^{page 754 note 1} The characters are rendered by Yüeh-shih, which represents their modern Peking pronunciation. The usual transcription (Yüeh-chih) has not been adopted for reasons stated in my paper “ΚΟΡΑΝΟ und Yüeh-shih” (Sitzungsberichte der Königlich Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1914, pp. 643–50). In the article mentioned I call attention to the fact that in the Ma-ming-p'u-sa-chuan (Life of Aśvaghoṣa) Kaniṣka is spoken of as a ruler of the Little Yüeh-shih, and try to prove that the characters , which in one of the old dialects were probably pronounced Kur-ṣi or Gur-ṣi, represent the nominative singular corresponding to the genitive plural ΚΟΡΣΑΝΟ (ΚΟΡΑΝΟ) = Kursānu (Kuṣānu). The regular nominative singular of the theme Kuṣa would, in the second “unknown” language of Eastern Turkestan (cf. above, p. 84), be Kuṣi.

^{page 754 note 2} The work last named has Kuśa (not Kuṣa). It seems to be admitted (above, p. 380) that the difference between ś and ṣ is in this case immaterial (cf. above, p. 87). I note that my suggestion regarding the name Kuśadvīpa has not been criticized. The fact that this name is in the Matsyapurāṇa placed immediately after the Śākadvīpa has been mentioned above (p. 88), and I still believe that the expression might be rendered by “the dvīpa of the Kuṣas”. Those who accept this interpretation will agree that the name Kuṣa occurs at least three times in Indian literature (preserved in the original or translated into foreign languages), while no trace of the supposed name Kuṣāṇa (or Kushān) can be found there. Cf. what Professor Konow says in the Journal of the German Oriental Society (1914, p. 96) about Kuśadvīpa, which he also connects with the “ethnic name Koṣa or Kuṣa”. text, and made the mistake alleged above (pp. 380, 411); but it seems incredible that a famous scholar like Kumārajīva, who had travelled in the Yüeh-shih dominions as early as the fourth century and translated a life of Kaniṣka's court poet, should have been ignorant of the correct name of the great monarch's race.

^{page 755 note 1} We find some biographical data concerning Kumārajīva and a list of his existing translations in Bunyiu Nanjio's Catalogue of the Chinese Translation of the Buddhist Tripiṭaka, Appendix ii, No. 59. Among the translations there are lives of Aśvaghoṣa, Nāgārjuna, and Deva.

^{page 755 note 2} The ipsissima verba of one of them are quoted in my article “ΚΟΡΑΝΟ und Yüeh-shih”, referred to above (p. 754). Dr. J. F. Fleet reads (above, p. 370): “Kushāṇa-putr[o]: son or descendant of the Kushāṇas”, and adds (p. 371): “we cannot find an anusvāra and read Kushāṇaṁ, and still less Kushāṇāṁ,” and “The marks above the ṇa, are only due to damage to the stone”.

^{page 756 note 1} I considered (above, p. 87) Kuṣānu as a Scythian (i.e. Old Khotanī, or language ii) genitive plural, preserved in the half-Prākṛtized legend. It would, no doubt, simplify matters if it could be proved that a Prākṛt genitive plural (Kuṣānaṃ) was intended.

^{page 756 note 2} e.g. in the word paśumanuśanaṃ. Cf. Senart, , Inscriptions de Piyadassi, p. 64Google Scholar, pl. i. Mr. Pargiter says (above, p. 650): “u in nu was denoted [in the Aśoka inscriptions] by that [leftward] stroke applied, however, to the very extremity of n.”

^{page 756 note 3} We find the same sign in the word Naṃdasena, which occurs in one of the Kharoṣṭhī documents from Niya deciphered by Professor Rapson. Cf. p. 10 of his Specimens of Kharoṣṭhī Inscriptions. The same sign will, I think, be recognized between Me and drasa on some of Menander's coins, and I have no doubt that it was intended for naṃ (nan). Cf. Mr. Smith's Catalogue of Coins, pl. v, No. 3; Professor Gardner's Catalogue, pl. xi, No. 11; and Mr. Whitehead's Catalogue, pl. vi, No. 471. The stroke to the left attached to the mātṛkā na is wanting on all coins known to me where there are certain na's, as on those of Philoxenos (Philasinasa). Cf. Gardner, pl. xiii, No. 7; Smith, pl. vi, No. 4; and Whitehead, pl. vii, No. 577. Many of those interested in Indian history will, I am sure, believe that on the coins of Menander (Menaṃdrasa) and Kadphises I (Kuṣānaṃ yavugasa) the stroke to the left attached to the mātṛkā na means something, until they see a sufficient number of coins proving the contrary. I have not been able in the catalogues mentioned to discover any well-defined strokes to the left attached to na's in the Kharoṣṭhī legends of any ruler except Menander and Kadphises I. The strokes to the left are on the coins published above (p. 85) more pronounced than on those of Menander.

^{page 757 note 1} The exact reading adopted by Dr. J. F. Fleet (p. 373) is Gushaṇavaśa-saṁvardhaka. On p. 374, however, it is said: “and so we hare the name here as Gushaṇa = Gushāṇa,” and on p. 371 we find the statement: “the Kharōshṭhī alphabet does not always, if indeed ever, distinguish clearly between the cerebral ṇ and the dental n.”

^{page 758 note 1} I have not had sufficient time properly to consider the new treatment of this important record which we find above (pp. 641–60), but I note that the reading Guṣaṇo is suggested there by Mr. Pargiter, who refuses (p. 651) to admit an Old Khotanī (language ii) genitive in the Māṇikyāla inscription “because all the terminations here are Prakrit”, and explains the o (in Guṣaṇo-va^o) by assuming that the “compound” is formed “after the Iranian [!] fashion of using the nominative form instead of the base-form in the first member of a compound word” (p. 650).

^{page 758 note 2} See also JASB., 1863, pp. 145, 150.Google Scholar

^{page 759 note 1} In order to illustrate what has been said above, a line of the Māṇikyāla inscription is here shown as it appears in the second volume of the Reports of the Archæological Survey of India (Simla, 1871, pl. lxiii) and in a photographic reproduction (Journal Asiatique, Janvier—Février, 1896, pl. i).Google Scholar

^{page 759 note 2} I do not know on what grounds Dr. J. F. Fleet considers the substantial parts of the design as meaning nothing when they separate letters belonging to the same word, but attaches a great importance to them when they intervene between ΚΟΡΑΝΟ and ΡΑΟΝΑΝΟ.

^{page 760 note 1} Even those who read ΡΑΟΝΑΝΟ ΡΑΟ … ΚΟΡΑΝΟ need not abandon the view that Kuṣa is the correct name of Kaniṣka's race. Professor Konow (op. cit., p. 93) adopts the arrangement last mentioned and still considers ΚΟΡΑΝΟ as a genitive plural of Koṣa or Kuṣa. ΚΟΡΑΝΟ placed after the name of the king might perhaps mean “of the Kuṣas” (“who belongs to the Kuṣa race”). We know very little of Old Khotanī (language ii) syntax, and cannot say whether such a use of the genitive occurs in that language. In Prākṛt, however, similar cases seem to be proved. Cf. Professor Konow's article, “Goths in Ancient India,” JRAS., 1912, pp. 379–85.Google Scholar

^{page 761 note 1} The expression Kuei-shuang never, as far as I know, occurs in places where it cannot be explained as the Chinese rendering of an Iranian plural form or of a singular form of the type Preussen. It would be a different matter if e.g. Kadphises I were called a Kuei-shuang instead of being spoken of as a Kuei-shuang-hsi-hou or Kuei-shuang-wang(cf. above, p. 80).

^{page 761 note 2} Ērānšahr, p. 36, n. 2.Google Scholar

^{page 761 note 3} Cf. Marquart, , op. cit., p. 88.Google Scholar

^{page 761 note 4} It is implied above (p. 407) that the expression ΧΟΡΑΝСΥ of the Kadaphes-coins is a mistake for ΧΟΡΑΝΟΥ.

^{page 761 note 5} The anusvāra which necessitatets the reading Kuṣāṇaṃ putr[o], “scion of the Kuṣa's,” is dismissed as due to damage to the stone (cf. above, pp. 371, 755), and the mark in the Māṇikyāla inscription which Mr. Pargiter describes (p. 649) as “clearly cut, precise, and deliberate”, is disregarded as “nothing but a slight exaggeration of the slope to the left with which the Kharōshṭhī ṇ often ends” (p. 374).

^{page 762 note 1} Both translators, who are evidently quite independent of each other, give the name as Kuṣa (cf. pp. 380, 754), and Dr. J. F. Fleet believes that they are wrong, having mistaken Kuṣaṇavaṃśe for Kuṣāṇāṃ vaṃśe. Another error must be assumed if the passage of the Li-yul-lo-rgyus-pa quoted above (p. 381), “the king Kanika and the king of Guzan and king Vijayakīrti, lord of Li, and others …,” is to have any force. If the text is considered as correct, Kanika cannot be the king of Guzan, and it becomes impossible to connect Guzan with Kūšān. But, even if we do assume an error in the text and consider Guzan as a form of Kūšān, we need not attach more importance to Guzan than to the Chinese Kuei-shuang (cf. above, p. 761). I do not, owing to want of time, discuss at present the new interpretation of a certain Kidāra coin legend suggested above (p. 410) and some other matters less intimately connected with the main question (Kuṣa or Kushān) involved, but I hope I may be allowed to do so at a future date.