not incapable of being challenged. But when it is remembered that the
interpretations given by Nilakantha came down to him from preceptors of
olden days, one should think twice before rejecting Nilakantha as a guide.

About the readings I have adopted, I should say that as regards the first
half of the work, I have generally adhered to the Bengal texts; as regards
the latter half, to the printed Bombay edition. Sometimes individual
sections, as occurring in the Bengal editions, differ widely, in respect
of the order of the verses, from the corresponding ones in the Bombay
edition. In such cases I have adhered to the Bengal texts, convinced that
the sequence of ideas has been better preserved in the Bengal editions
than the Bombay one.

I should express my particular obligations to Pundit Ram Nath Tarkaratna,
the author of 'Vasudeva Vijayam' and other poems, Pundit Shyama Charan
Kaviratna, the learned editor of Kavyaprakasha with the commentary of
Professor Mahesh Chandra Nayaratna, and Babu Aghore Nath Banerjee, the
manager of the Bharata Karyalaya. All these scholars were my referees on
all points of difficulty. Pundit Ram Nath's solid scholarship is known to
them that have come in contact with him. I never referred to him a
difficulty that he could not clear up. Unfortunately, he was not always at
hand to consult. Pundit Shyama Charan Kaviratna, during my residence at
Seebpore, assisted me in going over the Mokshadharma sections of the Santi
Parva. Unostentatious in the extreme, Kaviratna is truly the type of a
learned Brahman of ancient India. Babu Aghore Nath Banerjee also has from
time to time, rendered me valuable assistance in clearing my difficulties.

Gigantic as the work is, it would have been exceedingly difficult for me
to go on with it if I had not been encouraged by Sir Stuart Bayley, Sir
Auckland Colvin, Sir Alfred Croft, and among Oriental scholars, by the