halayudh’s abhidhanaratnamala

The author has prepared the text of this rare and valuable book painstakingly. Notwithstanding all these materials, the editor has found it not always possible to constitute a text free from faults; far less to give a correct and uniform orthography. In many cases he has been obliged to have recourse to the Koshas of Amara and Hemacandra and their commentaries, in order to remove palpable blunders. The notes, and to some extent the glossary, point out all the passages in which afurther collation of new Mss is desirable. He has much felt, throughout, the want of a commentary; but though at least one is cited in the marginal notes to the Oxford Mss. Of the commentary on the Abhidanacintamani, yet none appears to be in existence. There is, however, an intimate connexion between the Abhidhanaratnamala and the Abhidhanacintamani, beyond the mere name. Not only do whole verses agree with one another, and differ from Amara, but there is also in both an identity of tetrastichs, and this to an extent which cannot be explained by the supposition that both have borrowed from the same source. Again, we find that both attribute to many words the same gender in opposition to the Amarakosha. But if we are called on to determine the relative priority of Halayudha and Hemacandra, we must be guided in our decision by the following circumstances. Halayudha’s vocabulary is not only less copious, but his style is much simpler, and his explanations enter more into detail. In compiling the glossary, he has constantly consulted the commentaries of Kswrasvamin and Eayamukuta on Amara, which form the only valuable basis of all later scholiasts.