does not shun obscure places; it gives very full references to standard works like the Das'arûpa, for the various points of dramaturgic criticism which it contains, and, on occasion, points out various readings also, as already mentioned. It also gives a short introductory sketch of the previous events, a knowledge of which is necessary for understanding the course of the story as contained in the play itself.* If our commentary is not quite so copious and learned as the commentaries of Mallinâtha or Jagaddhara, it still follows them, I think, at no very great distance.
In conclusion, I am sorry that the correction of the proofs has not been quite as well done as I could have wished. For a very considerable portion of the time during which this volume has been going through the press, I have had on hand, in addition to my ordinary engagements, the special work of the Education Commission, which necessitated for some time my absence from Bombay, and involved considerable and distracting labour even when I was not absent. To other circumstances which contributed to the same result, it is not needful to refer here . One word, however, may, perhaps, be properly added in explanation of the great delay wich has occurred in giving this volume to the public, especially as that explanation may also account for some other shortcomings of this volume, of which I am myself conscious. I actually commenced preparations for this work as far back as 1875, when it was also officially announced as being in preparation." After some progress had been made, however, I was informed in reply to my inquiries, that the Education Department would not be, then and for some time longer, in a position to undertake the publication, I, therefore, laid the whole thing aside, and undertook to prepare a volume for Professor Max Muller's Series of Sacred Books of the East, having just about that time received the kind invitation of that distinguished scholar for co-operation. And it was not til some time after my volume in that series was
- This is translated into English in the Hindu Theatre, Vol. II., pp. 141-7.
Professor Wilson would appear to have seen only the portion translated by him, as he does not indicate anywhere that it was only introductory to the commentary of Dhuņdhirâja. At pp. 143, 147, however, of his translation, there are passages which clearly show the character of the piece he had before bim.
