________________
INTRODUCTION
Ass. C.
Place of deposit - Anáp 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 - 7-3/4' X3-1/4: A page contains about 9 lines and a line about 36 letters. Extent - Four Ullāsas, each with four Pariksaņas. Script - Devanagari 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 important variants. These variants of C, have 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 Nātyas'āstra of Bharata on the same subject, and Samgitaratnākara of Sārngadeva as well as fiom the quotations from several works on Nrtyasastra 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, Parikşaņa 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 Nrtyaratanakosa :
Who is the author of the Samgitarāja-Samgitamimāṁsā 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 Pathyaratnakosa is more confusing than enlightening. Dr. Kunban 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
