History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s55.7

v1.c6.s55.7

As Harinātha and the Vivādacandra mention Bālarūpa he is certainly earlier than about 1250 A. D. The important question is whether Bālaka and Bālarūpa are identical. I think, though with some hesitation, that they are identical. The difficulty is caused by the fact that Harinātha speaks of 'the author of Bālarūpa,' which implies that Bālarūpa is a *work* and *not an author*, while the others speak of Bālarūpa as an *author*. The Dāyabhāga always speaks of Bālaka and never of Bālarūpa, while the Mithilā writers, Misaru-miśra, Vācaspati and Harinātha, speak of Bālarūpa and not of Bālaka. Bālaka is not mentioned by any writer belonging to a province other than Bengal. It is not likely that there were two early authors belonging to the same locality on *vyavahāra* bearing two names so nearly the same as Bālaka (or Bāla) and Bālarūpa. Moreover if we read one quotation from the Dāyabhāga between the lines (vide note 621) where Jīmūtavāhana makes fun of Bālaka by charging him with having exposed his *Bālarūpatva* (being Bālarūpa, being childish) it appears that the Dāyabhāga looked upon Bālaka and Bālarūpa as identical. If so Bālaka or Bālarūpa becomes an ancient writer, who flourished certainly before 1100 A. D. As he held the same views as Śrīkara and an antiquated view about the rights of the daughter's son he must not be later than 1050 A. D.