the work of the Kashmirian poet Kshemendra, entitled Bhārata-Manjarī. This condensation is specially important, because it enables the scholar to determine the state of the text in detail at that time. Professor Bühler's careful comparison of the MSS. of this work with the great epic has led him to the conclusion that Kshemendra's original did not differ from the Mahābhārata as we have it at present in any other way than two classes of MSS. differ from each other. This poetical epitome shows several omissions, but these are on the whole of such a nature as is to be expected in any similar abridgment. It is, however, likely that twelve chapters (342-353) of Book XII., treating of Nārāyaṇa, which the abbreviator passes over, did not exist in the original known to him. There can, moreover, be no doubt that the forms of several proper names found in the Manjarī are better and older than those given by the editions of the Mahābhārata. Though the division of the original into eighteen books is found in the abridgment also, it is made up by turning the third section (gadā-parvan) of Book IX. (çalya-parvan) into a separate book, while combining Books XII. and XIII. into a single one. This variation probably represents an old division, as it occurs in many MSS. of the Mahābhārata.
Another work of importance in determining the state of the Mahābhārata is a Javanese translation of the epic, also dating from the eleventh century.
The best-known commentator of the Mahābhārata is Nīlakaṇṭha, who lived at Kūrpara, to the west of the Godāvarī, in Mahārāshṭra, and, according to Burnell, belongs to the sixteenth century. Older than Nīlakaṇṭha, who quotes him, is Arjuna Miçra, whose commentary, along with that of Nīlakaṇṭha, appears in an edition of
