- Medhātithi Medhātithi is the author of an extensive and erudite commentary ( bhusyu ) on the Manusmrti. It is the oldest extant commentary on that smrti. The bhāsya of Medhātithi was first published about forty years ago by Rao Saheb V. N. Mandlik in Bombay and recently Mr. J. R. Gharpure of Bombay brought out an edition of Medhātithi which closely follows Mandlik’s edition. A critical edition of the bhāsya based upon all the available Msg. is a great clesideratum. A new edition in two volumes based on several mss. edited by M. M. Dr. Ganganath Jha was published in the G. O. I. Series in 1932 and 1939. In this edition also ten verses in the 3rd adhyāya are wanting and in adhyāya nine there
750 ‘राजधने दीनानाथादिसकलप्राणिनामंशित्वं बहुनायकत्वाद्राज्यविनाशश्चेति
gfari fifa 11913372HTP Pitaikiau: 1’ Halfāccarat p. 81 (od. by
Jayasval). 751 अत्र श्रीकरः प्राह । यदा गतकाले अमावास्याद्वयं भवति तदा मिथुनादितरेष्वा
षाढीभावात् । … अत्र च पण्डितपरितोषकृता दूषणमभिहितम् । अनुपम Haqi… da ARMUT ACHT MY i genito III, 2, pp. 990–903. K
574
are substantial lacunas in the commentary on verses 1, 4-6 as in Mandlik’s edition. An English translation of the bhāsya by M, M. Dr. Ganganath Jha is in progress and several parts have been published so far. In the following, Mr. Gharpure’s edition has been used. The bhāsyu as printed is corrupt in many places, particularly in the 8th, 9th and 12th adhyāyus. In Mr. Gharpure’s edition there is no bhlisya on verses 182-202 of the 9th chapter.
Būhler in his learned and exhaustive Introductiou to the Manusmrti (S. B. E. vol. 25 ) brings together a good deal of information about Medhātithi ( pp. CXVIII-CXXVI ). In JBBRA S for 1925, pp. 217-221, I have offered criticisms on some of Būhler’s views and have given some additional information.
In several M88. of the bhūsyu at the end of several adhyāyas occurs a verse782 which says that a king nained Madana, son of Sahārana, brought copies of Medhātithi’s commentary from another country and effected a restoration (jūrnoddhūru ). This does not refer to the restoration of the text of Medbātithi, but to the completion of the library of the king, who was Madanapāla, son of Sādhārana and flourished, as we shall see later on, in the latter half of the 14th century.
Dr. Jolly (Tagore Law Lectures p. 6 ) holds Medhātithi to be a southerner on account of the fact that his father’s name was Virasvainin and on account of the attention paid to his blāsya by southern writers. It cannot be said that names ending in ‘svāmin’ were a monopoly of the south. The Rājatara rigiṇi gives literary celebrities whose names ended in ‘svārniu’ (e. g. V. 34 mentions a Śivasvāmi). Kśīrasvāmin was a Kashmirian. The south has always been famed for preserving Mss. of valuable works from the north. M88. of the Kāvyālamkāra of Bhimaha, a Kāshmiriau, are very rare and have been found only in the south. Būhler (p. CXX III)
752 मान्या कापि मनुस्मृतिस्तदुचिता व्याख्या हि मेधातिथेः सा लुप्तैव विधेर्वशात्
क्वचिदपि प्राप्यं न यत्पुस्तकम् । क्षोणीन्द्रो मदनः सहारणसुतो देशान्तरादाहृत.
siulaithalata sa kaganapad: 11 HEROT is a Prākrit for the साधारण.
- Medhitithi
575
seems to be right in holding that Medhātithi was a Kashmi rinn (or at least an inhabitant of Northern India ). In explain ing such words as ‘svarā tre’and janapadah’( Manu VII. 32 and VIII. 42 ) Medhātithi introduces Kashmir. He gives ( on Manu VIII. 400 ) the monopoly of the sale of elephants as a privilege of the kings of Kashmir where saffron abounds.763 He says that the rainbow is called vijnana-chāyā’ in Kashmir ( on Manu IV. 59). He very frequently refers to northerners i. e. on Manu III. 234 he says ‘kutapa’ is the word for what is well-known as ‘kambala’ among northern people and on III. 238 he says ’northern people’wrap their heads with sūtaukaus (garments ). He says on Manu II. 24 that in the Himalayas in Kashmir it is not possible to perform the daily sundhyū in the open por is it possible to bathe every day in & river in Hemanta ‘and Sisira’. On Manu II. 18 he says in other countries, some say, people marry one’s maternal uncle’s daughter ; but that is opposed to the words of Gautama’ (4.3) and proceeds ’even in that country taking food in the same plate with (or in the company of ) one whose thread ceremony is not performed is not at all re garded as dharma (but as improper conduct). This is clearly a reference to Baudhāyana Dh. S. (1. 1. 19 ) according to which ‘mātulasuti-parinayana’ and taking food in the same plate with one whose upanayana is not performed are two of the five usages peculiar to the south. It is fair to add that later writers like Kamalakarabhatta (Nirnayasindhu, 3rd pariccheda on sāpindya ) regard Medhātithi as a southerner.
Medhātithi quotes from or names numerous smrti writers, such as Gautama, Baudhāyana, Avasta mba, Vasistha Visuu, Saṅkba, Manu, Yāj., Nāruda, Parāśara, Brhaspati, Kātyāyana And others. He refers to Bșhaspati as a writer ou’vārtā’ (Manu VII. 43 and IX, 326 ) and to Brhaspati and Ufonas ās writers on politics and government ( Manu VIII. 283, VII. 2 and 155 ). On Manu VII. 43 he refers to Canakya as a writer on dandaniti’. In numerous places he seems to have
753 यानि भाण्डानि राजोपयोगितया यथा हस्तिनः काश्मीरेषु कुङ्कुमप्रायेषु पट्टोर्णादीनि
प्रतीच्येष्वश्वा दाक्षिणात्येषु मणिमुक्तादीनि &c. Should we not read यथा EIFTAT: Fratiy r a ng qatofalfa ? The meaning then webblad be elephants are the monopoly of kings everywhere, saffron Time Kashmir &c.
576
History of Dhurmaśāstra
drawn upon Kautilya’s work. For example, on Manu VII. 155 in interpreting pancavarga’ as ‘kupaṭika, udāsthita, gṛha patika, vaidehika and tāpasavyañjana’ he explains them almost in the words of Kautilya (1. 2 ). On VII, 148 he quotes the five angas of mantra in the very words of Kautilya.784 Vide also his remarks on Manu VII. 54 ( testing of ministers by upalhās ). He names Asahāya ( on 8. 156 ) and certain writers as Smṛtivivaranakārāḥ ( on II. 25 ). Būhler is not quite accurate (p. cxx, n. 1) when he states that Medhātithi gives only once the name of an early commentator’. On VIII. 3 he refers to the interpretations of Bhartryajña He refers to the interpretations of Yajvan (on VIII. 151 and 156 ). Yajvan is only the last part of a name (as in Devarāja yajvan). He quotes the interpretation of Manu by Upadhyāya (on II. 109, IV. 162, V. 43, IX. 141 and 147 ). Būhler holds that Medhātithi refers to his own teacher. It is more likely that Upadhyāya, like Yajvan, is the name or part of the name of a previous commentator of Manu. On VIII. 152 the explanations of Rju are twice cited. On IX. 253 Medhātithi cites the view of one Viṣṇusvāmin.765 From the tenor of the quotation it appears that Viṣṇusvāmin was a writer on Mimāinga and not a commentator of Manu us Būhler thought (p. cxx, n. 1). Some M88. read the word preceding Viṣṇusvāmi as ‘kovara’, others as ‘kõvara! It is probably ‘kāvera’ (residing on the Kāveri river ).
He quotes ( on Manu I. 19 ) a verse from the Sarikhyaka rikā (prakrter malūn &c ). On Manu I. 5 Medhātithi remarks that the evolution set out (in Manu I. 5 ff’) is in some parts based on the Purāṇas and in some other parts based on the Saṅkhya system and that it does not matter much as regards dharma’ and ‘adharma’ whetber it (i. e. evolution ) is well understood or not. He further states that *Mahān’ occurring in Manu I. 15 is the Sājkhya Mahat tattva’ and that in Manu I. 16 ‘ahankāra’ and the five ’tanmātrās ’ of the Sān khya system are mentioned. On Manu
754 इमान्यङ्गानि कर्मणामारम्भोपायः पुरुषद्रव्यसंपत् देशकालविभागः विनिपात
qatart: Freffeneftra i hufafe ; compare E I. 16 '
ATTFHRT: … Thieffa 92151 17’ 766 Bù grandi alfermosura: 7 paisaia stat per favoraret i hans
- Medhātithi
577
- 17 he quotes a part of Saṅkhyakurikā 22 (pancabhyah pañca bhūtāni ) and on I. 19 quotes the first half of the same kārikā. He further remarks that the Pauranic procedure of evolution is mentioned by Manu in I. 21.11. He speaks of Vindhyavāsa756 as a Sāṅkhya and says that he does not admit a subtle interim body ( antarabhavadeha ). This is probably taken froun Kumārila’s words.167 He repeatedly refers to the purāṇus, tells us (on 11I. 232) that they were composed by Vyāsa and contained accounts of creation. He quotes (on XII. 118) a verse from the Vākyapradipa.168
He tells us ( on II. 6 ) that the Pancarītras, Nirgranthus (Jains ) and Pasupatas were outside the pale of Vedic orthodoxy.169
Medhātithi had drunk deep at the fountain of the Parva mimāṁsā. His bhāsya is full of the terms virthi and artha vāda. On Manu III. 45 (rtu-kālābhigāmi syāt ) Medhātithi discusses whether this is a niyamu or parisunkhyā just as the Mit. on Yāj. 1. 79 and 81 discusses the same question and Medhātitbi quotes the well-known verse vidhir-atyantama prāptau niyamah pāksike sati’&c. Medhātithi (at the end of his commentary on Manu I. 11 ) remarks that these are arthavādus and are to be explained some-how in a metaphorical sense, and not literally (Arthavādā… yathā kathāñcidgunavādena niyante ). For Arthavīda and its three varieties, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. part 2 pp. 1240-1. On Mapu II. 1 he remarks in the first adhyāya five or six verses are meant to set out the purpose of this sāstra, the rest are artha vādas and it does not matter much if they are not well understood ; instruction is directly given here (in II. 1 and the following verses on What Dharma is ‘. Even in Chap. II he remarks that II, 83, 87, 233 are mere arthavādas, Vide, for example, remarks on Manu III. 17, 19, 37, 50, 56, V. 53-54, VIII. 21, 22, 98 &c. He quotes Jaimini’s Sūtras frequently and applies them to the interpretation of smrti texts at every step. Vide J BBRAS for 1925 p. 219 for 78 सांख्या हि केचिन्नान्तराभवमिच्छन्ति विन्ध्यवासप्रभृतयः । मेधातिथि on मनु
I. 55. 757 37TTHOSE te afect fattareal i al fatto p. 704. 768 58 3 97479&ta-achar qafia gane I Dr. Kielhor forma
Dr. Būhler that the verse is not found in the att R
(S. B. E. vol. 25, CXXIII. n. 1). 759 एवं सर्व एव बाह्या भोजकपाश्चरात्रिकनिम्रन्था नार्थवादपाशुपतप्रभृतयः ।
CHSTITI
INS
FOUND
191
578
examples. He cites passages from Sabara’s bhūsya (e. g. on III. 1). He mentions Kumārila by name (on I.3) and as Bhattapāda ( on Manu II. 18 ).
Medhātithi mentions several nyāyas for explaining the Manusmrti. On II. 29 he extends the Mimāṁsānyāya (sarva śākhāpratyayam-ekam karma’ P. M. S. II. 4. 8-33 which applies to Vedic passages ) to Smṛtis also and states that where the smrtis differ, there is either an option or all pro visions of the Smṛtis on a certain point are to be added up; vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1350 for this nyāya. On Manu II.101 he mentions the nyāya ‘Gunalope ca mukhyasya’ for an explanation of which, vide H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1343 (where it is shown that it is based on P. M. S. X. 2. 63 ). On Manu II. 102 he quotes the verse ‘arke cet madhu vindeta kimartham parvatam vrajet’( quoted by Sabara on I. 2. 4 ). Vide H. Dh. Vol. V. p. 1340 for references. On Manu X. 127 Medbātithi relies on ‘Yāvad-vacanam vācanikam’, for which vide H. Dh. V. p. 1348. Another nyāya that M. mentions is nimittāvṣ. ttau naimittikāvșttiḥ’ on Manu X1. 220, which is explained in H. of Dh. Vol. V. p. 1345.
Some common nyāyas mentioned by M. are · Brāhmaṇa parivrāja kanyāya (on Manu I. 22 ), Kākatāliya-nyāya (on Manu I. 12 ), Viśvajit-nyāya ( on Manu II. 2).
Būhler at first took the remark on Manu XII. 19 ) about Sārīraka’ as780 referring to Śhaṅkara’s bhāsya on the Vedānta sutra, but later on changed his opinion (SBE vol. 25, p. CXXII) and held that it probably implies a reference to the Sārīraka sūtras. Būhler’s considered opinion does not seem to be right. The words ‘yatheha rājā … apaiti’ are a summary of Śhaṅkara’s bhāsya on Vedāntasūtra II. 1. 34 and II. 3. 42. and I. 2. 11-12. On Manu II. 83 he refers to the Upanisad bhāsya761 on Chāndogya II. 23. 4 and says that that passage
780 ननु च धर्माधर्मयोरिच्छां प्रति नियन्तृत्वे ऐश्वर्य हीयते । तथा शारीरके दर्शितं
यथेह राजा सेवानुरूपं ददाति न च तस्येश्वरत्वमपैति अतो महत्परमात्मानौ पश्यत
इति व्यपदिश्यते। 781 उपनिषद्भाष्ये चैतदन्यथा व्याख्यातं तत्त्विहानुपयोगान प्रदर्शितम् । मेधातिथि.
The gyfater passage is 7291 771 affor qafo di quota एवमोकारेण सर्वां वाक् संतृण्णा’. मेधातिथि explains ‘सर्वो पर्यो
( Continued on the next page)
HST
FOUI
19
- Medhātithi
579
has been differently explained in the bhāsya. Śhaṅkara does explain that passage of the Chāndogya differently. But this is not all. In various other places Medhātithi seems to have in view the Sārirakabhāsya of Sarkara. For example, he makes an obeisance to Parabrahma like an advaitin vedānta vedya-tattvaya…parasmui Brahmane namah’. On I. 80 he ha8782 before himn Śhaṅkara’s bhāsya on the sūtra ’lokavat tu Tilakaivalyam’ ( Vedantasutra II. 1. 33 ). He, however, seems to have favoured the position that the attainment of noksa is due763 not to mere correct knowledge but to the combina tion ( samuccurya) of knowledge and learma ( vide remarks on Manu VI. 32, 74-75 and XII. 87-90 ). This was probably due, as Kullika remarks784 ( on I. 3), to his being a profound studeut of Mimamsā.
Froin Medhātithi’s bhāsya it is perfectly clear that the text of Manu on which he commented was practically the same that we have now. He refers to ancient (cirantana) expositors of Manu (on V. 127 ) and to former ( pūrva ) ex positors (IV. 176, II. 134, X. 21 ). He discusses various read ings in several places ( vide III. 119, IV, 99, 185, 229,
( Continued from the previous page ) वाग्व्यवहारानतीतो वाचश्च सर्वस्या ओङ्कारो मूलम् । तथा च श्रुतिः । तद्यथा शहना &c. … अन्तधानमनुस्मृतिराश्रयभावापत्तिर्वा । कथं पुनः सर्वा वागो. कारेण संतृण्णा । वैदिक्यास्तावदोङ्कारपूर्वकत्वमुक्तम् । लौकिक्या अपि तदादीनि वाक्यानि स्युरित्यापस्तम्बवचन त् । ‘. शङ्कराचार्य explains ‘यथा शङ्कना पर्णनालेन सर्वाणि पर्णानि पर्णावयवजातानि संतृण्णानि विद्धानि व्याप्तानीत्यर्थः । एवमोङ्कारेण ब्रह्मणा परमात्मन: प्रतीकभूतेन सर्वा वाक् शब्दजातं संतृण्णा । आकरो वा सर्वा वागित्यादिश्रुतेः । ‘. लीलयापि कौतुकेनापि लोके राजादीनां प्रवृत्तिदृश्यत इति ब्रह्मविदः । मेधा०; ‘यथा लोके कस्यचिदाप्लेषणस्य राज्ञो … लीलारूपाः प्रवृत्तयो भवन्ति’
शाकरभाष्य. 783 On I. 50 he says ‘परब्रह्मावाप्तिस्तु मोक्षलक्षणा केवलानन्दरूपा ज्ञानात्
ज्ञानकर्मसमुच्चयाद्वेति वक्ष्यामः । ’ ; on मनु VI. 74-75 इदं तु ज्ञानकर्मणोः समुच्चयान्मोक्ष इति श्लोकद्वयं ज्ञापकम् ।’; on XII. 87 अतश्च ब्रह्मनिष्ठा
परेणापि वेदाभ्यासादीन्यनुष्ठेयानि। 764 मेधातिथिस्तु कर्ममीमांसावासनया वेदस्य कार्यमेव तत्त्वरूपोर्थस्तं वेत्तीति कार्य:
तत्त्वार्थविदिति व्याचष्टे । .
762
580
VIII. 53 ). On VIII, 182-183 he notes?05 that the order of the verses was traditionally different. Kullūka also notices that those two verses and the next two were read in one order by Medlātithi and Bhojadeva and in another by Govindarāja. On 9. 93 he notes that according to some that verse is not Manu’s. 760 On Manu II, 160 he gives three interpretations of the word ‘Vedāntopagatam’. In numerous places he refers (in the words ‘auye’, ‘kecit’’ pirval’) to the explanations of the Manusmrti that ditfer from his own; vide for example, on I. 28, 84, II. 5 ( bahavascātra vyākhyāvikalpāh, asāratvat tu na pradarsitāḥ ), II. 28, 8+; III. 109; VIII. 1, 2, 20, 30, 43, 359, 375, 410; IX. 18, 64, 76; X. 21, 188. He quotes nuinerous verses with the words ‘uktam ca’ or ’tuduktam’ without naming the sources, some of which are taken from the Upavisads ( as’na ha vai sasarīrasya satah’on II. I which is Chāu. Up. VIII. 12. 1 or dve brahmani veditavye’on VI. 84, which occurs in Maitrāyani Up. VI. 22 ) or on II. 83 he quotes Chin. Up. II. 23. 3 ’tad-yathā sarkunā sarvāni patrani santrıļāni evain-onkārena sarvā vāk santrimnā’ and on the same verse he quotes Yogasūtra I. 27-28. He quotes many verses from the Mahābhūrata, inentions the Nirukta (on I. 22, II. 10, V.5), quotes Piniui’s Sūtras on many verses and tbe Mahābhāṣyakura (on Manu II. 12 and 123 ). On several verses his bhāsya extends to three, four or even five printed pages as on II. 105, 189, III. I(five pages ), 238, V. 2, VIII. 104, 148, X. 5.
One remarkable fact about Medhātithi may be mentionell here. Vijñānesvara flourished about two hundred years after Medhātithi and names 80 Smrtis and Smṛtikūras. Yajna valkya (1. 4-5) names twenty authors that propounded Dharma. Viśvarūpa ( commentator of Yāj. ), who flourished a little earlier than ( or might he at the most a contemporary of Medhātithi ) names 30 Dharmaśāstra authors. But Medha tithi, who wrote an extensive bhāsyu on Manu, speaks in general of Kalpasūtrakāras (on III. 5), of Grhyasmrtis (on II. 29 ) and Grlıyakaras (on III. 45 ), names (besides
766 The verses are: i fa letala: &c. and HT&THIā &c. utara
says on the first TFTTAISI : FALFATT qola I GUAFITIMATE ___ पठित्वा साक्ष्यभाव इति पठितव्यम् । ततः स याच्य इति । एवं पाठो युक्तः 766 fait7417atei siti.
ilis
- Medhātithi
581
Manu ) only a few writers of Dharmasutras and Smṛtis e. g Angiras ( on V. 55 ), Āp. Dh. S. ( a few times ), Usanas (two verses on VII. 154 ), Kityāyana (only ouce on VII. 1), Gautama ( a. of Dharmasūtra, most frequently quoted ), Nirada ( quoted several times ) Baudhāyana (two verses on Manu IV. 36 ), Brhaspati ( as writer on Vārtā on Manu VII. 43 and IX. 326 ), Yājña valkya ( quoted more than a dozen times ), Vasistha ( quoted frequently ), Viṣṇu ( a. of Dh. S. only once on Manu III. 238 ), Vyasa ( on Manu I. 55, X. 127 ), Saṅkha ( 3 times in prose on Manu III, 234, V. 62 and 111) and once on V. 60 a verse yadyekajātā bahavah’ &c. which is ascribed to Sajikha-Likhita in Srāddhakalpataru p. 263 ), Saṁvarta ( two verses on Manu XI. 114-5), Hārīta (three times in prose on Manu V. 60, 111 and 119). Medhātithi does not quote any (Smrtikāra with the prefix.brhat’ or ‘yrddha,’ while the Mit, mentions over a dozen smṛtikāras with those prefixes ( vide below on Mit.). This leads one to presume that most of the works with those prefixes were either not composed before Medhātithi or ( more probably ) were recent works in Medhātithi’s day or that, even th some of them were composed sometime before Medhātithi, they had not penetrated to distant Kashmir in Medhā tithi’s day.
Medhātithi’s bhūsya is full of very interesting information. But for want of space it cannot be analysed in detail. The Mit. (on Yāj. II. 124 ) refers to the view of Asahāya and Medhātithi ( on Manu 9. 118 ) about the fourth share to be given to an unmarried sister at a partition between brothers and follows it in preference to Bharuci’s. On Yūj. III. 24 the Mit. tells us that certain texts of Rsyaśrriga about varying periods of impurity for brāhmaṇas and others were not accepted as authoritative by Dhāreśvara, Viśvarūpa and Medhñtithi. According to himnī07 sainyāsu does not mean the giving up of all the obligatory duties laid down by śāstra. but the giving up of thankeira. He’s allowed a brāhmana to
767 अथाप्युच्येत कर्मसंन्यासिनो निवृत्तिमार्गावस्थायिनो नैव केचिच्छास्त्रार्थविधयः
सन्ति । नायं शास्त्रार्थः । अहङ्कारममकारत्याग एव संन्यासो वक्ष्यते नाशेष
TarcaFT: 1 À 110 00 #7 VI. 32. 788 सदृशं न ज्ञातितः किं तर्हि कुलानुरूपैर्गुणैः, क्षत्रियादिरपि बाह्मणस्य ददाको
yggd i 10 ON H9 9. 188,
582
adopt even a ksatriya boy. He explains away the well-known verse ’naste mrte…patiranyo vidhiyate’ by taking the word ‘pati’ in its etymological sense and says769 that the verse suggests that in order to maintain herself in such calamities the woman may take service with another person as her protector.
Medhātithi quotes several verses from his own work called Smrtiviveka on Manu II. 6 ( in all 24 verses ) and on X. 5 he says that he has dealt with the topic of mixed castes in Smrtiviveka. That work, therefore, was either entirely in verse or contained numerous verses. The Parāśara-Madhaviya ( vol. I, part 2, pp. 183-186 ) has a long quotation in verse on the duties of yatis from & work called Smrtiviveka and the game work several times quotes verses attributed to Medbātithi ( vol. I, part I, p. 276 and part 2, p. 172). Hence the Smrti viveka cited by the Parāśara-Mādhavīya most probably is Medhātithi’s work. Lollata, o an early writer quotes several verses of Medhātithi in his work on srāddha’. In the Tithi niruaya-sarvasamuccaya ( Bhadkamkar collection ) several verses of Medhātithi on obstacles to marriage such as death are quoted.771 In the Yatidharmasangraha of Visvesvara– sarasvati ( Anandāśrama ed. p. 27 ) two well-known verses about ‘costāngamaithuna’ ( viz. smaraṇam kārtanai keliḥ
769 तत्र पालनात्पतिमन्यमाश्रयेत सैरन्ध्रकर्मादिनाप्रवृत्त्यर्थम् । मेधा. on मनु.
-
- 770 पुत्राभावे सपिण्डा मातृसपिण्डाः शिष्याश्च दद्युः, तदभावे ऋत्विगाचार्याविति
मेधातिथिस्मरणात् । ( folio 4h of the ms. of श्राद्धप्रकरण by लोल्लटाचार्य in the आनन्दाश्रम library at Poona ) ; जाताशौचमृताशौचविषये त्वाह मेधातिथिः । पादप्रक्षालने श्राद्धे त्वनलस्थापनं ऋतौ । मधुपर्के विवाहे वै आशौ
चेप्यूर्ध्वमाचरेत् । ( ibid. folio 10a ). 771 वधूवरार्थ घटिते सुनिश्चिते वरस्य गेहेप्यथ कन्यकायाः । मृत्युर्यदि स्यान्मनुजस्य
चित्त( वित्त? )दानं कुर्यात्खलु जातमङ्गलम् ॥ ( folio 45b ) ; वाग्दानानन्तरं यत्र कुलयोः कस्यचिन्मृतिः । तदा संवत्सरादूय विवाहः शुभदो भवेत् ॥ ( folio 46 a ); चौले च व्रतबन्धे च विवाहे व्रतकर्मणि । भार्या रजस्वला यस्य प्रायस्तस्य च ( न ? ) शोभनम् ॥ (folio 47a ); पृथग्मातृजयोः कार्यो विवाहस्त्वेकवासरे । एकस्मिन्मण्डपे चैव पृथग्वेदिकयोस्तथा ॥ ( folio bla ). The first two verses occur in गदाधर’s commentary on the पारस्कर गृह्य and the last three are cited in the कृत्यचिन्तामणि of शिवरामी।
Ms. No. 221 of 1879-80, folios 54 b, bba, 56 b. in the Govt. Mss. at the B.O. R. Institute, Poona 4.64. Medhātithi
583
etc.) are ascribed to Medhātithi and another verse72 is cited (on the same page ) about the six duties of yatis. These quotations show that Medhātithi wrote an extensive work in verse on several topics of dharma. It is to be fervently hoped that this work of Medhātithi would be brought to light some day or other. Coming as it does from such an erudite and ancient writer, it would throw a flood of light on the development of dharmaśāstra.
As Medhātithi names Asahāya and Kumārila and most probably quotes the views of Saṅkarācārya, he is later than 820 A. D. As the Mit looked upon him as an authoritative writer, he must be earlier than 1050 A. D. Most probably be flourished between 825 and 900 A. D. Kullūka"73 on Manu III. 127 says that Medhātithi is much earlier than Govindarāja ( 1050-1100 A. D. ). Lollata is mentioned as a predecessor in the Smrtyartha-sāra of Sridhara, which was composed between 1150–1200 A. D. So Lollata is much earlier than 1150 A. D. He looked upon Medhātithi as a writer whose work was as authoritative as a smrti. A work called Prakāśa774 which is quoted in the Kalpataru appears to have mentioned Medha tithi. Hemādri quotes at great length Medhātithi’s comments in several places. 776 Hence the above date is amply corrobo rated. This conclusion is further strengthened by the fact that, though he names Asahāya, he does not mention Vißve rūpa, Bhāruci or Srīkara. If by Migra,778 in his comment on Manu XII. 118 he refers to Vācaspati-migra, the author of the Bhāmati aud other works, then he will have to be placed after 850 A. D.
772 भिक्षाटनं जपो ध्यानं स्नानं शौचं सुरार्चनम् । कर्तव्यानि षडेतानि यतिना
नृपदण्डवत् । यतिधर्मसंग्रह. 773 मेधातिथिप्रभृतिभिर्गोविन्दराजादपि वृद्धतरैरनभ्युपेतत्वात् । 774 Vide note 222. 775_Vide चतुर्वर्ग III. 1. 1082-83 where मेधातिथि’s comment on मनु
III. 265 is cited. 776 प्रमाणान्तरमपि एकत्वप्रतिपादनपरत्वादेव ग्राहिणः प्रत्यक्षस्य मिश्रल कृत
ga : 1
POONA
FOUNDEC