Jolly intro

TRÜBNER’S

ORIENTAL SERIES

MÂNAVA DHARMA-ŚÂSTRA

THE CODE OF MANU.

**ORIGINAL SANSKRIT TEXT **

**CRITICALLY EDITED **

ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD SANSKRIT COMMENTARIES,

**WITH CRITICAL NOTES. **

**BY **

J. JOLLY, PH. D.

PROFESSOR OF SANSKRIT IN THE UNIVERSITY OF WÜRZBURG, LATE TAGORE PROFESSOR OF LAW IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA.

<MISSING_FIG href="../books_images/U-IMG-1699337209Untitled-imp-1.png"/>

LONDON:

TRÜBNER & Co., LUDGATE HILL.

[All rights reserved.]

PREFACE.

The Mânava Dharmaśâstra or Manu-smriti has been edited twice in Europe, and a great many times in India. Nevertheless, a new critical edition of the most authoritative Sanskrit lawbook of India, which is at the same time one of the most widely read works in the whole range of ancient Indian literature, has been universally considered as a desideratum long since. The two European editions, Sir G. C. Haughton’s published in 1825, and Loiseleur Deslong- champs’s published in 1830, though very creditable productions in their own time, belong to a bygone period of Sanskrit studies and have long been out of print, while the numerous Indian editions are on the whole nothing but reprints from the two earliest Calcutta editions, published in 1813 and 1830.

The present attempt to supply this want was first under- taken nearly ten years ago, and was called forth by the recovery of the early Commentaries which has furnished an entirely new basis for the study of the Manu-smriti. Under the title of Manutîkâsamgraha¹ ), I have begun to publish Selections from the Commentaries of Medhâtithi, Govindarâja, Nârâyaṇa-Sarvajña, Râghavânanda, Nandana and an anonymous Kashmirian Commentary, and I may be allowed. to refer to that work for evidence of the correctness of many among the readings adopted in the present text or quoted in the Notes. I will now proceed to a statement of the materials used for the subjoined edition, beginning with a description of the MSS. in which the Commentaries are contained. All MSS. are written in the Devanâgarî character, when not otherwise stated.

I. Medhâtithi’s Commentary.

This work, called Manubhâshya, is undoubtedly the earliest Com- mentary of all. Its composition is referred to the ninth century by Professor Bühler².) I have been able to use nine Mss. which differ considerably inter se.

1. M¹. (designed as No. V. in the Notes to Haughton’s edition of Manu), an old India Office Ms. from Colebrooke’s collection, in two volumes, Nos. 1551-1552, dated Samvat 1648 A. D. 1591³) This is a valuable though faulty MS. as far as it goes, but it contains a number of extensive lacunae in divers places, especially in chapters VIII., IX.

2. M.2, a valuable old MS. in one large volume, from the late Professor Haug’s collection, now in the R. Library, Munich. It is dated Samvat 1711 = A. D. 1654/55 and agrees very closely with M.¹, in clerical errors even. Chapters VII. X. are entirely wanting in this MS.

3. M.³ (Haughton’s No. VI.), an India Office MS. in two large volumes Nos. 934-935, from Colebrooke’s collection, a tolerably complete but modern and faulty MS. Both M.¹ and M.³ could not be used care- fully and throughout in the course of preparing the present edition, as they had to be sent to several other scholars in succession, before I had been able to finish my own labours which had experienced a long interruption through my absence from Europe, when I had been appointed to deliver the Tagore Law Lectures for 1883 in the University of Calcutta. I have seen no reason, however, to regret this loss much my stay in India having afforded ample opportunities to me of procuring several other valuable MSS. of Medhâtithi’s Manubhâshya.

4. M.4 (Haughton’s No. VII.), a modern India Office MS. from Colebrooke’s collection, in four volumes, Nos. 1407-1410, dated Samvat 1845, 1846, and 1865 = A. D. 1788/89, 1789/90, 1811/12, and containing chapters I.– XI. This MS., or an apograph from it which was done at Tanjore and is now in the India Office Library, is the copy used by Dr. Burnell for his translation of Manu. Dr. Burnell calls M.⁴ „ a poor MS.", and Haughton has pointed out that it was extremely faulty originally, and is full of lacunae and corrections. It should be added that these corrections, however plausible at first sight, appear to be arbitrary emendations in many cases, and that some of them may be possibly due to a collation of M.4 or its codex archetypus with the Commentary of Kullûka.

5. M.⁵, an old MS. in my possession, which I bought in Benares from a well-known Dharmaśâstrî, the late Pandit Dhundhirâj. The first, second, ninth, and twelfth chapters are wanting, and there are many omissions besides, as well as transpositions of entire sections, and other mistakes, but it is otherwise a valuable MS., not more recent probably than the sixteenth or seventeenth century.

6. M.⁶, a modern MS., in one volume of enormous size, in the R. Library, Berlin. It is tolerably complete, and seems to have been copied from a MS. belonging to the Sanskrit College Library, Calcutta. Unfortunately, the text as given in this MS. agrees far less closely with Medhâtithi’s Commentary than with Kullûka’s and with the printed editions from which it has apparently been copied or remodelled. For this reason I have refrained from referring to this MS. except in a few cases which may suffice to establish the character of its readings.

7. M.⁷, a modern MS. in my possession. It was copied for me in Benares from a good old Benares MS. It contains the text and commentary of the first chapter, and the commentary only of the second chapter.

8. M.⁸, an excellent MS. from the Deccan College, Puna, very old in appearance. A considerable number of leaves is missing throughout this MS., the loss extending e. g. to the whole portion from IV. 95 to V. 40.

9. M.⁹, another old Deccan College MS. It is nearly complete, very carefully written, and nearly as old as M.¹, the date being Samvat 1649 = A. D. 1592/93. Nevertheless it can hardly vie with M.8 either in antiquity or correctness, though many of its blunders may be easily rectified.

Leaving aside M.6, as being useless for practical purposes, we may divide the remaining eight MS. into two classes, M.1, M.2, and M.8 being the principal representatives of the earlier and better class of the two. Both M.2 and M.s belong distinctly to Western India, and M.¹, accord- ing to Haughton’s probable conjecture, seems to come from the same part of India. M.¹, M.5, M.³ and M.7 may be grouped together as consti- tuting the other or Benares class. The close connexion, in particular, between M.5 and M.4 in its original shape, minus the corrections, is quite unmistakable. The relative position of M.9 is uncertain, but its readings agree more frequently with those of the first class than with those peculiar to the Benares group. As regards M.3, on the other hand, I cannot concur in the opinion expressed by Sir G. C. Haughton, who thinks it must have been copied from M.1. There are several indications which point to its original connexion with the Benares class. This entire class of MSS., however, has not been used much, the readings of the Western India group having been generally preferred.

The letter M. simply has been used to design those readings, which are either common to all the MSS. of Medhâtithi available in each case, or vouched for by Medhâtithi’s gloss, or otherwise likely to have been sanctioned by that ancient Commentator himself. An analogous proceed- ing has been observed with regard to the other Commentaries.

Me. (or Me.¹, Me.2, etc.), i. e. the Commentary of Medhâtithi, is a voluminous work de omni re scibili rather than a verbal paraphrase of the text. Nevertheless it has proved serviceable in many cases for establishing Medliâtithi’s own readings and for tracing the numerous v.1. which had been noticed by him in old MSS. and Commentaries, and are introduced in his Commentary with the remark इति वा पाठः or इति क्वचित्पाठः or इति केचित्पठन्ति or some other phrase of the kind. The more important among these early variae lectiones have been quoted in the Notes, asMe. v. 1. . = Medhâtithi’s varia lectio. Analogous abbreviations have been used to design the variae lectiones quoted in other Commentaries.

II. Govindarâja’s Commentary,

called Manuțîkâ, appears to have been composed in the twelfth or thirteenth century. I have been able to use two copies of this valuable Commentary, viz.

10. G. or G.¹, an excellent complete MS. from the Deccan College

Library, which seems to be about 250 or 300 years old⁴.¹)It has been discovered and purchased for the Bombay Government by Professor Bühler.

11. G.², another old MS. from the Deccan College, which contains portions of chapters VIII., XI., and XII. only. This MS., as far as it goes, is almost identical with G.¹-Go., i. e. the work of Govindarâja, is a running Commentary on the whole text and has proved extremely useful therefore for detecting the numerous false readings which have crept into the Code of Manu as handed down in G.¹ and G.².

III. Sarvajña-Nârâyana’s Commentary,

called Manvarthavivriti, belongs to the fourteenth century most likely⁵.This Commentary, whatever may be thought of its intrinsic merit, has proved less useful than most other Commentaries for the purposes of verbal criticism, both because it confines itself to the elucidation of selected difficult terms and passages, and because it does not contain the text in the only available MS., viz.

12. N. = Nârâyana’s work, according to the excellent Deccan College copy originally discovered by Professor Bühler. It is dated Samvat 1544 = A. D. 1497.-In those very rare cases where the Commentary of Nârâyaṇa does not corroborate the readings quoted in this MS., the readings explained in the Commentary have been quoted with the heading Nâ. Many of the numerous readings which Nârâyana quotes as v. l. have been traced in other Commentaries.

IV. Râghavânanda’s Commentary.

For this work called Manvarthachandrikâ, which appears to have been composed as late as the sixteenth or seventeenth century⁶,I have principally used.

13. R.¹, a modern but excellent copy from Dr. Burnell’s collection, now in the India Office Library.

14. R.², Anquetil’s copy, in the Bibliothèque Nationale at Paris, has only been accessible to me through the medium of the references to it in Loiseleur’s edition, and Professor Bühler’s translation, of the Code of Manu.

15. R.³, an ancient but damaged copy in the Deccan College, discovered and purchased for the Bombay Government by Professor Bhândârkar, who has kindly called my attention to this MS. This copy could be used for Râghavânanda’s Commentary only, as the text is not given in it.

Râ. (or Râ.¹, Râ.2, Râ.³), i. e. Râghavânanda’s Commentary, has frequently proved serviceable for correcting the numerous blunders in the text as handed down in R.¹ and R.2, but it is not sufficiently explicit by far to admit of establishing throughout the readings sanctioned by Râghavânanda himself.

V. Nandana’s Commentary,

called Nandinî or Manvarthavyakhyâna or Mânavavyâkhyâna, is a very brief Commentary, of South Indian origin and uncertain date.¹) The text as handed down in this work differs considerably almost throughout from the ordinary text. Some of Nandana’s readings are certainly old, as proved by their recurrence in the works of Medhâtithi, Nârâyana and other early Commentators and in good old MSS. of the text only. Those very numerous readings on the other hand, which are entirely peculiar to this Commentator alone, deserve little attention and seem to be for the most part either corruptelae or unlucky guesses.

16. Nd.¹ or Nd., the MS. principally used for the present work, is the complete copy belonging to Divân Bahâdur Raghunâthrâo, which was most liberally placed at my disposal by its owner, owing to the kind mediation of Professor Bühler. It is dated Śakasaṇivat 1724 = A. D. 1803⁷.In spite of many serious blunders and omissions, which have been adverted to by Professor Bühler and by the Honourable Râo Saheb V. N. Mandlik⁸ it is on the whole more reliable than

_____________________________________________________

1. Bühler, pp. XXXIII-XXXV; Burnell-Hopkins, pp. XII, XLII. Dr. Burnell’s proposed identification of Nandana with “the Nanda who wroteon adoption” is impossible. Nanda-pandita was a Benares man, and some descendants of his are still living at Benares. See The Institutes of Vishon, transl. by J. Jolly, 8. B. E. VII, p. XXXIII; Tagore Law Lectures, p. 15.

____________________________________________________

17. Nd.², a modern MS. of chapters VIII. and IX. only of the Nandinî, in the Grantha character, from Dr. Burnell’s collection now in the India Office. The deviations of this MS. from Nd.¹ being for the most part in the nature of corruptelae, it has not been thought necessary to give a full account of them in the Notes.

Ndd. (or Ndd.¹, Ndd.2) = Nandana’s Commentary, in spite of its laconism has helped in a number of cases to establish the true readings of Nandana, when they could not be made out from the available MSS.

VI. Anonymous Kashmirian Commentary, designed as K. in the Notes.

18. This work is contained in an ancient carefully written and corrected birch-bark MS. in the Sâradâ character, which was purchased for the Bombay Government and deposited in the Deccan College Library by Professor Bühler. The Commentary has been designed as Kâ. It is of very small extent and significance, but the text contains a great many valuable v. l., many of which recur in other Commentaries. The last portion, from XI. 218 onwards, has been partly lost.

VII. Manuscripts of the text only.

Out of the immense number of MSS. of this description I have used a few only which have been previously examined by European scholars, of whose collations I was in a position to avail myself. It is sufficiently obvious that MSS. of the text alone are of very inferior value generally for deciding questions of verbal criticism in a work of established au- thority such as the Code of Manu, on which copious Commentaries ex- plaining nearly every word of the text were composed at an early period and carefully handed down to posterity.

19. Gr.=a MS. in the Grantha character, according to the collations also in the Grantha character, which were entered by the late Dr. Burnell in a copy of Jîbânanda’s edition of Manu. It may be seen from the Notes that many out of the various readings and redundant verses found in Gr. occur elsewhere as well, especially in Nandana’s Commentary.

20. T.= a Telugu MS., according to Dr. Burnell’s collations also in the Telugn character. The v. l. which Dr. Burnell has noted of this MS. are very few in number and of little consequence.

21. Be. = a Bengali MS., dated Śakasamvat 1453 = A. D. 1531, according to the valuable list of v. l. found in this MS., in Dr. Rajendralâla Mitra’s Notices of Sanskrit MSS., vol. III., pp. 118-120. Judging from the nature of its readings, this MS. is not unworthy of the praise bestowed on it by Dr. Mitra.

22. W.= Wilkins’s manuscript. It was copied for the well-known Sanskritist Charles Wilkins in the last century, and consulted by Haughton for his edition.

23. B. = a Bombay MS., of the last century likewise, presented to the East India Company by the then Guikowar of Baroda. For this copy as well as for No. 22, I have only been able to use the references in the Notes to Haughton’s edition.

VIII. Kullûka’s Commentary, designed as Ku.

One of the surest results of recent investigations regarding the Code and its ancient Commentators has been to deprive the Manvarthamuktavalî of Kullûkabhaṭṭa, a writer of the fifteenth century apparently, of the claims to special consideration with which it was invested by the early translators and editors of Manu. A close examination of the works of Kullûka’s predecessors has shown how largely he is indebted to them generally for the vast majority of his statements, and how much he has taken verbatim from Govindarâja’s Commentary in particular. The value of his well-known composition for a critical restoration of the text is further diminished by its briefness and by a general habit of paraphrasing the words of the text by synonymous terms, instead of repeating and explaining them. I have therefore confined myself to using the printed editions of Kullûka, which are on the whole tolerably satisfactory as far as the Commentary is concerned. As, however, the text of the printed editions does not agree with the Commentary in many cases, it has been deemed advisable to add considerable number of special references to the Commentary, for those passages particularly where it differs from the printed text. Besides, I have occasionally consulted for Kullûka’s text

24. Kl. Haughton’s No. II, a MS. of Kullûka used by Haughton in preparing his edition of the text and thought by him to have been the copy from which the editio princeps of Manu and Kullûka was printed off.

IX. Printed editions.

All hitherto published editions of the Code agree very closely with one another, because Kullûka’s Commentary has served as the principal or sole foundation for them. The following editions have been referred to in the Notes.

C.1= the editio princeps, with Kullûka’s Commentary, printed in Calcutta, 1813.

C=.2 the second Calcutta edition, published in 1830, also with Kullûka.

C.3 Jîbânanda’s reprint of C.2, published in Calcutta, 1874.

H. Sir G. C. Haughton’s edition of the text only, published in London, 1825.

L. = Loiseleur Deslongchamps’s edition of the text only, published in Paris, 1830.

V.= Vulgata is a collective title used to design the five editions referred to whenever they agree with one another, which is generally the case.

Among these various editions, C.2 is no doubt a decided improvement on C.1 which abounds in misprints and faulty readings. The London edition also is far superior to C.¹, and its value is enhanced by the varietas lectionis in the Notes on the text, though Haughton’s list of various readings from the Manubhâshya of Medhâtithi, the only Commentary to which he had access besides Kullûka’s, is extremely meagre, especially in chapters I.-V. Sir G. C. Haughton’s opinion regarding the value of Medhâtithi’s Commentary seems to have been influenced by the depreciatory remarks made on it by Sir W. Jones which are apparently founded in their turn on the judgment passed by Kullûka, at the end of his Commentary, on the learned composition of his renowned predecessor and rival. Loiseleur’s edition is a careful and slightly improved reprint of Haughton’s text, arranged according to the European mode of dividing Sanskrit words; a list of the more important v. l. of the second Calcutta edition was supplied afterwards in his French translation of Manu. A number of brief extracts from the Commentaries of Kullûka and Râghavânanda and a few v. l. from the latter work and from a MS. of the text are the principal new features in the Notes to Loiseleur’s edition. Nearly all the more recent Indian editions are mere reprints either from C.1 or from C.2, or a mixture of both; nor is satisfactory authority given for such variation of reading as has been met with in some of them. This result has been arrived at by means of a collation, a somewhat cursory one, it is true, of all the editions extant in the Library of the British Museum in 1885.1) The Honourable V. N. Mandlik’s voluminous edition of the Code together with seven Commentaries (Calcutta, 1886), which was not received till nearly the whole of the present work had been printed off, is the only recent attempt at an independent edition of the Code, and is decidedly superior, no doubt, to its predecessors. Its chief value, however, seems to lie in the Commentaries, the text having been but little changed from previous editions and the varietas lectionis collected from copies of the text of uncertain age and value rather than from the standard Commentaries. Valuable hints for the emendation of sundry obscure and difficult passages have been thrown out in Dr. von Böhtlingk’s paper on the text of the Code, published in the Mélanges Asiatiques for 1876, and in the edition of chapter IX., which has appeared in Böhtlingk’s Sanskrit Chrestomathy (1877). Several of the conjectural emendations proposed by Dr. von Böhtlingk have been confirmed by an examination of the Commentaries.

____________________

The fundamental difference between all previous edi- tions on one hand and the present text on the other hand consists of its independence of Kullûka. A critical restoration of the text in its original shape being the first aim of an editor, the recovery of the ancient Commentaries from which Kullûka, as stated before, has drawn so largely and unscrupulously, has superseded almost entirely his compar- atively modern compilation, which was held in such high estimation by all previous editors of the Code of Manu. The text as handed down by Medhâtithi and Govindarâja,

____________________________________________________________________

1885 -The titles and dates of the majority of these works have been given in Dr. Haas’s Catalogue of Sanskrit and Pali Books in the British Museum (1876). Among the more recent acquisitions of the British Museum Library, an edition of Manu with a Hindostani translation (Lucknow 1873), an oblong lithographed edition published in Bombay, and one with a Hindi Commentary (Saidabad, 1880, foll., in progress) are perhaps particularly conspicuous.

_______________________________________________________

the two earliest Commentators, has therefore been used as much as possible as the foundation for the present work. Where Medhâtithi and Govindarâja differ, the former in spite of his superior antiquity has not been placed above the latter on principle, the defective character of the MSS. of Medhâtithi’s Commentary and the general diffuseness of his composition rendering it difficult in many cases to ascertain his actual readings, while the general antiquity of Govindaraja’s readings is proved by the fact of their recurring in a number of instances among the various readings quoted by Medhâtithi or in other Commentaries and in ancient MSS. of the text. The Commentaries of Nârâyana, Kullûka, Râghavânanda and Nandana, and the Kashmirian Commentary have been generally treated as being on a par with one another, and the choice between their several readings was made to depend on the intrinsic value of cach reading, or on cumulative evidence where other tests were found wanting. It should be noted, however, that Râghavânanda may be considered as a follower of Kullûka, while Nandana seems to have followed in the track of Nârâyaṇa and Medhâtithi. Among the MSS. of the text, special im- portance has been attached to “Be.” and “Gr.”, for reasons detailed before. Further valuable aid has been derived, in cases of doubt, from the numerous analogous passages in other early works, such as the Mahâbhârata (quoted from the Calcutta edition), the Smritis of Vishnu, Baudhâyana, Yâjñavalkya, Nârada, Vasishtha, Gautama, Âpastamba, the Râmâyaṇa, and several other standard works of Sanskrit literature. Though it would have been easy to collect an immense number of various readings from these works, I have refrained from referring to them in the Notes, except where they may be turned to account for settling the choice between the several readings of the Commentaries and ancient MSS. of the Code. It is obvious that such a work as the Mânava Dharmaśâstra, nearly every word of which is vouched for by ancient Commentaries, requires to be treated with the utmost caution and reverence, to avoid producing an eclectic text. For the same reason I have abstained entirely from quoting or using those v. l. which may be gathered from an examination of the extremely numerous quotations from Manu in the mediaeval and modern law-books of India and in other Sanskrit writings.

In submitting, then, the subjoined text to the judgment of Sanskrit scholars, I trust that it will be allowed to have been constructed on truly conservative principles. Nor does it differ very considerably from the earlier editions, the numbering of the verses e. g. having remained unchanged throughout. The great celebrity of the Code appears to have guarded it against sweeping alterations, so that the text has remained essentially the same nearly in all Commentaries, however widely distant from one another as to the time and locality of their composition. Thus, many alterations of the textus receptus in the present work are in reality not innovations, but corrections fully warranted by the Commentary of Kullûka, which was regarded theoretically as the very highest authority by the early editors of the Code. Instances of this may be found in the Notes on II. 11; II. 246; III. 78; III. 106; III. 233; III. 274; III. 277; IV. 57; IV. 136; IV. 163; IV. 209; VII. 66; VII. 161; VII. 170; VIII. 14; VIII. 53; VIII. 82; VIII. 116; VIII. 234; VIII. 318; VIII. 392; IX. 52; IX. 84; IX. 124; X. 32; XI. 53; XI. 77; XI. 101; XI. 116; XI. 130; XI. 172; XI. 208; XI. 219; XII. 18; XII. 63; XII. 86, etc.

The Notes on the text contain a selection of those various readings, which are not palpable blunders of a copyist. It would have been impracticable for obvious reasons to quote all v. l. wherever found, but I trust that no really important and well attested variation of reading will be found missing among the number of upwards of three thousand v. l. of which the present list is made up. The following abbreviations occur in the Notes, besides those which have been explained before.

pr. m. = prima manu.

s. m. =secunda manu.

Bü.= Professor Bühler’s translation.

Mahâbhâr =Mahâbhârata (Calcutta edition).

om. =omitted.

Böhtlingk’s I. Spr.= Indische Sprüche, by Böhtlingk.

The Synopsis of various readings affecting the sense, on pp. 336 foll., has been added for the use of students who wish to read the present text with one of the four principal translations of the Code, by Sir W. Jones, Loise- leur Deslongchamps, Drs. Burnell and Hopkins⁹and Professor Bühler (just published).

Many of the readings adopted in the present text or quoted in the Notes on it have been quoted and fully discussed in the Notes to the lastnamed excellent translation, the Proofsheets of which were kindly placed at my disposal by its Author. The rather numerous discrepancies between the present work and the text as rendered in Professor Bühler’s translation are principally due to the fact that he has generally adhered to the recension given by Kullûka. Nor could this be otherwise, as Kullûka’s text was hitherto the only one existing in print, and the same course has therefore been followed in Dr. Burnell’s recently published translation. The latter work has been carefully consulted, likewise, especially on account of the useful selection of v. l. from the Commentaries of Medhâtithi, Râghavânanda, Kullûka, and part of Nandana’s Commentary, which has been supplied by Dr. Hopkins. An an- notated German version of chapters VIII. and IX. 1-102 according to the standard Commentaries was published by myself, in the Zeitschrift für vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft, as long ago as 1882 and 1883.

I have to acknowledge my obligation, further, to Böhtlingk’s and Roth’s great Sanskritwörterbuch, which has been constantly appealed to for deciding doubtful questions of verbal criticism, as well as to Dr. von Böhtlingk’s minor Dictionary, his Indische Sprüche and his beforementioned writings concerning the Code in particular. A complete list of the terms occurring in the Code, together with numerous references, being contained in the firstmentioned Sanskrit Dictionary, it would have been superfluous to add an Index of words to the present work, and the recent annotated translations have superseded similarly the neces- sity of giving explanatory Notes on the text. For a careful discussion of all questions concerning the origin and history of the Manuic text, I may refer to the copious Introduction to Professor Bühler’s translation. The valuable papers on Indian Metrics by Professors Gildemeister, Oldenberg and Jacobi, the two first of which contain many special refer- ences to Manu, have proved useful for settling such doubtful points as involve a consideration of metrical rules. The printed editions of other Smritis have also been consulted a great deal.

In conclusion, I have to express my sincerest thanks, in the first place, to Geheimerath Dr. von Böhtlingk who though much pressed for work himself, assisted me in the laborious task of correcting the Proofsheets of the whole volume excepting the larger portion of chapters I.-VI., and in discovering the mistakes referred to in the Corrigenda, and favoured me with a number of valuable suggestions while this work was going through the press. Professor Bühler very kindly assisted me in various ways. A number of valuable MSS. and books from the India Office Library were liberally placed at my disposal by Dr. R. Rost, and my applications for the loan of Sanskrit MSS. from the Deccan College Library constantly granted by the Bombay Government. Divân Bahâdur Raghunâthrâo, with great courtesy, allowed me the use, for a long time, of his unique MS. copy of the Nandinî. To my late lamented friend Dr. A. C. Burnell, of the Madras Civil Service, I am indebted for the loan of several MSS. from his private collection, and for the opportunity he gave me of using his valuable col- lations of two South Indian MSS.

WÜRZBURG, January 1887.

JULIUS JOLLY.