The manuscript possesses considerable value from the linguistic point of view as well. The brief and succinct translation into simple Assamese of the Sanskrit texts shows a good. specinmen of our language in the eighteenth century and its expressiveness and vigour. The special merit of the work lies on its indigenous exposition of a number of difficult texts of Kamandaka's 17tasia, e, G., his explanation of the text a9f-kha etc. seems to be more reasonable and sound than that | adopted in the extant commentary of Kaimandaka, 5. sources of the Treatise. --The work, being a compendium of Kamandaka's Nitistit, contains a large number of quotations from its original. The readings adopted in this manuscript mostly differ from the printed texts published in Madras. Most probably our author used some Mithila recension of Kamandaka.The late Mr. K. P. Joyaswal observed in his introduction to Chandeswara's lajuitirutia'a,-“For the purpose of comparison 1 obtained a copy of Kanandaka from Mithila. It was dated Saka 1476 or A. D. 1554. It was copied for Gabhurakhan (evidently some big Zemindar ) of Kamapura who was well-versed in the principles of politics. Gabharukhan was a Bhuyan, a contemporary of Sankerdev and a cousin of the great reformer. Evidently this version was current in Kamrup, and our author had a copy. | Original readings of the manuscript have teen carefully retained except in cases of the obscure passages where the Madras readings have been substituted. In absence of proper help it has not been possible to find out references to a few passages. | 6. The subject Matter.-The first section is called Karaga Karyya-michaya. This section introduces the subject matter. Here we find the discussion of the import- ant topic of Mantra -how it should be conducted in
