Hindu Law and Custom (Recht und Sitte) c7.288

c7.288

There is no certainty about the commentary of Nandana or Nandanācārya; probably it belongs to a later date; he appears to have made use of the above mentioned works, specially that of Nārāyaṇa, although he does not mention them, and by the readings he has favoured he betrays his South Indian origin. The still unpublished glosses of an unknown author, found in a Kashmiriān Ms. of our M. are at least 200 years old, but are unimportant. The Manubhāvārthacandrikā of Rāmacandra is quite a recent commentary in the opinion of Mandlik, the editor of this work; moreover, only selected passages are explained in it, apparently following Kullūka in particular, whom, along with the Mitākṣarā, the author mentions in his introduction as his chief source. Moreover commentaries on M. by Kṛṣṇanātha, Rucidatta and Maṇirāmadikṣita, a contemporary of Shah Jahan (1628-58), are mentioned in manuscript-catalogues¹. The commentaries of Asahāya, Viṣṇusvāmin, Bhāruci, Viśvarūpa, Bhojarāja, Dharaṇidhara, Śrīdharasvāmin, Mādhavācārya, etc., are as yet known only from quotations². Of these the first two are older than Medhātithi, the three following older than Mitākṣarā—the reign of Bhoja of course falls in the period between 1021 and c. 1050—Dharaṇidhara is older than Kulluka who often quotes him but according to the quotation on M. 2, 85, does not reckon him among the "Ancients" like Medhātithi; for Mādhavācārya see § 12.