In my recent article “Unfaithful Transmitters” (Olivelle 1998; above pp. 287-289) I drew attention to the pervasive mistrust of ancient Indian commentators as reliable guides to understanding ancient Indian texts prevalent among western scholars, a mistrust that spilled over into doubts about the reliability of the textual transmission mediated by these commentators and more broadly into a mistrust of the scribal tradition as such. Drawing on examples of “critical editions” of Upaniṣadic texts, especially Böhtlingk's (1889b) edition of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, and the readings preserved by the commentator Śaṃkara, I tried to show there that western, primarily European, philologists were often less faithful transmitters of Upaniṣadic texts than the Indian scribes and commentators they so often criticized. Native commentators and theologians did not, as often assumed, carelessly or deliberately change the received texts to suit their doctrinal or grammatical tastes.

In this paper I return to that theme and this time examine closely the manner in which Haradatta, the commentator of the Āpastamba Dharmasūtra, explained and transmitted that ancient text. Just as it is unfair to indict all western scholars because of the excesses of some, so it is not my intention to present Haradatta as typical of all Indian commentators. If the “Orientalist” debate has taught us anything, it is to treat traditional Indian authors as individuals, to restore “agency” to them. They are not all alike; there are good and not so good commentators.