2025-04-20 14:32:00 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
The Critical Apparatus
The manuscript appears to be old. No date is mentioned
but it is clear that it is older than D₁ ; there are
common characteristics and common mistakes. It may be
tentatively asserted that Di is derived from D2. It is
curious to note that D₂ avoids giving synonyms for those
very words for which D, also has not given any; e. g.
केलिरुचिः = क्रीडाप्रियः, सहृदयः
रसिकः, गण्डयोः
कपोलयोः,
पक्ष्मणां =
=
अक्षिलोम्नां, अवाप्य = प्राप्य and so on. Both show in
many places the same mistakes such as जीवितुं प्रति for जीवितं
प्रति, संगच्छन्ति for संगच्छन्ते, क्रीडा नाम संचारी भावः for त्रीडा नाम
संचारी भावः, स्वपति for स्वपिति, निजन्ताय घन् for णिजन्तात् घञ्.
However Da is not as corrupt as D1.
There are a few lacunae in the commentary on the follow-
ing stanzas : Nos. 5, 11, 27, 34, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 87,
90. Begins श्रीनारसिंहाय नमः । ज्याकृष्टि etc., and ends इति
विनायकसकल विद्याविशारदपेरकोमटिवेमभूपालविरचिता गृङ्गारदीपिका नाम
अमरदीपिका समाप्ता ॥ इदं पुस्तकं शंकर भट्टमिश्रिकोटि श्रीगणेशाय
नमः ॥ छ ॥
D
Paper ms 99* x 48. Folios 41. The bhand-writing is
clear, bold and uniform. There are 12 lines to a page
and 50 letters to a line. The borders are unruled ; and
there are no corrections in the margin. The text and com-
mentary are given runningly and consecutively. Red pig-
ment is used to mark off the text from the commentary.
There is a big lacuna after stanza 32; the commentary on
stanza 32 is not complete, but is mixed up with the com -
mentary on stanza 34. There is a big hiatus, stanza 33 is
altogether skipped over, the text of stanza 34 is not given,
but the later portion of the commentary on it is mixed up
with the commentary on stanza 32. Then comes stanza 35
The manuscript appears to be old. No date is mentioned
but it is clear that it is older than D₁ ; there are
common characteristics and common mistakes. It may be
tentatively asserted that Di is derived from D2. It is
curious to note that D₂ avoids giving synonyms for those
very words for which D, also has not given any; e. g.
केलिरुचिः = क्रीडाप्रियः, सहृदयः
रसिकः, गण्डयोः
कपोलयोः,
पक्ष्मणां =
=
अक्षिलोम्नां, अवाप्य = प्राप्य and so on. Both show in
many places the same mistakes such as जीवितुं प्रति for जीवितं
प्रति, संगच्छन्ति for संगच्छन्ते, क्रीडा नाम संचारी भावः for त्रीडा नाम
संचारी भावः, स्वपति for स्वपिति, निजन्ताय घन् for णिजन्तात् घञ्.
However Da is not as corrupt as D1.
There are a few lacunae in the commentary on the follow-
ing stanzas : Nos. 5, 11, 27, 34, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 75, 87,
90. Begins श्रीनारसिंहाय नमः । ज्याकृष्टि etc., and ends इति
विनायकसकल विद्याविशारदपेरकोमटिवेमभूपालविरचिता गृङ्गारदीपिका नाम
अमरदीपिका समाप्ता ॥ इदं पुस्तकं शंकर भट्टमिश्रिकोटि श्रीगणेशाय
नमः ॥ छ ॥
D
Paper ms 99* x 48. Folios 41. The bhand-writing is
clear, bold and uniform. There are 12 lines to a page
and 50 letters to a line. The borders are unruled ; and
there are no corrections in the margin. The text and com-
mentary are given runningly and consecutively. Red pig-
ment is used to mark off the text from the commentary.
There is a big lacuna after stanza 32; the commentary on
stanza 32 is not complete, but is mixed up with the com -
mentary on stanza 34. There is a big hiatus, stanza 33 is
altogether skipped over, the text of stanza 34 is not given,
but the later portion of the commentary on it is mixed up
with the commentary on stanza 32. Then comes stanza 35