^{page 537 note 1} Thus the verse abhidheyena sambandhāt (Agni. 344, 11, ed. Bibl. Ind.), which is also cited anonymously by Mammaṭa (Śabda-vyāpāra-paricaya, p. 8) and in the Kāmadhenu on Vāmana, iv, 3, 8, is attributed to one Bhartṛmitra by Mukula (Abhidhā-vṛtti-mātṛkā, p. 17).

^{page 538 note 1} On the date of Daṇḍin, see my History of Sanskrit Poetics (1923), vol. i, pp. 59–70. The reader will also find there a detailed discussion of the dates of the Agni-purāṇa and Bhoja at pp. 102–4, 144–47.

^{page 539 note 1} See Jacob, in JRAS. 1897, pp. 304 ff., and Sten Konow's edition of the Karpūra-mañjarī, pp. 198 ff., for all the quotations by Bhoja from Rājaśekhara.

^{page 542 note 1} Vāmana III, 1, 1–2, although in I, 1, 2 he uses the term alaṁkāra in the broad sense of “ beauty ” in a composition. Strictly speaking, Daṇḍin does not appear to make a fundamental theoretic distinction between guṇa and alaṁkāra as such, to which the term alaṁkāra or alaṁkriyā is indiscriminately applied. He implies, however, in ii, 3 (with commentary thereon) that a poetic figure (or alaṁkāra properly so-called by other writers) is an alaṁkāra or embellishment common to both the Vaidarbha and Gauḍa mārgas; but a guṇa is an alaṁkāra belonging exclusively to the Vaidarbha. But Daṇḍin defines and treats them separately in a manner which foreshadows the rigid theoretic differentiation implied by Vāmana.

^{page 544 note 1} It is noteworthy in this connexion that Daṇḍin's samādhi-guṇa is treated here under the context of lakṣaṇā with the hint apparently of identifying them.

^{page 545 note 1} Instead of kāvya-mīmāṁsakā vidaḥ in the text.

^{page 547 note 1} So says Vidyādhara, p. 98 ; rājā tu śṛṅgāram ekam eva Śṛṅgāra-prakāśe rasam urarīcakāra ; also Kumārasvāmin, p. 221, śṛṅgāra eka eva rasa iti Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa-kāraḥ. A MS. of this work, also referred to in Rāyamukuṭa on Amara, Hemādri on Raghu, and Sarvānanda in his Ṭīkāsarvasva on Amara, has been recently acquired by the Madras Government Oriental MSS. Library; and from its report it appears that the work, in the usual encyclopædic spirit of the author, discusses and profusely illustrates all the phases of the amorous sentiment in no less than twenty chapters. An account of this work will be found in my Hist. of Sansk. Poetics, vol. i, pp. 147–8.