________________
V. M. Kulkarni
p. 23 v. 293 The reading *TETT makes no sense. Many works such
as Saptabatisara (V. 417, Kalpalatāviveka (p. 18), Śrngaraprakāsa (p. 818), Dhvanyaloka (p. 237, N. S. Ed.) contain this gäthä. Weber too includes it in his edition of Gathāsaptašaty (No. 954). अणुदिअह-कआभोआ जह जह थणआ विणिंति कुमरीए/बालाए ।
तहतह लद्धोआसो/लद्धावासो व्व वम्महो हिअअमाविसइ । P. 26 v. 329 This gātba belongs to Lilāvai (No. 423). There it opens with
the words at afer f er whereas here it opens with "a तस्स मियंकस्स" The reading वाउल्लिय व्व (SK पुतलिका, cf/Mar.
Et is perfectly all right and the emendation Market)
sferul poa" is uncalled for.1 p. 27 v. 338 The reading 31913771 is unintelligible. The reading given in the
foot-Dote too is equally unintelligible. Gāthāsaptaśatı (IV. 6)
preserves the correct reading : अव्वो अणुणअसुह० R. 27 v, 339 There is no need to emend the text as suit ? s]suit. Read ln
this connection the gloss of Mathuranath Shastri on G. S. VI. 24... "Q (f789: ) gerstaarat fra: 1" Nsed 1 p. 268
p. 27 v. 342 The reading in the present Koša ( ESTAE ) fazlo necds to
be corrected to (दइयनह) दूमियाण in accordance with the original reading in Gathāsaptaśali.
D. 28 y. 355 In Gathasaptašati (It. 99) as well as in Sarasvatikanthabharana
(p. 373) we have the reading 'ai fazal' whereas hero wo have "FEST Pagat". The reading 378 would mean the nāyaka hlmself is the speaker whereas the reading gå would mean that the speaker is a female messanger pleading the cause of
nāylka. p. 29 v. 363 As stated aboy(Note to p 27 v. 339) there is no need to
emend the text as जणो [?sजणो here also. P. 30 v. 383 Ranaranayarujjaduccalaehim (1)-This gātha is cited in Sroga.
raprakāśa (p. 1067). But there the text shows some gaps and presen's a few incorrect readings. A comparison of these two texts helps us in restoring the original gathā. The reading
1 Corrected by the editors also. See p. 104
