Die Gesellschaftliche Entwicklung im Allen Indien by Walter RubenReview by: Ludwik SternbachJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1975), pp. 538-540Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/599395 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 00:13

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:13:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of lite American Orieltal Society 95.3 (1975) Journal of lite American Orieltal Society 95.3 (1975)

not be discarded outright and that their implications should be carefully considered. "Weak reason is not no reason, and a conglomeration of weak reasons may add up to a probality, just as a sum of fractions may make unity" he stated (p. 2).

This reviewer has an opetn mind on the subject and agrees, in principle, with the author's argumentation. I-c would have liked to find in R. Morton Smith's study a documented rebuff of Keith's, Macdonell's, Fleet's, Winternitz's and others' views that Pargiter's experiment to use the Puranic texts as the basis for chronological data for kingslists is unreasonable. By that Morton Smith's own view would have been strengthened. But the argumentation that the Purtanic kinglists (as well as some texts of inscriptions) were taken from ancient dharimaSstras1 and other arguments seem not to have been rebuffed; and the use of astronomical data contained in the Sanskrit texts could not be earlier than A.D. 600.

This reviewer has also some misgivings with regard to basing chronology on tradition but is willing to change his opinion in case some tangible proof to the contrary would be adduced. His misgivings are partly based on D. R1. Markad's "Puralic Chronology" (Gafigajala Pra- kashan, Anand 1951). On p. 8 D. R. Mankad says: "After the Mahabharata war, the Puranas unanimously give 1000 years to the Barhadrathas, 138 years to the Pra-

dyotas, 360 or 362 years to the SaiSunagas and 100 years to the Nandas. Thus according to these totals, given in all Puraiias uniformly, Candragupta Maurya came to the throne 1600 years after the Mahabharata war. Putting the Mahabharata war in 3136 B.c.2 we get 3136 - 1600 1536 B.c. as the date of Candragupta Maurya's accession." I-c then argues that there are two conflicting dates in the Puranic texts and in Kalhata's Rajataraigini: for fixing the Mahabhlarata war, the second being 2418 B.c. That would then mean that according to PurIaic chronology Candragupta Maurya ascended the throne either in 1536 B.C. or in 848 B.C. and that eo ipso Alexander the Great (being contemporary to Candragupta Maurya) lived in the sixteenth or ninth century n.C. (unless we accept Mankad's "theory" that the contemporary of Alexander the Great was not Candragupta Maurya [that view is generally accepted] but Candlagupta I of the Gupta Dynasty, which also does not seem likely. Both these "explanations" (1536 B.c. or 848 B.C.) seem at least to say-unreasonable. On the other hand D . R. ankad "has shown" on the basis of the Puranas, "that Manu was a dynastic title and Manvantara meant a dynastic period, and taking these senses as well as the evidence furnished by Megasthenes and Herodotus into consideration, it is

1 JRAS. 1912. 248 sqq., 736, 1046 sqq. 2 T. S. Narayan Shastri.

not be discarded outright and that their implications should be carefully considered. "Weak reason is not no reason, and a conglomeration of weak reasons may add up to a probality, just as a sum of fractions may make unity" he stated (p. 2).

This reviewer has an opetn mind on the subject and agrees, in principle, with the author's argumentation. I-c would have liked to find in R. Morton Smith's study a documented rebuff of Keith's, Macdonell's, Fleet's, Winternitz's and others' views that Pargiter's experiment to use the Puranic texts as the basis for chronological data for kingslists is unreasonable. By that Morton Smith's own view would have been strengthened. But the argumentation that the Purtanic kinglists (as well as some texts of inscriptions) were taken from ancient dharimaSstras1 and other arguments seem not to have been rebuffed; and the use of astronomical data contained in the Sanskrit texts could not be earlier than A.D. 600.

This reviewer has also some misgivings with regard to basing chronology on tradition but is willing to change his opinion in case some tangible proof to the contrary would be adduced. His misgivings are partly based on D. R1. Markad's "Puralic Chronology" (Gafigajala Pra- kashan, Anand 1951). On p. 8 D. R. Mankad says: "After the Mahabharata war, the Puranas unanimously give 1000 years to the Barhadrathas, 138 years to the Pra-

dyotas, 360 or 362 years to the SaiSunagas and 100 years to the Nandas. Thus according to these totals, given in all Puraiias uniformly, Candragupta Maurya came to the throne 1600 years after the Mahabharata war. Putting the Mahabharata war in 3136 B.c.2 we get 3136 - 1600 1536 B.c. as the date of Candragupta Maurya's accession." I-c then argues that there are two conflicting dates in the Puranic texts and in Kalhata's Rajataraigini: for fixing the Mahabhlarata war, the second being 2418 B.c. That would then mean that according to PurIaic chronology Candragupta Maurya ascended the throne either in 1536 B.C. or in 848 B.C. and that eo ipso Alexander the Great (being contemporary to Candragupta Maurya) lived in the sixteenth or ninth century n.C. (unless we accept Mankad's "theory" that the contemporary of Alexander the Great was not Candragupta Maurya [that view is generally accepted] but Candlagupta I of the Gupta Dynasty, which also does not seem likely. Both these "explanations" (1536 B.c. or 848 B.C.) seem at least to say-unreasonable. On the other hand D . R. ankad "has shown" on the basis of the Puranas, "that Manu was a dynastic title and Manvantara meant a dynastic period, and taking these senses as well as the evidence furnished by Megasthenes and Herodotus into consideration, it is

1 JRAS. 1912. 248 sqq., 736, 1046 sqq. 2 T. S. Narayan Shastri.

found that all our present Puraiiic genealogies up to Nan- das and even the Andhras have been constructed on an arbitrary and artificial method, "which he has designated as Manvantara-Caturyuga-Method (p. ix).

But even if we reject the "findings" of D. t1. Mankad and return to R. Morton Smith's work, this reviewer must unfortunately apply to it the axiom, so well developed in the fable of the monkey and the juggler by Yriarte-siin claridad no hai obra buena. -Ie read and re-read three times the main part of the book with the "argumentation" and must admit with shame and sorrow that he did not understand it. He could not follow the author's deduc- tions, hundreds of figures and unexplained abbreviations; he was stuck, for instance, on pages 135-6 with the table; he could not understand what 10 P - 001; 12 P - 3001; 20 P- 111; 11 P 201, etc., etc., signify; or what is the reason on p. 169 for interpolation of lines 279 & 283 cd or displacement of lines 11 and 5 (that seems not to have been elucidated)? or what does it mean "lines 2 - 6 fol- lowing lines 12 - 6 + 11" (p. 169)? and hundreds of such examples. The argumentation of the author is certainly clear to him and may have been convincing, but this reviewer has no mathematical mind and was unable to follow the author's reasoning. It is probably his fault, but he discussed the contents of the book with other Sanskrit scholars and they were also unable to perceive the logic of the author's conclusions. Maybe all the previously expressed doubts about Pargiter's theory and difficulties for using Puranic texts for chrono- logical purposes were justly overcome by the author, but this reviewer was incapable to discover them in the text.

The lack of clarity of the book is even increased by bad and( unclear printing. The tables are badly set, the diacritical marks are often missing or wrong and the lack of use of italics for foreign words makes the reading even more difficult.

LUDWIK STERNBACHI COLIE;GE DE FRANCE, PARIS

Die Gesellschaflliche Eniwicklung im Allen Indien. I. Die Entwicklung der Produktionverhailtnisse; II. Die Entwicklunlg von Slaat und Recht; III. Die Entiicklung der Religion; IV. Die Entwicklung der Philosophie; V. Die Eniwicklung der Dichtung; VI. Die Entwicklung der Gangesgesellschaft. By WALTER RUBEN. Pp. x + 242; x + 292; x + 277; x + 311; x + 365; xiv + 365. Akademlie der Wissenschaften (er DDR. Veroffentlichungen des Instituts f ir Orientforschung 67. Berlin: AKADEMIE VERLAG. 1967, 1968, 1971, 1971, 1973, 1973.

The six volume, nearly 2000 pages long, monumental work of Walter Ruben on social development in ancient

found that all our present Puraiiic genealogies up to Nan- das and even the Andhras have been constructed on an arbitrary and artificial method, "which he has designated as Manvantara-Caturyuga-Method (p. ix).

But even if we reject the "findings" of D. t1. Mankad and return to R. Morton Smith's work, this reviewer must unfortunately apply to it the axiom, so well developed in the fable of the monkey and the juggler by Yriarte-siin claridad no hai obra buena. -Ie read and re-read three times the main part of the book with the "argumentation" and must admit with shame and sorrow that he did not understand it. He could not follow the author's deduc- tions, hundreds of figures and unexplained abbreviations; he was stuck, for instance, on pages 135-6 with the table; he could not understand what 10 P - 001; 12 P - 3001; 20 P- 111; 11 P 201, etc., etc., signify; or what is the reason on p. 169 for interpolation of lines 279 & 283 cd or displacement of lines 11 and 5 (that seems not to have been elucidated)? or what does it mean "lines 2 - 6 fol- lowing lines 12 - 6 + 11" (p. 169)? and hundreds of such examples. The argumentation of the author is certainly clear to him and may have been convincing, but this reviewer has no mathematical mind and was unable to follow the author's reasoning. It is probably his fault, but he discussed the contents of the book with other Sanskrit scholars and they were also unable to perceive the logic of the author's conclusions. Maybe all the previously expressed doubts about Pargiter's theory and difficulties for using Puranic texts for chrono- logical purposes were justly overcome by the author, but this reviewer was incapable to discover them in the text.

The lack of clarity of the book is even increased by bad and( unclear printing. The tables are badly set, the diacritical marks are often missing or wrong and the lack of use of italics for foreign words makes the reading even more difficult.

LUDWIK STERNBACHI COLIE;GE DE FRANCE, PARIS

Die Gesellschaflliche Eniwicklung im Allen Indien. I. Die Entwicklung der Produktionverhailtnisse; II. Die Entwicklunlg von Slaat und Recht; III. Die Entiicklung der Religion; IV. Die Entwicklung der Philosophie; V. Die Eniwicklung der Dichtung; VI. Die Entwicklung der Gangesgesellschaft. By WALTER RUBEN. Pp. x + 242; x + 292; x + 277; x + 311; x + 365; xiv + 365. Akademlie der Wissenschaften (er DDR. Veroffentlichungen des Instituts f ir Orientforschung 67. Berlin: AKADEMIE VERLAG. 1967, 1968, 1971, 1971, 1973, 1973.

The six volume, nearly 2000 pages long, monumental work of Walter Ruben on social development in ancient

538 538

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:13:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books

India, started in 1965 was finally brought to a conclusion with the appearance late in 1973 of the sixth concluding volume. The work deals with the development of produc- tion (Vol. I); of state and law (Vol. II); of religion (Vol.

III); of philosophy (Vol. IV); of literature (Vol. V); and of the Gafiga society as a whole (Vol. VI). The last volume is a kind of original summarization of the findings

by the author included in the previous five volumes. In this volume, published late in 1973, he revised, after

deep reflection, some of his findings he has included in his previous volumes, and in particular, in his first volume.

The author in his work on social development in ancient India attempted to depict the history of ancient India from the second millenium B.C. until ca. A.D. 500 from the Marxist point of view with particular emphasis on the Asiatic methods of production and formation of the slave society. Ile divided the 2000 years of history of ancient India into six periods, i.e., from 1200 to 900B.c.

(Rgvedic period); II. from 900 to 550 B.c. (late Vedic

period); III. from 550 to 325 B.C. (development of a centralized state); IV. from 325 to 236 B.c. (Maurya

period); V. from 236 B.c. to ca. A.D. 300 (decentralisation period under Sufigas and Kanvas and another centralisa- tion period under EKusans); and VI. from ca. A.D. 300 to ca. A.D. 500 (Gupta "golden age"). Ruben adhered very

strictly and consequently to these six periods in each of the six volumes, but in every one of them the title of the

chapter changed to cover the different topics dealt with with particular emphasis in the appropriate volume.

For the first period, Ruben occupied himself with the

Rgvedic "decaying society" (zerfallende Gentilgesell-

sclhaft); with Rgvedic military demiocracy; with Rgvedic

magic and mythology; with Rgvedic mythology; with the

Rgvedic Arya literature; and with the "decaying ur-

society" of the Rgvedic age. During the second period, Ruben concentrated his

attention to the formation "of the slave society"; to the

formation of the la e Vedic state; to the beginning of reli-

gion; to the beginning of philosophy of the Upanisads; to the literature at the time of the formation of the state; and to transition of the society and formation of class-

society. The third period, according to the author had to do

with the development of the society from the materialistic

point of view (goods and money resources); with the formation of the centralised unified state (Grossreich); with the beginning of religion in the Upanisads; with the

beginning of the oldest classical natural philosophy (Nalurphilosophie); with the literature of the developing unified state; and with the formation of the oriental class

society. In the fourth period, Ruben took up the development

of the political economy of the centralised unified state;

the state and law of the AIauyas; the state and religion; the growing up of the natural philosophy at the times of the Mauryas; the literature; and the unified state of the Mauryas in all its aspects.

In the fifth period, Ruben dealt with India's participa- lion in world trade; with the decentralisation of the state during the time of the unigas and Kanvas and a new effort of centralisation of the state during the time of the Kusans; with blossoming of Hinduism and Maha- yana; with the establishment of most of the philosophical systems; with the development of the k,dvya-literature; and with India as a cultural unit.

Finally, Ruben's magnum opus was devoted in the sixth period to the "golden age" of ancient India in all its aspects; the political history, state and law as preserved in inscriptions, by Kamandaka and Narada; to the remains of Vedic ideology, Hinduisim, Buddhism; to the consolidation of the theory of cognition; to the classical literatu e at the time of the Guptas; and to the "golden age" in general.

Each of the chapters contains also, wherever applicable, a comparison of conditions existing in India with those existing at the same time in Greece, Rome, Iran and even China.

Even from this short synopsis of the contents of Ruben's six-volume work, it is evident what an enormous field it covers. Ruben gave us an encyclopaedia of everything that is Indian; of everything what is known about India today; it is true, through somewhat tinted pink glass, but a well documented picture of ancient Indian society, ancient Indian state, politics, and economy in its broadest sense, philosophy, religion and even medicine or game of dice. The synopsis given above may be useful for finding whatever one wallts to find in Ruben's work, but a consolidated subject index for the six volumes is lacking and an ilmportant desideratum.

It is impossible in this short review to deal -with all tlle aspects of the author's work. This reviewer wishes only to repeat with some additions, due to the supplementary material used by the author, what he wrote in his review of the second volume of the same work,1 that is, that Ruben is perhaps the most well-read scholar on the Indian state in contemporary times; that it seems that there is no book, no article dealing wil-l India he had not studied and digested; that every sentence of his long work of nearly 2000 pages is verified and corroborated by quotations from the whole Sanskrit literature or from books and articles of old and contemporary scholars; that substantiations of his findings are included in the footnotes which cover alone 215 pages printed in two

1 JAOS 89.2; pp. 442-3.

539

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:13:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society 95.3 (1975) Journal of the American Oriental Society 95.3 (1975)

columns and that these sections alone are an excellent and very useful study in itself; and that Ruben purposely chose only those quotations and those points of view which suited his purpose, which fulfilled his aim and goal, i.e., to describe the social development of ancient India from the historical and Marxist point of view. In any case this six-volume work contains a mine of information well digested, well documented and well presented and is of everlasting value. The completion of Ruben's monu- mental work is a welcome and gratifying achievement. The mine of information included therein cannot be used, however, uncritically.

LUDWIK STERNBACII

COLLEGE DE FRANCE, PARIS

The Bilvanamaigalastava. Edited and translated with an Introduction by F. WILSON. Pp. x - 172. Lei- den: E. J. Brill. 1973. No price.

In his book on the Bilvanamangala (BB.) F. Wilson has made a thorough study of BB., a devotional poem which belongs to devout yet sensuous Sanskrit lyric literature, though with less excessive sensuous elements than the Krsnakarnmnrta (KK.). The KK. was written by the same author-Liliauka also called Bilvainafi- gala.

The study contains a preface and introduction in which the aim of the author and his system of work is exposed. Then follows a very detailed description of the -rss. which form the different versions of BB. and which were used in the text; the Sanskrit text and the English trans- lation; and in the Appendix a synoptic chart of verse sequences in the 22 Mss. used for the preparation of the text; index of metres; and index of verses. F. W. has performed his task admirably well and with great care. Ile must be wholeheartedly congratulated for his thorough and very useful study.

As F. W. rightly states, and S. K. De has proved in his edition and study on KK., many of the KK. verses are included in the BB. hymn. Unfortunately F. W.'s dissertation on the KIrsnakarnamrta of Lillauka Bil- vamafigala did not appear yet. Without it, it is difficult to analyse correctly BB., since the latter is closely con- nected with the KK. and the author did not wish, proba- bly, to repeat his findings on both works which he includ- ed in his other dissertation.

At present, therefore, this reviewer must rely only on the findings on this subject published by S. K. De in his KK. On the other hand, it would be interesting to have an analysis of the BB. with other works of the same author, and particularly with the Sumaigala-stotra, Go- vinda-stotra and Krsnahnika-kaumudi. Probably the

columns and that these sections alone are an excellent and very useful study in itself; and that Ruben purposely chose only those quotations and those points of view which suited his purpose, which fulfilled his aim and goal, i.e., to describe the social development of ancient India from the historical and Marxist point of view. In any case this six-volume work contains a mine of information well digested, well documented and well presented and is of everlasting value. The completion of Ruben's monu- mental work is a welcome and gratifying achievement. The mine of information included therein cannot be used, however, uncritically.

LUDWIK STERNBACII

COLLEGE DE FRANCE, PARIS

The Bilvanamaigalastava. Edited and translated with an Introduction by F. WILSON. Pp. x - 172. Lei- den: E. J. Brill. 1973. No price.

In his book on the Bilvanamangala (BB.) F. Wilson has made a thorough study of BB., a devotional poem which belongs to devout yet sensuous Sanskrit lyric literature, though with less excessive sensuous elements than the Krsnakarnmnrta (KK.). The KK. was written by the same author-Liliauka also called Bilvainafi- gala.

The study contains a preface and introduction in which the aim of the author and his system of work is exposed. Then follows a very detailed description of the -rss. which form the different versions of BB. and which were used in the text; the Sanskrit text and the English trans- lation; and in the Appendix a synoptic chart of verse sequences in the 22 Mss. used for the preparation of the text; index of metres; and index of verses. F. W. has performed his task admirably well and with great care. Ile must be wholeheartedly congratulated for his thorough and very useful study.

As F. W. rightly states, and S. K. De has proved in his edition and study on KK., many of the KK. verses are included in the BB. hymn. Unfortunately F. W.'s dissertation on the KIrsnakarnamrta of Lillauka Bil- vamafigala did not appear yet. Without it, it is difficult to analyse correctly BB., since the latter is closely con- nected with the KK. and the author did not wish, proba- bly, to repeat his findings on both works which he includ- ed in his other dissertation.

At present, therefore, this reviewer must rely only on the findings on this subject published by S. K. De in his KK. On the other hand, it would be interesting to have an analysis of the BB. with other works of the same author, and particularly with the Sumaigala-stotra, Go- vinda-stotra and Krsnahnika-kaumudi. Probably the

same verses are quoted partly in these hymn-collections and new readings would be probably found there.1

In the Introduction F. W. makes rightly a difference between "quoting from" the BB. or KK. and "mention- ning". BB. or KK. He states that KK. was first mention- ed in the fourteenth century in the Madhuravijaya, but does not cite any other places, in particular, the subha- sita-samgrahas, where verses of BB. are quoted. Un- fortunately the author used only a small part of the subhdsita-literature and studied only three sublhasita- sarngrahas, viz. Z 2, Z 11 (D) and Z 11 (V), i.e., the Su- bhasitavali of Vallabhadeva, the Padyavali of Rfipa Gos- vamin and the gripadyavali published by Raghavacai- tanyadasa. Of these, Z 11 (D) (i.e., the Padyavali of Rupa Gosvamin) is useless for the study of BB., since Rlfipa Gosv5min distinctly stated in the last verse of his anthology that he is avoiding citations of Bilvamafi- gala's verses, though he did not advance any reason for it. The omission of the analysis of BB. verses with the su- bh.sita-literature is a major deficiency of F. W. study.

The sltbhasita-literature teaches us sometimes whether a verse iincluded in other literary works belongs to this poetical work, or not. If a verse is included in a suthhasita- samgraha which can be dated, for instance from the beginning of the thirteenth century as the Sad-ukti- karnaimrta is, and the literary work was written by an author who lived in the fourteenth century, then the verse in the latter work cannot be original to it but must be an interpolation. That is also the case of BB. which F. W. very rightly calls "anthology," but does not explain the reasons for it.

The study of the subhlusita-literature proves that at least as far as the second and third chapter of BB. is concerned, it is an anthology and confirms the Bengal tradition that only the first chapter of BB. may be genuine. This point was unfortunately not tackled by the author at all, but some proof may be adduced here.

BB. verse II. 31 is also quoted almost verbatim in the Sublhasita-ratna-kosa of Vidyakara (109) (and the almost identical Kavindravacana-samuccaya [21]2 and the Pra- sannasahityaratnakara of Nandana [35 a], where it is attributed to Govardhana); in the Sad-ukti-karnamrta (1.56.2 = 277), (where it is attributed to gubhaika(ra)); in the giargadhara Paddhati (122); in the Subhasita- vali of Vallabhadeva (104); in the Subhasitavali of Go- pinthla (1.8); in the anonymous subhasita-collection preserved in MS. BORI 91 of 1883-84 (13a); as well as in alamkrara-dsltrra, viz. the Kfivyanusasana of tIema- candra (495); the Kfvyanusfsana of Vagbhata (49.12-5); the AlamkaraSekhara of KeSavamiEra (27.26-28.2); the

1 It is possible that some of the .iss. used by F. W. contain these texts, but that is not stated in his study.

same verses are quoted partly in these hymn-collections and new readings would be probably found there.1

In the Introduction F. W. makes rightly a difference between "quoting from" the BB. or KK. and "mention- ning". BB. or KK. He states that KK. was first mention- ed in the fourteenth century in the Madhuravijaya, but does not cite any other places, in particular, the subha- sita-samgrahas, where verses of BB. are quoted. Un- fortunately the author used only a small part of the subhdsita-literature and studied only three sublhasita- sarngrahas, viz. Z 2, Z 11 (D) and Z 11 (V), i.e., the Su- bhasitavali of Vallabhadeva, the Padyavali of Rfipa Gos- vamin and the gripadyavali published by Raghavacai- tanyadasa. Of these, Z 11 (D) (i.e., the Padyavali of Rupa Gosvamin) is useless for the study of BB., since Rlfipa Gosv5min distinctly stated in the last verse of his anthology that he is avoiding citations of Bilvamafi- gala's verses, though he did not advance any reason for it. The omission of the analysis of BB. verses with the su- bh.sita-literature is a major deficiency of F. W. study.

The sltbhasita-literature teaches us sometimes whether a verse iincluded in other literary works belongs to this poetical work, or not. If a verse is included in a suthhasita- samgraha which can be dated, for instance from the beginning of the thirteenth century as the Sad-ukti- karnaimrta is, and the literary work was written by an author who lived in the fourteenth century, then the verse in the latter work cannot be original to it but must be an interpolation. That is also the case of BB. which F. W. very rightly calls "anthology," but does not explain the reasons for it.

The study of the subhlusita-literature proves that at least as far as the second and third chapter of BB. is concerned, it is an anthology and confirms the Bengal tradition that only the first chapter of BB. may be genuine. This point was unfortunately not tackled by the author at all, but some proof may be adduced here.

BB. verse II. 31 is also quoted almost verbatim in the Sublhasita-ratna-kosa of Vidyakara (109) (and the almost identical Kavindravacana-samuccaya [21]2 and the Pra- sannasahityaratnakara of Nandana [35 a], where it is attributed to Govardhana); in the Sad-ukti-karnamrta (1.56.2 = 277), (where it is attributed to gubhaika(ra)); in the giargadhara Paddhati (122); in the Subhasita- vali of Vallabhadeva (104); in the Subhasitavali of Go- pinthla (1.8); in the anonymous subhasita-collection preserved in MS. BORI 91 of 1883-84 (13a); as well as in alamkrara-dsltrra, viz. the Kfivyanusasana of tIema- candra (495); the Kfvyanusfsana of Vagbhata (49.12-5); the AlamkaraSekhara of KeSavamiEra (27.26-28.2); the

1 It is possible that some of the .iss. used by F. W. contain these texts, but that is not stated in his study.

540 540

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.96 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 00:13:53 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions