X 
PREFACE. 
must consequently lead to a certain amount of confusion. 
I have endeavoured to divide the same name in the .same 
way whenever it occurred in the hook, hut I regret that 
amongst the four thousand and odd names which occur 
there have been some lapsus calami . 
Apologies for dealing with the Neo-Indian vernaculars 
are not now so necessary as they would have been twenty 
years ago. At first, oriental scholars devoted themselves to 
Sanskrit alone, and then, under the guidance of Burnouf, 
attacked Pali. In later years the classical Prakrits have 
attracted students, and thus the age of the object of our re¬ 
searches has become more and more modern in its character. 
I now ask my readers to take again one step over the very 
short gap which separates the latest Prakrit from the earliest 
Gaudian literature. Hemachandra flourished about 1150 
A.D., 1 and Chand Bar’dal, the first of the Gaudian poets of 
whom we have at present any certain remains, died in 1193. 
It is possible, however, that some oriental students may 
still cling to the old love for Sanskrit, and these I must ask 
to test the rich ore found in the following pages, which 
contain the names of several vernacular commentaries on 
difficult Sanskrit books, 2 and of numerous technical works 
on such subjects as Grammar, Prosody, Vocabulary, 3 Com¬ 
position, and the like. The student of inscriptions will also 
find a productive mine in the literature of Hindustan, owing 
to the custom which vernacular poets had of dating their 
works and of naming their patrons. Besides this the muse 
1 He died 1172 A.D. 
2 For instance, Guman Jl (No. 349) wrote a commentary of great reputation 
on the Naisadha. He lived early in the 18th century. 
3 For instance, Daya Earn (No. 387) wrote a useful anelcarthaJcosa. 
