INTRODUCTION Vedic words, and it may thus be considered as the ancestor of the later lexicographical works.¹ But whereas the Nighantu-s contained not only nominal forms but also verbal ones, the later kośa-s restricted themselves to the nominal forms and the indeclinables. Further, the Nighantu-s confined themselves to the Veda-s,2 whereas the kośa-s dealt with words in classical literature. As in the case of other ancient and mediaeval technical works in India, the kośa-s were composed in verse so that they could be committed to memory with comparative ease. Even within the classical period, Amara had a number of predecessors in the field. Kṣirasvāmin (11th cent.) mentions that Amara was confused by Bhaguri's identification of a class of prickly nightshade, Nidigdhikā, with Brhati whereas the two are clearly distinct plants. xvii 3 बृहती तु निदिग्धिकेति भागुरिवाक्याद् ग्रन्थक्कद् आन्तः; यतोऽनयोर्महान् भेदः । In the Vaisya-varga (p. 148) we meet with the remark of Kṣīrasvāmin that Mālākāra was led astray by mistaking sara for śara in Bhāguri's statement, etac ca drapsam śaram and that Amarasimha was in his turn misled by the latter. It is thus clear that in the opinion of Kṣirasvāmin, Bhāguri Amara himself and Mālākāra preceded Amarasimha.4 says in the beginning of his work that he had collected to- gether a number of lexicons then available: samāhṛtyanya- tantrāṇi (p. 3). There is an enumeration of twenty-six kośa-s and authors of lexicons, among whom Amara is called sanātana.5 This enumeration is welcome, but the predecessors of Amara such ¹K. Kunjunni Raja, Indian Theories of Meaning, ALS 91, p. 33. 2 Keith, History of Skt. Literature, p. 412. 3 Ak., Poona ed. 1941, p. 104. 4 Ak., K. G. Oka's ed., Introd. p. 5. 5 Ak., BSS, 1886, Introd. p. 1. B
