^{page 360 note 1} [Prof. Johnston succeeded in deciphering many letters of the inscription on the north face, but his results were too fragmentary to be published.]

^{page 360 note 2} For these three the plates in the excellent paper by Dr. Chakravarti, S. N., JASB., iv, 1938, pp. 352–391Google Scholar, on the development of the Bengali character should be consulted. But his view that inscriptions can be dated by consideration of one or two crucial characters is only valid when datable records are available in such numbers that development can be traced from decade to decade; this condition is not satisfied for the period in question, and in general it is desirable to take account of as many letters as possible.

^{page 361 note 1} Bühler, Ind. Palaeogr., pl. iii, cols. 17 and 19, and pl. vii, cols. 1 and 11; see also Sircar, D. C., Successors of the Sātavāhanas (University of Calcutta, 1939), pp. 328Google Scholar ff., a second century inscription from Ellura in H.H. the Nizam's Dominions.

^{page 367 note 1} [In v. 49a the poet may possibly have meant to write ^omayā naikāḥ, and in v. 51a rājatān naikān. But in v. 46b, even if we correct to naika, we cannot save him from the reproach of barbarism].

^{page 367 note 2} [See notes in loco and translation].

^{page 368 note 1} [See notes below].

^{page 369 note 1} Neither this name nor its variants are recorded in Malalasekhara, Pali Proper Names Dictionary.

^{page 369 note 2} For another case, also a proper name, see JRAS., 1939, p. 225, 2.

^{page 370 note 1} [This is an error. Aṇḍaja = Khacara = “bird”, and Aṇḍaja-vaṁśa is synonymous with Khacara-vaṁśa or Jīmūtavāhanānvaya a raće on whom see E.I., xix, pp. 179 ff.]Google Scholar

^{page 370 note 2} [Śrī is only a prefix: the real name is Dharmavijaya.]

^{page 370 note 3} Cf. Poussin, La Vallée, Mélanges ch. et b., i, p. 378.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 1} [Or rather, Dharmacandra.]

^{page 371 note 2} Przyluski, , Le Concile de Rājagṛha, p. 302.Google Scholar

^{page 371 note 3} Cf. Przyluski's discussion of this point, op. cit., pp. 362–5.

^{page 371 note 4} [See, however, note in loco and translation.]

^{page 372 note 1} [This name seems to point to Ceylon, where Silāmeghavaṇṇa (in Sinhalese Salamevan)was a title borne by several kings.]

^{page 372 note 2} [See the translation Below. The śrī prefixed to the name of the city is unessential: the name is Tāmrapattana, which conceivably may be Tāmraliptī. Śrīkşetra seems to be out of the question.]

^{page 372 note 3} Cf. Pischel, § 449, who says these forms are only authenticated so far in Jaina Prakrit works. For other instances note the apparatus criticus of the colophons to Saundarananda, xi and xviii, and Varāṅgacarita (ed. Upadhye, A. N., Bombay, 1938), colophons to xi, xii, and xiii.Google Scholar

^{page 374 note 1} The name looks like Narappagmāśva.

^{page 374 note 2} [Possibly the true reading may be Purvartho 'pi.]

^{page 374 note 3} [For vat Professor Johnston gives, an alternative kam.]

^{page 374 note 4} [A possible reading here is cakārārīṁtapo. There is no clear trace of a long vowel after the first r, and rī would be a mistake for ri.]

^{page 374 note 5} Alternatively the reading in d is viṁśādhikam, in which case there is no word for “year”.

^{page 374 note 6} Presumably read Raghupatir.

^{page 374 note 7} [Traces of the eight letters of the first pāda survive. The second is ta, the third perhaps sya, the fourth vi, the last two apparently devaḥ.]

^{page 374 note 8} [The first syllable of this pāda is possibly vaṃ, the second perhaps ka.]

^{page 374 note 9} [As the rubbing shows, the true reading is definitely tenātmasālkṛtaṁ.]

^{page 374 note 10} [There seems to be no trace of a vowel ī on the rubbing.]

^{page 374 note 11} [Possibly Kūverāpi.]

^{page 374 note 12} Read ^ovivarjitam in d.

^{page 374 note 13} [The first two letters of this pāda look more like Oṁppa-. Possibly, too, the stone-cutter has omitted a visarga before patis.

^{page 374 note 14} Mahimākṛtī is an odd compound. [Comparison with verse 42d (see note on latter) suggests that the poet wrongly took mahimā as a fem, vowel-stem.]

^{page 374 note 15} If the pillar has been correctly read in a, it should read Jugnāhvayas. [It has Jugnahvayas tato bhūbhṛt.]

^{page 375 note 16} [The rubbing seems to give Līṅkī ^o. The first vowel is a short curve above the l to the right, somewhat like the ī in sphīta ^o in the inscription of Yaśovarman, line 12 (E.I., xx, p. 43.)]

^{page 375 note 17} [The stone seems to have prapa-.]

^{page 375 note 18} In d possibly tridivaṅ gitaḥ; in any case read tridivaṅ gataḥ.

^{page 375 note 19} Ṣaḍdaśādhikaṁ presumably means “ + 60”, not “ + 16”. In either case it is not clear how the total is made up from what can be read of the inscription.

^{page 375 note 20} The reading in b looks like yo bhūt bhū ^o, and it is not certain what the correct reading is. [The stone certainly has yo bhūt bhū ^o, but a syllable is lacking to make up the metre.]

^{page 375 note 21} Pāda a is hypermetrie. In d the consonant fourth letter is either bh or s, and the next syllable should contain either r or ṣ because of the following ṇa, but looks more like sva than anything else. The reading adopted seems the only possible one, though ābhūṣna in this sense is unrecorded. [The rubbing is in favour of reading nagarāsūtraṇaṁ, which may be an error for nagarasūtraṇaṁ.]

^{page 375 note 22} Read yaśasvinā in d.

^{page 375 note 23} The k in Kālacandro is badly formed, but the reading is definitely not Bālacandro; Rālacandro is just possible.

^{page 375 note 24} Read Devendra iva Śakro.

^{page 375 note 25} [A syllable is lacking in this pāda.]

^{page 375 note 26} Read Bhūmicandras.

^{page 375 note 27} Line 26 begins tanītavān, but ta is marked above for erasure. [Line 26 begins nanītāvaṁ.]

^{page 375 note 28} [This pāda is a syllable short.]

^{page 376 note 29} Read tribhir.

^{page 376 note 30} A character has been erased after īśānvaya. In a readĪśānvaya prabhavatrayodaśabhūpatīnām, and note a short before tr. In b read ^oyaśaām. [We should read ^oṣdaśa. The emendation -trayodaśa- would gratuitously introduce a short syllable before tr- and make the pāda a syllable too long. The better course is to read ṣoḍaśa and risk the possibility that the author's reckoning was wrong: moreover, he may have intentionally omitted the names of some kings who were too insignificant for mention.]

^{page 376 note 31} [Read śatadvayaṁ]

^{page 376 note 32} Just possibly one should read purempura-, instead of Pureppura-. [The rubbling definitely gives Purempura-.]

^{page 376 note 33} The inscription in a has Vrayajapnāmāpi so, with marks above pi to cut it out. It should probably read Vrayajapnāmako. [So would be ungrammatical. Read ^onāmāpi yo rājā. The pāda is hypermetric.]

^{page 376 note 34} [The rubbing gives bhovibhuh]

^{page 376 note 35} [In a the name may be read as Doviṅreṅ. In b the letters on the stone may be read as either smṛto or smṛtā; they should be smrto.]

^{page 376 note 36} Read ^ovārsikah.

^{page 376 note 37} Māvuka may be a proper name or a word indicating kinship.

^{page 376 note 38} Possibly yo, not vai.

^{page 376 note 39} Read tataḥ.

^{page 376 note 40} Read ṣoḍaśa.

^{page 376 note 41} [The stone has prayāt, with a final t]

^{page 376 note 42} Mahīmat. is also possible, and there be a ṛ or u below p or m. One would expect mahībhrtā. [The rubbing gives mahīpat-, with possibly faint traces of -eh.]

^{page 377 note 43} [At the end of line 39 there seems to be a faint trace of ṇa.]

^{page 377 note 44} [See note on v. 15d above, p. 374. Apparently our poet treated Śrīdharmacandra as a nominative. Cf. notes on v. 62c, p. 379, and on v. 64c, ib.

^{page 377 note 45} Read ṣoḍaŚa.

^{page 377 note 46} It should presumably be tatsutah.

^{page 377 note 47} [Apparently to be corrected to -vibhūmā.ŝ

^{page 377 note 48} Read Pradyumna iva.

^{page 377 note 49} Read Kāṁsya ^o.

^{page 377 note 50} PaŚadāru may be the name of a particular kind of wood, or it may be a compound implying images made of leather (?) and wood. [Read in a mayānekāḥ or mayā naikāḥ (see above, p. 367 n. I).]

^{page 377 note 51} Pusta is presumably “plaster” here, and Śila “stone”.

^{page 377 note 52} [The stone has kāritāsādhu ^o.Read kāritāḥ.]

^{page 377 note 53} The rubbing shows mṛtpahā with the hā marked for omision; the following character is only faintly indicated on the rubbings. Perhaps Mṛtpakvā ^o. [The reading of the rubbing seems to be mṛtsaṁhā ^o;.]

^{page 377 note 54} [The rubbing seems to give suvisuddha ^o by error.]

^{page 377 note 55} None of the recorded meanings of taṇḍaka its here; possibly for tāṇṛavān. [The actual reading of the rubbing seems rather to be vaṇṭakān, though the letter below ṇ. is not clear. vaṇṭaka, “share” (found is Sanskrit and Kanarese lexx.; from √vaṇṭ, whence Hindi bāṇt) occurs in the sense of a holding or portion of land forming part of an estate in the Yādava Rāmacandra's Thana grant of Śaka 1194 (E. I. xiii, p. 199).]

^{page 378 note 56} The first certain instance of netra in the sense of silk; cf. RaghuvaṇŚa, vii, 36.

^{page 378 note 57} Read ^ohitaisinā.

^{page 378 note 58} [The p has been almost entirely cut out.]

^{page 378 note 59} [The maṭhaḥ.] Apparently these two maṭḥas are in addition to the four of the previous verse.

^{page 378 note 60} In a presumably read ǚvanakāhve, and in b read ^onāmake. [The reading of the rubbing is possibly ^ovaḍakuhve and Daumaghe.]

^{page 378 note 61} [The -ā of the last syllable is fairly certain; and the stone-cutter probably did not add -ḥ to it.]

^{page 378 note 62} Saṁkramā, feminine, is odd; or should it be ^osaṁkramāḥ ? [The latter alternative is preferable.]

^{page 378 note 63} -Ā- is missing through breakage of stone.

^{page 378 note 64} Read sadā, as mocitāsadāḥ as a compound is hardly possible. [Also read mocitāḥ.]

^{page 378 note 65} [The rubbing gives -vāpyo.]

^{page 378 note 66} Read nicakhāna.

^{page 378 note 67} Read ^otīrthakāḥ in b. [Tīrthikāḥ can only mean “heretics”. Probably the poet meant to write tīrthakāḥ, in the sense of tīrthāḥ.]

^{page 378 note 68} I do not know if hastinikā is to be taken literally. In b read netrojjvala ^o. Nāyitāni in c is odd, and dāpitāni would be better.

^{page 379 note 69} One must understand that ^onarādhipo bhaktinamro, which is impossible metrically, is indicated.

^{page 379 note 70} No doubt Śrīmanmano ^o. [Apparently Manodhīra is the king's name (see translation, below). This name is rare; but it was borne by, e.g. the composer of the Vēlūrpāḷaiyam plates.]

^{page 379 note 71} The letter before iti is not clear, but is similar to the character found in the same position in the bell inscription. [How and where Professor Johnston found the word iti is not clear, for it is not on the rubbing. Ānandacandra's inscription ends with the word bhūtiyuktā followed by three double daṇḍas, between the first pair of which there is a Garuḍa-symbol (see Plate I), which is appropriate in the edict of a king claiming to belong to the “Bird-tribe”. Another example of this symbol occurs, e.g. in Govindacandra's Saheth-Maheth plate (E. I., vol. xi, pp. 20 ff.).]

^{page 380 note 1} See above, note on text.

^{page 381 note 1} Viz. lordship, counsel, and enterprise.

^{page 382 note 1} It seems necessary to take manodhīra thus as a proper name, regarding maharddhikena as qualifying it (cf. narādhipa bhaktinamro, above, verse 62).

^{page 382 note 2} [Read yac cātra.]

^{page 382 note 3} [The letter before ti is certainly i, though of an unusual type, resembling a u. A similar letter occurs in Inscr. C below, line 4.]

^{page 383 note 1} [This formula should read thus: Ye dharmmā hetuprabhavā hetuṁ tesāṁ Tathāgato hy avocat tesā' ca yo nirodhah evamvādī mahāśramaṇaḥ.[

^{page 383 note 2} [The stone has only avoca.]

^{page 383 note 3} [The stone reads upāsaka.]

^{page 384 note 1} JRAS., 1931, 588 ff.; 1932, 393 ff.; and 1933, 690.

^{page 384 note 2} Also vogel, La Sculpture de Mathura, Pl. LIV b.

^{page 385 note 1} [This coin was presented to the Phayre Museum by Maung Kyaw.]