ध० सू० I. 7. 20.3) नित्य कर्मविषयत्वेन वार्तिके विश्वरूपाचार्य उदाजहार आम्र फलार्थे इत्यादि ह्यापस्तम्बस्मृतेर्वचः । फलवत्त्वं समाचष्टे नित्यानामपि कर्मणाम् ॥

The verse quoted occurs in the बृहदारण्यकोपनिषद् - भाष्यवार्तिक ( I. 1. 97) of Sureśvara. Therefore the Paráśara Madhava looked upon Viśvarūpa and Sureśvara as identical. In the Purushärthaprabhodha of Brahmānanda-bhāratī composed in 1476 (probably of the Śaka era, MS. in the Bhau Daji collection in Bombay Royal Asiatic Society) we have the famous work Naishkarmyasiddhi ascribed to Viśvarūpa ' इत्येवं नैष्कर्म्यसिद्धौ ब्रह्मांशैत्रह्मवित्तमैः । श्रीमद्भिर्विश्वरूपाख्यराचार्यैः करुणार्णवैः' (folio 6). Therefore the reference to Viśvarupa in the comment on the Naradasmriti is probably from the pen of Kalyāṇabhaṭṭa. The name of Kalyanabhaṭṭa is frequently quoted in the commentary itself (e. g. page 81 तथा चोक्तमेव सामान्य ग्राह-पत्रलक्षणविचारप्रकरणे कल्याणभट्टेन; page 86 ' यथोक्तं त्रिषष्टिलेख्य-प्रकरण-क'रकल्याण-भट्टेन'; page 89 ' कल्याणवतं श्लोकत्रयमस्ति '. Altogether it is difficult to separate Kalyānabhatta's handiwork from the original text of the Bhashya of Asahāya.

The Haralata (B. I. edition) of Aniruddha gives us the interesting information that Asahāya wrote a bhashya on the Gautama - Dharmasūtra. " गौतमः ' बालदेशान्तरित प्रब्रजितानां सपिण्डानां सद्यः शौचम्' (गौ० ध० सू० 14 44 ) । यत्र मृतोऽशौचाभ्यन्तरे न श्रयते तद्देशान्तरम् तत्र मृतो देशान्तरित इति गौतमभाष्यकृताऽसहायेन व्याख्तातम् " | ( हारलता page 35 ). In another place the Haralata quotes the Gautama-Dharmasūtra and the comment of Asahaya thereon, but expresses its disapproval of the views of Asahaya “ गौतमः - पिण्डनिवृत्तिः सप्तमे पञ्चमे वा ( गौ० ध० सू० 14. 12 ) अत्रासहायव्याख्या-यदा पितृपितामह प्रपितामहास्त्रयो जीवन्ति तदा प्रपितामहादूर्ध्वं त्रिभ्यः पिण्डदानम् । इदं तु व्याख्यानं न शोभनं प्रतिभाति । (हारलता, page 97)." These quotations make it clear that the author of the Hāralatā had the Bhashya of Asahāya on the Gautama

... ...

Dharmasutra before him. Aniruddha, the author of the Hāralată, was the Guru of Ballala Sena of Bengal who commenced his work called Adbhutasagara in Śake 1090, i.e. 1168 A. D.

It appears that Asahāya wrote a commentary also on the Manusmriti. In the Sarasvativilāsa (Foulke's edition) we read 'धर्मविभागो मनु- याज्ञवल्क्यादि स्मृतिकाराणां तत्स्मृति व्याख्यातृणामसहाय मेधातिथि-विज्ञानेश्वरापरार्काणां mgasıq-Àunfafu̸-fanâgazı¶cıafui faccqui afontनिबन्धुणां चन्द्रिकाKieruj a dxa ya" (sec. 53). Here it will be noted that the order in which the four commentators are named requires that Asahaya was cited as a commentator of Manu. This conclusion is further corroborated by the fact that the Vivādaratnakara quotes with reference to the verse of Manu (9. 182 भ्रातृणामेकजातानामेकश्चेत्पुत्रवान्भवेत् 1) the words of Asahāya ' अत्र असहायेनोक्तं पुंसां सति भ्रातृजे स्त्रीणां सपत्नीपुत्रे क्षेत्रजादयः प्रतिनिधयो न कर्तव्या इति' (page 583).

The foregoing discussion establishes that Asahaya composed Bhashyas on three of the most prominent works on Dharmasastra, viz the Gautama-Dharmasutra, the Manusmriti and the Naradasmriti. It is a matter of profound regret that the commentaries of such an ancient writer upon these works that are of paramount authority in matters of law and usage should be lost to us. Great efforts must be made by those engaged in the search for MSS. to find out the lost works of Asahaya.

A few words may be said about the date of Asahāya. The Mitaskhara while commenting upon Yajñavalkya (II. 124 भगिन्यश्च निजादंशाद्दत्वांशं तु तुरीयकम् ) quotes the views of Asahāya and Medhātithi and opposes them to those of Bharuchi and approves the views of Asahāya 'अतोऽसहाय- मेधातिथिप्रभृतीनां व्याख्यानमेव चतुरस्रं' न भारुचेः '. It is to be noted that some MSS. read. This is due to the fact that the very name of Asahāya had been forgotten. It is curious that the Balalambhaṭṭī explains the word 'asahāya' as an attribute of Medhätithi and takes it in the sense of peerless'. Of all works on yavahāra, the Sarasvativilāsa quotes Asahāya most

frequently. This shows that in the 15th or 16th century his works had not been lost altogether. Dr. Jolly expressed it as his opinion that Asahāya lived earlier than Medbätithi (Tagore Law Lectures, page 5; vide Sacred Books of the East, Vol. 25, page VII also). His main reason was that both Vijñānesvara and the Sarasvativilāsa place him before Medhätithi whenever authorities on topics of Vyavahāra are enumerated. Dr. Jolly does not appear to have been aware that Medhātithi actually mentions Asahāya by name in his Bhashya on Manu (VIII. 155 ‘uzaifaæı aâa etc.'). Medhātithi flourised about 900 A. D., as he mentions Kumārila by name and appears to refer to the Bhāshya of Śankarāchārya on Chhandogya-upanishad II. 23. 4 (on Manu II. 83) and as he is regarded as an authority by the Mitāksharā (latter half of 11th century). Therefore Asahāya must have flourished before 850 A. D. How much earlier Asahaya lived it is difficult to say.

6

Some of the doctrines associated with the name of Asahāya may be stated here. It has been already shown above that Vijñānesvara followed the views of Asahaya on the question of the right of sisters when their brothers separated. The Vivādaratnākara (page 578) quotes the Prakāśa as referring to the views of Asahāya on the verse of Manu (9. 198 feared यद्भवेद्वित्तं पिचा दत्तं कथंचन ।) that the special rule of succession laid down by Manu applies to all the Strīdhana of a woman belonging to the Kshatriya or lower castes who has a co-wife of the Brahmana caste faı zafafa zatyGATEÌस्त्रीधनमात्रोपलक्षणमिति असहाय- मेधातिथिरिति (? थी इति) प्रकाशकारः । The Sarasvativilāsa notes that Asahaya defined daya in the same way as Vijñāneśvara did later on ' असहायविज्ञानयोगि: प्रभृतीनां यत्स्वामिसम्बन्धादेव निमित्तादन्यस्य स्वं भवति तद्दायशब्देनोच्यत इति । तन्न सहन्ते भारुच्यपरार्कप्रभृतयः ' ( sec. 19 ). Asahāya seems. to have held that as regards the succession to the Sulka of a woman even step-brothers should be given something, though the major portion would go to full brothers सोदरासोदर विभागेऽसोदराणामपि अतश्च कन्या शुल्कविषये

किञ्चिद् देयमिति असहाय - व्याख्यानमसहायम्' ( sec. 314 ). On the words of Yājñavalkya ' भगिन्यश्च निजादंशाद्दत्वांशं तु तुरीयकम्' the Sarasvativilāsa tells us that the views of Asahaya, Medhātithi and Vijñānesvara coincide ( sec. 131 एतच्च सर्वमसहाय मेधातिथिविज्ञानयोगिप्रदीपिकाकारादीनां मत एव ). According to Asahāya, the wealth of a childless Brāhmaṇa went to the teacher even before a fellow-student, then to the teacher's son and so on ( सरखतीविलास sec. 608 असहायादयस्तु योनिसम्बन्धानन्तरं विद्या सम्बन्धवशादाचार्यगामि त्वेतद्दनं तदभावे तत्पुत्रगामि तदभावे तत्पत्नोगामि etc.) It is worthy of note that in section 195 we have the order 'विज्ञानेश्वरासहाय- मेधातिथीनामियं व्याख्या' ।

V.-Ho Folk-Lore.

By Sukumar Haldar, B. A.
A Story of Two Sisters.

A certain Ho had two daughters. He was very much attached to them and he brought them up with the care and attention due to boys. The mother of the girls had died when they were very young and the man was both a father and a mother to them. One day when the man was out in the woods to hew wood for fuel he plucked and ate the fruits of the wild Tiril (ebony) tree and somehow one of the fruits got stuck in his long locks without his knowing it. On his return home the fruit was discovered by his daughters while they were engaged, as usual, in picking lice from his head. "What fruit is this, father?" asked one of the girls. "It is a Tiril fruit, my child," said the man. The girls tasted it and so well did they like it that they asked for more. They were told that it could only be got in the forests. They then asked that they might be taken into the jungle where they could have enough Tiril fruits to eat. The Ho accordingly took them out next morning and showed them some Tiril trees in bearing. The girls helped themselves from the trees, while their father began cutting wood for fuel. They partook of the delicious fruit to their heart's content and, passing on from one tree to another, they strayed away far into the thick forests where they lost their way. Their anxious father made a diligent search and shouted to them at the top of his voice but to no purpose. His first idea was that the girls were lost in the woods. It then occurred to him when it was getting very late, that they may have returned home. Great was his distress when on coming home he missed his daughters. The two girls also had tried their best to find their father, but the sound of his axe had ceased as he