^{page 95 note 2} Nirukta, ii, 10.

^{page 95 note 3} Sieg, , Die Sagenstoff des Ṛgveda, Stuttgart, 1902, 138Google Scholar.

^{page 95 note 4} JRAS., 1894, pt. i, 25.

^{page 95 note 5} Der Ṛgveda, HOS. 35, vol. iii, 1951, 309Google Scholar.

^{page 95 note 6} There seems, however, no good reason for Sieg's translation in v. 4 of Indra dehy ádhirathaṃ sahásram, as “gieb (also) O Füst, tausend saint dem Wagen” for, although Devāpi may have been a prince, there is no precedent in Sanskrit literature for equating Indra with “prince” and here no necessity.

^{page 96 note 1} See Bhargava, , India in the Vedic Age, Lucknow, 1956, 92Google Scholar. An opposite view is given in Pargiter, , Ancient Indian Historical Tradition, London, 1922, 165Google Scholar. But the striking similarities in all the legends make it unnecessary to postulate the existence of two separate Devāpis. MacDonell believed Ārṣṭiṣeṇa was a dissociation in a late stage of the myth since the Śalyaparvan speaks of him as an eminent Ṛṣi. JRAS., 1894, pt. 1, 27.

^{page 96 note 2} The frequent occurrence of the number twelve in ancient Indian literature suggests to me that there may be a symbolic as well as numerical meaning here. It appears to have some relation to sin or expiation of sin much as the number forty in the Bible, e.g. Noah's forty days and nights in the ark, Christ's forty days and nights fasting in the wilderness, etc. In the story of Samvaraṇa (Mbh., i, 160, 31 ff., critical edition), after the king violates principles of good kingship, no rain falls for twelve years. Rain is intimately related to the dharma of the king and it would seem there is some connection with the number twelve in this scheme of symbols.

^{page 97 note 1} This is a reference to the idea in Indian political theory that the relationship of the king to his realm was as a husband to his wife. For this sin of Śantanu, see Manu, iii, 171 f. ProfessorGonda, J. has very authoritatively discussed this issue in his monograph “Ancient Indian Kingship from the Religious Point of View”, Numen, iii–iv, 1956–1957Google Scholar. DrDerrett, J. D. M. has also made an interesting contribution in BSOAS., vol. xxii, pt. 1, 1959, 108 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 2} Viṣṇu Purāṇa, xx (, Wilson's trans.), 457 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 97 note 3} Mbh., 1, 89, 52–3 (critical edition).

^{page 97 note 4} Mbh., v, 147, 15 ff. (critical edition).

^{page 98 note 1} Matsya P., 50, 38–46. In this Purāṇa, Devāpi is stated to be leprous (kuṣṭhin). Vāyu P., 99, 234–240.

^{page 98 note 2} vii, 153–7; viii, 1–7.

^{page 98 note 3} Some manuscripts read one hundred. See MacDonell, , HOS, vol. 6, 294Google Scholar.

^{page 98 note 4} Manu, iii, 150 f.

^{page 98 note 6} Bhāgavata Purāṇa, ix, 22, 12, 18.

^{page 98 note 6} There are others beside the ones we have indicated here, but they deal with the ascetic powers of Devāpi and his acquiring Brahmanhood and are to be found primarily in the Mahābhārata and the main Purāṇas. Since they do not concern political aspects, we are not dealing with them here.