________________
A ground-plan of the Vyawaharakāṇḍa
show that although the Apararka explains the Smrti texts in some respects differently, its purport is the same as that of the Mitākyara अप यथाश्रुतम् would show that the interpretation of Apararka is in accordance with the obvious meaning and therefore no quotation has been elicited from it..
(9) If the explanations of the treatises lay additional emphasis on a point explained by earlier authors, this explanation has been quoted in certain places.
(10) The order of explanations in the case of contemporaneous treatise-writers or commentators has been fixed with regard to convenience of arrangement, e. g. in the case of those from व्यवहारमयूल विवादताण्डव and व्यवहारोबोत, which are contemporaneous.
(11) While reading an anthology of Vaidika literature it must be remembered that few direct statements about legal usages are to be found there and that it is only incidentally, for instance in metaphors or in connection with other matters, that there are any references to legal facts and that even these are not at all definite or specific, some of them being vague and some of a general order. It is the definite and the particular statement which can be of use for historical conclusions.
(12) The incorrect readings of printed texts have been corrected. There are, for instance, several incorrect readings in the Bhasya of Medhātithi on Manu VIII and IX as printed by the late Mr. V. N. Mandlik and by Prin. J. R. Gharpure. We have corrected the mista. kes in several places and relegated the incorrect readings to the foot-notes. The text has been collated with that of three Mss. from the India Office Library and one belonging to the proprietor of the Gujarat Printing Press; but in several places the readings of Mss. were found
to be corrupt and the readings have been fixed very often with reference to the context by the editor.
(13) Prof. Jolly has left off a considerable portion from the Bhasya of Asaha ya, probably because it was evanescent and obscure. A good deal of this portion appears, in an amended form, in this work. The corrupt portion, however, has not been printed in the foot-notes, as in the case of Medhätithi, but, appears in an independent appendix. For the text of the Bhasya of Asahaya the only available Ms. was the one in the Mss, Library of the Bhandarkar Institute, and corrected by one Kalyanabhatta.
(14) The Bhasya of Asahaya, the commentary of Vis'varupa,the Bhagya of Medhätithi, and the Mitakṣara have been fully utilized. Even where the Vis'varūpa and the Mitakṣarā agree, the Mitākṣarā passage has been quoted, for, most successors of Vijñānes'vara quote only the Mitäkṣara.The Govindarajiya also has been quoted in full, although it is very often a reproduction of Medbatithi, for the reason that the Bhasya of Medhätithi is often unintelligible. In portions where the commentary of Govindarāja was corrupt, that of Kullukabhatta, which agrees with it in principle, has been substituted instead.
(15) The order of passages quoted from the extant Smrti works such as Manu and Yajnavalkya has not been adhered to, while classifying them topically.
(16) The writers of treatises have made minute sub-divisions while classifying the subject-matter of the Smrti-texts. We have not adopted them; for the texts, being thus separated under sub-divisions, far being classified render it impossible to follow the main purpose or the argument of the Smṛti-writer.
(17) For all the texts quoted, the foot-notes contain full references to the
