Page:Sacred Books of the East - Volume 2.djvu/50

Rh hazardous to impute to a man, like Kumârila, ignorance or spite against Âpastamba, I am inclined to assume that the great Mîmâmsaka refers to some other work, attributed to Âpastamba, perhaps the metrical Âpastamba-smriti which Aparârka quotes very frequently. Among the commentators on Smritis the oldest, who quote the Dharma-sûtra, are Medhâtithi, the author of the Manubhâshya, and Vigñânesvara, who composed the Mitâksharâ. the well-known commentary on Yâgñavalkya's Dharma-sâstra during the reign of the Kâlukya king Vikramâditya VI, of Kalyâna towards the end of the eleventh century. From that time downwards Âpastamba is quoted by almost every writer on law. But the whole text, such as it is given in my edition, is vouched for only by the commentator Haradatta, who wrote his Uggvalâ Vritti, at the latest, in the fifteenth century A. D. or possibly 100 years earlier. Haradatta was, however, not the first commentator of the Dharma-sûtra. He frequently quotes the opinions of several predecessors whom he designates by the general expressions anyah or aparah, i. e. another (writer). The fact that the Ugvalâ was preceded by earlier commentaries which protected the text from corruption, also speaks in favour of the authenticity of the latter, which is further attested by the close agreement of the Hiranyakesi Dharma-sûtra, mentioned above.

As regards the value of the Uggvalâ for the explanation of Âpastamba's text, it certainly belongs to the best