OPINIONS.
vii
"Such criticism, however, would have increased its volume
and after all beginners are not required to know all these
minutiæ perhaps.
"I wish you had printed your work at the Nirnayasagara
Press at Bombay which is well known for correct and excellent
work. It would certainly have minimised errata.
(C From pages 273 and 334 [now 295 and 363] I find that you
have coined certain technical terms like a which is inte-
resting. You largely quote from ancient mnemonic stanzas,
some of which, as on p. 116, [now 126] occur also in ferratyet
and in some places you have composed some karikas of your own
as on pp. 147, 151, 260, etc. [now 159, 164, 281] which is
very creditable. You quote, I find, from a work
on pp. 345, 352 etc., [now 374 and 382], which I do not know at
all. Is it connected with the प्रक्रियाकौमुदी of रामचन्द्र of the 15th
century, which work also I could not procure? In your intro-
duction you refer to रूपावतार which is by धर्मकीर्ति, I think, and is
edited by Prof. Rangacharya of the Madras Presidency College,
but which I could not procure as yet. You also quote from
Kavyas, e. g., the वैराग्यशतक of भर्त्तृहरि and शिशुपालवध of माध.
There is a very beautiful quotation from a very clever poet
abouton p. 357, [now 388] beginning with afdafd
which I enjoyed very much. I wonder whence it must have
come from.
"I consulted your interpretation of II 3. 46 to see whether
you agree with Dr. Speijer in taking
a meaning
"number" as he maintains on comparing other passages, or
whether you prefer the traditional interpretation.
