^{page 433 note 1} Cf. Smith, Vincent, Early History of India ², p. 288,Google Scholar n.; Macdonell, , Sanskrit Literature, p. 321;Google Scholar with Henry, , Les Littératures de l'Inde, p. 215;Google ScholarOldenberg, , Die Literatur des alten Indien, p. 215;Google ScholarDuff, , Chronology of India, p. 47;Google Scholar my notes, JRAS., 1901, p. 579; 1908, p. 575; 1909, p. 146.Google Scholar

^{page 433 note 2} Gött. Nach., 1890, pp. 251 seq.Google Scholar

^{page 433 note 3} Die indischen Inschriften, p. 71,Google Scholar and independently, pp. 24, 25, he compares vv. 33–5 with Ṛtusaṃhāra, v, 3 and 9. I have no doubt that the Ṛtusaṃhāra is Kāliāasa's work.

^{page 433 note 4} Op. cit., pp. 18 seq. It adds very materially to the argument, especially as some writers still doubt the authenticity of the Ṛtusaṃhāra (cf. Lévi, , Théâtre indien, ii, 34;Google ScholarHenry, , p. 217, n. 1;Google ScholarOldenberg, , p. 217, n. 1Google Scholar), which Dr. Hoernle does not do.

^{page 434 note 1} Cited by Hoernle, , JRAS., 1909, p. 111.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 1} Op. cit., p. 71.Google Scholar

^{page 434 note 1} v. 26: bandhupriyo bandhur iva prajānāṃ | bandhvarttihartā nrpabandhuvarmā | For bandhupriyo, ef. Nala, i, 2,Google Scholarakṣapriyaḥ, no doubt in both cases active. Cf. Vārtt. 2 on Pāṇini, ii, 2, 35.

^{page 435 note 1} JRAS., 1904, pp. 396Google Scholar seq. The priority of Bhaṭṭi to Bhāravi and Daṇḍin is, of course, no evidence for identity with Vatsabhaṭṭi, and the omission of the end of the Rāmāyaṇa proves nothing, as it can hardly be seriously argued that the last book of that Epic is nearly as late as A.D. 473. The description of Dharasena as narendra is in favour of Dharasena I having been Bhaṭṭi's patron, and if so, he dates before A.D. 520 (cf. Hoernle, , p. 131;Google ScholarBombay Gazetteer, i, 1, 88Google Scholar). The Bhartṛhari ascription is hopeless (cf. my App. to Bodl. Catal., p. 32Google Scholar and reff.).

^{page 435 note 2} Op. cit., pp. 26–9.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 3} JRAS., 1909, p. 110.Google Scholar

^{page 435 note 4} Ibid. p. 139.

^{page 435 note 5} Buhler, , op. cit., p. 79,Google Scholar n. 2.

^{page 435 note 6} Cf. Macdonell, , op. cit., p. 325;Google ScholarTakakusu, , JRAS., 1905 (not 1906), p. 42, n. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 1} Cf. Palmer, , Horace's Satires, pp. xiv seq.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 2} Buhler, , op. cit., p. 79;Google ScholarMacdonell, , op. cit., p. 324;Google ScholarWeber, , ZDMG., xxvi, 726 seq.Google Scholar; Bohtlingk and Roth, in the St. Petersburg Dictionary, merely cite Mallinātha, and do not endorse his view; Monier-Williams' Dict.² cites no authority for either sense save the Mahābhārata, no doubt by an error.

^{page 436 note 3} See Fleet, , Gupta Inscriptions, pp. 146 seq.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 4} Hoernle, , p. 110,Google Scholar n. 1; Cakravarti, , JRAS., 1904, p. 159.Google Scholar

^{page 436 note 5} In Raghuvaṁśa, iv, 67,Google Scholar the Sindhu appears but only as a v.l.; of. Cakravarti, loc. cit.

^{page 437 note 1} Since the above was written, there has appeared Dr. Bloch's note on “Die Zeit Kālidāsa's” in ZDMG., lxii, 671–6.Google Scholar He finds in the same digvijaya a reflection of the glories of Samudragupta, and in the completeness of the description of the southern conquests of the king a parallel to lines 19 and 20 of the Allahabad Inscription. He also calls attention to the analogy of Rāma's history with that of the Gupta family, a union of east and west, and finds in iv, 20, ikṣuchāyāniṣādinyas tasya goptur guṇodayam ākumārakathodghātam śāligopyo jagur yaśaḥ, references to Candragupta and Kumarāgupta. So far as the digvijaya is concerned, I am as little convinced by Dr. Bloch as by Dr. Hoernle, but certainly the note of the former shows how little weight can be placed on the suggestion of the latter. The reference to Kumāragupta and the Guptas generally is more convincing, and Dr. Bloch reminds us of the connection of Candragupta II with Vīrasena, a Kautsa, with which may be compared the hermitage of Kautsa in Raghuraṁśa, v.

^{page 437 note 2} Op. cit., p. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 437 note 3} See Hoernle, , p. 121,Google Scholar n. 2.

^{page 438 note 1} p. 133. Dr. Bloch, p. 675, finds a proof of the existence of Western peoples in India in Samudragupta's time, and compares the Sāhi, Sāhānuṣahi, Śaka, and Muruṇḍa of line 23 of the Allahabad Inscription. But this is quite unconvincing.

^{page 438 note 2} Cf. Hoernle, , p. 106;Google ScholarBühler, , p. 82.Google Scholar

^{page 438 note 3} Cf. Merivale, , Hist., vii, 344.Google Scholar

^{page 438 note 4} Cf. Grierson, , JRAS., 1903, p. 363,Google Scholar and see Jebb, , Œdipus Coloneus, p. xlii.Google ScholarBloch, , p. 673,Google Scholar has some very pertinent remarks on this point.

^{page 438 note 5} Hoernle, , JRAS., 1909, p. 103;Google ScholarSmith, Vincent, Early History of India ², pp. 275 seq.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 1} JRAS., 1903, pp. 183 seq.; 1905, pp. 158 seq.,Google Scholar where he quotes Professor Paṭhak as concurring, and recalling his old view which is accepted as correct by Hoernle (p. 109).

^{page 439 note 2} Cf. Thibaut, , Astronomie, p. 56;Google ScholarDīkshit, S. B., Ind. Ant., xix, 45 seq., 133 seq.;Google ScholarBühler, , op. cit., p. 4.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 3} Bühler, , pp. 80, 81.Google Scholar

^{page 439 note 4} That from Subandhu and Candragomin is certainly ambiguous. A reference to a Vikramāditya in the former points to Skandagupta who bore the title (Hoernle, , p. 102)Google Scholar, and on whose death the empire did go to ruins (ibid., p. 141), rather than to Yaśodharman, who does not take the title in the inscriptions which certainly refer to him. That in Candragomin must remain vague until Jarta is explained. Yaśodharman may have been a Jāṭ, whoever the Jāṭs were, but that is a mere possibility and nothing more. I suspect that he was not so great a man as his records would make out, and that Bālāditya had some claim to have resisted the Huns. Cf. also Fleet, , JRAS., 1904, pp. 164–7.Google Scholar