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: 15 March 2011
page 579 note 1 The supposed quotation in Patañjali (Peterson's paper on Kṣemendra's Aucityavicāracarcā) may safely be neglected in this regard.
page 579 note 2 Vienna Orient. Journ., vii, 227–8.
page 579 note 3 See Dharmārāma's edit., p. 305, footnote.
page 579 note 4 See Buhler, “Die indischen Inschriften,” p. 72; Kielhorn, Gott. Nachrichten, 1890, p. 251; Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., pp. 321 sq.
page 580 note 1 So also Vidyābhūṣan, Hari Mohan, Journ. As. Soc. Beng., LXII, i, 212 sqGoogle Scholar.
page 580 note 2 “India, what can it teach us?” p. 347.
page 580 note 3 See Paṭhak's articles, Journal of Bombay Branch R.A.S., xviii.
page 581 note 1 Cf. Pischel, Rudraṭa, pp. 22 sq., whose objections to Bühler's view seem weak.
page 581 note 2 Report, 1883–1884, p. 58.
page 581 note 3 Jammu Catal., pp. xix, xx, who dates Jayāpīḍa thirty years earlier.
page 581 note 4 For his date see Ep. Ind., i, pp. 170, 171.
page 582 note 1 He has pointed out to me that it is a priori improbable that the first Ceylonese-Sanskrit work known should be a grammatical Kāvya, and that the later date suits the literary history of Ceylon best.
You have
Access