No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
In his very interesting article in BSOS., vol. v, pt. i, pp. 27 f. on my suggested date of the Subhāṣitâvali of Vallabhadeva (JRAS., 1927, pp. 471 f.), Professor Keith tries his best to minimize the importance of the passage in Sarvānanda's commentary, which not only makes a reference to the Kāśmīraka Vallabhadeva but actually cites verse No. 726 from his Subhāṣitârali. Professor Keith expresses his belief that the citation is “ merely an interpolation ”; but as this statement probably appeared too sweeping, he hastens to add that it is rather “ an intelligent addition of some scribe ”. This may, indeed, be a facetious way of solving the problem; but the problem does not appear to be so easy, and the question of interpolation is one on which it does not help to be dogmatic in the absence of definite and fairly conclusive evidence.
page 499 note 1 Nāmaliṅgânuśāsana of Amara with the Tīkā-sarvasva of Sarvānanda, , ed. Trivandrum, pt. 2, p. 130.Google Scholar
page 502 note 1 Since writing the above article my edition of Kīcaka–vadha has been published by the University of Dacca. The question raised here has been fully discussed in my Introduction to the text.