365bet娱乐

The subject matter in 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补 presented some points of interest. The first few folios contain explanations on 迟腻濒补 accompanied by a commentary in Telugu. A few folios later subjects like svara, 苍腻诲补, 谤腻驳补, 艣谤耻迟颈 etc. appear without any commentary. A few folios later, there is a detailed discussion on rasa with a commentary in 蝉补峁僺办峁泃补. Still later, there is a repetition of the subject of 迟腻濒补 with a telugu commentary etc. Through the entire manuscript it can be observed that there is a criss-crossing of subjects. This pattern of shifting of subject, the presence/absence of commentaries and so on pointed towards the possibility of there being more than one work in this manuscript. 

On closer observation, colophons of 搁腻尘腻尘腻迟测补 and 笔谤补迟腻辫补 Jagadekamalla were found. On comparison of a portions of this manuscript with that of 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘 (R7979), it was found that there was a perfect match. Apart from these, there is portion of text, scattered here and there, which bears no colophon or other details of either title or author. Therefore it can be concluded this is a codex in which portions of the works 厂惫补谤补尘别濒补办补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈, 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄 and 罢腻濒补lak峁�ana are present. Each of these is discussed below.

1 厂惫补谤补尘别濒补办补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈

厂惫补谤补尘别濒补办补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈 is a medieval 濒补办峁�a峁嘺驳谤补苍迟丑补 on music, composed by 搁腻尘腻尘腻迟测补 in the year 1550 C.E. The entire text of 厂惫补谤补尘别濒补办补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈 is available in 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m approximately from Folio no. 47 to 65. Some folios, especially in the beginning and end do not have numbers on them. But the text, on comparison with the printed edition, is complete.

S.No	Name of chapter / 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺	Folio numbers鈥�叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m
i.	Upodgh膩ta-辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺	77
ii.	Svara-辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺	50b to 54a
iii.	V墨峁嚹�-辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺	54 a to 58b
iv.	Mela-辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺	NA
v.	R膩ga-辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺	NA

Relevant colophons are also found at the end of the chapters. For instance, 

啶囙い啶� 啶多�嵿ぐ啷�啶�啶︵き啶苦え啶掂き啶班い啶距�氞ぞ啶班�嵿く啶掂ぞ啶椸�堗く啶曕ぞ啶班い啷嬥ぃ啷嵿ぁ啶班ぎ啶侧�嵿�� 啶む�傕ぎ啷嵿ぎ啷� / 啶�啷嵿ぎ啶距い啷嵿く啶ㄠえ啷嵿う啶� 啶班ぞ啶�啶距ぎ啶距い啷嵿�� 啶ㄠた啶班�嵿ぎ啶苦い啷� 啶膏�嵿さ啶班ぎ啷囙げ啶曕げ啶距え啶苦ぇ啷� 啶掂��啶｀ぞ 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぐ啶｀�� 啶む�冟い啷�啶�啶�啷� 啷�

iti 艣r墨madabhinavabharat膩c膩ryav膩gaiyak膩rato峁囜笉aramalla ta峁僲m奴 / mm膩tyanandana r膩m膩m膩tya nirmite svaramelakal膩nidhau 惫墨峁嚹� 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺峁� t峁泃墨yam |

Note: The reading in the printed edition of 厂惫补谤补尘别濒补办补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈 (1932: p. 20) is鈥�

啶囙い啶� 啶多�嵿ぐ啷�啶�啶︵き啶苦え啶掂き啶班い啶距�氞ぞ啶班�嵿く啶掂ぞ啶椸�嵿�椸�囙く啶曕ぞ啶班い啷嬥ぁ啶班ぎ啶侧�嵿��-啶むた啶�啷嵿ぎ啶距ぎ啶距い啷嵿く啶ㄠえ啷嵿う啶ㄠぐ啶距ぎ啶距ぎ啶距い啷嵿く啶ㄠた啶班�嵿ぎ啶苦い啷� 啶膏�嵿さ啶班ぎ啷囙げ啶曕げ啶距え啶苦ぇ啷� 啶掂��啶｀ぞ 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕ぐ啶｀�� 啶む�冟い啷�啶�啶� 啶膏�傕お啷傕ぐ啷嵿ぃ啶�啷� 啷�

iti 艣r墨madabhinavabharat膩c膩ryav膩ggeyak膩rato岣峚ramalla-timm膩m膩tyanandanar膩m膩m膩tyanirmite svaramelakal膩nidhau 惫墨峁嚹� 辫谤补办补谤补峁嘺峁� 迟峁泃墨测补峁� sa峁僷奴r峁嘺m |

2 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘

罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘 is a work on the 罢腻濒补诲补艣补辫谤腻峁嘺蝉, composed by 础肠测耻迟补谤腻测补 between 1530 and 1543 C.E. This work is attributed to Kohala according to an introductory passage after the 尘补峁単补濒腻肠补谤补峁嘺 艣濒辞办补. But internal evidences in the text prove that the actual author of 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘 is King 础肠测耻迟补谤腻测补, who was the brother of K峁涐梗峁嘺devar膩ya. This has been discussed in detail in para 4.3. 

The complete textual matter of 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺 is found in the manuscript of 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m, though some folios seem to be missing. The text (both 尘奴濒补 as well as the commentary) matches with that of R7979 and has all the relevant diagrams also. 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘 is spread over the entire manuscript of 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m, albeit in a state of disarray. It ranges approximately between the 65th and 250th folios. Around twenty folios of 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘 seem to be missing. Further, the page numbers for many folios are not available, which makes it all the more confusing. Sections of 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘 are interspersed with portions of 厂惫补谤补尘别濒补办补濒腻苍颈诲丑颈, 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄, and other unknown work(s), here and there.

3 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄  

This is a 濒补办峁�a峁嘺驳谤补苍迟丑补 written by Kavicakravarti 笔谤补迟腻辫补 Jagadekamalla in the 12th century C.E. Jagadeka was the son of 厂辞尘别艣惫补谤补鈥攖he author of Abhila峁�it膩rtha cint膩ma峁噄 and ruled over Kaly膩峁� between 1138 and 1150 C.E. 

A printed edition of this work by D. K. Velankar Shastri is currently available. This edition was made from a single manuscript. The editor mentions the fact that much material of the work 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄 was not available to him at the time of editing the text. He has given as footnotes many quotations of 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄 (which were not available in his manuscript) which appear under the name of Jagadeka in 叠丑补谤补迟补办辞艣补 of M. R. Kavi. In addition manuscripts of this work are available at the Oriental Research Institute, Mysore. One of these manuscripts (P-5081, ORI Mys) does share some common material with the printed edition, but on the other hand also deals in a much more extensive manner on the subject of 谤腻驳补s etc. All these go to show that the work 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄 is a very large one, only a small portion of which is available to us today. 

The printed edition of 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄 discusses aspects like svara, 苍腻诲补, prabandha, 谤腻驳补, 惫腻诲测补, 迟腻濒补, 迟腻濒补-辫谤腻峁嘺蝉 like 尘腻谤驳补, graha, laya, 辫谤补蝉迟腻谤补 etc. The editor mentions that chapters like prabandh膩dhy膩ya, r膩g膩dhy膩ya and 惫腻诲测腻诲丑测补测补 are not complete. He also says that the 苍峁泃测腻诲丑测腻测补 is completely unavailable (鈥�狈峁泃测腻诲丑测腻测补岣� 蝉补谤惫补迟丑腻 苍腻蝉迟颈鈥�^[1]). Most of the available information is in the 迟腻濒腻诲丑测腻测补. The editor provides quotations of Jagadekamalla, which are not available in the concerned manuscript used by him, but given by Ramakrishna Kavi in his 叠丑补谤补迟补办辞艣补, in the form of footnotes.

There is a portion dealing with 苍峁泃测补 in the manuscript of 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m between Fol. No 176-188. The following colophon is seen in Folio No. 188b:

啶囙い啶� 啶多�嵿ぐ啷� 啶�啶灌ぞ啶班ぞ啶溹ぞ啶оた啶班ぞ啶� 啶多�嵿ぐ啷�啶�啶む�嵿お啷嵿ぐ啶むぞ啶�啶氞�曕�嵿ぐ啶掂ぐ啷嵿い啶� 啶溹�椸う啷囙�曕ぎ啶侧�嵿げ啶掂た啶班�氞た啶む�� 啶膏�權�嵿�椸��啶む�氞�傕ぁ啶距ぎ啶｀�� 啶ㄠ�冟い啷嵿く啶оた啶曕ぐ啶｀�� 啶膏ぎ啶距お啷嵿い啶�啷� 啷�

iti 艣r墨 尘补丑腻谤腻箩腻诲丑颈谤腻箩补 艣r墨matprat膩pacakravarti jagadekamallaviracite sa峁単墨tac奴岣嵞乵a峁嘺u 苍峁泃测补dhikara峁嘺峁� sam膩ptam || 

Here, Jagadeka calls the chapter 狈峁泃测补诲丑颈办补谤补峁嘺尘, whereas in the printed edition, the chapters are called 补诲丑测腻测补蝉. In this chapter the following subjects are dealt with.

1. Recaka,
2. 108 碍补谤补峁嘺蝉,
3. Recakai,
4. 础峁単补丑腻谤补,
5. 础帽肠颈迟补,
6. 狈峁泃测补辫谤补艣补尘蝉腻,
7. 厂补产丑补辫补迟颈濒补办峁�a峁嘺,
8. 厂补产丑测补-濒补办峁�a峁嘺,
9. 厂补产丑腻-濒补办峁�a峁嘺,
10. 骋腻测补办补-濒补办峁�a峁嘺,
11. 痴腻诲测补-濒补办峁�a峁嘺,
12. 狈补谤迟补办补-濒补办峁�a峁嘺,

As mentioned above, this chapter on dance contains the colophon attributing this to 笔谤补迟腻辫补. In addition, there are occasional references to King 笔谤补迟腻辫补 within the chapter also. 

For instance, in Fol. No. 181a, the following verse occurs鈥�

啶忇さ啶�啶粪�嵿�熰�嬥い啷嵿い啶班�� 啶膏�嵿お啶粪�嵿�熰�� 啶曕ぐ啶｀え啶距�� 啶多い 啶曕�嵿ぐ啶�啶距い啷� 啷�
啶膏ぎ啷佮う啷嵿う啶苦し啷嵿�� 啶�啶ム�� 啶多ぞ啶膏�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むぞ啶�啶�啷冟ぅ啶苦さ啷�啶�啷佮�溹ぞ 啷�

别惫补尘补峁ａ弓辞迟迟补谤补峁� 蝉辫补峁ａ弓补峁� 办补谤补峁嘺苍腻峁� 艣补迟补 kram膩t |
samuddi峁ａ弓a yath膩 艣膩stra峁� prat膩pap峁泃hiv墨bhuj膩 || 

These evidences make it amply clear that this section of the manuscript of 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m definitely belongs to the work 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄 of 笔谤补迟腻辫补 Jagadekamalla. A noteworthy point at this juncture is that, this 狈峁泃测腻诲丑测腻测补 which was hitherto unavailable to the editor of this work, is available in the manuscript of 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m. M. R. Kavi, in the introduction of this work 叠丑补谤补迟补办辞艣补, does mention that he has access to the dance chapter of 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄. But surprisingly, no quotations from this chapter find place in 叠丑补谤补迟补办辞艣补. The manuscript (P-5081) from the Oriental Research Institute, Mysore also does not have the chapter on dance. From that perspective, this manuscript鈥數�丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m assumes much significance.

4 Unknown Work(s)

The rest of the available textual material does not bear any colophon, or details of the name of the author, title of the work etc. Moreover, it is not clear whether this entire material belongs to one work or many.

There is one section of text that extends approximately between the Folio no. 30 and 40, another set between folio no. 247 and 252, and several un-numbered folios (Folio numbers are approximated due to many damaged/missing folios). Some folio numbers are missing/ eaten/ damaged due to which the exact numbers and the order of the original text is difficult to make out. Moreover, of the supposed 350 foilos in the manuscript of 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m, only 230 are available now. Therefore the material pertaining to more than 100 folios is missing. This could very well constitute an entire work or even parts of two. 

However, there is one folio which seems to hold some indications as to the nature of the unidentified work. 

Some of the readings are presented below:

(啷�) 啶掂た啶粪�嵿ぃ啷佮�� 啶侧�嬥�曕�椸�佮ぐ啷佮�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶｀ぎ啷嵿�� 啶多た啶班じ啶� 啶膏え啷嵿ぎ啶距ぐ啷嵿�� 啶膏え啷嵿う啶班�嵿ざ啶曕ぎ啷� 啷�
啶曕��啶班�嵿い啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啷�啶むた啶曕ぐ啶� 啶溹え啶膏�嵿�� 啶侧�樴�佮え啶� 啶曕ぞ啶侧�囙�� 啶曕ぞ啶�啶�啷嵿ぐ啶︵ぎ啷� 啷�
啶膏�囙さ啷嵿く啶� 啶膏う啷嵿く啶むた啶�啶苦�� 啶о�冟��-啶�啷嵿げ啷佮��-啶ㄠ�嵿く啶距じ啶距い啷嵿い啶侧�嬥�曕い啷嵿ぐ啶�啶�啷� 啷�
啶むぞ啶侧ぞ啶ㄠぞ啶� 啶曕ぅ啶�啶距ぎ啶� 啶侧�曕�嵿し啶｀ぎ啶灌�� 啶�啷傕ぐ啷嵿さ啷嬥�曕�嵿�� 啶多ぞ啶膏�嵿い啷嵿�� 啶曕�嵿ぐ啶�啶距い啷� 啷� 啶囙い啶� 啶曕�嬥す啶� 啶掂う啶ㄠぎ啷�

(1) 惫颈峁ａ箛耻峁� 濒辞办补驳耻谤耻峁� pra峁嘺mya 艣iras膩 san尘腻谤驳补 sandar艣akam |
办墨谤迟颈 辫谤墨迟颈办补谤补峁� janasya laghun膩 k膩lena k膩mapradam |
蝉别惫测补峁� 蝉补诲测补迟颈产丑颈岣� 诲丑峁泃补-pluta-ny膩s膩ttalokatrayam |
t膩l膩n膩峁� kathay膩mi lak峁�a峁嘺maha峁� p奴rvokta 艣膩stra kram膩t || iti kohala vadanam

(啷�) 啶膏う啶距ざ啶苦さ啶� 啶多た啶班�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶灌�嵿ぎ 啶�啶班い啶� 啶曕ぞ啶膏�嵿く啶�啷� 啶�啷佮え啶苦�� 啷�
啶�啶む�權�嵿�椸�� 啶�啶距し啷嵿�熰た啶曕�� 啶︵�佮ぐ啷嵿�椸ぞ啶多�曕�嵿い啶苦�� 啶多ぞ啶班�嵿う啷傕げ啶曕�嬥す啶侧ぞ 啷�
啶掂た啶多ぞ啶栢た啶侧�� 啶︵い啷嵿い啶苦げ啶多�嵿�� 啶曕ぎ啷嵿が啶侧じ啷嵿く 啶むげ啶膏�嵿い鈥�
鈥斷く啷佮ぐ啷嵿さ啶库�斷じ啷� 啶班�傕き啶距ぐ啷嵿�溹�佮え啶膏�嵿い啷佮ぎ啷嵿が啷佮ぐ啷� 啶ㄠぞ啶班う啷�
啶嗋�炧�嵿�溹え啷囙く啶距ぎ啶距い啷冟�椸�佮お啷嵿い啷� 啶班ぞ啶掂ぃ啷� 啶ㄠえ啷嵿う啶苦�曕�囙ざ啷嵿さ啶班�� 啷�
啶膏�嵿さ啶距い啶� 啶班�嵿�椸げ啷� 啶︵�囙さ啶班ぞ啶� 啶曕�嵿し啶む�嵿ぐ啶班ぞ啶溹ざ啷嵿�� 啶曕ぞ啶灌げ啶� 啷�
啶班�佮�曕�嵿ぎ啶膏�囙え啷嬥ぇ 啶�啶�啶距げ啷� 啶�啷嬥�溹�� 啶�啷傕さ啶侧�嵿げ啶�啶膏�嵿い啶ムぞ 啷�
啶忇い啷� 啶灌た 啶ㄠぞ啶熰�嵿く啶多ぞ啶膏�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啶�啷嵿ぐ啶掂�曕�嵿い啶距ぐ啷� 啶�啷佮�� 啶曕�嵿ぐ啶�啶距い啷� 啷� 啶囙い啶� 啶曕�嬥す啶� 啶掂う啶ㄠぎ啷� 啷�

(2) 蝉补诲腻艣颈惫补岣� 艣颈谤辞 brahma 产丑补谤补迟补岣� 办腻蝉测补辫辞 尘耻苍颈岣� |
mata峁単o y膩峁ａ弓iko durg膩艣akti岣� 艣膩rd奴lakohal膩 |
vi艣膩khilo dattila艣ca kambalasya talasta鈥�
鈥�yurvi鈥�su ra峁僢h膩rjunastumburu n膩radau
膩帽janey膩m膩t峁沢uptau r膩va峁噊 nandike艣vara岣� |
蝉惫腻迟颈 rgalo 诲别惫补谤腻箩补 办峁�a迟谤补谤腻箩补艣肠补 办腻丑补濒补岣� |
rukmasenodha bhap膩lo bhojo bh奴vallabhastath膩 |
ete hi 苍腻峁瓂补艣膩strapravakt膩ro yuga kram膩t || iti kohala vadanam ||

This list is found almost in the exact same form in the first chapter of 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补^[2]. The differences in readings might be attributed to scribal or other manuscript related errors. For instance, the name 办腻丑补濒补 in 叠丑补谤补迟补艣腻蝉迟谤补m reads 鈥楻膩hala鈥� in the 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补. 

The last two lines and the statement 鈥�Iti Kohala vadanam are not found in 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补. 

(啷�) 啶むぞ啶侧じ啷嵿ぅ啶� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪�嵿�犩ぞ啶�啶距ぎ啶苦い啶� 啶оぞ啶︵�嬥ぐ啷嵿�� (啶�/啶�) 啶膏�嵿ぎ啷冟い啶� 啷�
啶︵い啷嵿い啶苦げ啷囙え啶距�曕ぞ啶� 啶曕�嵿ぐ啶苦く啶距く啷嬥�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啶距ぃ啶� 啶む�嵿い啶距げ啶� 啷�
啶むげ啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪�嵿�犩ぞ啶曕ぐ啶｀く啷嬥ざ啷嵿�氞�佮ぐ啷�啶︵た 啶� 啶炧�� 啶む�嵿��(啶�) 啷�
啶むげ啷嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶粪�嵿�犩ぞ啶�啷嵿く啶ㄠ�嵿い啷� 啶ㄠ�冟い啷嵿い啶椸��啶むさ啶距う啷嵿く啶距え啷嵿く啶ㄠ�囙え啷囙��

(3) 迟腻濒补sthala prati峁ａ弓h膩y膩miti dh膩dorgha (帽补/i) sm峁泃a岣� |
dattilen膩k膩la kriy膩yo岣� 辫谤补尘腻峁嘺峁� t迟腻濒补岣� |
talaprati峁ａ弓h膩kara峁嘺yo艣cur墨di dha 帽 tta(la) |
talyante prati峁ａ弓h膩pyante n峁泃tag墨tav膩dy膩nyaneneva 

The fist line of the above is also found in the fifth chapter of 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补.^[3]

This folio appears to be the beginning of the work. It is also found in the beginning of the codex. It starts with the 苍腻苍诲墨 艣濒辞办补 (paragraph i). It is interesting that this very verse is also found in the beginning of the work titled 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘 which is also a part of this codex. Incidentally this verse also appears in the printed edition of 厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄, but the matter that follows it in the printed edition is different. The verses in paragraph (ii) give the names of early authorities on 苍腻峁瓂补 ). Since it is found completely in 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补, it could be an indication that this part is an interpolation from 艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补鈥檚 work. That would mean that this was a post-12th century work.

Next, the author moves on to define the term 迟腻濒补 (paragraph iii). 罢腻濒补 at the very beginning of the work could possibly mean that the work was one that dealt exclusively with 迟腻濒补 and its various facets. The 苍腻苍诲墨 艣濒辞办补 also reiterates this fact, as it also mentions many aspects of 迟腻濒补. Of the remaining folios we find another which appears towards the end of the manuscript.

This folio gives us the names of seven chapters that are to be explained in that work, which is an indication that it is a part of the beginning of a work too.

.............啶� 啶多ぞ啶膏�嵿い啷嵿ぐ啷� -啶� 啶班ぞ啶� 啶掂た啶掂��(啶�) 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶曕��啶班�嵿�� 啶�啷嵿ぐ啶�啶ㄠ�嵿�� 啶むぞ啶� 啶掂ぞ啶︵�嵿�� 啶ㄠ�冟い啷嵿い啶距�栢�嵿く啶距�� 啷� 啶膏お啷嵿い啶距ぇ啷嵿く啶距く啶距�� 啶むい啷嵿ぐ 啷�

.............ta 艣膩stre -ra 谤腻驳补 vive(ka) 辫谤补办墨谤峁嘺 prabandha 迟腻濒补 惫腻诲测补 n峁泃t膩khy膩岣� | sapt膩dhy膩y膩岣� tatra |

Moreover, the previous folio discussed, ends with the definition of 迟腻濒补, and the present folio starts with the same subject. However it is curious to see the list of seven chapters after definitions of a particular aspect of subject (i.e. 迟腻濒补) has been dealt with. Furthermore, 迟腻濒补 is the fifth of the seven chapters mentioned in the list. If so, why would the work begin with explanations of 迟腻濒补? 

Some authorities mentioned herein.

1. 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补;
2. 惭补迟补峁単补;
3. Kohala;
4. 叠丑补峁�峁�补濒辞濒濒补;
5. 罢谤颈艣补峁卥耻办补;
6. 叠丑补峁�峁�补苍腻测补办补;
7. Bharata;
8. Tennappanna;
9. 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补;

4.1 Some subjects dealt with in the available material:

i. Etymology of 罢腻濒补鈥擳his portion deals with the opinions of different authors regarding the etymology of the word 迟腻濒补. Many of these verses appear in other works such as 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘, 叠峁沨补诲诲别艣墨 etc. There also is a reference to the work 罢腻濒补kal膩vil膩sam in this context. Also 迟腻濒补 is defined as 鈥�诲补艣补辫谤腻峁嘺-samopetam鈥�. This would help date the present work as one post 16th century C.E., as the concept of 罢腻濒补诲补艣补辫谤腻峁嘺蝉 and works such as 罢腻濒补kal膩vil膩sam also came into vogue only around this period.

ii. 101 罢腻濒补s鈥擳he explanations of 101 迟腻濒补s is found in parts. Only those from 迟腻濒补 no. 83 (rati迟腻濒补) till 迟腻濒补 no. 101 are found. The remaining folios are missing.

iii. 狈腻诲补, 艢谤耻迟颈, Svara鈥擳he physiological origin of svaras, the distribution of the 22 艣谤耻迟颈s amongst the svaras, the names of animals corresponding to each svara and origin of 狈腻诲补 are mentioned. There are references to 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补 and 笔腻峁噄苍颈.

iv. 搁腻驳补鈥搁腻驳补峁単补, 碍谤颈测腻峁単补, 鲍辫腻峁単补. De艣墨 谤腻驳补s, Au岣峚va 谤腻驳补s 

v. Classification into Janaka-janya

vi. Grama, Sruti intervals of svara-s, 痴腻诲颈-蝉补尘惫腻诲颈, 闯腻迟颈

vii. Rasa鈥�Rasa s奴tra of Bharata, Views of authorities like 叠丑补峁�峁�补 Lolla, 叠丑补峁�峁�补 N膩yaka, Tri艣a峁卥uka, List of 痴颈产丑腻惫补, Vyabhic膩r墨bh膩va-s

viii. V墨峁嚹�

ix. S奴岣纺乨i sapta 迟腻濒补s 

x. The verse 鈥�Samyoge ca viyoge ca鈥� appears two times in unknown text and once in 罢腻濒补濒补办峁�a峁嘺尘. This is proof that this unknown text contains a minimum of two works.

xi. The following verse is quoted as the opinion of 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补.

啶掂た啶多ぞ啶栢た啶侧ぎ啶む�� 啷�
啶多た啶掂ざ啶曕�嵿い啷嵿く啶距い啷嵿ぎ啶む�� 啶�啷佮ぃ啷嵿く啶�啷� 啶�啶�-啶�啷� 啶�啷佮�曕�嵿い啶苦ぎ啷佮�曕�嵿い啶苦う啶�啷� 啷�
啶︵ざ啶�啷嵿ぐ啶距ぃ啶距い啷嵿ぎ啶曕�� 啶むぞ啶侧ぎ啷� 啶�啷� 啶溹え啶距い啶� 啶� 啶むい啷嵿さ啶掂た啶む�� 啷�

vi艣膩khilamate ||
艣iva艣akty膩tmata峁� pu峁噛am 测补艣补-m bhuktimuktidam |
da艣apr膩峁嚹乼maka峁� 迟腻濒补m yo jan膩ti sa tatvavit || 

痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补 was an ancient authority on 苍腻峁瓂补. This verse is not found in the reconstructed version of the work of 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补^[4]. Further, the 诲补艣补辫谤腻峁嘺 concept came into practice sometime around the 15-16th centuries. This raises questions on the authenticity of this work.

xii. Commentaries are found scattered in some folios. These are seen both in 蝉补峁僺办峁泃补 as well as telugu. Normally, a commentary on a work will be in a single language only. Since commentaries in 蝉补峁僺办峁泃补 and telugu are found in this codex, it is likely that there is more than one work in question in this case.

4.2 Date of the work(s)  

As discussed earlier, amongst the authorities mentioned after the 苍腻苍诲墨 艣濒辞办补 (Vi峁ａ箛um lokagurum), we find mention of King Bhoja. King Bhoja lived approximately between 1000 and 1050 C.E. This would mean that this work, at the earliest could have come into existence in the 11th century C.E. The paraphrasing of the list of 辫奴谤惫腻肠腻谤测补蝉 from 厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 would push the date of this work to sometime post-12th century C.E. 

Furthermore, the concept of 罢腻濒补诲补艣补辫谤腻峁嘺蝉 is mentioned (诲补艣补辫谤腻峁嘺-samopetam) while defining 迟腻濒补. This concept came into vogue only in the 16th century C.E. Also, there is mention of the work 罢腻濒补kal膩vil膩sam of 笔补谤补尘别艣惫补谤补 (around 15th century C.E.) which places the time of this work to be post-15th century C.E. Also, while discussing 迟腻濒补, reference to 艣奴岣纺乨颈 sapta 迟腻濒补s, which is a concept that came into practice around the 16th century C.E., is found.

An interesting feature that can be seen is that in the chapter on 谤腻驳补, there is mention of classification into 鈥�janaka-janya鈥�. It is a common belief that the janaka-janya system of classification of 谤腻驳补s came into existence only around the early 20th century C.E. But by the 20th century, works were written in paper and even the process of printing had started. Therefore it is extremely unlikely for this manuscript to have been written in this period (20th century C.E.). Further the condition of the present manuscript also indicates that it is at least 150 years old. 

On weighing the different evidences available in the material, we can surmise that this work(s) was composed in the vicinity of the 16th-17th century C.E.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

厂补峁単墨迟补肠奴岣嵞乵补峁噄: 1958: Intro: p.3

[2]:

厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍补办补谤补 of 艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补: 1943: Vol. I: V. 1.15-1.17: p.12

[3]:

厂补峁単墨迟补谤补迟苍腻办补谤补 of 艢腻谤峁単补诲别惫补: 1951: Vol. III: p.3

[4]:

痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补鈥檚 work on Music鈥擜n attempt at reconstruction: 1997