________________
MAY, 1886.)
BOOK NOTICES.
155
printed only in the case of 4,996 manuscripts, vis. Name. Of these, Columns 4 and 5 are avowedly 3,368 out of 8,376 in Vol. I, and 1,628 out of filled in on speculation; as Dr. Oppert tells us in his 10,421 in Vol. II. The necessity for Col. 9, "In Preface to Vol.I.-"The columns containing the whose Possession," is hardly apperent, as it subject matter and the author's name having only repeats the entry prefixed as a heading to rarely been filled up by the Pandite, I have sup. each separate list. Take, for instance, Vol. II. plied this deficiency to the best of my ability: the Nos. 7.469 to 7,856. These are preceded by the contents of the columns are therefore enclosed in heading "His Highness the Maharaja of Pudu. brackets." We may, of course, credit Dr. Oppert kõta ;" and yet each of the 387 entries has opposite with having filled in many of the entries cor. it, in Col. 9, either " His Highness the Maharaja," rectly; e.g. Vol. II. No. 1134, Mülatimadhava, or "Ditto," as the case may be; this, surely, is "(Nataka) (Bhavabhūti);" No. 1697, Raghuvaba, rather an unnecessary waste of space. Col. 10, "(Kavya) (Kalidása);" No. 3082, Siddhanta"Age of the Manuscript," is filled in, pretty con- kaumudi, “(Vyakaraṇa) (Bhattējidikshita);" and stantly, from the statement of the owners of the No. 1446, Atharvaņavēda,"(Vēda)." But his manuscripts, and may probably be taken as fairly knowledge of subject-matters and author's names correct in respect of such entries as Vol. II. can hardly be universal, and his memory infal. No. 2106, fifteen years; No. 2110, twenty years; lible. And it is quite impossible that the entries and even No. 2118, eighty years. But it nowhere in these columns can be correct throughout. contains any details of the dates, in support of The two columns in fact, simply resolve them. the entries that are made; though we should like selves into Cols. (1) No. (2) Name of the MS. particularly to know on what authority Vol. II. in Dēvanāgari; and (3) Name of the MS. in No. 662 is entered as two thousand years old ; | Roman; or, in other words, into merely a long No. 438, as twelve hundred years; Nos. 657 and string of 18,797 titles, of the kind which is not of 664 each as one thousand years; or even, to come the slightest use for any practical purposes, and down to comparatively modern times, Nos. 1,962, the insufficiency of which was commented on in 1,963, and 1,964 each as six hundred, and No. 1,967, very pointed terms by Mr. Whitley Stokes, in his as five hundred years old. The first of these 'note written on the 6th August 1868, when the entries, Vol. II. No. 662, is one that specially at- question of Sanskrit Manuscripts was first taken traots attention. For, if it can be substantiated, up by the Government of India (see the Papers M, trom Dr. Oppert giving no special remark relating to the Collection and Preservation of the discrediting it, we might suppose it can be, -it Records of Ancient Sanskrit Literature in India, will give an interesting corroboration of. Dr. Calcutta, 1878.) Rajendralal Mitra's theory, that the Hindus must There is nothing to he gained by going any bave known the art of making paper at least two further with the present series of volumes, thousand years ago! But perhaps it is one of the which with the silence of their Prefaces as to "evidently incorrect" entries alluded to in general anything of importance in the Lista, only give in a terms by Dr. Oppert in his Preface to Vol. I. P In printed form the preliminary memoranda which Col. 11, "Remarks," the entries are so few and far Dr. Oppert should have kept to himself as the between us to be practically none at all, and are basis for detwiled personal inquiries, and thus, oonfined almost throughout to such statements as eventually for the publication of useful lists. "Two Copien," "Three Copies." In Vol. I. there What we require for Southern India is a series indeed are a few entries of a more ambitious kind; of Reports like those given us by Dr. Bühler and such as No. 2, "Such works are also written by Rá. Dr. Peterson for Western India and Rajputång, minujkokrya and Madhavio rya"; No. 4, "Vyzsa by the late Dr. Burnell for the Tanjore Library, is the reputed Author of most of the Puranas," and by Dr. Rajendralal Mitra for Northern India No. 740, “With a commentary; Parājarabhatta and Bengal; bringing discoveries of importance to is also called Bhattarya or Bhattar"; No. 812, prominent notice, and giving, not simply mere "Vidyaranya is another name for Sayaņácarya." strings of names, but full details of the author. But neither of the two volumes contains in this ship, contents, condition, and details of the date of column any entries of a practical and useful kind, each mann.cript,-extracts sufficient to shew the as tending to give any hint as to the value and recension to which it belongs,--and, in individual importance of the particular manuscript remarked cases, such other information as will naturally on.
suggest itself in the course of research. The For the remaining 13,801 manuscripts, we have work, of course, is one that entails a great deal only the first five columns of-1) No.; (2) Name of of labour and patience, and can only progress the MS. in Dāvanigari; (3) Name of the MS. in slowly. But it deserves, and requires, to be done Roman; (4) Subjeot-matter; and (5) Author's systematically and thoroughly, if it is done at all.
