________________
DECEMBER, 1885.)
BOOK NOTICES.
353
of the Galitas deserves more attention than it spelling is, p. 13) or Orissa by Chaitanya. The has received hitherto; the old copy of the Dipikd, Sdhityakaumudy is an independent commentary bought in 1879-80, is defective. Dr. Peterson is on the Kdrikds of the Kavyaprakdía; and with right in declaring (p. 8) the Sudarkanasarhitd respect to the origin of the latter its author (p. 167, No. 7) an erroneous entry. The MS. un- gives expression to an opinion, similar to that doubtedly contains Sudarsanarya's commentary on which Dr. Peterson tried to establish in his First the Apastamliya-Grihyatantra. The book is com- Report. He alleges that the Karikás do not mon in Southern India, and is represented in belong to Mammața, but to Bharatamuni, the Dr. Burnell's collection, lately purchased by the reputed founder of the Sahitya, Natya and India Office. An examination of it, which my Sangita Sastras. The same story is mentioned papil, Mr. Winternitz, has made, shows that it also in a commentary of the Kavyaprakdda, is partly based on Haradatta's Anákuld-Vritti Jayarama's Tilaka (pp. 21 and 107), but is rejec. (Elphinstone College Collection of 1867-68), ted as improbable. Dr. Peterson, though very
ferring to the same work. The discovery of a naturally gratified by the discovery that the new MS. of Dyi Dvivêda's Nétimanjaré (pp. 8 and learned in India, too, have doubted the unity of 102-103) which gives the date of the author, is Mammaţa's textbook, finds it necessary to alter extremely interestingAs Dy Dvivôda wrote in his former opinion. He has now recognised that Samvat 1110, he preceded Sayanâchårya, pro- the meaning which I attributed in my review bably by 300 years, and it is evident that the of his First Report to the verse ity &sha mdrgo latter author must have copied from him or that vidushdu vibhinno etc., is correct, and expresses both have drawn on a common older source. his approval of the view of Jayanta, who er. Dr. Peterson's hope (p. 9) that the second Alwar plained the Kdvyaprakdea in 1294 A.D. and MS. of the Black-Yajurréda-Samhitá may contain ascribes both the Karikas and their commenthe Atreyt-sakhd, will, I fear, prove deceptive. tary to one author (p. 20). Under these circumFor the published edition of the Taittiriya text stances I will not quarrel with Dr. Peterson for shows also the division into Kandas and Prapa. his note (p. 16) on my explanation of the passage thakas; and the number of the Prapathakas in tadaddhau etc., though I see no reason for the complete Kandas agrees exactly with the retracting my former remarks. In connexion with latter. Among the works belonging to the White- this subject I will add that Jayarama's remark Yajurveda No. 62, the Maunasútra deserves to "some of Mammapa's Karikas are found in Bhabe examined. No. 115, said to contain the Grih- rata's Sanhita" probably furnishes the clue to vasitrabhdshvamantrah (P) by Dêvamisra is, I Vidyabhushana's story. Two other works. RuAuspect, a Bhishya on the mantras of the Para- chaka's Kdvyaprakasasarkéta and Ratnakantha's skaragihyasútra. If so, it ought to be copied Sarasamuchchayad, a novelty, are used in order for Government as the similar work of Murfri. to settle Mammaţa's date, which is fixed in the miára No. 2 of 1872-73, is defective. The collec- first half of the twelfth century. A note at the tion of the Atharva-MSS. includes, besides the end of the Sarkéta calls this work krité rdjdnaVaitanabhashya, noticed by Dr. Peterson, two kamammațdlakaruchakandm; and the somewhat very rare works, the Protibakhyabhdelvya, Nos. corrupt colophon of the first Ullása speaks of 16-17, the only known copy of which is in the the brirdjdnakdmallamammataruchakavirachitaChambers Collection at Berlin, and the Samhita nijagranthakdoyaprakáčasamketa. Hence Dr. vidhivivarana (No. 31), a commentary on a portion Peterson, who correcte "rdjánakamalla" to of the Kaubikagrihyastitra. The only known "rdjanakdlaka," infers that the Sarkéta and its ocpy of this Vritti is in the Bombay Government | original were the joint production of the three Collection of 1870.
authors, Mammuta, Alaka and Ruchaka. Alaka From the discussion of the Vedic MSS. Dr. is known, as Dr. Peterson showed in his first Peterson turns (pp. 10-21) to an analysis of report and again proves in the present one, as some books connected with the Kdvyaprakába, the author of the end of the Kdvyaprakdéa. Ruwhich he found in Alwar and Jeypur libraries. chaka he identifies with Mankha's teacher Ruy. The first work noticed is Vidyabhshana's Sahi. yaka who flourished in the reign of Jayasinha tyakaumudt which possesses some historical of Kasmír and wrote a treatise on poetics, called interest, as it makes mention in the mangala of Alanká, arvasva. In support of this identificathe Vaishnava sectarian Chaitanya (circiter 1485 tion he uses the Sdrasamuchchhaya, a work chiefly A. D.) who according to the commentary, the based on Jayanta's ancient commentary of 1294 Krishnanandint, was the author's "most beloved A.D. It quotes an Alankdrasarvasva by Ruchaka teacher," and of the conversion of Gajapati, i.e. and a commentary on an Alankdrasarvasva Pratáparudra of Utkala (not Atkala, as the by Alaka. The fact that we have two almost
