xii with that of Chârâmani quoted by Maheshwara. This work is upon the whole an able interpretation of the text of Jimòtavóhana. The commentnry by Maheshwara which is posterior to those of Chūrāmani and Achyuta is probably anterior to Srikrishna's commentary, or at least of nearly the same time ; for they appear to have been almost contemporary, the former seemingly a little elder of the two". They differ greatly in their expositions of the text, both as to the meaning and as to the manner of deducing the sense, but neither of them affords any indication of having seen the other's work. The gloss by Maheshwara is for the greater part an able interpretation of the text of Jimātavāhana. “The commentary of Srikrishna Tarkdilankaira (says Mr. Colebrooke, and very justly too,) is the most celebrated of the glosses of the text of the Dáyābhāya. It is the work of a very acute logician, who interprets his author and reasons on his arguments with great accuracy and precision, and who always illustrates the text, generally confirms its positions, but not unfrequently modifies or amends them. Its authority has been long gaining ground in the schools of law throughout Dengal; and it has almost banished from them the other expositions of the Dáyabhaiga ; being ranked, in general estimation, next after the treatises of Jāmūtavāhana and of Raghunandana.” Of the remaining commentaries one bears the name of Raghunandana. It is indeed a poor production and is strongly suspected of bearing a borrowed name ; or if it be at all the work of the celebrated author of the Smriti-tatu'a, it must be the earliest production of his pen. Rāmamātha Vidyāvāchaspati, the author the Dáya-rahashya, has also written a commentary on the Dāyabhága. Káshiráma hás written a useful commentary on the Páva-taewa of Raghunandana, which nearly agrees with the views taken by Srikrishna in his interpretation of the Daiyabhága. These are the five classes of law tracts, which are severally respected by the five schools or divisions f. It must not however be inferred that each of these classes of law tracts is respected solely by a particular school, and not at all by the other schools : the fact is, that each is of paramount or leading authority with a particular school, and at the same time is on general and uncontradicted pointerespected as authority in the other schools, though of course in subordination to that which is preferentially used by them severally. A class of law tracts which is of paramount authority with one school may also be regarded as of unquestionable
- The great grandsons of both thesewriterswere living in 1806; and the grandson (daughter's son) of Srikrishna was alive in 1790. Both consequently must have lived in the first part of the last century. Coleb. Dá. bhū. pre. p. vii. + Mr. Morley, however, in his recapitulation subdivides the Drávira division into three, namely Drăvira. Carnótaka, and Andra, and mentions the books preferentially used in each of the schools of Hindu law. They are as follows :
1. Bengal School :-Dharma-ratna (i. e.) Dāyabhāga and its commentaries by Srikrishna Tarkalankara and Srinathâchârjya Chūrāmani, Dāyakrama-sangraha, Smriti-tatwa (its) Dāya-tatwa. Vivadārnava-setu. Vivada-sărăruava, Vivada-bhangārnava. II. Mithilâ School :—Mitàkaharâ, Viváda-ratnákara, Vivâda-ehintámani, Vayavahára-chintàmani, Dwoitaparishishta, Vivāda-cliandra, Smriti-sāra or Smriti-samuchchaya, Madana-pārijāta. III. Bemares School * Mitákshará, Víramitrodaya, Mádhavíya, Vivãda-tándava, Nirmaya-sindhu. . IV. Mahàràébtra School :—Mitàkeharà, Mayúkha, Nirmaya-eindhu, Hemì\ndri, Smriti-koustubba, Mädbuaтiya. V. Drávira sehool :– (a) Drávira Division :-Mitākshará, Mādhaviya Saraswati-vilāsa Varadá-rájyu. (b) Karnātka Livision :-Mitaksharis, Madhaviya, Saraswati-vilasa. (c) Andra Division :-Mitàksharà, Màdhavíya, Smriti-chandrikà, Saraswati-vílàsa.
