^{page 1 note 1} See “the Academy” for 08 1, 1871, p. 387.Google Scholar

^{page 2 note 1} So the MS.; ?

^{page 2 note 2} These I have enclosed, in the following extract, within brackets.

^{page 3 note 1} Somo such words as have been omitted by the scribe.

^{page 4 note 1} See Assemani, , Bibl, Or., t. iii., pars 1, p. 7, note 2.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 1} In the Arabic text of De Sacy, , Dabshalīm. See Benfey, Pantschatantra, , erster Theil, pp.32–34.Google Scholar I thought that , Dabdhrm, might possibly be a corruption of , Dabshrm, in which we might discern an older form of Dabshalīm = Devaśarman; but Professor Cowell writes to me: “I scarcely think that the dhrm could have come by accident. Deva is generally written after the king's name, but it might be prefixed,—deva dharma. Could it be deva Dharmarája, and the rája have been taken as only meaning ‘king’, and not as a part of the name ?”

^{page 7 note 1} In the Arabic, , Baidabā. See Benfey, , loc. cit., p. 35.Google Scholar Both and the Syriac or are probably corruptions of the same Sanskrit word, for is not very dissimilar to .

^{page 7 note 2} , if such be the correct reading, is rather “rhetorician, sophist?”; further on he is called , Øιλόσοøος.

^{page 7 note 3} The Arabic has , Dostāwand. In the Syriac MS. the name was left blank, and a later hand has added , “so and so.” See Benfey, , loc. cit., p. 96.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 1} is explained in the native lexicons by and .

^{page 8 note 2} Mthwā, or , corrupted from or , i.e. Mathurā or Muttra. In the Arabic text, p. v9, last line, it is still further corrupted into . See Benfey, , Pantschatantra, , erster Theil, p. 99Google Scholar; zweiter Theil, , p. 6.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 1} In the Arabic text, p. a., 11. 1, 2, Shanzalah, , and Bandabah, , corruptions of Sanjīvaka and Nandaka. See Benfey, , Pantsch., erster Theil, p. 99Google Scholar; zweiter Theil, , p. 7.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 2} L e., a shallow, marshy lake.

^{page 9 note 3} De Sacy's Arabic text gives no name. In the Sanscrit the lion-king is called Pingalaka, of which the Syriac is only a corruption. The word was originally written in Arabic , which became successively , and .

^{page 9 note 4} In the Arabic . The Syriac text gives no less than three synonymous terms; viz. , and The first of these is unknown to me; the second, familiar. The third ia probably derived from the Persian , torah, “a jackal.” A fourth Syriac term for the same animal, , is a corruption of (canis) Hyrcanus.

^{page 10 note 1} Corruptions of Karataka and Damanaka. See Benfey, , Pantsch., erster Theil, p. 36Google Scholar; zweiter Theil, , p. 8.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 2} Here the Syriac text adds the words “agīn or beautiful.” If the word agīn be Syriac, it must be corrupt. But can it represent the “anjana-wood” of the Sanskrit? See Benfey, Pantsch., zweiter Theil, p. 9. In that case the original Arabic form muet have been , gradually corrupted into .

^{page 11 note 1} The Syriac explains the rarer word (see John, of Ephesua, Eccles. Hist., p. 161Google Scholar, 1. 4, p. 373, 1. 3) by , i.e. , .

^{page 11 note 2} Some such words as these seem to be wanting in the Syriac text. The Arabic has (p. ar, 1. antepenult.). Compare Benfey, , Pantsch., zweiter Theil, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 11 note 3} , virtus, true manliness.

^{page 12 note 1} Literally, a white.

^{page 12 note 2} So I would render the word , which is explained by Bar Bahlūl thus:

(read

In a poem of ‘Ebēd-Yēahūa’, pointed out to me by Mr. Bensly, occur tbe words , the first of which has the gloss .

^{page 12 note 3} The word in this sense is wholly unknown to me. Perhaps it may be corrupt.

^{page 12 note 4} This is evidently the meaning of the passive participle See the last note but one.

^{page 14 note 1} Read ?

^{page 15 note 1} MS. .

^{page 15 note 2} Read ?

^{page 15 note 3} Read ?

^{page 16 note 1} Read ?

^{page 16 note 2} Read ? or ?

^{page 17 note 1} The word is repeated in the MS.

^{page 17 note 2} For .

^{page 18 note 1} Read ?

^{page 20 note 1} A later hand haa altered this word into .

^{page 20 note 2} Read ?

^{page 20 note 3} The MS. has .

^{page 21 note 1} Read ?

^{page 22 note 1} Read ?

^{page 22 note 2} Read ?

^{page 22 note 3} The acribe left a blank space, in which a later hand has inserted this word.