^{page 143 note 1} We see no reason, à propos, why Father Heras should accept the assertion of Couto and Faria y Sousa that Kama was then in his 96th year in the face of the much more moderate statements of Firishtah and the Burhān-i-Ma'āṣir, especially as he is thus compelled to ascribe a correspondingly advanced age to Tirumala on his accession. Whatever may have been the skill of the jeṭṭis described on p. 314, they could hardly be expected to work miracles.

^{page 144 note 1} It may be added that a reviewer in the Journal of Indian History, VII, 1, p. 103 f., has called attention to an error of Father Heras, showing that the Bevinhalli plates do not refer to the city of Madras.