9058009465

282 REYIEWS

some of thcm were already published in Orienlal Research Joumals, some olhcrs havc been acccpted for publicalion and still others have been specially written for Ihe purpose of ihe present book. These arlicles clearly fali under iwo recognisable groups. The first twenty-five articles deal wilh Dharmaśastra proper, whereas the last nine wilh Kaulilya ’s Arthaśastra . The 26th arlicle, which dividcs ihe two groups, reviews Dr. Kane*s contribulion to the study of Dharmaśastra. The first group covers topics like Relation of the Grhyasutras, of Kimaśastra, and of Ayurveda to Dharmaśastra; Budha-Smrti, Rsyaśrńga Smrti Rcstored; the VySghrasmrti, the Datę of Kullukabhalta, of Govinda SvfimT, Medhatilhi as an Elymologist, Vaidyanatha Dtksita, Dana Section of the Dharmaśastra, etc. These articles are in a sense independent of each other. Thcy are only connected by the generał thread of the comprehensive Dharmaśastra title.

The Second group deals wilh topics like Citalions from Kaulillya Arthaśastra by Mallinatha and Citalions from Kaulilya Arthaiastra in Alajhkaraśastra and Astrology, interpretations of some particular su tras of Kaulilya, a notę on the word KakinT, etc.

In a revicw like this, it is simply not possible to evaluate the various articles individually. One can only draw particular attcnlion to some noteworlhy points and make some generał obscrvations. Some of the articles, e.g. S.Nos. 2 and 3 are of intcrdisciplinary naturę, as they discuss the intenrelation between Kamaśaslra and Dharmaśastra, and between Ayurveda and Dharmaśastra. Dr. Moghe’s critical edition of Budha-Smrti and his restoration of Rsyaśrńga-Smrti following the model set forth by Dr. Kanc in his restoration of Sańkha-Likhita-Dharma-Sutra (S.Nos. 7 & 8), relale to textual criticism. In his arlicle on “ Relation of Kamaśastra to Dharmaśastra ”, he observes - “ MM. Dr. P.V. Kanc in his monumental ‘Hislory of Dharmaśastra ’ has forgotten to deal wilh this topie at fuli length” (p. 13) and he underlakes to do some justice to this subject in this article. In his arlicle on the Vy2ghra-Smrti he complains: “the Vy8ghra-Smrti appears to have been neglected by MM. D (? Dr.) P.V. Kane in his monumental ‘Hislory of Dharmaśastra’.... (p. 81) and draws our attention to his critical cditions of this Smrti . Keeping these and some other things like ‘fresh interpretation.... development of Dharmaśastra thoughts etc., in mind, he claims in his Preface (p.vii) that he has fillcd up some of the gaps in the work of MM. Dr. P.V. Kane. To a dispassionate reader this claim might appear to be a liltlc exaggerated.

In the article S.No. 26 Moghe attcmpls to assess in brief Kane *s conlribution

to the domain of Dharmaśastra. In his articles on Citations from the KautiUya

$

Arthaśastra in the Commcntarics of Mallinatha and in Alariikara Sastra and Astrology he points out how these secondary sources are of supremę importance for a truły critical edition of KautilTya Arthaśastra and observes that Kangle ‘does not appear to have consultcd these sources’ as aid for his critical