Xiv sarvaswa, Pandita-sarvaswa, and the other treatises by Haláyudha," which are chiefly cited in the Bengal digests. The sublime works of Udoyanácháriya, the reviver of the rational system of philosophy. The Calapatar u by Lakshmidhara, who also composed a treatise on the administration of justice by command of Govinda Chandra, a king of Káshá, sprung from the Pástava face of Kāyasthas. The Govindarnava, composed under the superintendence of the same prince by Nara Sinha, who was the son of Ráma Chandra, the grammarian and plıilosopher. The Parasurdima-pratápa, a general digest composed by order of Sabáji Pratāpa, stojá of the Eastern Telinga country, about five hundred years ago. The Vyavahára Shwikára by Wiigoji Bhatta. The Madana-ratna by Madana Sinha, an ancient work of notoriety treating of dehára, vyavahára, and práyashchitta. The dichardirka, a work principally on dehdi, a and υγαυαλάrα by Shankara Bhatta Kūshākara. The Dyota, a general digest written more than a"century ago by Goga Bhatta Káshikara. The Dinakaraudyota, a work on sichtira and vyavahá, a by Vishwaripa Ramaka Goga Bhatta Káshikara. And the Prithibi-chandroda, which also is a general digest. Most of these works are not now in use, but their texts are cited in amany of the current digests and commentaries. The work of Jitendiya is cited in the Mitäkashard, Dāyabhaga, and other books. And the works of Goichandra, Graheshwara, Dhareshwaraf, Iłalariina, Harihara, Murdiri Misra, and many others are occasionally alluded to in the Vividabhangórnava and some other digests. - Since the establishment of the British empire in India three digests have been composed in Sanscrit. The first of these is the Vivádárnava-setut, confpiled at the request of Mr. Warren Hastings. This work was proposed as early as thc 18th of March 1773, at the opening of the Court of Sudder Dewanny Adawtut in Bengal. In the following year a translation of the work was made by Mr. Halhed and published under the title of “A Code of Gentu Laws.” This work, however, was disapproved of, and its translation was condemned by Sir William Jones for reasons.S set forth in his letter
- This great Pandit was the spiritual guide of Lakshmana Sena, a renowned monarch, who gave his mame to an era of which upwards of seven hundred years have expired. Halāyudha was a descendant in the fifteenth degree of Bhortta Nārāyana, author of the Veni-sanhãra, (a celebrated drama,) and one of the five vedantists who were brought from Kunouj by Roja Adisura, and whose descendants are almost all the Rörhi and Bärendra hrahmins of Bengaño
+ p/4re•ãopara is said to be the same as Rájá Bhoja. Vide Coleb. Dig., pre. p. xi. † This work was compiled by several Pandits, of whom Jaganntitha, author of the Digest translated by Mr. Colebrooke, was one. § “It (says the learned judge, alluding to the work in question) by no means obviates the disticulties lot-fore stated, nor supersedes the necessity or the expedience at least of a more ample repository of II.indie } . \", especially on the twelve different contracts to which Ulpian has given specific names, and on all to, others, which, though not specifically named, are reducible to four general heads. The last mentioned work is entitled the “Włvádárnava-setu, and consists, like the Roman digest, of authcntic texts with ille names of their several authors regularly prefixed to them, and explained, where an explanntion is requisite, in short notes taken from commentaries of high authority. It is as far as it goes a vory excellent work; but though it appear extremely diffuse on subjects rather curious than useful, and thoggh the chapter on inheritance be copious and exact, yet another important branch of jurisprudence, the law of contracts, is very saccinctly and superficially discussed, and bears an inconsiderable proportion to the rest of the work. But whatever be the merit of the original, the translation of it has no authority, and is of no other use than to suggest inquiries on the many dark passages which we find in it: properly speaking, indeed, we cannot call it a translation ; for though Mr. Halhed performed his part with fidelity, yet the Persian interpreter had aupplied him only with a loose injudieious epitème of thc original Sanacrit, in which abstract many essential pussages are omitted.” Mr. Colebrooke, by quoting the above remark in the preface to the Digest, and not making any observation upon it either in that book or in any of his works or opinions, seems to have acquies, e.l. in tho judgment pronounced upon it by Sir William Jones.
