^{page 353 note 1} JRAS, 1913, p. 885; 1917, p. 37.Google Scholar

^{page 353 note 2} Brahmāṇḍa iii, 63, 117–19: Vāyu, 88, 119–21Google Scholar: Brahma, 8, 26–8Google Scholar: Hariv. 13, 756–60: Linga i, 66, 12–14.

^{page 353 note 3} Liṅga calls him Dhundhu.

^{page 353 note 4} Liṅga Sutejāś. Brahma omits him and modifies the following words accordingly.

^{page 353 note 5} Liṅga calls him Rucaka.

^{page 353 note 6} Vāyu Rurukād Dhṛtakaḥ.

^{page 353 note 7} Viṣṇu iv, 3, 15 in prose. Saura 30, 37–8, calling Cañcu Dhundhu and Ruruka Kuruka. Garuḍa 138, 27–8. Bhāgav. ix, 8, 1–2, which calls Cañcu Campa (attributing to him erroneously the founding of the city Campā), makes Sudeva and Vijaya father and son, and calls Ruruka Bharuka.

^{page 354 note 1} Matsya 12, 38: Padma v, 8, 143; and vi, 21, 11. Śiva vii, 61, 22. Agni 272, 27. Kūrma i, 21, 3, of which one copy has all the above lines except the third, calling Cañcu Dhundhu and Ruruka Kāruka.

^{page 354 note 2} But Padma, vi, 21, 11–14Google Scholar, which calls Bāhu Subālm, perverts the mention of gara, “poison,” in the ballad, and says his son was Gara, who being menaced by his enemies found refuge at Bhārgava's hermitage, and there Sagara was born as his son.

^{page 354 note 3} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 63, 120–4Google Scholar: Vayu, 88, 122–5Google Scholar: Brahma, 8, 29–32Google Scholar: Hariv. 13, 760–4: Śiva, vii, 61, 23–5: which are almost identical.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 4} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 63, 126–41Google Scholar: Vayu, 88, 127–43Google Scholar: Brahma 8, 35–51: Hariv. 14, 767–84: Siva, vii, 61, 29–43Google Scholar: which are largely identical.

^{page 354 note 5} Viṣṇu, iv, 3, 15–21.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 6} Padma, vi, 21, 19–33.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 7} Vṛhannāradīya, 7, 7–5, 63.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 8} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 61, 74 – 48, 49; and 49, 38–57.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 9} Bhāgav, . ix, 8, 2–7.Google Scholar

^{page 354 note 10} Matsya, 12, 39Google Scholar: Padma, v, 8, 143Google Scholar: Kūrma, i, 21, 4Google Scholar: Liṅga, i, 66, 14Google Scholar: Caruḍa 138, 28: Agni 272, 27: Saura 30, 39.

^{page 355 note 1} The Tālajaṅghas were the chief branch of the Haihayas, who were one of the two great branches of the Yādavas, see JRAS., 1914, p. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 355 note 2} Gaṇa. Notwithstanding Dr. Thomas' dissent (JRAS, 1916, p. 162)Google Scholar I cannot but translate gaṇa as “tribe”. Pañca gaṇāḥ is applied here in these Puranas to these five peoples, signifying (1) that each constituted a distinct gaṇa, so that each gaṇa consisted of one nationality, and (2) that each gaṇa was not a community, but an armed host. Gaṇa is a very common word in the Puranas and means a “homogeneous group”, the particular kind of homogeneity implied depending on the context. Applied to peoples here, it implies racial homogeneity, and means a “tribe” in the ordinary use of the word. Its meaning “homogeneous group” fitted it excellently as a plural termination, such as it became in later times; and indeed its force is often in the Puranas virtually nothing more. In the expression Jahnu-gaṇa (JRAS, 1913, p. 888, n. 1)Google Scholar it means a “group descended from Jahnu”, or is virtually a plural “the Jahnus”. Kālidāsa's expression pārvatīyair ganair (id., 1915, p. 804) means (I may point out) just what every Indian Administration knows as “hill tribes”.

^{page 355 note 3} Kṣatriya-puṁgtrva.

^{page 355 note 4} So the Vāyu and Brahmāṇda. The later Brahma and Harivaṁśa say she ascended the funeral pile, evidently to immolate herself, and Aurva dissuaded her. The Viṣṇu and Vṛhannāradīya, later still, say so explicitly.

^{page 356 note 1} That is, sa-gara: but the story of the second wife and the poison appears rather to have been invented to explain the name. Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 47, 78 mentions only one queen.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 2} Hence the destruction of the Tālajaṅghas is attributed to Aurva, Mahābhārata, , xiii, 153, 7223.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 3} JRAS, 1910, pp. 17–18.Google Scholar

^{page 356 note 4} Rāmāy, . i, 70, 28–37; ii, 110, 15–24.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 1} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 69, 50Google Scholar: Vāyu, 94, 49Google Scholar: Brahma 13, 200: Hariv. 34, 1892.

^{page 357 note 2} JRAS, 1914, p. 274.Google Scholar

^{page 357 note 3} JRAS, 1910, pp. 9, 10Google Scholar; 1914, pp. 280–1.

^{page 357 note 4} Id. 1910, p. 36; 1914, p. 278.

^{page 357 note 5} Also MBh. iii, 106, 8832. He is highly extolled in id., xii, 29, 1023–8.

^{page 358 note 1} The Brahma and Hariv., misunderstanding them as such, join Keralas with them instead of Khasas. The Colas and Keralas did not apparently exist then as such.

^{page 358 note 2} JRAS, 1912, p. 712.Google Scholar

^{page 359 note 1} The Brahmāṇḍa iii, 48, 45 says Sagara deprived them of Vedic rites and the aid of brahmans—emphasizing the position.

^{page 359 note 2} MBh. v, 196, 7609; vi, 56, 2408; vii, 20, 798–801.

^{page 359 note 3} Id. v, 18, 590; 165, 5748–50: vii, 7, 182.

^{page 359 note 4} Id. i, 67, 2668; 186, 6995: v, 3, 78, 81; 159, 5510: viii, 45, 2107: xii, 101, 3737.

^{page 360 note 1} Id. xiii, 33, 2103.

^{page 360 note 2} Id. ii, 29, 1088; 31, 1199; 50, 1843: iii, 253, 15254.

^{page 360 note 3} Id. ii, 31, 1199; 50, 1832, 1834, 1850; 51, 1990–1: iii, 188, 12838–40: ix, 2, 74: xii, 207, 7560.

^{page 360 note 4} Id. i, 175, 6683–6.

^{page 360 note 5} Id. iii, 57, 1988–91: xii, 65, 2429–31.

^{page 360 note 6} Id. xii, 207, 7560–1: vii, 93, 3379–81.

^{page 360 note 7} Id. viii, 40, 1836–58; 44, 2028, to 45, 2110.

^{page 360 note 8} Id. viii, 40, 1845, 1857–8, 1861.

^{page 360 note 9} Id. viii, 44, 2030, 2054–6, 2063–5, 2070; 45, 2086, 2099–2100, 2109–2110. Cf. v. 38, 1525.

^{page 360 note 10} Id. iii, 188, 12838–40.

^{page 361 note 1} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 74, 11–12Google Scholar; Vāyu, 99, 11–12Google Scholar; Matsya, 48, 9Google Scholar (which agree) say of Pracetas, the last king named in the Druhyu genealogy:—

Pracetasaḥ -putra-śataṁ rājānaṁ sarva eva te

mleceha-rāṣṭrâdhipāh sarve hy udīcīṁ diśam āsthitāḥ.

Bhāgav. ix, 23, 15–16 says the same briefly. Viṣṇu iv, 17, 2 is fuller— Pracetasaḥ putra-śatam adharmabahulānām mlechānām udīcyâdīn¯m ādhipatyam akarot. Agni 276, 5 merely says Pracetas had a hundred sons. The other Puranas do not notice this.

^{page 362 note 1} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 69, 42–4Google Scholar; Vāyu, 94, 42–4Google Scholar; Brahma 13, 192–4; Hariv. 33, 1884–6, which are almost identical, but the first two give the older text. Mahābhārata i, 99, 3924 gives two lines; Matsya 43, 41 and Padma v, 12, 141 only one line. MBh. xii, 49, 1756–7 are similar. Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 70, 12–14Google Scholar, Vāyu, 95, 12–13Google Scholar and Matsya, 44, 12–13Google Scholar give a fanciful explanation.

^{page 362 note 2} Monier-Williams' Dictionary.

^{page 362 note 3} MBh. i, 99, 3926, 3947. Bṛhaddevatā vi, 24 and 33 know of a Vasiṣṭha Vāruṇi, though the references in the two verses are chronologically ages apart, and would imply two such Vasiṣṭhas.

^{page 362 note 4} This Āpava Vasiṣṭha was thus a contemporary of Devarāj Vasiṣṭha, who has been discussed in JRAS, 1913, pp. 896–7; 1917, pp. 38–9.Google Scholar

^{page 363 note 1} It calls him also Brahmayoni (i, 64), but this is merely a synonym of another appellation given him, sraṣṭuḥ sūnuḥ (i, 93); both terms meaning the primeval mythical rishi Vasiṣṭha, with whom he is confused.

^{page 363 note 2} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 30, 51–4Google Scholar read with MBh. i, 76, 3188–90 and Matsya 25, 9–11.

^{page 363 note 3} It is not mentioned in Bohtlingk & Roth's nor in Monier-Williams' Dictionaries; nor in Sörensen's Index to the MBh.

^{page 363 note 4} JRAS, 1910, pp. 18, 27, 29. See also p. 362, n, 3.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 1} Rāmāyaṇa i, 54, 18 to 55, 3. Mahābhārata i, 175, 6683–6: cf. ix, 41, 2304–5.

^{page 364 note 2} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 66, 63Google Scholar: Vāyu, 91, 92Google Scholar: Brahma 70, 53: Hariv. 27; 1456.

^{page 364 note 3} MBh. xiii, 56, 2907–10. Vāyu 65, 91–2, where read tÛrva for tûrvor; Brahmāṇḍa iii, 1, 94–5 less correctly: in both Ātmavāna and Apravana are mistakes for Apnavāna. None of these three forms is in the MBh. (see Sorensen's Index), and it curtails the genealogy in i, 66, 2609–11, and further still in xiii, 85, 4145.

^{page 364 note 4} Vāyu, 65, 92Google Scholar, which is better than Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 1, 95.Google Scholar

^{page 364 note 5} Matsya, 175Google Scholar, 23: Padma, v, 38, 74Google Scholar: Hariv. 46, 2527.

^{page 365 note 1} Brahmāṇḍa, iii, 63, 156Google Scholar: Vāyu, 88, 157Google Scholar: Brahma 8, 65: Hariv. 15, 799: Śiva vii, 61, 53: Agni 272, 28. But MBh. iii, 106, 8837 9 says Siva granted him the boon.

^{page 365 note 2} Matsya, 12, 40Google Scholar: Padma, v, 8, 144Google Scholar: Linga, i, 66, 15.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 3} Kūrma, i, 21, 5.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 4} Vṛhannāradīya 7, 60; 8, 8, 9, 65.

^{page 365 note 5} MBh. i, 178, 6802–15.

^{page 365 note 6} JRAS, 1910, pp. 35–6; 1914, p. 279.Google Scholar

^{page 365 note 7} MBh. i, 178, 6815–180, 6863: very briefly in xiii, 56, 2905–9. The latter assigns to Ūrva the part properly assigned elsewhere to Aurva Agni.

^{page 365 note 8} Matsya, 175, 23–62Google Scholar: Padma, v, 38, 74–112Google Scholar: Hariv. 46, 2527–69; which all have a common text.

^{page 366 note 1} Also Mahābhārata i, 66, 2610. Brahmāṇḍa ni, 1, 95.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 2} Some of the passages say it was Ūrva who was so born, but the difference is immaterial here.

^{page 366 note 3} Haya-śiras, which = vaḍabāmukha.

^{page 366 note 4} The reference appears to be to Rigveda, viii, 102, 4.Google Scholar

^{page 366 note 5} From the father's thigh, also Vayu 65, 92 (where for tûrvor read tÛrva).

^{page 366 note 6} Matsya, 175, 63–75Google Scholar: Padma, v, 38, 113–24Google Scholar: Hariv. 46, 2570–82.

^{page 367 note 1} Matṣya, 175, 18–22Google Scholar: Padma, v, 38, 69–73: Hariv. 46, 2522–6.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 2} See also Vāyu, 97, 18.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 3} Also Raghuvaṁśa, ix, 82.Google Scholar See Matsya, 51, 29–30.Google Scholar

^{page 367 note 4} Also Matsya 2, 5.

^{page 367 note 5} Hariv. 41, 2149. Cf. Mahābhārata, iii, 189.Google Scholar 12961, 12966–7.