History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c6.s64.16.1

v1.c6.s64.16.1

The date of Aparārka can be settled within very narrow limits. The Smṛticandrikā⁷⁷¹ in several places quotes the views of Aparārka and sometimes contrasts them with those of the Mit. The Smṛticandrikā refutes the view of Aparārka that the words of Yāj. 'jyeṣṭhaṁ vā śreṣṭhabhāgena' are meant to comprehend all various modes of giving an additional share (*uddhāravibhāga*) to the eldest son on partition mentioned by Manu and others and it follows Aparārka's explanation of 'apratiṣṭhitā' in Gautama's text. It will be shown later on that the Smṛticandrikā must have been composed about 1200 A. D. If the above conclusion that Aparārka knew the Mit. and criticizes it be correct, Aparārka must have flourished after 1100 A. D. and before 1200 A. D. Here epigraphical research comes to our help. We know from the commentary that the author Aparāditya was a Śilāhāra prince of Jīmūtavāhana's family. Inscriptions of the Śilāhāras show that there were three branches of that family, one ruling in the northern Konkan at Thana, the second in the southern Konkan and the third at Kolhapur (vide JBBRAS, vol. XIII p. 10-17 for the three branches). All the branches traced their descent from Jīmūtavāhana. There is only a single inscription of the second branch which had ten kings reigning from about 808 to 1008 A.D. (JBBRAS vol. I, p. 209, E. I. vol. III. p. 292). There is no Aparāditya in this line. Vide E. I. III p. 207, 211 and 213 for several grants of the Kolhapur branch.