Intro

Medhātithi’s Bhāṣya on the Mānava Dharmaśāstra

Transcribed and Edited by Patrick Olivelle

This edition is based on four printed texts, whose variant readings are given in footnotes:

1886. V. N. Mandlik. Mānava-Dharma Śāstra with the Commentaries of Medhātithi, Sarvajñanārāyaṇa, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda, Nandana, and Rāmachandra. 2 vols. Bombay: Ganpat Krishnaji’s Press.

1887. J. R. Gharpure. Manusmriti with the Bhāshya of Bhaṭṭa Medhātithi. First Edition. Bombay: Bombay Vaibhav Press.

1932–39. Gaṅgānātha Jha. Manu-Smṛti with the “Manubhāṣya” of Medhātithi. Edited with the help of several manuscripts. 3 volumes.

1958. J. R. Gharpure. Manusmriti with the Bhāshya of Bhaṭṭa Medhātithi. Second Edition with the help of Swami Kevalananda of the Prājña Maṭha of Wai. Poona: Aryasamskriti Mudranalaya.

I have also consulted the edition by J. H. Dave, Manu-Smriti with Nine Commentaries by Medhātithi, Sarvajñanārāyaṇa, Kullūka, Rāghavānanda, Nandana, Rāmacandra, Maṇirāma, Govindarāja and Bhāruci. 6 volumes. Bombay: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, 1972–1984.

The first edition of Gharpure follows, almost slavishly, Mandlik’s edition, even though he gives numerous variants found in his manuscripts. The second edition of Gharpure has used Jha’s edition and follows it most of the time, but not always.

Dave’s edition is based completely on Jha’s edition, and thus cannot be considered an independent witness. I have not given his variants in the footnotes.

Jha appears to have used Mandlik’s and the first edition of Gharpure, and Jha also says that he did consult other manuscripts. This is clear from the long passage on MDh 3.108 [118 in normal edition of MDh] which is omitted by M and G, but included by Jha. He must have got this from a manuscript. However, he does not record any variant readings. Jha’s edition of the text in 1932 followed his translation published between 1920 and 1926. Thus his edition is helpful, because he had to make sense of the text for his translation. Especially his sentence divisions, and the use of commas to demarcate phrases, are helpful to the reader. I have generally followed his lead. Jha’s edition is far superior to Gharpure’s and is the best we have.

However, as Jha in his “Editor’s Apologia” notes, the state of Medhātithi manuscripts is deplorable. All the manuscripts available — all from northern India — are based on the _jīrṇoddhāra _undertaken by king Madana in the 14th century. A verse added at the end of some chapters show how this _jīrṇoddhāra _was done:

mānyā kāpi manusmṛtis taducitā vyākhyāpi medhātitheḥ
sā luptaiva vidher vaśāt kvacid api prāpyaṃ na tat pustakam |
kṣoṇīndro madanaḥ sahāraṇasuto deśāntarād āhṛtair
jīrṇoddhāram acīkarat tata itas tatpustakair lekhitaiḥ ||

Jha gives the gist of the verse: “(1) The Smriti of Manu is a revered work; (2) The commentary on it by Medhātithi is right and proper; (3) Through fate, it has become lost; (4) Its manuscript is nowhere to be found; (5) King Madana has got the _Jīrṇoddhāra _of it done with the help of manuscripts collected from another place.” So, what Madana did was to restore the text with the use of manuscripts brought from other places. This “restored text” is the basis for ALL the manuscripts we have, all from north India. It is plausible to assume that Madana did not have a complete manuscript of the _Bhāṣya, _and that his collators brought together incomplete and defective manuscripts in order to produce the new “edition”. Jha thinks that the “restoration” was done carelessly or by incompetent people. He agrees with Bühler’s assessment:

All copies of Medhātithi which I have seen or used are throughout more or less corrupt, in some parts, especially 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 Kullūka that they must have been explained by Medhātithi. In parts of the commentary still extant, the corruptions are often very bad and the sense frequently doubtful, or only to be made out conjecturally.

Jha confesses that he had to make conjectural emendation to “rectify” some glaring defects:

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 misplacement of portions of the Bhāṣya, 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. (Jha’s edition, pp. x-xi)

Unfortunately, Jha does not tell us where he has made these conjectural emendations. The bottom line is that Medhātithi’s great commentary is in dire need of a better edition, and that can only be accomplished if we can discover manuscripts from southern India that was not part of Madana’s _jīrnoddhāra _tradition. Until then, what I have presented is probably the best we can achieve.