^{page 452 note 1} It will be found in MrThomas's, edition of Prinsep's Indian Antiquities, Vol. II., p. 245Google Scholar.

^{page 452 note 2} With the name of each of them the word śrí or śrímat is connected; but, in all cases, I take it, simply to mark respect.

Yet there are names of which the syllable śrí forms a component part; and, in general, it is easy enough to decide whether it is so to be understood. Familiar examples are S'rídhara, S'ríkaṇṭha, S'ríkara, S'rínivása, and S'rípati. Before ṣuch appellations, at least in inscriptions, the complimentary śrí is, it appears, always omitted.

As to the first of the Guptas of whom we have any knowledge, it has been usual, with orientalists, to term him simply Gupta; and I believe that all of them who write S'rígupta write Gupta also, as if they considered the S'rí to be an honorifie prefix merely. His name occurs, so far as is yet known, on only two occasions; once on the Bhitari pillar, and once on the Allahabad pillar: and in both places we find S'rígupta, “Fortune-protected.” Apparently, it was a misapprehension with regard to S'rígnpta's designation that has led to his being spoken of as “the founder of the dynasty known by his name.” His being the founder of a dynasty does not follow from the fact that we have learned nothing of his ancestors.

For a S'rígupta who practised against the life of Buddha, see Voyages des Pclerins Bouddhistes, Vol. III., pp. 18, et seg.

^{page 453 note 1} The original has, distinctly, Sainghapura. Again, in the eighth stanza, it exhibits Singha, the name of a king. That these are vernacular forms which were current in the days of the inscription is not to be doubted. Still, it is most likely that their appearance in the inscription was due, not to the writer of it, but to the engraver: for, in the eighth stanza, there is also , which the presence of a pun is insufficient to account for.

For , in place of , in another old inscription, see the Journal of the Bombay B. R. A. Soc., Vol. II., plate II., line 9.

It will scarcely admit of question that the kingdom of Sainhapura was like-wise, and more commonly, known as Sinhapura. A region bearing the latter name is noticed by Hiouen Tsang, who expressly says, however, that it had no king of ite own, and was a dependency of Cashmere. Westerly, it extended to the neighbourhood of the Indus; and its capital was in the mountains. This was in the seventh century. See Voyayes dts Pclerins Bouddhistes, Vol. II., p. 162.

The second stanza of the inscription may be translated thus: “Among the monarchs born of the stock of Yadu, who, from the beginning of the present Yuga, have held the kingdom of Sainhapura, there was, in course, a regal saint, the auspicious Senavarman by name.” Such is the more probable interpretation. Nevertheless, it is obvious to suggest that Sainhapura may have been indebted, for the name by which it is found designated, to Sinhavarman, its sixth master in descent from Senavarman.

^{page 454 note 1} See stanza VIII.

^{page 454 note 2} See stanza XII. I am at a loss to conjecture what this Ghanghalá could have been. Its name, which is said to express its character, looks like a depravation of the Sanskrit janghála, “fleet.” The word occurs again in the fifteenth stanza; and ghanghalabhatá is met with in the fourteenth.

^{page 454 note 3} No exception need be taken to the form íśwará even as a common noun, “mistress.” It is the only form authorized by Pánini: III., 2, 175. The íśwarí of the Rámáyana and later works is a deviation from the Pániníyan standard.

^{page 454 note 4} It is not imperative to conclude, because of this name, that I's'wará, the daughter of a Kshatriya, was wedded to a Vais'ya. The ending gupta, it should seem, is not restricted to the appellations of members of that class. S'rígupta and his successors have been reputed to be Vais'yas; but I know not on what irrecusable authority. See Professor Wilson's translation of the Vishnu-puráṇa, p. 479, footnote 70. The rule of the Mánava-dharma-śástra, II., 32, as explained by Kullúka, has long been practically disregarded. Was Kálidása a S'údra?

^{page 454 note 5} Bhaṭṭa, a corruption of bhartṛi. For its equivalence, as used by the humble, to rájan, see the Daśa-rúpa, II., 64. Bhaṭṭáraka, in the phraseology of inscriptions, is much more common.

^{page 454 note 6} Sútradhára, literally, “cord-bearer.” To judge from its etymology, it may have meant, originally, “one who holds a plumb-line.” As found used, its. import is wider.

^{page 455 note 1} I here substitute the visarga for sh.

^{page 455 note 2} Corrected from .

^{page 455 note 3} An anuawára has been supplied over

^{page 455 note 4} “His son was the auspicious King Devavarman, so called; who inspired the timorous with fearlessness, conferred wealth on the needy, secured victory to his family, and wrought the destruction of his enemies.”

The paltry figure of rhetoric exemplified in the Sanskrit is not unknown to mediræval Greek and Latin. Subjoined are some specimens:

Mρτνς, βασιλɛ, ἵππε, λóγχη, βρβαροι, Σμπνει, δωκε, σπδε, πλττε, ππτετε.

Hæe tria tabiscam pellunt adverbia pestem:

Mox, longe, tarde, cede, recede, redi.

And see, among English poets, Sir Philip Sidney.

^{page 455 note 5} There is no Visarga in the original.

^{page 455 note 6} The original here has an upadhmáníya. But we hare no type for it.

^{page 455 note 7} Here the original has a jihwámúliya: and for this, too, a type is wanting. I hare exchanged for .

^{page 456 note 1} The unusual is deserving of notice.

^{page 456 note 2} There is here a jihwámúlíya in the original. is there put, by error, for .

^{page 456 note 3} At the end of a páda, in the Bhaṭṭi-kávya, X., 14, an anuswára is taken to make no position; and the commentator, Bharatasena, citing relevant authority, holds that there is no breach of the laws of prosody. Such is the laxity, in a matter of metre, observable in a work written for strictly grammatical purposes. In aggravation of this laxity, the syllable gha of ghanghalá is reckoned as a single instant.

For the substance of this note, I have to thank Dr. Goldstücker, and also for the emendation of the sixteenth stanza.

^{page 456 note 4} The verb apagaṇ I have not seen elsewhere. It is the same as avagaṇ.

^{page 456 note 6} Almost certainly there is some mistake here.

^{page 457 note 1} I have added the last letter. Agreeably to the method followed in the inscription, there would here be an anuswára: a symbol that could easily escape the eye of a copyist.

^{page 457 note 2} The facsimile, violating metre, has .

^{page 457 note 3} Iva may here mean the same as eva.

^{page 457 note 4} The visaarga is omitted in the original.

^{apge 457 note 5} Compare, for analogous instances, Páṇini, VIII., 4, 3 and 10.