________________
xxvi
सटीको वृत्तजातिसमुच्चयः [INTRODUCTION him as appears from his remarks on the different kinds of Dvipadis like Sumanas, Tärā etc.39 Virahānka was a learned Brahmin (IV. 35-36) well versed in both the Sanskrit and the Prakrit languages as is clear from his work itself. He has a predilection for an analytical treatment of his subject as seen from his introductory remarks as well as his full enumeration of metres which he intends to define, at the commencement of his work. His treatment of the Sanskrit Varna Vrttas in chapter V is also methodical. But he seems to have yielded to practical considerations when he defines the Dvipadis and other Mātrā Vrttas in chapters III and IV. Here there is no apparent principle on which the order of defining the metres is based. It is possible that he has followed the practice of older writers. As regards Gopāla, the commentator, we know that he was the son of Cakrapāla, from the colophon at the end of the commentary. As we saw above he was separated from Virahānka by several years, perhaps by a few centuries. He lived at a time when manuscripts of such works were freely written and were available in abundance. At the beginning of his commentary, Gopāla tells us how he had collected many manuscripts of Virahāņka's work and prepared a reliable text of it. The term pustaka-lekhaka in v. 3a may suggest even the existence of professional writers of manuscripts; but at the same time the words asamskstānām mukhe ca patitatvāt in v. 36 shows the existence of an oral tradition and transmission of Virahānka's work, side by side with the written one. The idea of preparing a critical edition of an old text by the collation of different manuscripts of it procured from the learned users (āpta) of them is naturally an old one. Only these manuscripts were usually procured where possible from the āptas (v. 4a), i.e., trustworthy men or men who actually used them and corrected them where necessary by mutual consultation and with the help of the oral tradition. Our commentator has added a Gāthā or two in the last chapter (cf. VI. 54, 60cd) and emended the text of two more (VI. 59, 61), either to complete the sense or to avoid a wrong direction. On VI. 60 he quotes a stanza in Sanskrit, introducing it by the words etad eva uktam anyair yathā. This stanza is identical with Jayadevachandas40 VIII. 12 and may have been quoted from it. Two more metrical quotations are given by him on II. 6 and IV. 108, but I am unable to identify them at present. On IV. 25, however, Gopāla quotes a Sanskrit Sūtra41 in support of a peculiar manipula
39. See note on v. 45 at the end of the Notes on Niyama III. 40. Compare Jayadāman, Texts, p. 40. 41. The correct form of the Sūtra seems to be atah sa ãe pumsi narkuțake.
