________________
INTRODUCTION
M. C.
Place of deposit - Anūp Library, Bikaner, No. 3519 Material - Paper Folios - 110. Folios 52 and 53 newly substituted; hand-writing differs in folios 66, 67, 84, 105, 110, Size - 7-3/4x3-1/4": A page contains about 9 lines and a line about 36 letters. Extent - Four Ullāsas, each with four Parikșaņas. Script - Devanāgari Date - Not mentioned. Appears to be about 300 years old.
A comparative study of these three Mss. shows that Mss. A & B mostly agree in their readings, whereas Ms. C has importan variants. These variants of C, bave provided correct readings in several places where the readings of A & B are unsatisfactory. We have tried to emend many other incorrect readings with the help of the readings from the chapters of the Nāțyasāstra of Bharata on the same subject, and Sargitaratnākara of Sārngadeva as well as from the quotations from several works on Nstyas'āstra given in the Bharatakosa prepared by M. Ramakrishna kavi. However a number of readings still remains unsatisfactory.
We have, in the footnotes, noted the various readings of the Mss. and given the quotations from other works with whose help we have emended the text. This will give to the critical scholar material to make his choice of the readings. The Sanskrit translation of Prakrit verses (Ullāsa 4, Pariksan. 3) has also been given in the footnotes.
At the end of the second part of the text, that is this voloume, we have appended alphabetical indexes of verses, of important technical words and of the works and authors referred to in the text.
II
Authorship of the Nityaratanakosd:
Who is the author of the Samgitarāja-Samgitamimārsā of sixteen thousand verses? Two kings - Kumbhakarņā and Kālasena - claim the title. The anomaly arises from the fact that some Mss. of the work in their colophons as well as the body of the text mention Kumbhakarna as the author, while some others, Kālasena. The statistical evidence of the Mss. of the Pāțhyaratnakosa is more confusing than enlightening. Dr. Kunhan Raja, on the strength of this type of evidence comes to the rather amusing conclusion that because the majority of the Mss. examined by him mention Kālasena as the author, the work
