Manasara Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Manasara-Shilpashastra; III. Manasara on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Manasara: Translation; V. Architecture of Manasara: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v3.c20.s2: Description of the Manuscripts
Mānasāra Series (I. A Dictionary of Hindu Architecture; II. Indian Architecture according to Mānasāra-Śilpaśāstra; III. Mānasāra on Architecture and Sculpture: Sanskrit Text; IV. Architecture of Mānasāra: Translation; V. Architecture of Mānasāra: Illustrations; VI. Hindu Architecture in India and Abroad; VII. An Encyclopaedia of Hindu Architecture) v3.c20.s2
- Language
- English
Description of the Manuscripts
v3.c20.s2.1
The manuscripts which have been used in preparing the text of this First Edition of the *Mānasāra* are the following:—
v3.c20.s2.2
(A) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (B.482). It is written in Devanāgari script on modern paper 9½″ by 7½″. It contains 100 folios, each page of which has invariably 21 lines, except the last page which has only 1 line. Each line is half a *śloka*. The *ślokas* are inaccurately numbered from the beginning to the end. The writing seems to be by one and the same hand. The name of the writer is not known. The colophons are written in red ink. The manuscript gives up the *Mānasāra* at folio 78b, line 16, the middle of Chapter XVIII (Vimāna-lakshaṇa), without any colophon. The remaining 22 folios, apparently belonging to another work, are retained in Appendix क. This portion has two colophons—folio 93a, *iti Sūkshma-śāstre Kāma-koshta-paṭalaḥ*; folio 95b, *iti Padma-saṁhitāyāṁ Raurava-bhede Kāma-koshṭa-lakshaṇa-vidhiḥ paṭalaḥ*. On page 101 it breaks off abruptly at the middle of line 1.
v3.c20.s2.3
(B) This has been noticed by Aufrecht in the *Catalogues Catalogorum*, part III, page 97. It belongs to the Oriental Library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. It is written on paper 12'' by 8½″. The first part, to folio 88, is a different work called *Nara-pati-vijaya*. The second part, called *Mānasāra-vāstu* and also *Kumāra-vāstu*, contains 163 folios, each page of which has 16 to 24 lines. Each line contains about three-quarters of a *śloka*. The *ślokas* are not numbered; but on the last page the total is given as 5,760 and this figure is not, of course, verified by actual counting. This has been undoubtedly written by more than one hand. But it is recorded on the last page that this work has been written by one Ramanuj charya for the *Kumpānī bahādur* (the East India Company) in the *Śālivāhana Śaka* era 1677. The date of its being recorded is given in English, 14th April, 1823. The last page contains the mark of a seal in three different scripts—Urdu, Nāgarī, and Bengali. It begins with Chapter XV (*Pāda* or *Stambha*), and folio 108b has the colophon of the last chapter. The remaining folios 108 to 163 contain the first fourteen chapters.
v3.c20.s2.4
(C) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (E. 3141, 3014) and has been noticed by C. P. Brown in *Eggeling's Catalogue*, page 1131. Dr. Goldstücker refers to it in his *Dictionary*, page 284. It is written in Devanāgarī character on paper 11" by 7". It contains 472 folios, one page of which is left blank. Each page has 16 to 18 lines, each of which is a half *śloka*. *Ślokas* are numbered up to folio 100. The colophons are not numbered in the latter part. Most of the chapters are incomplete and described in two places. The first sixteen chapters are altogether lost. The first few pages are quite fragmentary. The fly-leaf contains the following: "This portion of the शिल्पशास्त्र was copied from a very ancient manuscript in the old Tamil character, discovered at Trichinopoly. It was imperfect both at the beginning and at the end. It was written out under the direction of Charles Philip Brown, 1830." But "from various indications it would, however, rather seem that the volume was copied from two different manuscripts, one a Grantha and the other a Telegu manuscript (Grantha manuscript, no. 1987, and Telegu manuscript no. 525 in Taylor's *Catalogue Rais.*, I 71; II 355)." It seems to have been copied from different sources by different writers, but evidently not from the sources mentioned here.
v3.c20.s2.5
(D) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (*Mackenzie Collection*, no. III, 187). It is written in Telegu character on palm leaf, 13″ by 2″. It contains 162 folios, each page of which has 9 to 11 lines. Exactly like 'B,' it begins with Chapter XV and after the colophon of the last chapter of the book takes up the first fourteen chapters. The name of the copyist is not known. The date is given as Śaka 1656 (A.D. 1734). The characters are very small and indistinct. After careful collation with 'B,' it seems that both 'B' and 'D' are copies of the same original. 'B' may have been already copied from 'D' when the latter was removed to the India Office.
v3.c20.s2.6
(E) This belongs to the Library of the India Office (*Mackenzie Collection*, no. III, 190). It is written in Telegu character on palm leaf, 19″ by 1½″. It contains 68 folios, each page of which has 7 to 8 lines. But there are some pages quite blank. Each verse is followed by its Telegu translation. The pages are numbered 131-198. It begins at page 131. The colophon reads *iti Maya-mate Vāstu-śāstre Vimāna-lakshaṇa* (158, 6, 0). As Dr. Rost remarks, "the Sanskrit text is hopelessly corrupt."
v3.c20.s2.7
(F) This belongs to the Tanjore Palace Estate. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, part III, page 97, and in Burnell, page 62, no. 11081. It is written in Grantha and Tamil characters on *Cadjan* (palm) leaf, 16½″ by 5″. The breadth of a single leaf is one inch. It contains 202 leaves, each of which has 4 to 5 lines. It can conveniently be divided into three parts. The first part, in Grantha character, is exactly the same as 'A,' showing their common origin. They are the same line for line; both break off the *Mānasāra* abruptly at the same line. The second part, in Tamil, called *Kāma-koshṭha-bandha*, corresponds to Appendix च and seems to be a commentary on the latter portion of the first part, which does not belong to the *Mānasāra*. The third part contains some chapters belonging to a different work, probably the *Mayamata*. Each verse is accompanied by a Tamil commentary throughout. This part is noticed in Appendix छ. 'F' like 'A' has, therefore, only the first seventeen chapters of the *Māna-sāra* and a portion of Chapter XVIII.
v3.c20.s2.8
(G) This belongs to the Tanjore Palace Estate. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, part III, page 97, and in Burnell, page 62, no. 11080. It is written in Grantha character on *Cadjan* (palm) leaf, 16″ by 2¼″. The breadth of a single leaf is 1¼″. It contains 82 leaves, each page of which has 4 to 6 lines. The first two *ślokas* are invocations to the gods Gaṇeśa and Śiva. Then come 9 lines from Chapter XXXIV (Maṇḍapa). The manuscript begins practically with the next Chapter XXXV (Śālā) and runs to Chapter L (Bhūshaṇa).
v3.c20.s2.9
(H) This belongs to the Deccan College, Poona, Bombay. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part III, page 97, and in Dr. Bhandarkar's Report for the years 1887-91. It is written in Devanāgarī character on foreign bluish paper, with water lines, 9¼″ by 7¾″. It contains 44 leaves, each page of which has 21 lines. Each line has about 21 letters. The characters are legible, clear and bold, and the writing is fairly correct. The manuscript is in the form of a modern book, with a margin of one inch to three-fourths of an inch with a double line of border in red ink on all sides. The same ink is used to denote the beginning and the end of the different Chapters, as also to show the beginning and the conclusion of the *anushtubhs*, their *pādas*, and of sentences. No date is given. The author is not known. It begins with a table of contents. Like ‘G,’ it has only Chapters XXXV to L. The manuscript itself seems to be a modern copy of an older manuscript. The page ‘1*a*’ has the words “*Mānava-Śilpa*” as the title of the work, though in Bhandarkar’s report the name is given as “*Mānava-sāra-vāstu-śāstra.*”
v3.c20.s2.10
(I) This belongs to the Government Oriental Library, Madras. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part II, page 104. It is written in cursive Grantha character on European paper and bound in size 13½" by 8". It consists of 495 pages, each of which contains 18 lines. It retains all the chapters of the *Mānasāra* in their proper order with a few exceptions. The copyist gives his name as Lōkanātha Śāstri. The date of transcription is not given.
v3.c20.s2.11
(J) This belongs to the Government of Madras. It is referred to in Aufrecht, part I, page 452, and in Taylor I, 71, no. 1987. It consists of 12 *Cadjan* (palm) leaves of the size 12¼" by 1¾". Each page contains 8 lines. It is written in Grantha character. Neither the date of the manuscript nor the name of the copyist is given. Many leaves are missing and more are so injured that it is impossible to make out the contents. The last page contains in the middle the colophon of Chapter XLVII. The comparison has to be given up after a few lines of Chapter XLVI (Toraṇa).
v3.c20.s2.12
(K) These two manuscripts belong to the Palace Library of Trivandrum. They are referred to in Aufrecht part I, page 452, and described in Oppert II, 532, 6125, 6976. Of these, 532 and 6976 are not available and seem to have been lost. Of the two Trivandrum manuscripts, one is 6125 and the other is a new one, in the sense that it is not mentioned in any catalogue. Aufrecht thinks (page 452) that one of these three described by Oppert was "quoted by Ram Raz." But there seems no reason for Aufrecht's supposition. From the description it seems on the contrary that Ram Raz referred to the one called here 'J.'
v3.c20.s2.13
Both of the Trivandrum manuscripts are written on palm-leaves in Malayalam character. One of them contains 63 *ślokas* on 25 folios with 9 lines to a page of 7¼″ by 1¼″ and goes as far as the first 55 verses, with a Malayalam gloss. The other contains 6 folios of 7¼″ by 1¼″ with 9 lines to a page. This second one is the gloss and omits the verses 5, 9, 10, 14, 24, 28, 38, 40, 45, 48, 52 and 55. They deal with *Śaṅku-sthāpana* and the illustration of the *Āyādi-shaḍ-varga*; but comparison and collation are not possible. Apparently they are not copies of the *Mānasāra* and seem to belong to a different work. They are retained in Appendix ग.
v3.c20.s2.14
Aufrecht, part III, page 97, refers to the *Reports on Sanskrit Manuscripts in Southern India* by E. Hultzch, vol. II, page 37, no. 1103. These manuscripts are the same as Burnell, Tanjore, page 62, nos. 11080 and 11081, and identical with 'F' (11081) and 'G' (11089).
v3.c20.s2.15
Aufrecht, part III, page 97, refers to Hara Prasad, I and II, Calcutta, 1898, 8, II, no. 161. It is, perhaps, the same fragmentary manuscript, which now belongs to Mr. Nagendra Nath Basu, and appears to be a recent copy of one of the manuscripts described above.
v3.c20.s2.16
Of all these manuscripts, 'A' is the shortest. The characters are legible, clear and bold, but the language is very corrupt. The corruptions are not due only to the copyist, but are to be ascribed to the sources from which 'A' was copied. It does not differ materially from the first and second parts of 'F.' In fact 'A' and 'F' resemble each other so closely as to suggest a common origin, and may be taken to form one group.
v3.c20.s2.17
'B' is the most incorrect manuscript; but, such as it is, it does not differ from 'D.' The various corruptions, except those which are obviously copyist's conjectures and *variae lectiones*, are the same. I am inclined to think that 'B' had already been copied from 'D' when the latter was removed to the India Office. At any rate their common origin is apparent. These two will thus form one group.
v3.c20.s2.18
'C' is also interpolated and stands aloof, although it shows many striking coincidences with such parts of 'J' as do not agree with 'I.' Eggeling says (*Catalogue*, page 1154) "the volume ('C') was copied from two different manuscripts . . . this would account for certain repetitions, as well as for certain orthographic peculiarities (such as *yeka* for *eka*, *vuttara* for *uttara*), pointing to a Telegu source." That the original of 'C' was very damaged is clear from such marginal remarks of the copyist as "*Asmin sthale patrāṇi navāṇi nyūnāni*" (here are lost nine leaves).
v3.c20.s2.19
'G' and 'H,' each of which has the same fifteen chapters only, are in a fairly good condition. They are copies from the same original, differing just enough to show that they have undergone the usual corruptions, which a long course of copying and re-copying under different circumstances renders unavoidable. They may, therefore, be classed under one group.
v3.c20.s2.20
'I,' which is the *Codex Archetypus* of the present edition is the most perfect manuscript available of the *Mānasāra*. It is likely that 'I' was copied from 'J' when the latter was in its complete form. This would account for the displacement of some lines in the same chapter, as well as in different chapters, through copyist's blunders or want of revision. The lacuna of 'I' may thus be ascribed to negligence in reading the extremely injured parts of 'J,' since we have such obvious common mistakes as *varṇayet* for *van-nayat*, etc. They may be taken to form one group.
v3.c20.s2.21
With regard to the provenance of the Manuscripts it is unfortunately impossible to give much definite information. 'A,' 'C,' 'D,' 'E,' belong to the India Office. 'B' comes from Calcutta and 'H' from Bombay. 'F,' 'G,' 'I,' 'J' come from Madras. The Telegu character of 'D' and the Grantha and Tamil characters of 'F' and the Grantha character of 'G,' 'I' and 'J' point to their South Indian origin. 'B' seems to have been written in Bengal and 'H' in Northern India. In spite of their Devanāgarī character, certain orthographic peculiarities, such as *yīṣa* for *īṣa* and *yeka* for *eka*, 'A,' 'C' seem to be copies of South Indian originals; or more probably, they were transcribed by South Indian copyists.
v3.c20.s2.22
The critical apparatus furnishes abundant warrant for the division of the manuscripts into such groups, and it could easily be supplemented by a number of details, omission or addition, punctuation, particular forms of letters, etc., which are not of sufficiently noteworthy importance. Within each group the manuscripts are in close relationship. This is proved by a number of variants common to each group and especially by long lacunæ.
v3.c20.s2.23
The relationship of the manuscripts within the above mentioned families ('A,' 'F' ; 'B,' 'D'; 'C'; 'G,' 'H'; 'I,' 'J') is a matter of considerable difficulty. The nature of the work renders it probable that the relationship should vary in various particulars, and to some extent this expectation has been justified.
v3.c20.s2.24
Of the peculiarities of the groups the following may be mentioned: 'A,' 'F' regularly write *Kamṭha*, *Kamdhara*, *Kampa-madhyena*; 'B,' 'D,' and 'I,' 'J,' write the same words as *Karṇa*, *Kamdhara*, *Kampamardhena*. 'B' and 'C' have sometimes *yeka* for *eka*, *yīṣa* for *īṣa*, etc. Such peculiarities as are common to almost all the manuscripts will be found treated more elaborately under the Critical Notes.
v3.c20.s2.25
*General method followed in preparing the text*
v3.c20.s2.26
After the brief survey of the present condition of the manuscripts, it remains for me to indicate shortly the lines which I have followed in preparing the text of the first edition from the materials furnished by the codices.
v3.c20.s2.27
The variations in the manuscripts consisting in spelling, words, phrases, sentences and grammatical concordance have been recorded. Errors in metre, when accidental or results of bad copying, can easily be corrected. But such errors in the *Mānasāra* are too numerous and they can hardly be corrected without tampering with the original. In all sacred works they have been respected by mediæval Indian scholars, and accounted for as peculiarities of holy sages (*ārsha*). The first editor of the *Mānasāra* has no other alternative than to take all these errors as *ārsha*.
v3.c20.s2.28
I believe I have thus included in the Notes and Appendices more than what has any real bearing on the text. This principle is certainly not economical. But this is, under the circumstances to be noticed below, unavoidable and not altogether useless.
v3.c20.s2.29
The chief object of critically editing the ancient manuscripts is to prepare an intelligible text. At the same time no one could deny the "mischief done by conjectural criticism of classical scholarship." But with a view to preparing an intelligible text of the *Mānasāra*, the ungrammatical or "barbarous" style of which will be found discussed elsewhere,¹ a certain amount of emendation is indispensable.
v3.c20.s2.30
¹ Critical Notes, pp. 1-210; Appendix to *Indian Architecture*, pp. 199-214.
v3.c20.s2.31
When the office of the Editor, Commentator, and Translator is all combined in one, the following principle, which, if not sound, is at least safe under the peculiar circumstances, has been followed in this edition:
v3.c20.s2.32
"Let an editor give what there is, and let the commentator say what might be and what ought to be."
v3.c20.s2.33
This method has the merit of satisfying the two divergent schools of critics, namely, scholars who are in favour of an intelligent discrimination between what are different readings and what are mere blunders due to ignorance of authors or negligence of copyists, and those who insist upon a faithful reproduction of even the most obvious and unquestionable mistakes.
v3.c20.s2.34
Working on this principle, such emendations as have been thought indispensable for the constitution of an intelligible text have been invariably marked as such both in the text, within brackets as is usually done in editing an ancient inscription, and also in the Notes, and the actual readings of all the manuscripts have been carefully recorded. But I have kept in view the risks with which any attempt at emendation is beset in the case of so difficult a text as the *Mānasāra* and have accordingly endeavoured to exercise the utmost caution. For the same reason, I have abstained from suggesting conjectural restorations for all the passages in which the text, as found in the *Codex Archetypus*, showed a lacuna, except where it could be restored from the nature of the context or by reference to related passages with a reasonable degree of certainty.
v3.c20.s2.35
Under the circumstances pointed out in the description of the existing manuscripts, ‘I’ is the only possible basis of this edition. From this a departure has been made in favour of ‘J’ only where the reading of the latter appeared distinctly preferable and to represent a close approach to the original. In every such case the text of ‘I’ and all other manuscripts has been carefully indicated in the Notes. This has also been done in every instance where the text of ‘I’ had for the sake of elucidation to be corrected by any other manuscripts. Whenever the readings of ‘I’ seemed to be superior or equal to the variations of ‘J,’ and accordingly were retained in the text, the readings of ‘J’ have been recorded in the Notes. All words or letters, which ‘J’ or any other codex has supplied, where ‘I’ had a lacuna or otherwise, have been distinctly noted.
v3.c20.s2.36
The head lines for the pages and the chapters, as also the numbering of the *ślokas*, are not found in the manuscripts; the editor has taken the liberty of adding them.
v3.c20.s2.37
As regards orthography, the rules laid down in the grammar of Pāṇini have, strictly speaking, no large application in an ungrammatical text like the *Mānasāra*. It is, however, desirable to follow one principle throughout and the following methods have been generally followed in this edition:
v3.c20.s2.38
(1) *Anusvāra* has not been used in place of 'm' at the end of a sentence or verse, and before vowels.
v3.c20.s2.39
(2) Nasals have not been replaced by *anusvāra* in the interior of simple words, e.g. पङ्कज, पञ्च, मङ्गल, यन्त, स्तम्भ, etc.
v3.c20.s2.40
(3) *Visarga* has been used instead of doubling of श, ष and स (चतुःशाला not चतुश्शाला, चतुःषड्भागं not चतुष्षड्भागं, अन्तःसालम not अन्तस्सालम.)
v3.c20.s2.41
(4) The usual forms have been used in cases of confusion between kh and gh (e.g. parikhā not parighā), ṭ and ḍ (e.g. maṇḍapa not maṇṭapa), 'ṇ' and 'n', and 'ṣ' and 's.'
v3.c20.s2.42
(5) The correct forms have also been used in cases like stāna for sthāna, etc.
v3.c20.s2.43
(6) The rare use of double consonants for single, and *vice versa*, has been corrected.
v3.c20.s2.44
(7) Of individual words like तुमंग for विमान, अलिन्द for अलिन्द्र, द्वार for द्वार, etc., the correct forms have been used.
v3.c20.s2.45
(8) When there are two forms of some words differing only by ब and व (e.g. बिन्दु विन्दु, बन्ध्या, वन्ध्या) or श and स (e.g. वसिष्ठ, वाशिष्ठ), the one which agrees with the pronunciation current in Northern India has been retained.
v3.c20.s2.46
(9) The correct form has been given when a short vowel is used for a long one and *vice versa* (e.g., 'a' for 'ā,' 'i' for 'ī;' 'u' for 'ū').
v3.c20.s2.47
(10) The correct case terminations have been used when they are altogether omitted and are indicated within brackets.
v3.c20.s2.48
(11) In the instances of wrong cases, mostly the nominative and accusative have been corrected and marked within brackets, and the rest have been rarely corrected.
(12) In cases of wrong numbers, singular for plural or dual, and *vice versa*, and false genders, masculine words treated as if they were neuter or feminine, and *vice versa*, alterations can hardly be suggested without considerably handling the text. Wherever they are found indispensable, they are marked within brackets and noticed in the Notes.
(13) Masculine or neuter forms of accusatives and pronouns used with reference to feminine nouns have been similarly noticed.
(14) Similar alterations have been made of words in *sandhi* and compounds, where the elementary rules of grammar are violated in a large number of instances without following a discoverable fixed principle.
(15) Inappropriate or incorrect verbal derivatives have been, as a rule, treated in the same way, the alterations, whenever suggested, being marked within brackets. These matters are elaborately discussed and fully illustrated in the writer's *Indian Architecture* under "The Language of the *Śilpa-śāstra*" (pages 199-214).
v3.c20.s2.49
Signs: ( ) indicates a correct form to replace an incorrect one which immediately precedes it; [ ] indicates an emendation by an addition, omission, or alteration of letters or words.
v3.c20.s2.50
I feel no hesitation in declaring that a perfect text of the *Mānasāra* written in a chaste language is unattainable. It is unlikely that there still exist manuscripts, which are hitherto undiscovered and which are not derived from any of our manuscripts. I am, therefore, of opinion that the *Mānasāra* was never written in a chaste language and that its imperfections are original.¹
v3.c20.s2.51
¹ A few critics questioned if Sanskrit (the refined) language of the Śilpa-śāstra, the science of fine arts, could ever have been 'barbarous': one such critic is dead and gone, and if there be yet anybody left he will have now an opportunity of examining the text for himself and revising his notion (*see* Opinions and Reviews at the end of Vol. IV).
Linked texts (4)
- Mānasāra — Sanskrit
- Aṣṭādhyāyī — Pāṇini, Sanskrit
- Mayamata — Maya, Sanskrit
- Pādmasaṃhitā — Sanskrit