^{page 135 note 1} JRAS. 1916, pp. 567–70.Google Scholar

^{page 135 note 2} xxiv, 15, 34 sq.

^{page 135 note 3} Orion, p. 30.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 1} ZDMG. lxvi, 636.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 2} JAOS. xxiv, 18, 19, 392, 393.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 3} iii, 134. 17, etc.

^{page 136 note 4} x, 184. 3; daśamāsya, v, 78. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 136 note 5} AB. vii, 13. 9. In CU. v, 9. I there is a curious divergence of text; most read (with Böhtlingk) an alternation of ten months and yāvad vā; the Nirnaya Sagar ed. inserts “or nine”, which agrees with the Buddhist version of the period and Yājñ. iii, 83.

^{page 136 note 6} xii, 321. 117

^{page 137 note 1} i, 63. 61.

^{page 137 note 2} Windisch, , Buddha's Geburt, pp. 120 sq.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 3} ŚB. xi, 1. 6. 2; the parallel with Prajāpati and xi, 5. 4. 6 disprove the rendering suggested.

^{page 137 note 4} AB. iv, 22.

^{page 137 note 5} Weber, , Naxatra, ii, 313.Google Scholar

^{page 137 note 6} Jolly, , Medicin, p. 53. 7 xii, 232. 13.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 1} Arist. Hist. An. vii, 4, 584a 36 (7 and 10 months); fr. 258 (7, 8, 10, 11 months); Verg. Ecl. iv, 61; Plin. N.H. vii, 5. In Vendidād, v, 45Google Scholar, 10 months appears as the extreme period. In Wisdom, vii, 2Google Scholar, we have 10, in 2 Macc, vii, 27Google Scholar, however, 9 months.

^{page 138 note 2} König, , ZDMG. lx, 619.Google Scholar

^{page 138 note 3} vii, 50. 4.

^{page 138 note 4} AB. vi, 30.

^{page 138 note 5} JRAS. 1916, p. 569.Google Scholar

^{page 139 note 1} The evidence of borrowing adduced by Holtzmann (Das Mahābhārata im Osten und Westen, p. 67Google Scholar) is clearly inadequate to prove the relation.