^{page 38 note 1} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 8, 88–90Google Scholar; Vāyu, 70, 81–82Google Scholar; Liṅga, i, 63, 80–82Google Scholar; which have almost the same statement.

^{page 38 note 2} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 65, 29–34Google Scholar; Vāyu, 90, 28–33Google Scholar; Brahma, 9, 20–23Google Scholar; Harivaṁśa, 25, 1341–5Google Scholar; Viṣṇu, iv, 6, 8–11Google Scholar; Padma, vi, 211, 16–22Google Scholar. Or Soma's performance of the rājasūya, Harivaṁśa, 192, 11098Google Scholar. A different story in Matsya, 172, 10 ff.Google Scholar; Padma, v, 37, 116ff.Google Scholar; Harivaṁśa, 43, 2379 ffGoogle Scholar. Other accounts in Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 72, 79–80Google Scholar; Vāyu, 97, 80Google Scholar; Matsya, 47, 48–9.Google Scholar

^{page 38 note 3} Mahābhārata, xii, 234, 8611–12Google Scholar; xiii, 137, 6272–4.

^{page 38 note 4} Id. i, 173, 6615–30.

^{page 39 note 1} Devarāj was a name, for it is given as such to the early Aikṣvāku king Vikuksi: Matsya, 12, 26Google Scholar; Agni, 272, 18.Google Scholar

^{page 39 note 2} Translation of the Viṣṇu Purana, Bk. iv, ch. 3, note.

^{page 40 note 1} Also alluded to in Mahābhārata, xiii, 3, 189.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 2} Rāmāyana, ii, 41, 10—Google Scholar

Triśaṅkur Lohitāṅgaś ca Bṛhaspati-Budhāv api dāruṇāḥ Somam abhyetya grahāḥ sarve vyavasthitāḥ.

^{page 40 note 3} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 63, 115–17Google Scholar; Vāyu, 88, 117–19Google Scholar; Brahma, 8, 24–6Google Scholar; Harivaṁśa, 13, 754–6Google Scholar; Śiva, vii, 61, 20–2Google Scholar; and Liṅga, i, 66, 10–11Google Scholar (which omits the third and fourth lines). Unimportant variations are omitted.

^{page 40 note 4} Satyaratā in Brahmāṇḍa and Vāyu; °vratā in Liṅga. Kūrma, i, 21Google Scholar, 2 calls her Satyadhanā.

^{page 40 note 5} Viṣṇu, iv, 3, 15Google Scholar and Garuda, , 138, 26–7Google Scholar (which say Rohitāśva); Kūrma, i, 21, 2–3Google Scholar; Bhāgavata, ix, 7, 7–9.Google Scholar

^{page 40 note 6} Matsya, 12, 37–8Google Scholar and Padma, v, 8, 142Google Scholar (which agree); Agni, 272, 26–7Google Scholar (which says Rohitāśva). Also Padma, vi, 21, 10.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 1} Mahābhārata, ii, 12, 488–98Google Scholar, which gives a glowing account of his majesty and this sacrifice. Also Harivaṁśa, 192, 11100Google Scholar; Mārkaṇḍeya, 7, 25, 39, 40.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 2} Macdonell, & Keith, , Vedic Index, ii, p. 219.Google Scholar

^{page 42 note 3} Mahābhārata, ii, 12, 491, 497–8Google Scholar; and line 4 of the genealogy quoted above.

^{page 42 note 4} Mārkaṇḍeya, 7, 25, 36, 39; 8, 9.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 1} Ch. 7 and 8. Muir gives an abstract of it, Sanskrit Texts, i, 88 ffGoogle Scholar. It calls Rohita, Rohitāsya wrongly (8, 58, 179, 260).Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 2} Id. 7, 25, 36–41; 8, 9, 40–3.

^{page 43 note 3} Hariścandra's caṇḍālahood there (also alluded to in Padma, ii, 12, 122)Google Scholar appears to be a misplacement of Satyavrata's degradation in exile, which is called caṇḍālahood in the Rāmāyaṇa, (i, 58, 10)Google Scholar, Viṣṇu, (iv, 3, 13)Google Scholar and Bhāgavata, (ix, 7, 5).Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 4} Mārkaṇḍeya, 8, 270; 9, 27.Google Scholar

^{page 43 note 5} Id. 9. Also alluded to elsewhere, as in Bhāgavata, ix, 7, 7Google Scholar; Harivaṁśa, 192, 11100Google Scholar. The statement in Mārkaṇḍeya 9, 6, that Viśvāmitra destroyed Vasiṣṭha's hundred sons, is another instance of the lack of the historical sense, for it does not apply to these two rishis, but to two of their descendants long afterwards in the reign of king Sudās or Saudāsa; Bṛhaddevatā, vi, 28, 34.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 1} Mahābhārata, ii, 12, 491–8.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 2} Rāmāyaṇa, i, 61, 3–4; 63, 1–2.Google Scholar

^{page 44 note 3} The two texts are published together as an Appendix in Müller, Max's History of A.S.L. The story is discussed there, pp. 408–420Google Scholar; by Roth, in Indische Studien, i, 457Google Scholar; ii, 112; and in SBE. xliv, pp. xxxiv ffGoogle Scholar. It is noticed by ProfessorMacdonell, in his Sanskrit Literature, p. 207Google Scholar; and by Professor Keith in JRAS. 1911, p. 988.Google Scholar

^{page 45 note 1} The Sūtra says, the seventh year.

^{page 45 note 2} The Sūtra says Ajīgarta was about to eat one of his sons, apparently Sunaḥśepa.

^{page 47 note 1} xiii, 3, 186–7; the only passage where Śunaḥśepa is mentioned. For Hariścandraḥ in the Calcutta edition read Hariścandra-.

^{page 47 note 2} Bhṛgutuṅga is placed in the North region, apparently not far west of the sources of the Ganges; Mahābhārata, i, 215, 7812–13, iii, 90, 8394–6, and 130, 10555.Google Scholar

^{page 48 note 1} Vasiṣṭha, 's Lawbook, xvii, 30–2Google Scholar, says king Hariścandra bought the son of Ajīgarta Sauyavasi: SBE. xiv, 87Google Scholar. See p. 61, note ⁴.

^{page 49 note 1} The kumāraḥ Sāhadevyaḥ of Rigveda, iv, 15, 7–10.Google Scholar

^{page 49 note 2} 2 Kings, iii, 26–7.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 1} Mahābhārata, iii, 127, 10471–128, 10499.Google Scholar

^{page 50 note 2} In the genealogy of the North Pañcāla dynasty. The oldest version is in Vāyu, 99, 209–10Google Scholar and Matsya, 50, 15–16Google Scholar, which agree. The Viṣṇu, (iv, 19, 18)Google Scholar is brief, makes no mention of the sacrifice, and modifies Jantu's position. Brahma 13, 100 and Harivaṁśa 32, 1792–3 (which agree) modify the version further, strike out the reference to the sacrifice, and alter Jantu's position completely.

^{page 50 note 3} Judges xi, 30–5.

^{page 50 note 4} Here we probably miss the aid a kṣatriya version would have given.

^{page 52 note 1} The Brāhmaṇa and Sūtra say “returned to the village”, even when he returned finally with Śunaḥṣepa to his father at Ayodhyā. This seems a brahmanical touch. The brahmans who composed such works lived away in the forests a,nd were practically conversant only with villages. Would a kṣatriya ballad have called Ayodhyā a grāma? This word suggests that the author of this brahmanic version knew nothing of towns. The Bhāgavata says “village” at first, but afterwards “city”.

^{page 53 note 1} Nor if Indra means Devarāj Vasiṣṭha himself, see p. 54.

^{page 55 note 1} This outcome would be even clearer if, as seems probable, there was no other near heir to the throne; for Satyavrata had been an only son, so was Rohita, and, though the story does not definitely say so, yet its general tenor suggests that Hariścandra also was an only son.

^{page 56 note 1} This is practically the view that Manu takes when he says, “Ajīgarta when famished approached to kill his son, and did not sin because he was seeking relief from hunger” (x, 105)—evidently following the Sūtra story (p. 45, note ²). In commenting thereon Medhātithi ineptly explains (as I understand it) that Ajīgarta did not eat raw flesh or carrion (kravyāda); but Kullūka and Rāghavānanda refer this to Ajīgarta's preparing to slay his son at the sacrifice, quite forgetting that he was no longer famished then, since he had received a hundred cattle for selling his son and another hundred for binding him. The other commentators offer no explanation.

^{page 58 note 1} Brahma, 150, 2Google Scholar, Suyavasyâtmajo: hence in this story in 104, 45, in Vayasaḥ sutam should probably be Suyavasaḥ sutam.

^{page 58 note 2} Brahmāṇḍa, ii, 32, 107–111Google Scholar; iii, 1, 101–113; Vāyu, 59, 98–102Google Scholar; 65, 97–108; Matsya 196. Nor in the Bhārgava vaṁśa, see p. 59, note¹.

^{page 58 note 3} So Brahma, 10, 64Google Scholar; and Harivaṁśa, 27, 1470, 1774 explicitly.Google Scholar

^{page 58 note 4} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 66, 63–4Google Scholar; Vāyu, 91, 92Google Scholar; Brahma, 10, 53–4Google Scholar; Harivaṁśa, 27, 1456–7Google Scholar. They add the following lines (immaterial mistakes and variations being omitted), in which the Brahma and Harivaṁśa put the last line in front:—

Viśvāmitrasya putras tu Śunaḥśepo 'bhavan muniḥ

Hariścandrasya yajñe tu paśutve niyataḥ sa vai

devair dattaḥ Śunaḥśepo Viśvāmitrāya vai punaḥ

devair dattaḥ sa vai yasmād Devarātas tato 'bhavat

Viśvāmitrasya putrāṇām Śunaḥśepo 'grajaḥ smṛtaḥ.

^{page 59 note 1} Mahābhārata, iii, 115, 11046, 11055Google Scholar; xii, 49, 1721, 1726, 1731. Rāmāyaṅa, i, 61, 16–17Google Scholar. Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 66, 37–8Google Scholar. Vāyu, 91, 66–8Google Scholar. Brahma, 10, 29–30Google Scholar. Harivaṁśa, 27, 1431–2Google Scholar. Viṣṇu, iv, 7, 5–6Google Scholar. Also in the Bhārgava vaṁśa, Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 1, 93–5Google Scholar; Vāyu, 65, 90–2Google Scholar; and by his patronymic Aurva in Matsya 195, 15, 16, etc.

^{page 59 note 2} Brahma, 10, 64Google Scholar; Harivaṃśa, 27, 1470, 1774Google Scholar; Viṣṇu, iv, 7, 17Google Scholar; and so Bhāgavata, ix, 16, 30, 32Google Scholar, though it gives him the patronymic Ājīgarta.

^{page 59 note 3} See Macdonell, & Keith, , Vedic IndexGoogle Scholar.

^{page 59 note 4} See Sörensen, 's Index.Google Scholar

^{page 59 note 5} Ṛcīka also in Rāmāyaṇa, i, 34, 7Google Scholar, as Satyavatī's husband.

^{page 59 note 6} Unless possibly it may occur in a list of rishis of all periods jumbled together, such as is sometimes introduced.

^{page 59 note 7} See JRAS. 1910, p. 35; 1914, p. 279.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 1} JRAS. 1910, p. 35.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 2} JRAS. 1914, p. 279.Google Scholar

^{page 60 note 3} Thus Rāma is called Ṛcīka's son (nandana), instead of grandson, in Mahābhārata, iii, 99, 8658.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 1} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 1, 98–9Google Scholar; Vāyu, 65, 95Google Scholar; Mahābhārata, i, 66, 2613Google Scholar. This does not preclude some etymological connexion between Ajīgarta and Ṛcīka.

^{page 61 note 2} Macdonell, & Keith, , Vedic Index, i, p. 32.Google Scholar

^{page 61 note 3} Brahmāṇḍa, ii, 32, 110Google Scholar; iii, 1, 105, 106, 110; and the corresponding passages in Vāyu 59, 101; 65, 100, 101, 106, where the name is more or less corrupted. Also Matsya 196, 4, where he is called Ajasya. He is not mentioned in the Mahābhārata, , videGoogle Scholar Sörensen's Index.

^{page 61 note 4} This may explain the statement that Hariścandra alias Ambarīṣa bought Śunaḥśepa (p. 48), because the cattle would have been the king's, and he would have ratified the transaction.

^{page 62 note 1} There is nothing in Rigveda, i, 24, 12, 13Google Scholar, and V, 2, 7, inconsistent with this.

^{page 62 note 2} The Taittirīya (v, 2, 1, 3) and Kāṭhaka (xix, 11) Saṁhitās say Varuṇa seized Sunaḥśepa, and he obtained deliverance from Varuṇa's bond. If this means more than that Varuṇa accepted and took him (as a substitute) and Śunaḥśepa was freed, it is a brahmanical mistake, for there was no reason whatever why Varuṇa should afflict this hapless and innocent brahman youth.

^{page 63 note 1} So also Bṛhaddevatā, iii, 103Google Scholar, adding ineptly the epithet “celestial”.

^{page 64 note 1} Vasiṣṭha's Lawbook goes further and says (xvii, 33–5) at first the officiating priests each wanted to have Śunaḥśepa as his son—very improbable considering his condition. SBE. xiv, 87.

^{page 64 note 2} See p. 58, note ⁴; and Bhāgavata, ix, 16, 31–2.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 3} Müller, Max, History of A.S.L., pp. 416–17.Google Scholar

^{page 64 note 4} Rigveda, iii, 53, 9, 12Google Scholar. Bṛhaddevatā, iv, 106Google Scholar; perhaps 112.

^{page 64 note 5} JRAS. 1910, pp. 23, 26, 28Google Scholar; 1914, pp. 284, 288, 296.

^{page 65 note 1} Müller, Max, History of A.S.L., p. 416.Google Scholar

^{page 66 note 1} Quite intelligibly, as the author of this version apparently lived away in the country and knew nothing of city life (p. 52, note).