wi PREFACE.
the lucidity with which he indicated the task concerning the Rajatarangini and the materials that were at hand for it.”
By the examination of good though modern S'arada copies of the Chronicle, Professor BUHLER was able to prove the absolute superiority of the Kasmir manu- scripte over the Devanagari transcripts. He also ascertained that the former were all derived from a single old S'areda manuscript. Though unable himself to obtain more than e glimpse of this jealously-guarded coder archetypus, he thus showed the way for the critical reconstitution of the genuine text. He recognized clearly the importance of minute study of the ancient geography of Kasmir for the correct comprehension of Kalhaua’s narrative, and pointed out the most valuable help which could be obtained for such researches from the Nilamatapurina, the legendaries (Mahatmyas) of Kesmir Tirthas, and other Kasmirion texts he hed discovered. As regards the difficulties arising from the peculiarities of the Chronicler’s diction and style, he showed how they might be overcome by close attention to the form of composition adopted by Kasmirian poots who immediately preceded and followed Kalhana. The long discussion on the Rijatarangini em- bodied in his famous Report finally gave Professor Biihler also ou opportunity to trace some of the critical principles which must guide us in regard to the use of Kalhane’s work for the history of Kesmir and of India.
He thus expressed his conclusion as to the task that remained to be done. “A new attempt to translate and to explain the Rijatarongini, and to use its contents for the history of India, ought to be made. But it is a work of very considerable difficulty, and will require much time and patience.” Tho manner in which he contemplated this new translation wos illustrated by a apecimen given in the Appendix of his Report and containing » masterly oxposition of verses 1-107 of Kalhana’s First Book. Professor Bithler had himself at onv time planned to undertake the work which had attracted so much of his interest. But othor tasks and probably also the conviction that further local resenrches were indispensable for its satisfactory execution, prevented him from following up this plan aftor hia return to Europe, in 1881.
Subsequently Dr. E. Hoxrzsow utilized the manuscript materials which Professor Buhler had collected, and others obtained during his own visit to Kaimir in 1885, for s series of articles which appeared in Volumes xviii, and xix, of the Indian Antiquary. They were intended to supply on abstract translation and historical summary of the Chronicle. Though these articles were not continued
™ Detailed rt of @ tour rch a «tee it portteriay Fata) a oH z EA See Report, pp. Ixvi-lxxxii. Extra No,, 1877), pp. 52 aqq.
