________________
[ 10
strange that the work does not seem to have been referred to by any very old author. Even Sāyaṇa does not refer to it, though he points out inetres of stanzis in his Sāmaveda-bhāşya*.
The only work where, so far, I have found the work referred to, and that too very extensively, is the commentary of Deva Yājõika on the Yajuḥ-sarvānukramaņi. Unfortunately we do not definitely know the date of even Deva Yājõika. There is no doubt that Deva Yājñika lived after Sāyaṇa. He quotes Mädhuvācārya many times in his commentary on the Yajuh-sarvānukramaņi as well as in that on the Kā. tyāyana-śrauta-sūtra. A comparison of these references shois clearly that this Mādhavācārya is identical with Sāyaṇı. For instance, the references to Mādhavācārya on pp. 510 and 733 of Weber's edition (Berlin, 1859) of the Kātyāyana-srauta-sūtra can be verified respectively from pp. 217 and 337 of Weber's cdition ( Berlin, 1859 ) of the S'atapatba-brāhmaṇa.
It is thus clear that Deva Yājăika is later than Sāyaṇa.
"As regards the lower limit we can fix it from a MS. of his commentary on the Yajuh-sarvā. nukramani existiny in the Govt. Sanskrit Library, Benares. The us. belongs to the recently acquired Jalīdāsa ( ? = Wahidhara ) Collection. It was transcribed at Kāśi in Sainvat 1619 and was purchased by Vahidāsa in Samvat 1631 † ..
* I have not so far compared the inetres as given by Sāyana with the metres as given in this work, and so cannot say whether lie is, in any was my inilulited to this work.
For another JIS. of tho samo work, dated Samra* 1602, see p. Tritive that there wa JSS, 1916.