[Pramāṇa](https://indike.org/pramana/) › [Studies](https://indike.org/pramana/ins) › [Polity, law and society](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity) › [History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India)](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930) › v1.c8.2 # History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c8.2 History of Dharmaśāstra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v1.c8.2 - **Language:** English ### [v1.c8.2.1](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c8.2.1) It is necessary to say a few words about the methods followed in preparing this list of the works on dharmaśāstra. Purely śrauta works have generally been excluded, except where they have been profusely quoted or relied upon by dharmaśāstra writers. Works of the Tantra class and the Purāṇas have been passed over, inasmuch as they form in themselves independent and extensive branches of Sanskrit literature requiring an exhaustive and detailed treatment, which from considerations of space had to be abandoned here. All individual prayogas, māhātmmyas, vidhis, vratas, śāntis, stotras have been omitted, except where the names of the authors are well-known or there is some importance or peculiarity attaching to them. Purely astrological works on jātaka, and tājika have not been included, but works of the muhūrta class that are closely connected with everyday religious practices have been included. Though the gṛhyasūtras and their commentaries were not dwelt upon in the body of the present work, they have been included in this list as their subject-matter is closely allied to dharmaśāstra. Only works up to about 1820 A. D. have been entered here. Works on politics (arthaśāstra) have also been included. I am afraid that all the restrictions set out above have not been rigorously observed in the following and crave the indulgence of scholars in this respect. ### [v1.c8.2.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c8.2.2) I must gratefully acknowledge, as everyone engaged in preparing a similar list on any branch of post-Vedic literature must do, my indebtedness to the monumental Catalogus Catalogorum of Dr. Aufrecht. But even that catalogue leaves many things doubtful and necessarily gives meagre information. For removing such doubts I was compelled to read and compare the original catalogues of Sanskrit mss. such as that of the India Office, the Notices of Sanskrit mss. by Dr. Mitra and and M. M. Haraprasāda. Besides the third part of Aufrecht's Catalogue was published in 1903. Since then several other catalogues, such as the Descriptive Catalogues and Triennial Catalogues of the Madras Govt. mss. Library, Notices of mss. (new series, part III) by M. M. Haraprasād Śāstri, Catalogue of Palmleaf and Paper mss. of Nepal Durbar Library by M. M. Haraprasad Śāstri, Hultzsch's Report (part III), Catalogue of Central Provinces Sanskrit mss. by Rai Bahadur Hiralal and Catalogue of the mss. collected by the Bihar and Orissa Govt. (vol. I), have been published. Moreover I have consulted hundreds of mss. from collections like those at the Deccan College (now in the Bhandarkar O. R. Institute at Poona), at the Ānandāśrama Institution (Poona), the Bhadkamkar memorial collection started by Prof. H. D. Velankar in Bombay at the Wilson College and the vast collection of the Baroda Oriental Institute. ### [v1.c8.2.3](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c8.2.3) In preparing this list I give wherever possible and desirable the names of the authors and of their ancestors, the names of the works quoted by them or of the works that quote them, the age of the work (or of the mss.) their contents &c. In most cases the very name of the work indicates its subject-matter. In spite of all this many doubtful points are still left. Various circumstances tend to create confusion in preparing such lists as are offered here. The same work appears under two, three or even more names in the mss. and the catalogues. Sometimes the names of the authors and even their fathers' names are the same as in the case of Divākara, son of Mahādeva and Śaṅkara, son of Nīlakaṇṭha. Very often portions of a large work appear separately as distinct works in the Catalogues. The same author appears under several forms, as Narasiṁha and Nṛsiṁha, Nāgeśa and Nāgoji. I have made great efforts to remove such doubts as far as I could and hope that I have been able to make my own humble contributions to the work so ably done by Aufrecht and others. I do not give references to catalogues in the case of each work, nor do I give all possible references to catalogues against each entry. Only in imporant cases have I given references to catalogues. It has been my endeavour to give earlier references to works and authors wherever I could than those given by Aufrecht and to find out the age of a work or author by resort to various devices. ### [v1.c8.2.4](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c8.2.4) Only a detailed comparison with Aufrecht can show this, which task I must in all humility leave to the readers who will use this list. One more feature of this list to which I wish to draw the attention of the reader is that I have pointed out what works have been printed. In doing this I generally refer only to well-known series and editions like the Bombay Sanskrit series, the Benares Sanskrit series and have not set out editions to which very few can have access. For those who want exhaustive information on this point, the catalogues of printed works in the British Museum Library which have now been brought up to 1928 will be found helpful. --- Source: [https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c8.2](https://indike.org/pramana/ins.polity.kane-1930.v1.c8.2) · Pramāṇa