^{page 279 note 1} The preceding chapter, on boils and their consequences, has been omitted, the contents thereof being of no interest whatever.

^{page 279 note 2} According to Utpala: Garga, etc.; more explicit is the statement in a work bearing the title of Çrî-Brahmokta-Viçvakarmaprakâçika (sc. ç,âstra), where we read, 13, 10, sqq.:

This passage, with many others, shows that Garga, Parâçara, and the like, are mere mythological beings, of exactly the same historical value with Brahman, Viçvakarman, Vâsudeva; cf. ch. i. 3, footnote. In the opening stanzas of the Viçvak. we find:

The Viçvak. seems to be a compilation, for most of the passages quoted by Utpala, either from what he terms Kiraṇâkhya-Tantra, or from Garga, from Bṛhaspati, Viçvakarman himself, Kâçyapa, etc., recur in the Viçvak., a copy of which is in the translator's possession. Cf. st. 30, footnote.

^{page 280 note 1} The wording of the text would admit of a translation, “provincial governors and superior king's officers.” As in st. 14, rûjapurusha denotes a person of much inferior rank, such a translation would seem preferable. But the Comm. takes the words as we have done above, and the parallel passage in Viçvak. has:

^{page 281 note 1} The purport of this elliptical, or rather wholly inadequately expressed statement is, that a private Brahman may have five houses, the first of 32, the second of 28, the third of 24, the fifth of 16 c.; a private Kshatriya may have four houses, of 28, 24, 20, and 16 c, respectively; a private Vaiçya three, of 24, 20 and 16 respectively; a private Cûdra may have two dwellings, of 20 and 16 c. in breadth.

^{page 282 note 1} That is to say: if an officer belongs to the Brahmanical class, the difference meant is that between the measure of the chief commander's house and a private Brahman's; if an officer be a Kshatriya, we are directed to subtract the number allotted to a private Kshatriya's house from the measure of the commander's mansion; and so forth.

^{page 282 note 2} The Pâraqava class traces, theoretically, or rather fancifully, its origin to the intermarriage of a Brahman and a Çûdra woman. The measure for the former being 32, for the latter 20, it follows that a Pâraçava's house measures in breadth.—Comm. (v.1. This does not wholly agree with Manu's theory.

^{page 282 note 3} The same is more plainly expressed in Viçvak.:

About alinda the Comm. has: The word might as well be rendered by ‘balcony,’ ‘gallery.’

^{page 283 note 1} In the text is a misprint for apâçraya is properly “anything to fall back upon, a support from behind;” further, a pillow upon which the hind part of the head is resting; e.g. in Duçakumâra, 90, 13.

^{page 283 note 2} Comm.:

The Viçvak. has here with some variation in the wording:

^{page 284 note 1} Consequently, the breadth of the king's house being 108, the height will amount to cubits; making 10 cub.18 digits.

^{page 284 note 2} R. for

^{page 284 note 3} A rough measuring only is intended; e.g. the first house of the king numbers 108 cubits; to this we should add 10, being nearly of 108; to the sum 118 adding 70, we get 188; the door then is 188 digits high. As for private persons, the first house of a Brahman has a breadth of 32 cubits. We are directed to take one-fifth of it, but the meaning is, we should roughly take 6; adding 18 to it, we get 24; again adding we get 27, being the number of digits for the width of the door; the height comes to 81.—Instead of read the Viçvak. has:

^{page 285 note 1} Comm.:

Almost the same in Viçvak.; all this is exceedingly vague. Cf. Rám Ráz, Archit. p. 28, sqq.

^{page 285 note 2} This stanza and the following occur also in the Viçvak.; as stanzas in Âryâ are found nowhere else in that work, the verses must have been taken from our author.

^{page 285 note 3} Cf. Rám Ráz, Arch. p. 23, where Sarvatobhadra is the term to denote a village built upon an analogous principle.

^{page 285 note 4} Both this and the three following terms denote certain figures.

^{page 286 note 1} R. for and Comm.

^{page 287 note 1} See the above Diagram, and cf. Rám Ráz, Arch., p. 41; footnote, p. 42, 1. 21, seqq.; p. 44,1. 8, seqq.

^{page 287 note 2} However strange it may seem that N.E. should be presided over by Agni, and the S.E. by Wind, there can be no doubt about the author's meaning; the proofs are to be found in st. 49 and 63.

^{page 288 note 1} E.g. Pṛrthvîdhara on the left pap; Diti on the left eye; etc.

^{page 288 note 2} In the diagram, Jaya.

^{page 289 note 1} See Diagram above.

^{page 289 note 2} Comm.: A special name of four of those diagonals is as we are taught by Utpala quoting a work of his own (unless we have to read instead of

The general name, however, is vança; see below, st. 63. sq.

^{page 290 note 1} Comm. All those diagonals and veins have their own names, a list of which is given by Utpala.

^{page 291 note 1} The same is far more clearly indicated in Rám Ráz, Arch. p. 46: “If the front of the house be ten paces in length, the entrance should be between five on the right and four on the left.” Differently Utpala: How a house can be said to face the east, without having its door facing the same quarter, is beyond our comprehension.

^{page 292 note 1} There is a long inquiry in the Cornm., in order to find out how to reconcile this statement with that in st. 75. The upshot is that the one cannot hy any means be made to agree with the other. It has been pointed out more than once that Varâha-mihira has the habit of uncritically copying his authorities.

^{page 293 note 1} Other authorities of superstition know eight spirits; Comm.:

And

Cf. also Suçruta II. p. 382 seq.

^{page 293 note 2} Comm.:

^{page 294 note 1} The word pradakshiṇena serves only to indicate that from the south one has to go onward in a direction which follows the course of the sun.

^{page 294 note 2} This elliptical phrase is explained by the Comm.: etc. The latter rule totally upsets the former, and it has been rightly said by Rám Ráz, Arch., 16: “ The principle on which these distinctions are founded is altogether nugatory.” Cf. also the latter part of stanza 95.

^{page 295 note 1} To read, as the Comm. has it:

^{page 295 note 2} Comm.:

The Viçvak. 1, 61, sqq., contains the same rules, but in other words. Part of the corresponding passage from Kâçyapa is translated in Rám Ráz, Arch. p. 17.

^{page 297 note 1} i.e., facing the quarter in which the sun is standing at that period. The eastern quarter is “scorched” (dîpta, prâdipta) from sunrise upwards to the end of the first prahara; during the same period the north-east is termed angdrîn, the south-east dhûmin or dhûmita, the rest çânta. Cf. ch. 86, 12.

^{page 297 note 2} Comm.:

^{page 298 note 1} In Garga, as quoted by the Comm., we find this solemn lay:

The fact that these stones or bricks are held to be goddesses, in their essence at least, and that their fathers are the sages Angiras, Vasishṭha, etc., may be recommended to the attention of those who adhere to the creed of Euemerus concerning mythology. In Viçvak. we meet with analogous spells, e.g.

The two prayers indicated are Vâj. S. 20, 9, and 11, 44.

^{page 299 note 1} The translation renders the obvious meaning of the author; as to his words, they express, in the former half of the couplet, precisely the reverse of what is intended; instead of it ought to have been

^{page 300 note 1} Cf. Suçruta, L, p. 169, 1. 9 sqq.

^{page 300 note 2} This statement is couched in somewhat hyperbolical language; yet it appears from st. 23 below, that some at least of these veins were endoweḍ with elegant names.

^{page 301 note 1} Comm.: ( = 5 cubits)

^{page 302 note 1} Whenever no distance is specified, it must be understood to be the same as that mentioned in the preceding stanza.

^{page 302 note 2} 2 Comm.:

Sârasvata is frequently quoted in the Comm. throughout the chapter.

^{page 303 note 1} The Comm. reads and explains accordingly, “a white ant-hill with sacrificial grass.”

^{page 303 note 2} This word and ant-hill are interchangeable terms.

^{page 304 note 1} A word as given in the dictionaries, has no existence but in corrupt manuscripts; the name of the plant is That this reading of good manuscripts is the only legitimate one is proved by the fact that the plant is also called which is, of course, virtually the same with Bhârngî.

^{page 305 note 1} Comm. (v.l.

^{page 307 note 1} R. in the text as one word, though the Comm. understands it otherwise.

^{page 309 note 1} Comm.

^{page 302 note 2} The rendering is doubtful; Comm.

^{page 310 note 1} The reading of the Comm., viz. may be right, but his explanation, is not exact. Bhangânjana means. “collyrium used for bhanga.” Now, bhanga being synonymous with bhangi, and the latter having the sense of “toilet, fashion,” in French mode, the compound may be rendered by “toilet-collyrium.” Bhangi distinctly expresses what is called fashion in English, mode in French, e.g. in Râja-tar. 7, 922:

And then:

And

^{page 310 note 2} Comm.: The plant is, under this name, unknown to the dictionaries.

^{page 311 note 1} Comm.

^{page 312 note 1} Ch. 23, 1, sqq.

^{page 313 note 1} Comm.:

^{page 313 note 2} The reading is preferable to , because the latter does not occur, for aught we know, but in the sense of “end of summer” yet, etymologically, it might as well signify “within summer-time.”

^{page 313 note 3} Vetasa and vânîra clearly denote two varieties of rotang; the Indian lexicographers know nothing about the difference; for the distinction of plants they are not to be trusted, at least the edited works of Amara, etc.

^{page 314 note 1} Comm.:

^{page 314 note 2} An âḍhaka = 64 palas; a prastha = 16 palas; a droṇa = 256 palas.

^{page 314 note 3} More accurately, as to the general purport, the Comm.: (see st. 2). The reading for has been noticed in the vv. rr.

^{page 315 note 1} Comm.

^{page 315 note 2} The plant sûryavallî is not explained by Utpala:

^{page 315 note 3} The reading is doubtful; Utpala has , and explains (v.l.

^{page 315 note 4} Comm.

^{page 316 note 1} The definitions of isṭâpûrta all agree in the main point. Utpala quotes some of them:

^{page 317 note 1} Read as the Comm. has it, for

^{page 318 note 1} Comm.

^{page 319 note 1} Comm.

^{page 319 note 2} A copious description of diverse Vimânas or pyramidal shrines is to be found in Rám Ráz, Arch., p. 51, sqq.; and p. 48.

^{page 319 note 3} It must be understood that the signs of a Padma apply also to a Samudga, barring the shape.

^{page 319 note 4} The same is more clearly expressed by Kâçyapa:

^{page 319 note 5} The Comm. paraphrases by (v.l. in Kâçyapa the word is used as m. or n. .

^{page 319 note 6} To a Hansa belong the same qualifications as to the Vṛsha, excepting the form. A Ghaṭa differs from the former in other respects, but has the same number of stories and turrets.

^{page 320 note 1} The statement in Kâçyapa is much more explicit:

The comm. adds:

^{page 320 note 2} The word kapotapâlikâ, properly “dove-ridge, dove-list,” may be rendered by crown-work, fillet, gable-edge, and even by cornice. In Tamil kapotakam is explained as being “a moulding in masonry”; see Winslow's Tam. Diet., i. v. Rám Ráz, Arch., p. 24, says: “A kapotam is a section of moulding made in the form of a pigeon's head. It is a crowning member of cornices, pedestals, and entablatures. When employed in the latter, it often connects utility with beauty, inasmuch as the beak of the bird is so placed as to serve the purpose of a spout.” The same author notices (p. 51) that “the spout may be made to spring from the head of a lion, etc.” With this, cf. Utpala's definition:

and also Viâvak. 6, 767:

Neither kapotapâlikâ, nor its synonym viṭanka, have the meaning of “dovecot,” as Colebrooke renders them in his Amara-Kosha. They never occur in that sense, and cannot by any means have such a meaning, on account of their etymology. Viṭanka is exactly the English “fillet,” in its different acceptations; it denotes more generally also gable-edge, battlement. Colebrooke's error, strange to say, has been perpetuated in all dictionaries; the more reason now to draw attention to it.

^{page 321 note 1} Utpala defines kunduru to be the resin of Deodar,

^{page 322 note 1} Comm. vâtâyanam in general means “any place whither one goes to take an airing;” sometimes “a window” is intended by it, other times the flat “roof” of an Indian house. In the latter acceptation it is here used by Utpala, and frequently elsewhere, e.g. Kathâsarit-sâg. 95, 18, 103, 162, etc.

^{page 322 note 2} Comm.

^{page 322 note 3} The comparative suffix, tara here denotes a resemblance, or may be expressed by “almost, somewhat, quasi”; as in açvatara, a mule, properly “quasi-horse.” The same interchange of significations is found in prâyas, properly “more,” Greek πλεῖον, and then “resembling, almost.”—The Comm. exhibits the form vajratala.

^{page 323 note 1} The Comm. quotes a parallel passage, the former stanza of which recurs in Manu, viii. 132, whereas the latter wholly differs:

From an unknown author are the verses quoted by Bâpû-Deva in his edition of the Siddhâ-Çir. p. 52:

^{page 323 note 2} Digit has here no absolute, but a relative value; it is the module and equal to of the whole height of the idol, or of idol and seat together. Comm.

^{page 323 note 3} Comm.

^{page 324 note 1} Comm. At the further corner is the juncture, as it were, of two eyelids; hence the term netraprabandha: similarly the same is called sandhi in Suçruta, ii. p. 303.

^{page 324 note 2} Comm. This is right if we take kumârî or karînikâ in the sense of the pupil's innermost part; cf. Suçruta, ii. p. 303:

It must be taken into account that the vision in the pupil requires a larger measure in sculpture than in nature.

^{page 325 note 1} The inner corner, karavîraka, is also called mûshikâ in a quotation from Kâçyapa.

^{page 325 note 2} (sic.) This cakkalikam or cakkalikâ looks like a Prâkṛt form of the diminutive of cakra, “disc.”

^{page 326 note 1} The word kiríṭa is a semi-Prâkṛt form of a word that has been lost in Skr., but survives in the Latin crista. Similarly the Skr. jaṭhara has arisen out of jastara, Greek γαστήρ.

^{page 326 note 2} in the text is a misprint for

^{page 326 note 3} Comm.

^{page 327 note 1} Ekânançâ is one of the forms of Durgâ in her quality of Hecate; cf. Kathâsarit-S. 53, 171.

^{page 327 note 2} The ungraminatical partic. udvahatî is used without any necessity, as the author might have availed himself of the 3rd pers. udvahati. All MSS., however, agree.

^{page 328 note 1} Another r. has sunîla, “very dark”; a third, surîta, “well trimmed.”

^{page 328 note 2} Read and see Diet, of B. and R. i. v. The word is taken from the Bactrian aiwyâonha.

^{page 329 note 1} i.e. the length of a stone slab, piece of wood, etc., destined to serve for the phallus, should be made equal to the circumference of the upper part.

^{page 329 note 2} This is awkwardly expressed; Comm. Utpala is wrong in taking for a compound, but as the round portion and the middle part have the same altitude, the results remain the same. is a misprint for .

^{page 329 note 3} Comm.:

^{page 330 note 1} Comm.;

For we have perhaps to read “with prominent jaws.”

^{page 331 note 1} Comm.

^{page 331 note 2} Utpala gives no definition of ullopikâ, which at any rate is a sort of sweetmeat; ullup means “to bedrop, to spout,” not as the Dict. of B. and R. i. v. has it, “to pick up, to take out.”

^{page 332 note 1} Comm. i.e.- vexing spirits, or in German “Poltergeister.”

^{page 332 note 2} The Comm. has yâmyûyâm, “in the south.”

^{page 333 note 1} Viz., cow's stale, dung, milk, curds, and ghee.

^{page 334 note 1} Comm.

^{page 334 note 2} Comm.

^{page 334 note 3} Comm.

^{page 335 note 1} Comm.

^{page 336 note 1} It need scarcely be pointed out that the nomin. case anaḍuhaḥ, is ungrammatical.

^{page 336 note 2} Comm.

The corresponding passage of Parâçara, however, has:

^{page 337 note 1} In a similar case we should use the term “phœnix.” When a learned man is called paramahansa, it may be rendered by “a great phœnix.” In fact, both hansa and ‘phœnix’ were symbolical names of the Sun.

^{page 338 note 1} Comm.