author, taking fully into account his method of stating facts or giving precepts. Again, as this work shares the nature of a poem with that of a legal treatise, the meaning becomes more difficult to understand, and the facts become more obscure.
But before entering into such a criticism ourselves we should first sec how the Sanskrit commentaries, of which there are about seven available, interpret the text.
The commentators are always people who have great respect for their author, and wish to interpret him in the best light. The various commentaries on Mānava dharma-shästra generally try to paraphrase the text in easier language, and often give examples to make clear what they say. They are constructive. If there be any two verses which contradict each other, the commentators would make one of them applicable in a restricted sense,[1] or they may say that both are valid and any course of conduct may be followed. Sometimes they notice the contradiction, point it out and then give it as a reason why the words must be interpreted more liberally.[2] They often warn us not to take the verses too
- ↑ Regarding the efficacy of muttering prayers the text says: "He who stands during the morning twilight muttering Savitrī, removes the guilt contracted during the previous night. But he who recites it seated in the evening destroys the sin committed during the day." (ii. 102.) Here the commentators Medhatithi and Govindarāja point out that only trifling faults can be expiated in this manner, otherwise the chapter on penances would be useless.
- ↑ Our text advises the king (vii, 189) "Let him station the commander-in-chief and the adjutant-general in all directions." Medhātithi, while commenting on this verse, remarks that, as the commander-in-chief and the adjutant-general are but two persons, they cannot be stationed in all directions, therefore their servants also must be meant.
