MSS. Mill 24–26g

in 24 and 25 no dates are given.

In 26 there are two; one on f. 327 at the end of adhyāya 6: saṃvat 1850 (= a. d. 1794) | which from the similarity of the writing probably applies also to adhyāyas 1, 2, 7. The other on f. 393 at the end of the bock: saṃvat 1891 (= a. d. 1835) | These facts make it certain that 1851 and 1853 are the dates in 26 c-26 g, and the statements are corroborated by the condition of the paper.

In 26 b the date is given only on f. 218 at the end of adhyāya 4: saṃvat 1891 ⟨1835⟩ jyeṣṭaśukla 11 bhaumavāsara |

The date saṃvat 1891 = a. d. 1835 is given at the end of aṣṭakas IV and VI, and saṃvat 1890 = a. d. 1834 at the end of adhyāya 3 of aṣṭaka V. At the end of aṣṭaka V the number 1851 is given, and at the end of aṣṭaka VII we find the following: saṃvat 18 ǁ 53 saṃvat 7790. Does this mean that these two volumes were written in saṃvat 1851 ⟨1797⟩? They certainly do not look forty years older than the other volumes.