कान्हड़दे प्रबन्ध (कवि पद्मनाभ - जालोर चौहान वीरगाथा, अलाउद्दीन खिलजी से युद्ध व जौहर इतिहास)

l. 6). At one or two places the wrong word is disfigured and the correct word is written just above it. Marginal additions are rare. On folio 16 recto l. 10 the number of the verse (figure 3) is disfigured; it is therefore written again in the left-hand margin. Similarly on f. 17 recto last line, the word इणि omitted in the text is added in the left-hand margin. The numbering of verses is regular up to I 37; after that up to I 123 two verses are generally numbered as one, so that I 124 comes to be numbered as 84. From I 125 numbering again becomes regular up to I 191, which is followed by the Bhāḍāulī. After the Bhāḍāulī again two verses are numbered as one up to I 223, after which the numbering is regular up to the end of Khaṇḍa I. In Khaṇḍa II numbering is regular up to II 27, after which two verses are numbered as one up to II 92 (II 92 = vs 57 in H). Then come the interpolated verses numbered regularly in the sequence (vss 58–81 in H). The verses from II 93 onwards up to the end of Khaṇḍa II are, generally, numbered regularly. From Khaṇḍa III vs 1 onward up to the end of the ms H (f. 24 verso) the numbering is quite regular. The praśasti or maṅgalācaraṇa is ॥ ॐ नमः ६० ॥ in Khaṇḍa I. Khaṇḍa II also commences with a maṅgalācaraṇa : ॐ नमो गुणपतये नमः । The colophons are : इति प्रथमषंडः । १ अति द्वीअ षंड समापत ॥ २ The final colophon is not available, as the ms is incomplete. The ms (GH) is quite well-preserved. The paper is thin. The handwriting is not well-formed and balanced, though it is legible enough and appears to have been written by some professional scribe, who may have been a Brahmin. From the style of the script as well as the condition of the paper it seems to belong to somewhere between 1700 and 1750 v. s. The ms is likely to have come from Rājasthān, judging from the paper. The manuscript is corrupt and not reliable; but it preserves some important readings and is at some places helpful for collation. It is evident that GH is one single manuscript¹, which got split up into two fragments ; one (folios 1–8) came in the possession of Muni ¹ Compare the facsimiles of mss G H, reproduced in this edition. A word is, perhaps, necessary to explain why parts of the same ms came to be designated as two separate mss.