^{page 466 note 1} Called S in the critical notes to § IV. below.

^{page 467 note 1} The expression Tenāham in the introductory verse to Tale 21 cited below points to a very similar usage. Tale 28 ends “evam ‘anyathā cintitam’ iti.” See the full verse below.

^{page 467 note 2} See Tale 42.

^{page 467 note 3} Keith Falconer, Bidpai, Intr. pp. xiv, xlvi.Google Scholar

^{page 468 note 1} In Tale 10 (not printed) we find the forms āgrahārika for a brahman who has received an agrahāra or royal donative: and just below, the form kulaputrikā (ironically ?) for a low-caste woman, analogous to the sense of kulaputra cited from Vaijayanti by Kavīndra Sarasvati on Daçakumāra-c° (p. 136, l. 20, ed. Bombay, 1883). See also Pt. III., notes on Tale 42 A.

^{page 470 note 1} For several of these comparisons I am indebted to the help of friends to whom I have showed proofs of my paper, especially to Mr. Tawney, Dr. Morris Mr. J. F. Blumhardt, Dr. Fausböll, Mr. Ward, and Mr. H. T. Francis. Professor Cowell and Professor Bühler gave me help in this and in other parts of the paper.

^{page 470 note 2} Cited by Fausböll's running numbers. It is much to be regretted, as Prof. Fausböll has at present published no index, that his running numbers differ somewhat from those of the only accessible index, that of Westergaard (Codd Havn, i. 37).

^{page 473 note 1} This and the rest of the tales are not numbered in the Sanskrit MS. (S).

^{page 478 note 1} Cf. Raghu-v. VI. 10, yānam parivāra-çobhi.

^{page 483 note 1} Cf. Pañca-t. V. xlii.Google Scholar

^{page 483 note 2} Mistaken or Prakritized for gharshnsi.

^{page 484 note 1} Sarve MS.

^{page 485 note 1} Probably an allusion to the snake-king's two thousand tongues (Harivaṃça, 6326).

^{page 485 note 2} So, too, in the Jātaka (No. 215, Fausböll): Sace tvam mukham rakkhitum sakhissasi.

^{page 485 note 3} patanta, MS.

^{page 486 note 1} °pāvibhūtaḥ, MS.

^{page 486 note 2} yasya, MS. For paçya, of. çloka to Tale 16 infra. It also occurs in Tale 11 (not printed).

^{page 486 note 3} saha Kasmin, MS.

^{page 486 note 4} mṛigayāgamat … nidrāgamat, MS.

^{page 486 note 5} Dr. Bühler suggests: tasyām dhvanksha-man°. ‘With respect to her the crow thought.’ Perhaps we should read °ākānkshamānasya manasy°.

^{page 487 note 1} Something appears to be wanting here.

^{page 487 note 2} I have not verified this citation from the Mbh. (?).

^{page 487 note 3} cāturthena sādhyena. Compare Manu, viii. 106–109.Google Scholar

^{page 487 note 4} Sādhyeyam(?), MS.

^{page 487 note 5} paçyasi putrasya, S. Dr. Bühler proposes: Mṛitam paçyasi putraḥ tvaḥ.

^{page 487 note 6} Dr. Böhler has suggested to me that karoti may be a Prakritic corruption for kurv iti or karotv iti.

^{page 488 note 1} Divasam prati gantu kenopārjyate, Dr. Bühler.

^{page 488 note 2} gacchata, MS.

^{page 488 note 3} Qu. read °cchāhāreṇa.

^{page 488 note 4} Āhārabhavadosheḥa vyāghreṇa gavayo jathā, C.

^{page 489 note 1} seems not to occur elsewhere; is quoted by Böhtlingk-Roth as= MSS. B and C omit the verse.

^{page 489 note 2} There would seem to be a small lacuna here, although the taiḥ (cakravākaiā) to be supplied with cintitam may, of course, be carried on to poshitaḥ.

^{page 489 note 3} Durvvarena (sic) C. Dr. Bühler emends durbalāni.

^{page 490 note 1} asmān, MS.

^{page 490 note 2} bhavatām iti … caratām MS.

^{page 490 note 3} yūthapatir, MS.

^{page 490 note 4} ko mi trātā, MS.

^{page 490 note 5} MS. tim … mocitam cf. taṃ dṛishṭam above.

^{page 491 note 1} manyate, C.

^{page 492 note 1} vadhūm āmāya, MS.

^{page 492 note 2} paravasā tta (?) ntraiYopa°.

^{page 492 note 3} I venture on this form, as the text which reads °bhuja is clearly corrupt. The very use of sa for seems to point to a lacuna. In the following clause adṛishṭā is improperly used, on the analogy of apaāçyantah, for na drishṭavantah.

^{page 492 note 4} drishtha MS.

^{page 492 note 5} °tān, MS.

^{page 493 note 1} hatah for hatavān, like adṛishṭā, in Tale 30 above. There is possibly something to be supplied, from the extreme abruptness of the concluding sentences.

^{page 493 note 2} ekākī naiva gantavyo, S.

^{page 493 note 3} ekakarkaṭamatreṇa, B.C.

^{page 493 note 4} Understand actively (as p. partice. above) or correct to gaditaṃ.

^{page 493 note 5} Saṃkhyo, S. Çakto vacayitukāryaḥ brā° C.

^{page 494 note 1} Query read “Will he eat it?“

^{page 494 note 2} Bhartā tām, MS.

^{page 494 note 3} Sā, MS.

^{page 494 note 4} Anye MS.; but the dual spoils the sense. One rival is enough.

^{page 495 note 1} Anupraveçakaṃ, S. The substantive is new, not being found in the dictionaries.

^{page 495 note 2} Anusmarat, MS. In the next sentence, gṛihītum as in early Skt.; cf. gṛihīshyati in Tale 30.

^{page 495 note 3} ‘Vyayagat or (?)’ vyapagat. See § I. p. 468 above.

^{page 495 note 4} Bhaksha ishyāmi MS.

^{page 496 note 1} The string of nearly synonymous verbs recalls the style of the Divyāvadāna.

^{page 496 note 2} A.D. 1484.

^{page 496 note 3} Secunda manu.

^{page 497 note 1} Svaraṃ saṃshṛitya cf. Saṃskṛitam abhiçritya in the dramas. Possibly however the phrase may refer to some rhetorical intonation.

^{page 497 note 2} Lit. “sue against death.”

^{page 499 note 1} Dr. Bühler suggests: sahāyagu°.

^{page 499 note 2} Karuṇāksharam ākrandayitvā.