stated to have reigned from 1711 to 1729 of the Christian era.* Therefore 1635 may be taken to be equivalent to 1713 A. D. and that is the year in which our commentary was written.
The text of this commentary as printed in the present edition has been taken, as above stated, mainly from the Ms. A. The original of that MS. is traced back to a period very near, indeed to the actual composition of the commentary, and the confidence, which our MS of the commentary claims from that circumstance, is, I think, well deserved. I have, however, also had the help of the copy of the commentary contained in the Ms. K., and, so far as it extends, the copy published in the uncompleted edition of the Mudrâr'âkshasa commenced to be published in Calcutta about twelve years ago. Since the above paragraphs were sent to the press, Professor Peterson has been kind enough to hand over to me the MS. which he procured for me, from the Râjâ's library at Alvar. It bears date Samvat 1912, equivalent to 1856. The only point I need note here is that in the commentary on the last stanza, as this MS. gives it, we read as follows: इत्थमत्रातिगम्भीरशुभोदर्कचाणक्यनयसंविधानेन चन्द्रगुप्तसाचिव्यपदलाभपरितुष्टो महामात्यो राक्षसो यथा दनुजबलोपप्लवादुदधिजलनिमग्नां भुवं भगवानादिवराहो दंष्ट्रयोद्धृत्य यथापूर्वं पुनः प्रतिष्ठापितवान्, एवं भगवदंशभूतत्वेन तदभिन्नश्चन्द्रगुप्तोऽपि म्लेच्छबलोपप्प्लुतायाः पृथिव्या धुरं स्वभुजयोरासज्य धर्मतः परिपालयतादित्याशास्ते-वाराहीमिति। This explains the interpolation noticed at p. 4., at the same time displacing the suggestion there made, that the author of it may be some one other than Dhuņdhirâja, as the commentary in the Alvar MS. is by that author. I suspect the whole passage to be an addition in the copies of the commentary which contain it, it not occurring either in A or in K.
The commentary is published here in full. I am very strongly of the opinion, that where a commentary is a really good one, it is pot quite fair to the author of it to give merely a few extracts from it. And the commentary of Dhuņdhirâja is, I think, sufficiently good to fall within the scope of this principle. As a rule, it
- See p. 53.
