________________
JUNE, 1889.)
BOOK NOTICE.
187
Kumarapala, though a convert to Jainism, received from a MS. of the Madras Government Collec. an orthodox burial and that his ashes were thrown tion, gives too Kdéikd, not Kdrik 1. into the Ganges, possesses some interest. It shows The next portion of Dr. Bhandarkar's Report, that tho Brahmanical reaction on Ajayapêla's pp. 23-157, contains very full and most instrucaccession to the throne was indeed complete, as the tive notes on the MSS. purchased for Govern. Jaina Prabandhas too assert. More startling and ment in 1883-86. The number of his acquisitions hardly credible is the second statement that amounts (see App. II.) to 737, 325 of which come Kumarapala had a son who became king. Accord from Gujarat and North-Western India, and 412 ing to the Surathótsava, xv. 31-32, it looks as if from the Maratha Country. Under the heading Sôméévara meant to say that this son of Kumara. Vedas, there is, besides some not very imporpfla was Ajayapala. All the Prabandhas, as well as tant works, at least one curiosity, a MS. conKrishn&ji,the author of the Ratnam ild, assert that taining portions of the Vdjaney isanhita in Kumarapala had no son, and that Ajayapala was the Krame- and Jata-påthas. I have been a the son of his brother Mahipala, whom, according similar MS. in the library of the Asiatic Society to some, he tried to set aside in favour of his in Bombay. daughter's son, Pratápamalla (see my essay Über In the second section we have large fragmenta das Leben des Jaina Mönches Hemachandra of the Srautastras of Asvalyana, Baudhp. 50, Denkschriften der Wiener Akademie 1889). yana, Apastamba, and Katyayana, accompanied It may be that Sômêsvara has made & slip, by the glosses of ancient commentators, and just as in the Kirtikaumudt i. 32, where he & host of Karikas and Prayogas, together calls the king of Malva, made prisoner by with a sprinkling of works belonging to the Jayasimha, Naravarman, while it was Yasovar- other Angas. Dr. Bhandarkar offers short man, Naravarman's son, according to Hêma- remarks on the majority of their authors, and ohandra, an eye-witness of the king's triumphal gives a full analysis of the authorities quoted by entry on his return from Malvå. It would lead Trikandamandana-Bhågkaramiára, of whose im me too far, if I were to discngs the further portant Karikas he has obtained a complete MSS. details on the history of Sômêávara's father, He shows that Trikåņdamandana is quoted by Kumara, who was Amiga's second son, those on the Hêmådri, and must therefore be anterior to the author's own life, and those on vastupala, bis Jaina latter half of the thirteenth century A.D. His patron and friend. I will only add that the panegyric authorities, of course, date from still earlier times. on vastupala indicates that the work was written To them belong Karka, the commeritator of the before the death of the latter in Vikrama-Samvat
Satras of Katyayana, Dhartasvimin, the author 1297. The Dabhoi Prasasti of V. S. 1311 shows of a Bhashya on Apastamba, Gárgya-Narayana, that Sêmêsvara survived his friend by many years. and Bbavanaga, commentators of Asvaldyana,
Amongst the other works which Dr. Bhân. and Bhavasvamin, the commentator of Baudh - dArkar saw in Ahmadábåd the complete copy yana. Among these Bhavasvåmin must be par. of Jayanta's commentary on the Kavyaprakdba ticularly ancient, because he is quoted by Kabava, possesses a considerable value, as it proves that the author of the Prayogasdra, who himself is Mammaţa's treatise was in great repute at the one of the authorities of Trikāņdamandana. end of the 13th century even in Gujarat, and as Bhavasvamin must therefore have flourished the author turns out to have been the son of the before the tenth century. The same may be said Parðhita of king Sarangadóva's minister. The l of DAVRAVAmin. according to
I of Devasvamin, according to whose commentary date of the work V. S. 1350 is the same as on AsvalAyana [Gárgya-] Nariyana composed that of Sarangadêva's inscription at Aba. To his own Vitti on the Srautasátras. Dr. BhånDr. Bhandarkar's remarks, p. 17, No. 13, on the darkar further remarks that among the ancient Prikrit Subhdshitavali of Jayavallabha, which is commentators and writers on Mimams, as well as variously called in the MSS. Vajjalayo, Vijjd- in ancient inscriptions, the title svåmin is comlayo, Vijjalagga and Vijjáhalao, I may add mon, while it does not occur during the last six that I have drawn attention to its existence in centuries. He therefore thinks with Professor my Report for 1874-75, when I was shown a copy Weber that it is a mark of antiquity. With by the keeper of Hêmachandra's Bhandar at respect to Sabarasvåmin, the most ancient com. PAtan. I then secured one copy, and later, in mentator on Mimåmså, he shows that he cannot 1879-80, & second. With respect to No. 8, I must be placed later than 400 or 500 A.D., 48 his state that I believe the title Kalikdyka which is Bhashya was explained by Kumarila, who lived given on p. 65, to be the correct one. The copy about 700 A.D. He finally conjectures that Bhavain my private oollection (now in the I. O. L.) evåmin, Dévas våmin and Agnisvamin flourished of & portion of the work, which was transcribed about the same time. I can only say that I fully
