appeared to be called for; and as I had done the English translation of the Bhasya for the Calcutta University, which has been published in eight volumes, 5 volumes of Text and three volumes of Notes. The late Sir Ashutush Mukherji suggested it to the Bengal Asiatic Society that as some sort of a readable and understandable text had been evolved in course of the translation, and as copies of this text were not accessible it would be well to publish the text as prepared by me, which would appear to be the best way of preserving the text of the Bhasya. I may mention here that the more important of the emendations accepted by me mostly on the strength of manuscripts, have been noted in Part I of the Notes appended to my English Translation.

Though the present edition is an improvement upon King Madana’s ‘Restoration’ and Mandlik’s ‘Edition,’ yet it is far from satisfactory: and if MS hunters will bear this work in mind in course of their ‘hunts,’ we may yet hope to secure a reliable manuscript which may be prior to the ‘restoration’ by King Madana.

Publishers’ Note

It is with great pleasure that we are offering a new edition of Ganganatha Jha’s translation of the Manusmrti to our readers. The first edition of the great work appeared long ago in the twenties-thirties and was almost forgotten during the intervening long gap.

We are very much grateful to Prof. Dr. Albrecht Wezler of the Hamburg University (Germany) for making the suggestion to reprint this outstanding work and thus giving us the initiative and also for making available to us copies of the original edition.

In the present edition the whole material of the work has been rearranged into three sets, namely, Sanskrit Text, English Translation and Notes comprising respectively two, five and three parts-in all ten volumes. We have also tried to remove some discrepancies that had inadvertently crept into the work due to the handling of the huge material most likely by several scholars.