________________ generally correct. The MS' B' is very corrupt. With a view to giving a scholar as much material as possible for judging the correctness of the text and selecting his own readings and demonstrating to him how corrupt the two MSS are, I have given too many variants rather than too few in the footnotes. King Mananka's Date and Identity : We know little about Mananka who has referred to himself as a king, at the opening of his commentary to the Gitagovinda. In his History of Classical Sanskrit Literature M. Krishnama. chariar records a few particulars about him : "Mananka calls himself a king (Mahibhuj) in his gloss on Gitagovinda. He is quoted by Royamukuta in his commentary on Amarakosa (A. D. 1431). Besides a commentary on Malatimadhava, he wrote Yamaka poems Vindavana and Meghabhyudaya" (page 373). Elsewhere, he writes in a footnote (page 622, f. n. 2): "Mananka was a royal author and flourished about the 13th century A. D. He is quoted by Royamukuta in his comm. entary on Amara composed in 1431 A. D. His Vindavanakavya relates the life of Krsna and Meghabhyudaya is a highly artificial poem...there is a commentary on it by Laxminarasa (? Laxminivasa) where author is called Sayankeli. He wrote commentaries on Gitagovinda and Malatimadhava." S. R. Bhandarkar in his Report of a Second Tour in search of Sanskrit Manuscripts (1907) refers to Laxminivasa's commentary Mugdha. bodhini on the Meghabhyudaya Kavya of Sayamkeli and remarks :"Ma. nanka is generally believed to be the author of the Meghadhyudaya Kav. ya. May Sayamkeli be another name of his ?" Professor Sivaprasad Bhattacharya informs me that in 1930 he wrote "on another (more ancient) Mananka, the Rastrakuta kingly poet and ris Kavya (Vtndavanakavya or Vindavana Yamaka as it is popularly known)" In the light of Professor Sivaprasad Bhattacharya's conclusion we cannot ascibe Vandavanakavya to this later Mananka, the commentator of Jayadeva's Gitagovinda. We have no definite knowledge when Mananka the royal commenta tor of Gitagovinda lived or what part of Bharata he ruled over. Two possibilities suggested by two well known scholars of Ancient Indian History may be referred to here. According to Dr. V. V. Mirashi, "He 1. I have not been able to secure his paper for my study. In answer to my query Dr. A. D. Pusalkar writes: "...it is mentioned by title on page XV in the 6th Volume of the All India Oriental Conference (Patna, 1930). It has been mentioned in the Index Volume that the above article has been published as a monograph of the Varendra Research Society Rajshahi [Bengal). We do not have this monograph in our Library."
