________________
IN THE BOMBAY CIRCLE.
15
varasrinami (adhyaya5), Srisvetambaranami (adhyaya 6), Srinamisidhu (adhyaya9), Panditanamisadhu (adhyaya 16).
The colopbon to the fourth adhyâya has the abbreviated expression "iti Svetimvarah chaturthalh" which, or some such phrase, is probably the origin of the mistake.
As the present MS. agrees with the Jesalmir fragment in the note to the verse quoted by Bühler,* in which Rudrata tells us that he was also called Satânanda, and that he was the son of one Bhatta Vâmuka, it is clear that we have not here to deal with two commentators on the Kavyalamkâra.
The beginning of the present copy of Nami's commentary agrees with the extract from the palm-leaf MS., as given in Kielhorn's Report, except that पुरस्तात् is rightly written in the first line, यस्याघ्रिद्वंद्व [यस्यांघ्रिद्वंद्व] is found for यस्यांइिद्वंद्व in the second line, and श्रीमान् for श्रीमन in the fourth line of the introductory verse. As was to be expected also, the ओं श्रीगणेशाय नमः ओं, which is absent from the palm-leaf MS., is here prefixed.
The colophon at the end however differs materially from that found in the palm-leaf MS., and I therefore give it in fullt :
* I give the text of this verse and commentator's note from my MS.
शतानंदापराख्येन भट्टवामकसूनुना।
साधितं रुद्रटेनेदं सामाजा धीमतां हितम् ॥ शतानंदेनेति अस्यार्थो वामकाख्यभट्टसुतेन शतानंद इत्यपरनामा रुद्रटेनेति कविना साधितं निष्पादितामिदं चक्रं कायं वा कीदृशेन साम गीतिविशेषमजति प्रामोति सामात् [सामाद] तेन सामवेदपाठकेनेत्यर्थः तच धीमतां बुद्धिमतां हितमुपकारकम्।
+ I note the variants in the palm-leaf M8. as given in the extract found in Kielhorn's Report, p. 35. सनः, Kielhorn मनः.यदनवबोधाद्वितर्थ, K. ----वितथं Both Mss. read पंडित, apparently by mistake for पिंडत. पंचविशति, K. षट्सप्तति. एकादशसमाशतैःK एकादशसमासत: The MSS.divergeafter the words प्रावषीदं समर्थितं tho palm-leaf MS. continuing as follows:
माघमासे तथा कृष्णे सुतम्यां शक्रवासरे। चित्रकूटास्थितेनेदं शिवदेवेन सूनुना। नैगामायकायस्थेलीखतं जल्लणेन तु ।। मंगलमस्तु