Page:The history of caste in India.pdf/64



Textual criticism.—Before turning to the contents of our document, it is but proper to make a few remarks on the texts of Manu on which the following investigation is based. All European editions but one and all Indian editions adopted the text which was used by the commentator Kullūka.

It has been found that Kullūka is a very late commentator, and the text which he used is considerably different from those texts which were adopted by earlier commentators. Of the extant commentaries, the one by Medhãtithi is the oldest. Still, the available manuscripts of his work, being defective, cannot be entirely depended on. The commentary of Govindarāja is in a more satisfactory condition. The latter, though not as ancient a person as Medhātithi, is nevertheless one of considerable antiquity. With the aid of Govindarāja and to a certain extent of Medhätithi and some other commentators, Professor Jolly has attempted to restore the text and produce an edition independent of Kullüka. The first attempt toward the critical study of the text was made by August Loiseleur Deslongchamps (Paris, 1830). But it is safe to say that Jolly's edition deprives all the preceding ones of their value, as it is the result of far-reaching critical studies. Both the versions are made use of in the text. If attention is paid to the various