^{page 81 note 1} Or “dark red.”

^{page 81 note 2} Anglice dewlap or wen. Maṇi is taken in the sense of Latin monile, Norse men, Old Saxon meni; it is well known that the same acceptation is very common in Vedic writings.

^{page 81 note 3} Utpala reads kṛttikâ instead of ṭikkikâ, explaining it by tilakâḥ. The word krṛtikâ, evidently in the acceptation of “blaze, star, white dot,” occurs also in the Çrautasûtra of Kâtyâyana 20, 1, 34, where kṛttikânji is interpreted by the commentator in this way: . The man understood the general purport, but was evidently unacquainted with the technical meaning of kṛttikâ.

^{page 81 note 4} A goat of this description is termed kuṭṭaka; see below, st. 9.

^{page 82 note 1} Such goats go by the name of kuṭila.

^{page 82 note 2} An animal of this description is called jaṭila.

^{page 82 note 3} The term for it is Uâmana.

^{page 82 note 4} In a quotation, not unlikely from Parâçara, we find a definition of akshikûṭa:

^{page 83 note 1} In a work on horsecraft, ascribed to Kâtya Vararuci, aud cited at large by Utpala, we read the following:

The term is denned in another quotation (probably from Parâçara):

^{page 83 note 2} Comm.:

^{page 84 note 1} Utpala:

I am unacquainted with the English terms.

^{page 84 note 2} The corresponding? passage from Parâçara has:

^{page 84 note 3} Comm.:

^{page 85 note 1} Comm.:

^{page 86 note 1} Cf. ch. lxx. 24–26.

^{page 86 note 2} Comm.:

^{page 86 note 3} Coram.:

The translation from st. 4–82 is here omitted, as it affords very little interest, and as some stanzas are couched in a language too free to be decent in an English garb. It may be noticed that the signs of beauty, such as described in this chapter, generally agree with the 32 lakshaṇas and 80 anuvyanjanas of the ideal image of Buddha; e.g. sunigûḍhagulpha in st. 2 corresponds with gûḍhagulpha in Lalita-vistara 122, 17; ruciratâmranakha in the same stanza and st. 41 with tâmranakha of Çâkya; and so forth. Cf. Burnouf, Lotus de la bonne loi, 583, sqq. Any distinction between lakshaṇa and anuvyanjana is unknown to our author.

^{page 87 note 1} In the text read of course.

^{page 87 note 2} Utpala quotes from Garga:

^{page 89 note 1} Read

^{page 91 note 1} The words of the text are clear in themselves, bat convey no distinct meaning. The Comm. says: . But how cau it be said that any person may grow in height after his fortieth year? It may be supposed that the author had only in view the weight. As to the interpretation of the commentator, it is wholly wrong; the four periods are (infancy), (boyhood), (prime of age), and the fourth The coincides with the juvenilis aetas of the Romans, and extends to the fortieth year; cf. Suçruta, i. 129.

^{page 92 note 1} That is, in other words: “myself am not responsible for any statement.” Appealing to the Sages is usual with our author whenever he wishes to disburden himself from responsibility. Utpala fails not to make a similar observation: “ (Ch. ix. 7)”

^{page 93 note 1} For the dhâtu or sâra, cf. Bṛh. Jâtaka, ii. 11: for the five elements, 6; for the character and shape, 8–11; for the colour, 5.

^{page 93 note 2} Cf. Brh. Jâtaka, ii. 1.

^{page 93 note 3} i.e. what we call Phenix, metaphorically.

^{page 96 note 1} This is evidently a mistake of the author's; he certainly means, “at ninety years of age the H. will die,” but his words convey quite a different meaning?. Better in the Sârâvalî: It must, however, be noticed that the author of the Sârâvalî is posterior to Varâha-mihira.

^{page 97 note 1} Also Sâvin.

^{page 97 note 2} It is not a little curious that in one codex of the Comm. is explained by , in the other by .

^{page 98 note 1} Comm.:

The translation of the third stanza is omitted.

^{page 99 note 1} Comm.:

^{page 99 note 2} The author seems to mean “a line on the footsole running-from the heel to the toe.”

^{page 100 note 1} This is the meaning of ca;

A var. reading, obviously a had conjecture, exhibits ; çushka and vimâmsa mean exactly the same.

^{page 100 note 2} The Comm. explains kekara by kûcara, a word denoting the colour of a cat's eyes in Kathâsarit-sâgara, 65, 162, and 167. It occurs also in a parallel passage, probably from Garga;

It is by no meaos likely that in this passage kâcara is used in the sense of kekara.

^{page 101 note 1} It must be understood that the cloth is to be divided into nine compartments:

^{page 102 note 1} i e. if Açvinî be the asterism of the day on which a garment is worn the first time, the consequences mentioned are to ensue.

^{page 104 note 1} In the text read , and not, as it is printed, .

^{page 104 note 2} Read in the printed text , not

^{page 105 note 1} This chapter forms, with the four following, the Antaḥpuracintâ or Reflections on Womaṇkind.

^{page 105 note 2} The word joya is explained by Utpala with vijaya, quite right, if the latter be taken in the sense of domain, dominion. That vijaya and vijitam occur in this acceptation is noticed in the translator's dissertation “Over de jaartelling der Zuidelijke Buddhisten,” p. 90 and p. 106.

^{page 105 note 3} Read

^{page 106 note 1} Utpala reads çubham, “good, boon.”

^{page 106 note 2} In the text read , with the a short.

^{page 107 note 1} In the text change into . The sentiment expressed in this half stanza reminds one of Bürger's:

“Wie selig wer sein Liebchen hat,

Wie selig lebt der Mann.

Er lebt wie in der Kaiserstadt

Kein Fürst und Graf es kann.”

^{page 107 note 2} Tilottamâ, of course.

^{page 109 note 1} Cf. Suçruta, , i. p. 321.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 2} Cf. Suçruta, , ii. p. 153, sqq., with the contents of this chapter throughout.Google Scholar

^{page 109 note 3} Comm.: (i.e. pill)

^{page 109 note 4} It is strange that all MSS. agree in exhibiting ; the author ought to have written — I dare not say, has written — .

^{page 109 note 5} The Commentator has not understood the passage, because he wrongly takes to be one word, in the instrumental case. Hence his explanation is quite wrong; means here the same as .

^{page 110 note 1} According to the reading of the Comm., viz. ârdrapatraiḥ. The term of the printed text is rendered: “with leaves of Calotropis.”

^{page 111 note 1} Between stanzas 4 and 5 the Comm. inserts the following? remarks:

^{page 111 note 2} The identification of the drugs enumerated here and in the sequel rests chiefly upon the authority of the Commentator.

^{page 111 note 3} With two MSS., read , because something? else is required but a term for kushṭha, which occurs in the next line. Now the word is a synonym of , though the dictionaries give and a much suspected . The proof that and are right is this: kushṭha denotes “costus,” and “a certain disease (leprosy).” As means “disease,” the words are considered synonymous, and, according to Indian fashion, interchangeable. Consequently we have to look for another synonym in . This word is wanting in the dictionaries in the sense of “disease,” but there is not the slightest doubt of its existence, because etc., is common enough. Consequently , and , therefore Herewith is established the existence of vyâma in the acceptation of “disease, evil,” and it follows that the reading in one MS. of the Comm. is corrupted. Another question remains: “what did Utpala read?” He paraphrases (so in the MSS.) with . According to the dictionaries the latter should be Solanum Jacquini; it may be, but is as yet rather doubtful. In a list of botanical terms to be found in the Comm. we find this, unhappily corrupted, line: (v. l. ) (v. l.) (v. l. )

The term devadagdhaka is unknown to the dictionaries; it is the same with Utpala's (either mase, or neut. and not fern., though the dictionaries know only a fem. , etc.).

^{page 112 note 1} Comm. takes hingu to be bdellium or vermilion; I see no reason for this, as Assafoetida is extensively used in India.

^{page 112 note 2} Comm.:

^{page 112 note 3} In the text read

^{page 112 note 4} Reading and rendering equally doubtful. In my MSS. of the Comm. it is here written , elsewhere . Utpala gives here no paraphrase, but in st. 29 he explains it by paripelavam. This term, however, is synonymous with musta, and as the latter is enumerated apart in st. 10 and 24, Utpala must be mistaken, unless, contrary to the authority of the dictionaries, paripelavam be not = musta. Even if we prefer ghana, we are not sure that Cassia-bark is intended; cf. however st. 12 and 24.

^{page 113 note 1} The Comm. gives a definition of the terms vedha and bodha: He quotes for the purpose a distich in Prâkrit, from Îçvara, an author on the art of preparing perfumes:

The last words should be corrected, I think, into (or or ) = Skr. ; rest is clear.

^{page 113 note 2} Comm.: : (such a receptacle is called a ) (see st. 18 sq.) and so forth.

^{page 114 note 1} Read .

^{page 114 note 2} Cf. foregoing note.

^{page 115 note 1} The translation of st. 22 (recurring in Bṛh. Jâtaka, 13, 4) is omitted, as, without the copious commentary and some diagrams, it would be hardly intelligible. The explanation also is found in the printed edition of the Bṛh. Jâtaka.

^{page 115 note 2} Comm.:

^{page 115 note 3} Reading and rendering doubtful. The Comm. paraphrases the word by paripelava. But, this being the same with mustâ, is wholly out of question, because we find mustâ in the same line. As vana is one of the terms for water, and any word for water denotes Andropogon schoenanthus (hrîvera), it is possible that our author, if he really wrote vana, meant hrîvera.

^{page 116 note 1} Half a day, says Utpala.

^{page 116 note 2} The Comm. takes to mean , and about he says: ; of course wrong?, for who would say phala instead of pushpa? As to pârijâta, the author may have meant “scents for the mouth” in general.

^{page 117 note 1} is an erratum for

^{page 117 note 2} Utpala quotes from Kâmandaki a passage, which in the Calcutta ed. of the Nîtisâra is vii. 49, sqq. Some readings in my MSS. of the Comm. (which need not be exactly those Utpala himself wrote down), are better, some worse than in the Calcutta ed.; the passage runs thus:

It is obvious that the reading in the Cale. ed. is preposterous, because it is distinctly prescribed in the next following verse that the king should not go; gacchet is a would-be emendation, from some half-learned reader, who was unaware of paçyati (dṛç, darçanam, etc.), meaning “to receive one's visit.” On the other hand, we have to read with the Cale. ed. and . I am doubtful about and , but judge them preferable, as they harmonize with the tenor of the whole passage, which tends to inculcate the necessity of being suspicious. It may be noticed that Kâmandaki and our author are at variance anent the story of the poisoned ankle-ring.

^{page 118 note 1} Cf. Râja-tarangiṇî, iii. 503, sqq.Google Scholar

^{page 119 note 1} Comm.

The third stanza has been received into Vetâla-pancavinçati and other works (see Böhtlingk, Ind. Sprüche, 2217), with many corruptions and unsuccessful attempts to restore the true reading. The neuter gender of is vouched by unimpeachable authorities, and as in the Diet. of B. and R. it is distinctly noticed that the neuter vâsam has not, as yet, been discovered, it is worth while to remark that it occurs in the passage above.

^{page 119 note 2} Comm.:

^{page 120 note 1} Cf. Suçruta, , i. p. 315.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 2} Cf. Suçruta, , i. p. 316.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 3} Cf. Suçruta, , i. p. 321.Google Scholar

^{page 120 note 4} Comm.:

^{page 122 note 1} Taken roughly, e.g. the width of a royal couch will be equal to = nearly 43.

^{page 124 note 1} i.e. in a direction following; the course of the sun.

^{page 124 note 2} i.e. support of the couch.

^{page 124 note 3} The true form of this word is uncertain; cf. var. readings.

^{page 125 note 1} Cf. also Atharva-Veda, iv. 10.

^{page 126 note 1} According to Utpala:

^{page 126 note 2} Comm.:

^{page 127 note 1} The Comm. takes tripuṭa to mean a triangle: ; he may be right.

^{page 127 note 2} A country, according to Utpala; it is not unlikely the Pâraka in Râmâyaṇa, iv. 40, 29.

^{page 128 note 1} One Retti (gunjâ, kṭshṇala) = ⅕ Mâshaka.

^{page 129 note 1} These snakes are, of course, the clouds, and their pearls the rain and devvdrops. Whether our author understood the mythological phrases he borrowed, is not quite clear; hut this much is certain, that he distinctly intimates the mythical character of the tales about snake pearls, etc., for he says kila.

^{page 131 note 1} Or black salt.

^{page 131 note 2} Read in the text

^{page 132 note 1} The first syllable of has been lost in printing.

^{page 132 note 2} The translation follows the var. reading .

^{page 133 note 1} Cf. Suçrnta, , ii. 135, sqq.Google Scholar

^{page 133 note 2} Sala and Açvakarṇa are generally taken to be synonymous.

^{page 134 note 1} i.e. not scorched by the sun.