¹ For example, see Śukla, R.C., Hindī sāhitya kā itihās, Banāras, 1952, 147Google Scholar; Varmā, R.K., Hindī sāhitya kā ālocanātmak itihās, Allabahabad, 1948, 677–680Google Scholar; Miśra, Gaṇeś Vihārī and others, Miśrabandhu vinod, i, Allahabad, v.s.1970/A.D. 1913, 391–2Google Scholar; and Varmā, D.Hindī sāhitya koś, ii, Banāras, 1963, 281.Google Scholar

² On the title-page the first and the last works are given as Rasikamohinī and Bhakiasumiriṇī respective.

³ See priyā Dās jī kī granthāvalī, preface, 1–4. All the comments made by BKD, referred to in this article, are drawn from his preface.

⁴ See below, 59–61.

⁵ These reports were published by the Nāgarī Pracāriṇi Sabhā of Banāras under the title Report on Search for Hindi Manuscripts (annual from 1900, triennial from 1906) and under the title Khoj mē upalabdha hastalikhit hindī granthō ke traivārṣik vivaraṉ from 1926. See also Mcgregor, R.S., Some Bhartṛhari commentaries in early Braj Bhāṣā prose, BSOAS xxvi, 2, 1963, 314.Google Scholar

⁶ Under Report on Search, references in this article are made to the actual report as referred to in HSV.

⁷ For full references to the MSS of the works not discussed below see HSV, svv.

⁸ HSV, I, 291

⁹ HSV, II, 62

¹⁰ A view of the history, literature and mythology of the hindus, iv, London, 1820, 481

¹¹ Histoire de la littϩrature hinduouie et hindoustanie, II, paris, 1870, 511.

¹² The modern vernacular literature of Hindustan, Calcutta, 1889, 86.

¹³ Rāmaraiskaāvalī, Bombay, 1956, 897–8; see also p. 66, n. 31.

¹⁴ A general account of the Bhaktirasabodhinī, discussing its relation to the parent text, its title, date, metre total number of verses, structure, and narrative element, is given in my article The Bhaktirasabodhinī of Priyāsa, Le Musáon, LXXXI, 3–4, 1968.Google Scholar

¹⁵ For the text and further details, see Appendixes I and II in my ph.D.thesis, Studies in the Bhaktirasa-bodhini of Priyā Dāsa, (University of london, 1967);see also my article cited above in n.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Three India Office Library MSS, Nos. B.52 (v.s. 1869/A.D. 1812), C 12(incomplete), D II (undated); one British Museum M.S Add. 27215 (incomlete and does not include the commentary); four Bodleian Library MSS, Nos. Hindi f 2 (dated v.s. 1858/A.D. 1801) W 329 (dated v.s. 1877/A.D. 1820). W 342 (does not include the commentary), w 421 (dated ŝaka Samvat 1647/A.D. 1725). A number of MSS are listed in HSV, I (S.V. BhaktamālarasabodhinīǠīkā), of which the oldest is dated v.s. 1831/A.D.1774. If the date of W 421, given in the seribe's colophon, is correct, this must be the oldest existing MS.

¹⁷ In this article, references are made, as with this quotation, to verse and line. Up to verse 101 the numbers refer to the constituted text of the first 101 verses of the commentary presented in my ph.D.thesis, For ease of typing the text and translation in my thesis, I divided each line of the kavitta verses in to two, thus making eight lines (numbered from 1 to 8) in each verse. From verse 101 onwards the numbers refer to Prasād's, S. ŝ. Bagavān printed edition, ŝri Bhaktamālaŝrŝri, fourth ed., Lucknow, 1962, in which the four lines of each verse are clearly marked, though not numbered.Google Scholar

¹⁸ op. cit., 246 f.

¹⁹ cf.Growse, F.S., Mathurā: a sistrict memoir, I, [Allahabad], North-Western Provinces Government Press, 1874, 121, and also P.D., Mital, op.cit. 33.Google Scholar

²⁰ Priyā Dā is referring here to the previous lines of this verse quoted on p. 61.

²¹ Bhaktanāmāvalī, Allahabad, 1901, preface, 72.

²² ‘Gleaninga from the Bhakta-mā’, JRAS, 1909, 608.

²³ ibid., 621.

²⁴ op. cit., 391.

²⁵ op. cit., 315. S.ṡ.Bhagavān Prasād gives the lower and the upper limit for the date of the Bhaktamāla as v.s. 1640/A.D. 1583 and V.S. 1680/A.D. 1623, but also states (see p.34) that the Bhaktamāla takes us down to v.s. ᚖ A.D. 1639.

²⁶ art. cit., JRAS, 1909, P.607, n.1.

²⁷ For example, see Rādhā k๛ṣṉA Dās, op.cit., 70–1; Ṥyām Sundar Dās, Rāmacaritamānasa, Allahabad, 1915, introduction, p. xiv; and MiṤrabandhu vinod. I, 391.

²⁸ cf. also A. Hobenberger's view of encountera between Caitanya and Rāmānanda, or Ṥaṃkara and Rāmānuja as indicating literary studies rather than personal instruction: ‘Gemeint ist offenbar eine geistige Auseinandersetzung mit den Werken der einzelnen Verfasser’ (Das Bhaviṣyapurāṇa, Wiesbaden, 1967, 80). I am greatful to Professor J.c. Wright for ths reference.

²⁹ op. cit., 243. vol. xxxii. PART I.

³⁰ ibid., 242.

³¹ The story of the first Priyā Dās is described on pp. 580–2, and of the second Priyā Dās on pp. 85–5399. In the story of the first Priyā Dās occurs 13 times and Priy Dās twice. Whereas, in the case of the second Priyā Dās, the spelling Priyā Dās occurs 15 times, and Priy Dās 11 times (including Priy Dāsā 4 times as a rhyme). It should be pointed out, however, that the form Priyā Dās is very much easier to fit into the dohā and caupāī metres, used in the compolition of the two stories. It is likely that the actual name of the second person was Priy Dās, and not Priyā. This would tally with W.Ward’ spelling, Priyā-Dasā, referring to the author of a Bhāgavata in the dialect of Bunkelkhaṇḍ(see p.58)

³² Rāmarasikāsikāvalī, 580.

³³ ibid., 885 ff.

³⁴ ibid., 900. The text reads: aṣṠādaŤa ṣaṠa cālisa sālā.

³⁵ ibid., 886.

³⁶ op.cit., 242.

³⁷ Rāmarasikāvalī, 898.The text reads: saṃvata vāṇa sāta vasu eka.

³⁸ This is a Hindi prose translation of Tulasī Rā’s Bhaktamālapradīpana in Persian. See Grierson, art. cit., JRAS, 1909, 608.

³⁹ In a letter written to me on 13 September 1966, P.D.Mītal expressed this opinion, arguing that the term dāsa is generally added to the names of those belonging to the Bhakti school.

⁴⁰ BKD Published these works in 1951, 1959, 1960, and 1962 respectively.

⁴¹ op. cit., 580.

⁴² op. cit., 2 and 933.

⁴³ art. cit., JRAS, 1909, P. 610, n.1.

⁴⁴ Ǥrī Bhaktam āla, vṛvan, 1960, 939; see also introduction, 19.

⁴⁵ See De, S. K., The early history of the Vaiṣṇava faith and movement in Bengal, Calcutta, 1961, p. 14, n.3.Google Scholar