^{page 289 note 1} Epigraphia Carnatica, by B. Lewis Rice, C.I.E., Director of Archæological Researches in Mysore. Vol. VIII; Inscriptions in the Shimoga District, Part ii. Bangalore; Mysore Government Central Press; 1904.

^{page 289 note 2} According to a convenient system of abbreviation, laid out for the whole series, “Sb. 33” means inscription No. 33 of the Sorab tāluka. The records are best referred to in this manner, as is done by Mr. Rice himself in his introductions, except when an actual citation of page and line is necessary. But it is a drawback that the abbreviations have not been placed along the tops of the pages of the texts and translations.

^{page 291 note 1} Regarding the author of this work, and the circumstances in which he wrote it, see my article in IA, 1904, 258 ff.

^{page 292 note 1} And, earlier, in Göttinger Nachrichten, 1903, p. 303 f.

^{page 293 note 1} The word dharaṇīdhara, meaning ‘king’ and ‘mountain,’ was used for the sake of a play upon words which runs through the whole compound of which this expression forms a part.

^{page 295 note 1} There is something to he cleared up here, if it is ever worth while. The puhlished treatment represents the god Indra as giving the name Vijayapura to Ahichchhattra in the time of Priyabandhu, a predecessor of Padmanābha (EC, 7, translations, 5, and introd., 15); and this might be accepted as intelligible. But both the published texts, Kallūrguḍḍa, line 19, and Purale, line 42 (Kanarese texts, 11, 66, and romanised texts, 9, 46), say exactly the reverse; and that reading can in fact be recognised in the lithograph of the Kallūrguḍḍa record given with its romanised text. There is, however, no preceding mention in these records of a Vijayapura to which the name Ahichchhattra could be given ; whereas a previous part of the story is placed at Ahichchhattra.

^{page 296 note 1} In this table there should now be inserted the name of Vijayāditya as another son of Śrīpurusha-Muttarasa, on the authority of the published reading of the inscription at Āsandi in the Kaḍūr district, EC, 6, Kd. 145 ; see my remarks in EI, 8, 55.

^{page 298 note 1} There is another reference to this propensity in connection with the fictitious history of the Kaḷachuryas of Kalyāṇi; see F.DKD, 468.

^{page 298 note 2} Kanakapura, ‘gold-town,’ is meant to be the Sanskṛitised name of Pomburcha, Pombuḷcha (Nr. 60), in which pom = pon, ‘gold.’

^{page 298 note 3} This seems intended to be the Vikramāditya-Sāntara who was governing in a.d. 902–903 under Kṛishṇa II. ; see EC, 7, Sk. 284.

^{page 298 note 4} The translation erroneously treats the Hiraṇyagarbha as a name of Vikrama-Sāntara. It seems to be that one of the shōḍaśa mahādānāni, or ‘sixteen great gifts,’ which was sometimes called Brahmāṇḍa ; see, e.g., JBBRAS, 12, 374, 392.

^{page 299 note 1} I have followed Mr. Rice's rendering, “she at last” (translations, p. 151). But, if sā is the Sanskṛit word sā, ‘she,’ — (and, strange as the combination is, it is difficult to find any other explanation of it),– the words mean, rather, “she in the total,” “she in this manner.” And the exclamation was really uttered by Rāḷa (Rāha) in anger (muḷidu); which point is overlooked in the translation. The text really says:—“The family came to be called Sāntara in the following way: Rāḷa was angry, and said sā antinol; and from that time forth the family was established as being called Sāntara.”

^{page 303 note 1} See Mysore, reviṡed edition, vol. ii, p. 485.

^{page 305 note 1} This part of the record is not legible in the lithograph.

^{page 305 note 2} The meaning of this clause has been misunderstood by the author of the published translation. And the point is worth noticing, because the result is that there is nothing to shew that the Kadambas— (if this is really a Kadamba record)— had at this time assumed the appellation Hāritīputra and set up a claim to be of the Mānavya gōtra.

A short way further on, the published texts give parityakthēṇa by mistake for parītuṭṭhēṇa.