Some Commentators On The Meghaduta BY DR. S.K.DE THE GREAT Popularity and currency of [Kalidasa's Meghaduta] i sindicated not only by the existence of a large number of original manuscipts in the different libraries of India, Europe and America, but also by the fact that more than fifty Sanskrit commentaries are known to exist, of which about a dozen of the more important ones are available in print. Vallabhadeva The earliest known commnentary is the [Panjika] of Vallbhadeva, which has been critically edited by E.Hultzsch (London 1911). Vallabha was a Kashmirian who described himself as the son of [rajanaka Anandadeva], father of [Candraditya] and grandfather of Kayyata; and he had the surname of [Paramarthacihna]. He is known to have commented upon several standard poetical works, including those of [Kalidasa] (Raghu o and Kumara o), [Mayura], [Ratnakara] and [Magha], as well as upon [Rudrata's] [Kavyalamkara]. As his grandson Kayyata wrote a commentary on [Anandavardhana's] [Devi-'sataka] in 977-78 A.D. during the reign of [Bhamagupta] of Kashmir (977-82 A.D.), Vallbhadeva's probable date would be the first quarter of the 10th century. Durgaprasad andParab suggest and Hultzsch accepts this date, but K.B. Pathak, not on very cogent grounds, would bring it down to 1100 A.D. This commentator Vallabhadeva should be distinguished from the anthologist Vallabhadeva, also a Kashmirian, who compiled the [Subhasitavali], but who belonged probably to the middle of the 12th century. Whatever might have been the exact date of our Vallabhadeva, there cannot be any doubt he is to us the earliest known commentator on the [Meghaduta]; and his commentary, therefore, deserves careful consideration from the point of view of textual study. Hultzsch's edition of the commentary (as well as the text commented upon) is based on three ['Sarada](-Kasmiri) and one [Devanagari] manuscript. He is right in holding that this last manuscript is highly conflated and in consequently basing his edition of the Kashmiri text of Vallabhadeva chiefly on his three Kashmiri manuscripts. It is interesting to note that Vallabha's text gives 112 stanzas, but one of these he himself believes to be imitative and spurious ; hence 111 stanzas are given by him asgenuine. This point is highly important in view of the well-known fact that the popular text fo the [Meghaduta] suffered a great deal from interpolation. Vallabhadeva rejects and excludes from his text as many as 19 such interpolated stanzas. [Sthiradeva] The next important commentary i sthe [Bala-Pradodhini] of [Sthiradeva], which has been edited (along with its text) from one manuscript existing in the Mandlik collection of the Fergusson College, Poona, by V.J. Paranjpe (Poona 1936). [Sthiradeva's] date and provenance are not known. He is mentioned by name, along with Vallbhadeva and Asaha or [Asaha] (Asada), by the presumably Jaina commentator Jaina, commentary [Saroddharini] on the [Meghaduta]. He might have been a Jaina, commentary [Saroddharini] on the [Meghaduta]. He might have been a Jaina, but manuscripts of his commentary are found today in Poona (Mandlik collection), Baroda (Oriental Institute), Alwar, Tanjore (Sarasvati Mahal) and [Mithila]. There is little evidence to show that he is, as hi editor presumes, earlier than Vallabhadeva; but since Janardana's date lies between 1192 and 1385 A.D. he appears to be a fairly old commentator. Paranjpe's manuscipt of the commentary is dated Samvat 1521 (=ca. 1465 A.D.). There are two other manuscripts in Baroda Oriental Institute (Acc. no. 1408 and 12266) which we have also examined. They designate the commentary simply as [Tika]. Both the manuscripts are incomplete-the first beginning with comments on the stanza [kartum yac ca prabhavati mahim], the second with those on the stanza [haste lila-kamalam]. The date of the first manuscript is illegible, but the second was writen in Samvat 1630 (=ca. 1574 A.D.). These much later versions of the commentary contain a large number of spurious stanzas, the first admitting 7 and the second 13. Contrary to this later conflated text-tradition, however, [Paranjpe's] manuscript presents the text as containing only 112 stanzas, of which one is declared spurious by the commentator himself. It, therefore, agrees with the number 111 given as genuine by Vallbhadeva; and on this point it sindependent testimony is valuable. SOUTH INDIAN COMMENTATORS: [Daksinavarta-natha] The commentary of [Daksinavarta-natha], entitled [Pradipa], was made vailable in print in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series in 1919. He is referred to by [Mallinatha] (generally as Natha; on Raghu o i.7; Megha o 4, 65, 98) as a predecessor, as well as by Dinakara and [Caritravardhana]. As [Daksinavarta] quotes the authority of the lexicographer [Ke'sava-svamini] of the 12th A.D. and is himself quoted by [Arunacala] who is also cited by [Mallinatha], he probably belonged to the 13th century. [Kshetresh Chattopadhyaya] rightly draws attention to some curious interpretations and capricious readings given by [Daksinavarta]; but in spite of these strange vagaries, some of which [Mallinatha] pointedly disputes, [Daksinavarta] appears to follow a tradition which omits, in agreeement with Vallabhadeva and Sthiradeva, all the 19 spurious stanzas, and even the stanza included by Vallabhadeva and Sthiradeva. He thus confirms generally and independently the postion of the last two commentators in this respect. [Purna-sarasvati] The Vidyullata of [Purna-sarasvati], pupil of [Purna-jyotis] or [Purnajyotir-muni] was edited from two manuscripts adn published by the Vani-vilasa Press, Srirangam, in 1909. The date of this commentary is uncertain; but in the preface to the printed text we are informed, rather vaguely, that the commentatoru "seems to have lived some three centuries ago in the state of Cochin". Probably he flourished in the second half of the 14th or the first half of the 15th century A.D. This interesting commentary, like that of [Daksinavarta], gives total of only 110 stanzas, and exludes all the stanzas not included in the [Pradipa]. In his interpretation, however, he is more or less independent. [Purna-sarasvati] was also the author of [Rij-laghvi] [Malati-madhava-katha](ed. N. A. Gore, Poona 1943) and [Hamsa-samde'sa] (ed. Trivandrum Skt. Series, 1937). He wrote also a commentary called [Rasa-manjari], on the [Malati-madhava](ed. K.S. Mahadeva Sastri, Trivandrum Skt. Series, 1953). He appears to have written also a [Tippani] on [Anargha-raghava]. [Parame'svara] Another scholiast from Cochin is [Parame'svara], whose [Sumanoramani] commentary was edited from three manuscripts and published by the [Travancore University] Manuscripts Library from Trivandrum in 1946. He was the son of Rsi and Gauri of the Bhattatiri family of Malabar, and flourished probably between 1400 and 1500 A.D., about the middle of the 15th century. The commentary exists in a shorter and alonger recension. It shows familiarity with the commentary of [Purna-sarsvati], and confirms the Malabar tradition, mentioned above, which gives 110 stanzas as the total extent of the poem it comments upon. [Sarasvatitirtha (Narahari) The [Vidvajjananurajini] commentary of [Sarasvatitirtha] is not yet in print, but manuscripts of it exist in the libraries of the Bhandarkar Institute, Cambridge University and Asiatic Society of Bengal. This [Sarasvatitirtha] appears to be identical with the [Andhra] scholiast [Narahari Sarasvatitirtha], who wrote a commentary on the Kumara o, as well as one on the [Kavya-Praka'sa] entitled [Balacittanuranjini]. This last commentary gives us the information that he was born in Samvat 1298 (=ca. 1242 A.D.) in Tribhuvanagiri in the Andhra country. He traces his own genealogy from [Rama'svara of Vatsa-gotra, and describes himself as the son of [Mallinatha] and [Nagamma] and grandson of Narasimha, son of [Rame'svara]. When he became an ascetic, he took the name of [Sarasvatitirtha] and composed his commentaries at [Kasi]. He also refers to two works, [Smrtidarpana] and [Tarka-ratna] (with its Dipika commentary), written by himself. The colophon describes [Sarasvatitirtha] as Paramahamsa [Parivrajakacarya]. [Sarasvatitirtha's] commentary on the [Meghaduta] is indeed remarkable for its acuteness of exposition, which drew the encomium of K.B. Pathak; but since it admits 12 spurious stanzas (giving a total of 123 stanzas), its text-tradition cannot in this respect be taken as very reliable, nor do its readings always seem authentic. It appears to accept the conflated West Indian text, which differs from that of the Kashmirian and Malabar commentators mentioned above. [Mallinatha] [Kolacala Mallinatha Suri], author of the [Samjivani] commentray, is well-know as a commentator on the standard [Mahakavyas] of [Kalidasa], Bharavi, Bhatti, [Magha] and ['Sriharsa]. He was also the author of the [Tarala] commentary on the [Ekavali] of [Vidyadhara]. He has been assigned to the latter part or end of the 14th century. [Mallinatha's] commentray on the [Meghaduta] is deservedly popular for its learned yet lucid exposition; and in spite of its late date it has been often considered to be authoritative. But it cannot be said that it represents the best text tradition of the [Medhaduta]. It is true it omits nine spurious stanzas and expressly declares the interpolated character (Praksipta) of six more; but it admits at the same time four such verses. In the readings of passages also, it cannot be said that [Mallinatha] always gives us the most authentic forms. And yet, like [Nilakantha's] very late commentary on the [Mahabharata], the [Samjivani] has practically superseded by its reputation and currency most of the earlier commentaries on the poem. Nevertheless, the critical insight of [Mallinatha], as aganinst that of some West Indian Jaina commentators who accepts a very much interpolated text, is shown by the fact that if we leave aside the stanzas omitted or declared spurious by himself, the total number of stanzas in his text is not more than 115, which is not very much in excess of that of the Malabar commentators, on the one hand, and Vallabhadeva and Sthiradeva, on the other. It seems, therefore, that the South Indian text-tradition was not uniform. The commentators of [Malabar] preserve, as aganist [Sarasvatitirtha] and [Mallinatha], a text comparatively free from conflation. It should be noted that most Telugu and Grantha manuscripts either include [Mallinatha's] commentary or generally follow his text. [Mallinath's] commentary has been printed much earlier and more oftern in India than any other; and for a time it practically standardised the text of [Kalidasa's] peom. It was first printed (in lithograph) at Benares in 1849, then at Calcutta (Madan Mohan Tarkalamkar) in 1850, at Madras (in Telugu characters) in 1859, and at Bombay (Krishna Shastri Bhatavadekar) in 1866. In 1869 Iswar Chandra Vidyasagar brought out at Calcutta a careful edition of the text with [Mallinatha's] commentary in [Devanagari] characters. He utilised the Benares, Calcutta and Bombay editions, as well as a manuscript from the Calcutta Sanskrit College, and gave extracts from some Bengal commentaries. His three source-texts and manuscrit contained respectively 121, 118, 125 and 116 stanzas; but even with such meagre and uncertain material, it is remarkable that he had the critical acumen to declare that only 110 stanzas were genuine. Other later and noteworthy editoions of the text with [Mallinatha's] commentary are those of V.S. Islampurkar (Bombay 1889), which gives extracts from six commentaries; of G.R. Nandargikar (Bombay 1894), which is valuable for having utilsied a large number of manuscripts of the text and commentaries; and of K.B.Pathak (Poona 1894), which gives Jinasena's text. BENGAL COMMENTATORS: [Sanatana Gosvamin] [Sanatana Gosvamin] was an older contemporary and disciple of [Caitanya], the founder of Bengal Vaisnavism. His commentary, entitled [Tatparya-dipika],was edited from three manuscripts and published by J.B. Chaudhuri (Calcutta 1953-54). [Sanatana], son of [Kumara] and brother of the equally famous [Rupa Gosvamin], was originally a high official at the Muhammadan Court of Gauda, and lived nearby at [Ramakeli] where he met [Caitanya] for the first time in about 1513 A.D. Soon after this he renouncedthe world under the [Samnyasa] name of [Sanatana] given by [Caitanya], and became in subsequent years the centre (along with Rupa and his nephew Jiva) of the arduous and prolonged theological and literary activity of the Bengal Vaisnava sect at [Vrndavana]. The most flourishing period of [Sanatana's] literary activity falls between 1533 and 1554 A.D., but it probably began as early as 1495 A.D. His commentary on [Meghaduta], which contains no [Namaskriya] to [Caitanya], was written probably in the latter part of the 15th century before he relinquished secular activity and began his theological labours at [Vrndavana]. The portaion of this commentary on stanzas occurring in the Uttara-megha is extremely meagre, because the author, taking them to be easy (sugamam), did not care to explain them. As a commentary it is lucid, but hardly distingished. The total number of stanzas included in the text is 115. [Kalyanamalla] The [Malati] commentary of [Kalyanamalla] is not yet printed, but it is available in the comparatively modern Colebrooke manuscript (no.3774/1584; also in no.3777/529) existing in the India Office Library and its copy in the Bodleian the Meghaduta was based. [Kalyanamalla], son of [Gajamalla] and grandson of of [Karpura] of Padmabandhu family, appears to have been a local chief of [Bhuri'srestha] and is styled [Rajarsi] in the colophon. [Bhuri'srestha], also mentioned by [Krsna-Mi'sra] in his [Pradodha-candrodaya], is now identified with the once flourishing Bhursut Pergunna in the district of Burdwan, Bengal. he was a Patron of the well-known scholiast Bharat-mallika, who also commented on the [Meghaduta]; but [Kalyanamalla's] work, perhaps written independently, has no agreement with that of his [Prot'eg'e]. it is a briefer and much easier commentary meant perhaps for beginners. The total number of stanzas commented upon is 115. [Bharata-mallika] The [Subodha] commentary of Bharata-mallika on teh [Meghaduta] was edited by J.B.Chaudhuri from four manuscripts and published at Calcutta in 1951. [Bharata-mallika], otherwise [Bharata-sena], son of [Gauranga-mallika] and descended from the family of Vaidya Harihara Khan, was a Bengali Vaidya or Physician by caste, who was patronised by [Kalyanamalla] mentioned above. He was a voluminous scholiast, who composed commentaries also upon [Raghu o, Kumara o, Kirata o, 'Si'su o, Ghatakarpara Kavya and Bhatti] and wrote extensively on grammar and lexicon. The number of his works listed in various catalogues of manuscripts or published is about 17. The date of his commentary on the [Meghaduta] is uncertain. Its editor would assign it to 1675-76 A.D.; but we are inclined to agree with Colebrooke and Rajendralal Mitra that Bharata-mallika flourished in the middle of the 18th century A.D. Even if this commentary on [Meghaduta] is comparatively recent in date, it is remarkably full erudite, though sometimes unnecessarily subtle and pedantic, and shows familiarity with the works of previous commentators. The number of stanzas it commentsupon is 114. [Ramanatha Tarkalamkara] [Ramanatha's] commentary, entitled [Muktavali], yet unprinted, is included in the Colebrooke manuscripts of the India Office mentioned above (no.3774/1584). Nothing is known about the author or his date, but he appears to have been a comparatively modern writer. There is nothing remarkable in his commentary, except his knowledge of rhetoric, lexicon and grammar; but his text gives a total of 116 stanzas. Haragovinda Vacaspati Haragovinda, son of [Vankaviharin] [Gangopadhyaya] of Krishnanagar (Bengal), is also a modern commentator, perhaps of still later date. His hardly remarkable commentary is included in the Colebrooke manuscripts of the India Office mentioned above, and is not yet printed. Nothing is known of the author; but Keith would identify him with Haragovinda [Vacaspati], author of [Jnapakavali], which belongs to the [Samksipta-sara] school of grammar. The name of Haragovinda's commentary on the [Meghaduta]does not appear in the India Office manuscript, but it is given as [Samgata] in the manuscript which Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar used for his edition. The total number of stanzas it comments upon is 115. No information is available about this commentator. We could not obtain a copy of his [Artha-bodhini] commentary printed in Bengali characters (with a Bengali translation) at Calcutta in 1850; but we have seen the Calcutta Asiatic Society's manuscriptof this commentary (no. 4956/10802) written in Bengali characters, as well as Bengali manuscript of the same in the Dacca University library. There is nothing striking in this commentary, but its text has a total of 115 stanzas. It is noteworthy that the number of stanzas in the text commented upon by the Bengal commentators is between 114 and 116, usually 115. SOME OTHER EASTERN COMMENTATORS: ['Sa'svata] The only available manuscript of ['Sa'svata's] commentary, entitled [kavi-priya] exists in Asiatic Society's library at Calcutta (No.4953/5646). It is fragmentary and is wanting in many folios. These fragments have been edited by J.B. Chaudhuri (Calcutta 1953), along with his edition of [Sanatana's] [Tatparya-dipika]. The manuscript bears the date in [Nevari] era 540(=ca. 1330 A.D.). ['Sa'svata], therefore, must have been a fairly old writer; but the [Nevari] script of the manuscripts may be takenas going against the presumption,which is sometimes made, that ['Sa'svata] belonged to Bengal. The second introductory verse of his commentary, quoted by Rajendralal Mitra from a manuscript of the same in [Devanagari] characters, speaks of [Vallabha's]commentary as weighty and authoritative; and in many cases ['Sa'svata's] readings do not agree with those of Bengal commentators. Even if ['Sa'svata's] exact provenance is not known, it is probable that the belonged to some region in Eastern India. ['Sa'svata's] text contained 115 stanzas. [Divakara Upadhyaya] The commentary of [Divakara], entitled [Tika] or [Dyptika], noticed in the [Mithila] catalogue, is available in the India Office manuscript Np. 3780/1516. He was a [Prot'eg'e] of some king of [Mithila] and wrote (according to Nandargikar] his commentary on [Raghu o] in 1385 A.D. He commented also upon [Kumara o]. His text of [Meghaduta] contained 125 stnazas. Jagaddhara Another [Maithili] scholiast is Jagaddhara, who gives an account of himself and his family in his well-known commentary on the [Malati-madhava]. He traces his genealogy to one [Cande'svara], and informs us that he was the son of [Ratnadhara] and [Damayanti] and grandson of [Vidyadhara]. His ancestors were [Mimamsakas], except perhaps his father who was a judicial functionary to some local chief. Jagaddhara's commentary on the [Meghaduta] is entitled [Rasa-dipika], as it is known from Rajendrala Mitra's ntoice (v, p.287, no. 1966) of a manuscript in [Maithili] characters; but no manuscript is known to be available now in any library. Jagaddhara commented also upon [Kumara o], as well as upon [Vasavadatta], [Veni-samhara] [Sarasvati-kanthabharana], [Bhagavad-gita], etc. According to R.G. Bhandarkar, "Jagaddhara lived after the fourteenth century, but how long after we have not the means of determining". [Bhagiratha Mi'sra] The exact provenance of the [Tattva-dipika] commentary of [Bhagiratha Mi'sra] is not known. He is descibed as the son of Harsadeva of the [Pitamundi] family and as having lived under Jagaccandra of [Kurmacala]. But the only two known manuscripts of this commentary are found in Bengal and written in Bengali characters. Bhagiratha commented also upon [Raghu o,Kirata o, 'Si'supala o] and [Naisadha]. His text of the [Meghaduta] contained 114 stanzas. Dinakara Mi'sra Of similarly unknown date and provenance is Dinakara Mi'sra, son of Dharmangada and [Kamala]. he wrote a [Tika] on the [Meghaduta], of which a manuscript exists in Baroda Oriental Institute (no. 11364). His [Subodhini] commentary on teh [raghu-vam'sa] is better known and is utlised by S.P. Pandit and G.R. nandargikar. A manuscript of this (Raghu o) commentary in the Bhadarkar Insitute (no. 444 of 1887-91) is dated Samvat 1441(=ca. 1385 A.D.). He commented also on the ['Si'supala o). Makaranda Mi'sra Makaranda Mi'sra, who is sometimes taken to be another Bengal commentator, Probably live (like 'Sa'svata) in a region adjoining Bengal. The only known manuscript of his commentary, entitled [Megha-saudamini], in [Devanagari] cahracters, exists in the library of the Asiatic Society, Calcutta (no. 4955/1076). The total number of stanzas given by his text is 118, which is somewhat in excess of the usual number given by Bengal commentators. WEST INDIAN COMMENTATORS: [Caritravardhana] Of the West Indian Commentators, who are mostly Jaina writers, [Caritravardhana] is perhaps the best known and earliest. He is to be distinguished a from [Vidyadhara], son of [Ramcandra Bhisaj]. He was a pupil of [Kalyanaraja] and belonged to the Kharataragaccha. He wrote commentaries also on the [Raghu o and Kumara o], as well as on ['Si'supala o, Naisadha and Raghavapandaviya]. His commetary on the [Meghaduta] has been published in the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series (Benares 1931; reprinted 1953) under the descriptive name [Caritravardhani]. In the Calcutta Asiatic Society's manuscript of the commentary (no.4954/10070), dated Samvat 1643 (=ca.1587 A.D.), many folios are missing. The only recorded complete manuscript appears to be the Bhandarkar Institude MS no. 345 of 1895-98. The name of the commentary does not appear in these manuscripts, but [Caritravardhana's] commentaries on [Raghu o and Kumara o] are both entitled ['Si'su-hitaisini] [Caritravardhana] refers to [Daksinavarta-natha], but he does not accept the Malabar tradition of the text. G.R. Nandargikar would place him before [Divakara Upadhyaya] (see above) whose commentary on [Raghu o] is dated 1385 A.D. P.K. Gode agrees with Nandargikar's dating, but sets the upper limit at 1172A.D. A more precise dating is possible by the fact that [Caritravardhana] wrote his commentary on the Jaina poem [Sinduraprakara] in Sa,vat 1505 (=1449 A.D.) and on Naisadha in Samvat 1511 (=1455 A.D.). The Jaina tradition of the text, embodied in this and the following commentaries, goes even further than that found in the adaptation of Jinasena, who includes nine spurious stanzas, but excludes ten, giving a total number of 120. [Caritravardhana] admits as many as eleven spurious stanzas, and omits only eight. Thus, the total number of stanzas in his printed text is 122; but the BORI Ms gives 118. It would appear that, whatever may be the intrinsic value, the Jaina commentaries followed a faulty tradition of a much interpolated text. [Janardana] [Janardana] is described as a pupil of Ananta. A manuscript of his [Tika] on the [Meghaduta] exits in the Baroda Oriental Institute Library (No. 2176). He commented also upon the [Raghu o],as well as on the [Vrtha-ratnakara] and [Kavya-Praka'sa]. His full name is given as [Janardana Vyasa]; and he may or may not have been a Jaina writer. He refers to three previous commentators by name, [Vallabha], [Asaha] or [Sthiradeva],-of whom [Asada] or [Asaha] is the only writer known as a Jaina. P.K. Gode approximates [janardana's] date between 1192 and 1385 A.D. His text contained 126 stanzas; and in this numbering he agrees with those of most Jaina commentators. [Kanakakirti-gani] [Kanakakirti], pupil of Jayamandira, who was a pupil of [Jinacandra Suri], of [Kharatara-gaccha], wrote an [Avacuri] on the [Meghaduta]. It appears to have been printed in lithograph from Benares in 1867. The British Museum manuscript of this commentary (No. 224/Or.21456) is found dated in 1462 A.D., but the Leipzig University manuscript (No. 416) contains no date. It is thus a fairly old work. The number of stanzas commented upon is 125 (as given by the Leipzig MS). [Laksminivasa]. The ['Sisya-hitaisini]commentary of [Laksminivasa], son of ['Sriranga] and pupil of Ratnaprabha [Suri] of [Brhad-gaccha], is another early Jaina commentary. The Bhandarkar Institute manuscript (No.344 of 1895-98) of this commentary was written in Samvat 1713 (=ca. 1657 A.D.); but the Berlin Manuscript no. 1545 is dated earlier in Samvat 1514 (=ca.1404 A.D.). It is a commentary of not much intrinsic value, and the total number of stanzas given by its text is 126 (Berlin MS 125). [Megharaja]. [Megharaja-gani] or [Megharaja-sadhu] wrote teh [Subodhika] or [Sukha-bodhika] commentary, a manuscript of which in the Bhandarkar Institute (no. 390 of 1884-87) is dated in Samvat 1460 (=ca. 1404 A.D.). P.K. Gode could place thsi commentary between 1172 and 1404 A.D. The total number os stanzas it comments upon is 127. [Mahimasimha-gani] The commentary of [Mahimasimha-gani], pupil of ['Sivanidhana] of Kharataragaccha, is also called [Sukha-bodhika]. It was composed, as the colophon of one of its manuscripts in the Bhandarkar Institute (no.389 of 1884-87) states, in Samvat 1693(=ca. 1637 A.D.). It is fairly late commentary and is in no way very remarkable. The number of stanzas in its text is 126. [Samayasundara-gani] Contemporanceous with Mahimasimha was Samayasundara-gani, pupil of Sakalacandra, who was a pupil of Jinacandra. His commentary on the [Meghaduta] is simply called [Tika]. He wrote commentaries also on teh [Raghu o](Arthalapanika), and [Vrtha-ratnakara](Sugama). His [Vagbhatalamkara-vrtti] was compose din Ahmedabad for one [Harirama] in 1636 A.D. The only manuscript of his commentary on the [Meghaduta] exits in the panjab University library (no. 4513, Catalogue,ii, p.262). Unfortunately the manuscript was not accessible to us. [Sumativijaya] Sumativijaya, pupil of Vinayameru, wrote about the same time his [Sugamanavaya] commentary, two manuscripts of which exist in the Bhandarkar Institute. P.K. Gode would place Sumativijaya in the latter half of the 17th century, while K.S. Pathak (op.cit.,p.xxi) states that Sumativijaya wrote his commentary at about Samvat 1690(=ca. 1634 A.D.). Sumativijaya composed a commentary also on the [Raghu o], which was completed at Vikramapura. The merit of his [Sugamanvaya] as a commentary is not much; but like [Janardana], [Laksmihicasa] and [Mahimasimha], he comments on a text of 126 stanzas. [Vijaya-Suri]. [Vijaya-gani] or [suri's] [Tika] (also Sukha-bodhika) was composed in Samvat 1709 (=ca. 1653 A.D.), as stated in its manuscript in the Bhandarkar Institute (no. 443 of 1887 of 1887-91). [Vijaya Suri] is said to have been a pupil of [Rama-vijaya-gani] of [Tapagaccha]. He commented also upon the [Raghu o] and [Kumara o](both called Subodhika). [Vijaya Suri] text of the [Meghaduta], like that of [Megharaja], contained 127 stanzas. [Ksemahamsa-gani]. [Ksemahamsa-gani], pupil of Jinabhadra [Suri] of [Kharatara-gaccha], wrote a [Tika] on the [Meghaduta], the date of which is not given by either of its two manuscripts in the Bhandarkar Institute (nos. 329 of 1884-86 and 346 of 1895-98). He wrote commentaries also on teh [Vaghatalamkara] and [Vrtta-ratnakara]. His text contained 123 stanzas. [The Saroddharini] This is probably a Jaina commentary, but in its only available manuuscript, belonging to the Bhandarkar Institute (no. 157 of 1882-83). the name of the author is missing. The manuscript is dated Samvat 1617 (=ca. 1561). P.K.Gode would place this work widely between 1173 and 1561 A.D. K.B. Pathak, however, thinks that this commentary knows that of [Mallinatha]; if that be so,then the date may be put between 1420 and 1561. In Pathak's opinion this work is "next only to [Mallinatha's] work in point of merit", but its importance need not on that account be exaggerated from the point of view of the textual study of the poem; fo r, in common with most Jaina commentators, it accepts a much interpolated text, which gives a total number of 125 stanzas. [The Meghalata] This is also a Jaina commentary of unknown date and authorship, which was notices by [Rajendralal Mitra](ix,p.163, no.3076) and of which a manuscript exists in the Bhandarkar Institute (no. 160 of 1882-83). It is of the usual [Avacuri] type and its text gives 126 stanzas. It will be seen from thsi brief review that from the time of jinasena (first quarter of the ninth century) the Jaina tradition, represented by these commentaries, incorporates so many spurious stanzas that their total number fluctuates between 125 and 127, much further than 120 of Jinasena. This is a much more conflated text than those given by Vallabhadeva and Sthiradeva, by the Malabar commentators, by the Bengal and East Indian scholiasts, or by the Tibetan translation and the Sinhalese paraphrase. It is important, in the case of the [Meghaduta], to take into account the text given by different groups of commentators. If appears from an examination of manuscripts that the commentaries had already so fixed the different text-tradition that they found themselves reflected in the independant manuscripts of different groups or regions. This peculiar circumstance of text-transmission makes it clear that, not so much the existing manuscripts (which are mostly later in date) as teh commentaries should be taken as our chief guide for textual study. Only if some old manuscript, anterior in date to the commentaries, could be found, it might furnish textual evidence unaffected by their influence. It is not possible within the limits of this short account to discuss the authenticity of readings given by different groups of commentaries; but we can briefly indicate here the comparative extent of the original text given by them. The shortest text, consisting of 110 stanzas, is given by the Malabar commentators, [Daksinavarta-natha], [Purnasarasvati] and {parame'svara]. The kashmirian Vallabhadeva and Sthiradeva of unknown provenance give a text of 111 stanzas each. Among other South Indian cmmentators generally and Bengal commentators in particular, [Sanatana] [Gosvamin], ['Sa'svata], [Kalyanamalla], [Kaviratna] [Cakravartin] and [Haragovinda] [Vacaspati] each gives 115 stanzas; [Ramanatha] [Tarkalamkara] 116; Makaranda [Mi'sra] 118; but [Bhagiratha] [Mi'sra] and Bharatamallika 114 each. The Maithili commentator [Divakara] Upadhyaya], however, stands apart and gives 125 stanzas. It should be noted in this connexion that the Tibetan translation gives 117 and the Sinhalese paraphrase 118 stanzas. The longest and most interpolated text is given by the Jaina commentators, thus: Vijaya [Suri] and [Megharaja], each 127 stanzas; [Janardana], [Laksminivasa], Sumativijaya, Mahimasimha, the [Meghalata], each 126; Kanakakirti, as well as the two Jaina adaptations [Nemiduta] and ['Siladuta], and the [Saroddharini], each 125; Ksemahamsa 123; [Caritravardhana]122; and the adaptation of Jinasena 120. From these facts it is clear that, in spite of diversity, there is a general agreement in the matterof extent between the text of the Malabar commentators, on the one hand, and that of Kashmirian Vallabhadeva, as well as Sthiradeva, on the other. As there is no [Prima facie] possibility of mutual contamination, we can take this agreement as original and not secondary; and it is probable that [Kalidasa's] text originally contained not more than 110 or 111 stanzas. This number was increased by a process of accretion, through the centuries, diffeently in different regions, so that some inferior manuscripts are found to contain the maximum fo 130 stanzas. \