xviii The Vivádabhangárnava, citing, and commenting on the texts of the works adopted in the several schools, is occasionally used as an authority by the lawyers of the other schools.” Some other law tracts also have been translated into English, the most important of which are the Dayabhaga of Jimatawahana and the Mit&kshard of Vogyó neshwara, the standard authorities of the Hindu law of inheritance in the schools of Bengal and Benares respectively._ They were translated by Mr. Henry Colebrooke with accuracy and fidelity. The learned translator having accompanied them with elucidatory annotations and glosses drawn from their commentaries and numerous other sources, to which his peculiar. opportunities and . immense erudition gave him ready access, has rendered those translations of very great utility : every page bears testimony to his diligence in collecting the materials, to his judgment in their selection, and to his learning in their interpretation. A considerable knowledge is sure to be derived from the study of these two works in which the entire doctrine of the two schools, with the reasons and arguments by which each is supported, may be seen at one view in a condensed form. Mr. Orianne has also translated the chapter on inheritance from the Mitäkshará. Mr. Borradaile, Judge of the Sudder Dewanny Adawlut of Bombay, and the anthor of the valuable Bombay Reports, has published a translation of the Pyavahára-mayokha, derive very great benefit from this work. Sir Thomas Strange and Sir William Macnaghten, whose works abound with references to quotations from the Digest, and many of whose principles are founded thereupon. are striking proofs of the usefulness of the work in this respect. The learned Translator too has written several of his remarks and opinions on the authority of that Digest. It is only difficult, as already remarked, for a person not conversant with the law to derive benefit from it; and in fact to them it would be an unsafe guide.
- Mr. Colebooke, however, in his letter to Sir Thomas Strange says:—“We have not here the same veneration for him when he speaks h his own name, or steps beyond the strict limits of a compiler's duty : and as his doctrines, which are commonly taken from the Bengal sehool, or sometimes originate with himself, differ very frequently from the authorities which heretofore prevailed in the South of India. I am sorry that the Southern Pandits should have been thus furnished with means of adopting, in their answers, whatever doctrine may happen to be best accommodated to the bias they may have contracted; and I should regret that Jagannātha's authority should supersede that of the much abler authors of the Mitdiksharif, Smriti-chandrik-ri, and Midhaviya.” With due deference to that emineut scholar, it may be remarked that if the Southern Pandits used an opinion originating with Jagannātha himself arid not founded upon, or consistent with, an unquestionable authority, notwithstanding the Mitéksharā and the other authorities expressed a disserent doctrine on the same point, then their opinion would indeed be objectionable ; but if they cited a passage from Jagannātha's Digest because they did not find a law on the same point in the books preferably used in their schools, or because they found in Jayannatha's Digest an exposition better worded. and not contradicted * by the local authorities, the learned gentleman ought not to have been sorry for it; inasmuch as he himself has done the same in many of his remarks on the opinions of the Southern Pandits, as published in thi. second volume of Strange's work on the Hindu law. Sir William Macnaghten too, though he in one place considers the Virtídabhangornara as a Bengal authority, has foundod many of his general principles upon the texts eontained in the said Digest. Open also the second volume of his work on the Hindu Law, and it will be found that many cyavasthās relative to cases of the other provinces have been founded by the Pandits on the authority of Jagannātha's Digest, and these vyavastkits of theirs have been approved of and published by the learned gentleman himself as correct and accurate. Besides, where Jaganovitzha, citing the authorities of one school, draws a conclusion not inconsistent with its doctrines, or where lie gives an exposition as being the loctrine of a certain school, and that exposition is not contradicted by the authorities thereof, or where his work contains an exposition not to be found in, or not prohibited by, any of the law tracts current in that school, there is no reason why that part of his work should not be used by lawyers as an authority in that school. Had the case been otherwise, Sir Thomas Strange, whose work on the Hindu law is chiefly intended for the Southern schools of India, would not have cited as authorities Jagannātha and other authors of Bengal in almost every page of his work ; and Sir W. Macnaghten too would not have founded his chapter on contracts, which is for all the sehools, almost solely upon Jagannātha's
Tigest.
