^{page 565 note 1} I use the following abbreviations: PW., Böhtlingk and Roth's St. Petersburg Sanskrit Dictionary; PWK., Böhtlingk's shorter Sanskrit Dictionary; Schmidt, R. Schmidt's Nachträge to the preceding; KA., Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra, ed. Jolly and Schmidt (quotation by chapter and sentence numbers); MBh., Mahābhārata, Calcutta ed.; Grierson, G. Grierson'sBihar Peasant Life, Calcutta, 1885Google Scholar; Kern, H. Kern'sToevoegselen, Amsterdam, 1916Google Scholar; PD., Rhys Davids and Stede's PaliEnglish Dictionary. References to Pali works are given in the same way as in the latter, and the quotations from the Nikāya commentaries, when not available in P.T.S. texts, are taken from the Bangkok editions. For Jaina words I have used the Abhidhānarājendra, Rutlam, 1913–1925, which I indicate by AR.

^{page 568 note 1} The former explanation is perhaps more likely, for the Brāhmaḧas use ātntano'dhi with nirmā for creation by evolving out of oneself (Oldenberg, H., Die Weltanschauung der Brāhmaṇatexte, p. 171)Google Scholar. This leads to expressions like MBh. v, 2189–90, Gāήgeyaḥ Śātanor adhi / jajñe. The connection of adhi with the idea of evolution goes back to the Veda; thus in the famous creation hymn, RV., x, 129, 4, we have kāmas tad agre sam avartatādhi, and there seems to be a definite contrast between adhi and pari, the latter governing the material out of which a thing is made.

^{page 570 note 1} The same word probably also occurs in Kāśyapaparivarta, ed. Staël-Holstein, v., Shanghai, 1926, p. 221Google Scholar, in the mutilated word . . . dajavajavitā.

^{page 570 note 2} I exclude as too far-fetched the possibility of any connection with the rare Vedic word ṛdu, known only in compounds and of uncertain meaning (see Neisser, Zum Wörterbuch des Ṛgveda, s. ṛdūdara).

^{page 571 note 1} Udhrasnāti in the first line means “steals”.

^{page 574 note 1} Cf. the use of apalāpya by the commentary on Kāmasūtra (Kashi Sanskrit series. No. 29), vi, 2, 19.

^{page 576 note 1} The Jain term ummagqadesanā has perhaps the same origin.

^{page 581 note 1} If this argument ia sound, it is of some value in dating the KA., which on other grounds I suggested in the Journal for 1929, pp. 77 ff., should probably be placed somewhere in the first two centuries a.d. For it knows various uses for chariots, but displays no enthusiasm for their use for military purposes as compared with elephants and cavalry; this seems to corroborate the view I then expressed.

^{page 581 note 2} It is not necessarily of Indo-Aryan origin; the Vedio equivalent seems to have been skambha, though it was presumably of a different shape, to judge from RV. i, 34, 2, trayaḣ skawbāsaḣ, skabhitāsa ārabhe, which recalls what I have said above about holding on to the kūbara.

^{page 583 note 1} See now also Turner's Nepali Dictionary, s. caṅerā.

^{page 584 note 1} Woolner, and Sarup, in Thirteen Trivandrum Plays, 1930, vol. i, p. 76Google Scholar, read cāṅgerilcā and translate “wood-sorrel” (since altered in vol. ii to above).

^{page 587 note 1} Surely the word sirīra, which puzzled Lüders in the same verse, in the expression vinayasamuttejitasīriram is a mistake for °sirīkam, as indicated by the Chinese (“la majesté du souverain excellent”, Huber); the difference between ka and ra is little more than a cross-stroke which would be easily omitted, and the fragments of the Buddhist dramas have nissirīlca and sassirīka.

^{page 588 note 1} There is a difference of nuance between the Pali word and the Sanskrit phrase, which latter comes to mean proverbially casting pearls before swine (cf. Bṛhatkathāślokasaṁgraha, x, 26).

^{page 590 note 1} The explanation is perhaps that given in AR., tulā, grhāxṇāṁ dārubandhakāṁhe. This is the sense accepted by J. J. Meyer in his translation, p. 217, n. 2; tulā properly is an upright used to support a crosspiece, as in a pair of scales or the swing lever (above, p. 586), or in tulāvā (Grierson, § 167, etc.).

^{page 590 note 2} For the dhvaja, patākā, and aṅkuśa the original idea was perhaps that only kings used them and would have their hands marked by them, as is recorded of Duryodhana at MBh., v, 4226.

^{page 591 note 1} The statements about the Sanchi and Amaravati sculptures here and under kubbara above have been verified as far as possible by reference to such photographs as are available at the India Office.