^{page 579 note 1} The supposed quotation in Patañjali (Peterson's paper on Kṣemendra's Aucityavicāracarcā) may safely be neglected in this regard.

^{page 579 note 2} Vienna Orient. Journ., vii, 227–8.

^{page 579 note 3} See Dharmārāma's edit., p. 305, footnote.

^{page 579 note 4} See Buhler, “Die indischen Inschriften,” p. 72; Kielhorn, Gott. Nachrichten, 1890, p. 251; Macdonell, Sansk. Lit., pp. 321 sq.

^{page 580 note 1} So also Vidyābhūṣan, Hari Mohan, Journ. As. Soc. Beng., LXII, i, 212 sqGoogle Scholar.

^{page 580 note 2} “India, what can it teach us?” p. 347.

^{page 580 note 3} See Paṭhak's articles, Journal of Bombay Branch R.A.S., xviii.

^{page 581 note 1} Cf. Pischel, Rudraṭa, pp. 22 sq., whose objections to Bühler's view seem weak.

^{page 581 note 2} Report, 1883–1884, p. 58.

^{page 581 note 3} Jammu Catal., pp. xix, xx, who dates Jayāpīḍa thirty years earlier.

^{page 581 note 4} For his date see Ep. Ind., i, pp. 170, 171.

^{page 582 note 1} He has pointed out to me that it is a priori improbable that the first Ceylonese-Sanskrit work known should be a grammatical Kāvya, and that the later date suits the literary history of Ceylon best.