History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v4.c62.322.2

v4.c62.322.2

The rest of the reasoning on the new meaning of grāma is on a par with this and cannot be examined in detail. A commentator expressly states (*ibid* p. 27) that he gives only the *vyutpatti* (etymology) of grāma, but Dr. Prān Nāth pays no heed to this. He has not correctly grasped the scholastic discussion in the commentary quoted on p. 27. He misunderstands the word 'samagrāmāḥ' in Yāj. II. 152. The Amarakośa expressly says that 'sama' and 'samāna' are synonyms. He is often very dogmatic without looking into all ancient and medieval authorities e. g. on p. 51 he charges Dr. Fleet with misinterpretation of a Jātaka text (aḍḍha-tiyāni śatāni) which Dr. Fleet translated as 250, while Dr. Prān Nāth is sure that the meaning is '150'. He probably never noticed that so far back as the 2nd century B. C. the Mahābhāṣya had explained the word 'ardhatṛtīya' as Dr. Fleet does (अर्ध तृतीयमेषां or अर्धं तृतीयमनयोः, vide Kielhorn, vol I. p. 426 on vārtika 22 on Pāṇ. II. 2. 24). There is hardly any warrent for Dr. Prān Nāth's assertion that each grāma (as interpreted by him) contained only about five families and had only about 15 or 20 acres of cropped area (pp. 39-40). Kauṭ. (note 178) states that a grāma contains from 100 to 500 families. If the inscriptions so far published are carefully searched it will be found that grāma ordinarily meant a village in the modern sense and included several hundred acres of land. For example, in a grant of Pallava Yuvamahārāja Viṣṇugopavarman (I. A.