At what time the works under discussion were composed or brought into their present shape is a problem which cannot be satisfactorily solved. As, however, the reader of the present volume will naturally expect the translator to give expression to his personal conviction on this point, I give my opinion with all reserve, viz. that most parts, tracts, or treatises of which the canonical books consist, are old; that the redaction of the Angas took place at an early period (tradition places it under Bhadrabahu); that the other works of the Siddhanta were collected in course of time, probably in the first centuries before our era, and that additions or alterations may have been made in the canonical works till the time of their first edition under Devardhiganin (980 AV. = 454 A. D.)

I have based my translation of the Uttaradhyayana and Sutrakritanga on the text adopted by the oldest commentators I could consult. This text differs little from that of the MSS. and the printed editions. I had prepared a text of my own from some MSS. at my disposal, and this has served to check the printed text.

The Calcutta edition of the Uttaradhyayana (Samvat 1936 = 1879 A. D.) contains, besides a Guzerati gloss, the Sutradipika of Lakshmivallabha, pupil of Lakshmikirtiganin of the Kharatara Gakkha. Older than this commentary is the Tika of Devendra, which I have made my principal guide. It was composed in Samvat 1179 or 1123 A. D., and is confessedly an abstract from Santyakarya's Vritti, which I have not used. But I have had at my disposal an illuminated old MS. of the Avakuri, belonging to the

[paragraph continues] Strassburg University Library. This work is apparently an abstract from the Vritti of Santyakarya, as in a great many passages it almost verbally agrees with Devendra's work.

The Bombay edition of the Sutrakritanga (Samvat 1936 or 1880 A. D.) contains three commentaries: (1) Silanka's Tika, in which is incorporated Bhadrabahu's Niryukti. This is the oldest commentary extant; but it was not without predecessors, as Silanka occasionally alludes to old commentators. Silanka lived in the second half of the ninth century A. D., as he is said to have finished his commentary on the Akaranga Sutra in the Saka year 798 or 876 A. D. (2) The Dipika, an abstract from the last by Harshakula, which was composed in Samvat 1583 or 1517 AD. I have also used a MS. of the Dipika in my possession. (3) Pasakandra's Balavabodha, a Guzerati gloss.--My principal guide was, of course, Silanka; when he and Harshakula agree, I refer to them in my notes as the 'commentators;' I name Silanka when his remark in question has been omitted by Harshakula, and I quote the latter when he gives some original matter of interest. I may add that one of my MSS. is covered with marginal and interlinear glosses which have now and then given me some help in ascertaining the meaning of the text.

H. JACOBI.