Vol. X, No. 1.] Jayamangala. 3 



[N.8.] 



Mr. Guleri has pointed to two passages in the two Jaya- 

 mangalas which show a close resemblance. Compare with 

 these the following note from the Jayamangala on Bhatti- 

 kavya on the same subject. 



*r*rftnci5fa*TTifr if^T mw awTiif^ci si**Blfl*i3 a^tfa^T | 



It, therefore, comes upon us as a natural conclusion that 

 one and the same person commented on the three works, 

 Kamasutra, Nitisara and Bhattikavya. The conclusion is 

 strengthened by the fact that tlie commentator on Bhattikavya 



^H^gii^H^iigiKU 



Well 



tie calls 



himself Sankararya in the Jayamangala on Nitisara, and 

 Jatlsvara" Jayadeva and Jayamangala in the commentary on 

 Bhattikavya. The paradox is only apparent. Sankara is none 

 else than Jatlsvara, the drya being only an honorific suffix, 

 and there is "not much difference between Jayadeva and 

 Jayamangala. His original name appears to have beon Jaya- 

 mangala, as he called his works after that name. Moreover, in 

 the complete copy of the commentary on Kamasutra found 

 in the Library of the Bombay Branch, Royal Asiatic Society 

 (cf. Catalogue No. 1, the Pandit Bhagavanlal Indraji collec- 

 tion, published 1903, page 5), the name of the author is given 

 Jayamangala. Thus there is at least one manuscript which 



as dayamangaia. 



notes* the correct name of the author. Jayamangala appears 



to have been a Buddhist by religion as in his three works he 

 makes obeisance to ^facj &nd *r^%fe*r, synonyms of 



Buddha. 



In conclusion, I may mention that it is on a consideration 

 of these points, that, in the edition of Kamasutra of Vatsya- 

 yana recently brought forth together with the Jayamangala 

 by the Proprietor of the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Book Depot, 

 under the general supervision of Bibu Govinda Dlsa of 

 Benares, the name of the commentator is given as Jayamangala 



and the colophon change 1 into ST-Mf WCr^l*ri*T, etc. But a 

 critical edition of the Kamasutra and the Jayamangala, which 

 is the best of the commentaries on it, is still a want requiring 

 fulfilment. Dr. R. Schmidt of Germany, I learn, brought forth 

 an edition of tne wor£, but in that too, the commentary 

 is attributed to Yasodiara. It, therefore, appears that Dr. 

 Schmido alsj overlooked the force of the expressive *E*^>fjcT- 



