Hindu Law and Custom (Recht und Sitte) c7.293

c7.293

The Mit. in its turn was commented upon by various authors and moreover, on the whole, many of the later legal works now agreeing with it, now opposing it, attached themselves to the Mitākṣarā. I know the commentaries of Madhusūdanagosvāmin (19. cent.), Mukundalāla, Rādhāmohanaśarman and Halāyudhabhaṭṭa on Mit. only from manuscript catalogues. The commentary of Viśveśvara—the Subodhinī, which goes into details only in particular passages was composed at the court of the dynasty of Madanapāla ruling in Kāṣṭhā (Kaṭha) to the north of Delhi in Northern India probably about 1350-1360, because the Madanavinoda, the last of the five known works of this author, was written in 1375 and Subodhinī was his earliest work¹. The very elaborate commentary of Lakṣmīdevī Pāyaguṇḍe, called Lakṣmīvyākhyāna,² was written about 1750, certainly not after 1782³. As proof of the verbosity of this learned female Sanskritist of the 18. century it may be mentioned that in this work the section on Dāyabhāga alone covers 239 pages of a copy belonging to me, as against the 32 printed pages on Dāyabhāga in the Bombay edition of the Mit. (1882). Only fragmentary Mss. are known of Nandapaṇḍita’s commentary on the Mit. (17. cent.)¹