DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.49827#0028
COMMENTARIES AND DIGESTS.
the years 1076—1127 A. D.1 The Mitakshara has early Lecture
becojne the standard work on law in the greater part of
India, and its influence on the administration of justice
has been increased under British rule through the medium
of Colebrooke’s translation of the section on Inheritance.
This section comprises only a 14th or 15th part of the
whole of the Mitakshara, which is a very ample coirfposi-
tion standing on a.pjar with the old Bhashyas, though it is
designed as a Vivriti or Tika in the Colophons. Colebrooke’s
translation, a lAasterpiece in its own time, shares to a
certain extent the fate of Sir William Jones’s translation
of Mann and of other productions of the same age, which
have become antiquated by the progress of Sanskrit
studies. It contains a number of inaccuracies and mistakes,
which, however slight in thenlselves, must not be left
unnoticed in the course of these Lectures, on account of
their important bearing on divers controverted points in
Hindu Law. The Sanskrit text of the Mitakshara has
been frequently printed in India, the new Bombay ‘-edition
of 1882 being the best, though it is by no means free from
mistakes.
The Cilahara King Apararka or Aparaditya, who reigned Apararka.
over the Konkan in the 12th century,2 wrote a Bhashya
on the Yajnavalkya-smriti, which, though less renowned
than the Mitakshara, is frequently quoted-in subsequent
Digests, such as the Smritichandrika, Chaturvargachinta-
mani, Madanaparijata, Dattakamimamsa, Vivadatandava,
Sarasvativilasa and other standard works composed in
divers parts of India. This Commentary is equal or superior
in bulk to the Mitakshara, and far richer than the latter
work in quotations from lost Smritis. Apararka’s views
often agree closely with those held by Vijnanegvara, and
the fact that he never mentions the Mitakshara by name,
has been explained as a result of Indian’etiquette, which
does not allow a royal author to notice expressly the
opinions of another sovereign’s servant by name. It seems
more probable, however, that both writers drew from a
common source. For it is quite doubtful whether Apa-
rarka knew the Mitakshara as he may have been for some
time contemporaneous with Vijnanegvara,3 and as he
1 West & Buhler. 15-17.
2 Buhler, Kashmir Report, 52 ; West & Buhler, 18.
3 Recent researches have shown that two Aparadityas must have
reigned in the 12th century, and that the commentary of the Yajua-
the years 1076—1127 A. D.1 The Mitakshara has early Lecture
becojne the standard work on law in the greater part of
India, and its influence on the administration of justice
has been increased under British rule through the medium
of Colebrooke’s translation of the section on Inheritance.
This section comprises only a 14th or 15th part of the
whole of the Mitakshara, which is a very ample coirfposi-
tion standing on a.pjar with the old Bhashyas, though it is
designed as a Vivriti or Tika in the Colophons. Colebrooke’s
translation, a lAasterpiece in its own time, shares to a
certain extent the fate of Sir William Jones’s translation
of Mann and of other productions of the same age, which
have become antiquated by the progress of Sanskrit
studies. It contains a number of inaccuracies and mistakes,
which, however slight in thenlselves, must not be left
unnoticed in the course of these Lectures, on account of
their important bearing on divers controverted points in
Hindu Law. The Sanskrit text of the Mitakshara has
been frequently printed in India, the new Bombay ‘-edition
of 1882 being the best, though it is by no means free from
mistakes.
The Cilahara King Apararka or Aparaditya, who reigned Apararka.
over the Konkan in the 12th century,2 wrote a Bhashya
on the Yajnavalkya-smriti, which, though less renowned
than the Mitakshara, is frequently quoted-in subsequent
Digests, such as the Smritichandrika, Chaturvargachinta-
mani, Madanaparijata, Dattakamimamsa, Vivadatandava,
Sarasvativilasa and other standard works composed in
divers parts of India. This Commentary is equal or superior
in bulk to the Mitakshara, and far richer than the latter
work in quotations from lost Smritis. Apararka’s views
often agree closely with those held by Vijnanegvara, and
the fact that he never mentions the Mitakshara by name,
has been explained as a result of Indian’etiquette, which
does not allow a royal author to notice expressly the
opinions of another sovereign’s servant by name. It seems
more probable, however, that both writers drew from a
common source. For it is quite doubtful whether Apa-
rarka knew the Mitakshara as he may have been for some
time contemporaneous with Vijnanegvara,3 and as he
1 West & Buhler. 15-17.
2 Buhler, Kashmir Report, 52 ; West & Buhler, 18.
3 Recent researches have shown that two Aparadityas must have
reigned in the 12th century, and that the commentary of the Yajua-