DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44480#0015
3
through Vishnubbatta Kachari, Karkun, his Yajamana. It origin-
ally consisted of 92 leaves, eight of which (viz., 1-3, 12-15 and
65) are now lost. It begins with v. 38 and ends
abruptly with the comment on the word ER v. 683, b, thus carry-
ing the commentary a little farther than B. Some minor lacuna),
e.y., from v. 85, b. to 93 have been noted in the Various Read-
ings. The first two leaves are damaged at the bottom. The rest
of the MS. is well preserved, and exceedingly correct in general,
except in the commencement, and in some parts of the second
half of the book. In spite of the omissions and defects just
named, S. is by far the most important of my MSS. I have
not hesitated to make it the basis of my edition of the commentary.
In some cases, it is true, it may be I have followed it too closely,
instead of giving the preference to B.
(5) Vi., a MS. of the Visvaprakasakosa, Orient. Oct. 99
of the Royal Library of Berlin, described in Prof. Weber’s
Verzeichniss I. (Berlin, 1853) under No. 803. As is evident from
certain peculiarities in the spelling of words, the MS. is of
Kasmirian origin. It contains a fair number of extracts from the
Mankhakosa,—no doubt, originally marginal glosses which were
subsequently mixed up with the genuine Vis va by ignorant scribes.
I have used a copy of these extracts—which were recognized by
me as such fifteen years ago1 —made by Professor Pischel in
1872 and liberally placed at my disposal. The fragments would
have been of much greater use to me than they have actually
been, if not, unfortunately, about 100 verses among the were
missing in Vi., and if the extracts from Mankha did not entirely
cease from about the middle of the vJFdT : . Thus, the assistance
of Vi. has failed me just in that part of my work where my
materials were rather scanty. Incompleteness is a sad peculiarity
of the Kasmir manuscripts.
(6) Mb., the numerous quotations, both from the text and
the commentary, found in Mahendrasftri’s tika on the Anekartha-
saihgraha, for which see the first volume of this Series. The
See my Beitriige zur iudischen Lexiaographie, p. 73, n. 2.
through Vishnubbatta Kachari, Karkun, his Yajamana. It origin-
ally consisted of 92 leaves, eight of which (viz., 1-3, 12-15 and
65) are now lost. It begins with v. 38 and ends
abruptly with the comment on the word ER v. 683, b, thus carry-
ing the commentary a little farther than B. Some minor lacuna),
e.y., from v. 85, b. to 93 have been noted in the Various Read-
ings. The first two leaves are damaged at the bottom. The rest
of the MS. is well preserved, and exceedingly correct in general,
except in the commencement, and in some parts of the second
half of the book. In spite of the omissions and defects just
named, S. is by far the most important of my MSS. I have
not hesitated to make it the basis of my edition of the commentary.
In some cases, it is true, it may be I have followed it too closely,
instead of giving the preference to B.
(5) Vi., a MS. of the Visvaprakasakosa, Orient. Oct. 99
of the Royal Library of Berlin, described in Prof. Weber’s
Verzeichniss I. (Berlin, 1853) under No. 803. As is evident from
certain peculiarities in the spelling of words, the MS. is of
Kasmirian origin. It contains a fair number of extracts from the
Mankhakosa,—no doubt, originally marginal glosses which were
subsequently mixed up with the genuine Vis va by ignorant scribes.
I have used a copy of these extracts—which were recognized by
me as such fifteen years ago1 —made by Professor Pischel in
1872 and liberally placed at my disposal. The fragments would
have been of much greater use to me than they have actually
been, if not, unfortunately, about 100 verses among the were
missing in Vi., and if the extracts from Mankha did not entirely
cease from about the middle of the vJFdT : . Thus, the assistance
of Vi. has failed me just in that part of my work where my
materials were rather scanty. Incompleteness is a sad peculiarity
of the Kasmir manuscripts.
(6) Mb., the numerous quotations, both from the text and
the commentary, found in Mahendrasftri’s tika on the Anekartha-
saihgraha, for which see the first volume of this Series. The
See my Beitriige zur iudischen Lexiaographie, p. 73, n. 2.