________________ xiii Introduction author, too, has not gone into detailed deseriptions, yet, he has given a short description of each incident with poetic touches and embellishments. There are two or three lengthy digressions also, but there the main thread of the narration is, of course, not lost sight of. These very criteria allow us to say that the version of Harshanandana is a later one probably based upon that of our author. The statement of S'ubhavardhana of his being a contemporary of Hemavimalasuri and the mention of the date of his own composition by Harshanandana as 1657 A. D. can well corroborate the conclusions drawn above. 9. The necessary extract from the comment ary of S'ubhavardhana taken Changes in the from a very inaccurately written narration of the story. manuscript copy is given in the Parishishta after making several corrections, and a careful perusal of it would show that the differences which are noticed at more than twenty-five places between the two versions are not of the type of radical departures but they are somewhat of the type of additions, innovations, and digressions, made possibly with some purpose. Almost all passages con- . taining descriptions such as those of Surabhavana ( 25-26 ) Rajagriha ( 96 ), King Mahendrasinha (97), Qeen Kurma (98), the delight of
