11 verse form, the latter having abridged it into 8 cantos. A perusal of both the works gives an impression that Trivikrama has done it with more care in preserving Bana's original. Regarding the details and the appreciation, of the work Sri K. Dakshinamurty has dealt with at large in his Sanskrit introduction. Editing a manuscript for the first time is not a pleasant job. The editor is confronted at every stage with different types of difficulties. पठन्तर (variae) and प्रभूथपा (lacunae) are main among them. Another variety is . Editor's discretion regarding पठन्तर and अप स्ट is a risky responsibility. Here I leave it to the learned reader to judge how far Sri K, Dakshinamurty has been successful in making such conjectural emendations.
Personally I feel that the work has been subjected to an
unwholesomely hasty passage through the press. A little more care and time devoted by the editor in making attempts to be more faithful to the author would have given the work a better opportunity to gain the expected appreciation from the scholarly public. I am also sorry to express my helplessness in avoiding a considerable number of print mistakes that crept into the text though Sri K. Dakshinamurty himself has personally attended to proof-reading). I assure the public that this condition does not recur in the next edition. The style of Kadambarikathasara is very lucid and at the same time elegant. So I hope the student of Sanskrit of every class desires to have it as his text book, the master as his hand book and every Educational Institution and Library as an asset. My thanks are specially due to Dr. V. Raghavan, M.A., Ph.D., who readily approved and encouraged my adventure in editing the work. My thanks are also due to the Curator, Madras Government Oriental Manuscripts Library, for according permission to copy it from their Paper Manuscript. S. V. U. O. R. Institute TIRUPATI J. CHENNA REDDY, Director.
.
