^{page 489 note 1} I must here record my indebtedness to Dr. Thomas, who has been kind enough to read through the proofs of this paper, and whose suggestions have enabled me to clear up obscure points that baffled my unaided efforts.

^{page 489 note 2} The verse is quoted by Pischel in his translation of Hēmacandra, i, 2, in quite different connexion. He seems, to have forgotten it when dealing with Vibhāṣās in his Prakrit Grammar.

^{page 490 note 1} Rāma-śarman, in the Prākṛta-kalpataru, continually uses vibhāṣā as the equivalent of vā.

^{page 490 note 2} It may be stated that Vararuci, Hēmacandra, and Lakṣmīdbara are all silent regarding it.

^{page 490 note 3} The verse, as we shall see, is quoted both by Pṛthvīdhara and by Mārkaṇḍēya, and I emend the corrupt text of the Kāvyamālā edition to agree with what they give.

^{page 490 note 4} There is something wrong with the text here. I give, for Śākārī, what seems to me to have probably been the meaning of the original. As in 49, I correct śabarāṇāṁ to śakārāṇāṁ. The syntactical connexion of the rest of the line is doubtful.

^{page 491 note 1} Or Pukkaśa, the offspring of a Niṣāda on a Śūdra woman. See Manu, , x, 18.Google Scholar

^{page 491 note 2} Godabole prints “Ḍhakka”, but the alternative reading “Ṭakka” is that which should be adopted. See JRAS. 1913, pp. 882–3.Google Scholar

^{page 492 note 1} A very similar verse is given by Mārkaṇḍēya, . See p. 503 below.Google Scholar

^{page 492 note 2} Wrong. See Lévi, S., Théâtre Indien, p. 361.Google Scholar

^{page 492 note 3} The correct order of these pages of the MS. is 39b, 40b, 40a, 41a.

^{page 493 note 1} The use of kavibhiḥ here is awkward. What is wanted to fill the lacuna is some word meaning “words” rather than “poets”.

^{page 494 note 1} There are some words here the reading of which is doubtful. They are evidently adjectives describing the dialect. Cf. Pṛthvīdhara, on MṛcchakaṭikāGoogle Scholar (as quoted above). “Words are used having no meaning, in wrong order, in wrong meanings, with repetitions, and with confusion of metaphor.” The MS. appears to read nindāgamanyāṣakalâdihīnā.

^{page 495 note 1} The MS. has dātra, which, at a friend's suggestion, I have corrected to pātra.

^{page 497 note 1} Sic. We should expect Auḍrajāḥ, but Mārkaṇḍēya, who was himself a native of Orissa, always spells it as above.

^{page 498 note 1} It may be noted that at the present day there is a Muṇḍā language called Savara, spoken in the south of the Orissa country. See Linguistic Survey of India, vol. iv, pp. 217 ff.Google Scholar

^{page 498 note 2} The same verse is quoted in the comm. to xvi, 2; but the second line runs:—

tatra câyaṁ viśēṣō 'sti Drāviḍair ādṛtā param.

^{page 499 note 1} All the MSS. are corrupt here, reading 'nūḍhō. The reading 'nūḍhā is vouched for by the Sāhitya-darpaṇa, 81Google Scholar, from which the verse is quoted. The translation above is Ballantyne's.

^{page 499 note 2} Passages in square brackets are not in the original, but are added by me. This includes all Sanskrit equivalents of Prakrit words or sentences.

^{page 502 note 1} The MSS. vary amidst rāmpa, rāmpha, rāā, and rāmya. All these, except rāā, are impossible in Prakrit. The printed edition suggests rāaï, which suits the metre and gives good sense. I therefore adopt it.

^{page 503 note 1} Compare the similar verse quoted by Pṛthvīdhara, , p. 492ante.Google Scholar

^{page 503 note 2} My authorities for the text are as follows:—P. is the text printed in Vizagapatam in 1912. O. is a MS. written in the Oṛiyā character, which has been kindly lent to me by Paṇḍit Sadāśiva Miśra, of Purī. Hn. and Hb. are two independent copies, in the Nāgarī and Bengali characters respectively, of the MS. No. 1555 in the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. They have been kindly lent to me by Dr. Hoernle. Ox. is the Bodleian Wilson MS. No. 158b. Io. is the India Office Mackenzie, No. 70. Ox. and Io. are both written in the Nāgarī character, and are both evidently copies of the same original.

^{page 504 note *} As I am at present engaged on the preparation of a critical edition of Mārkaṇḍēya's grammar, I shall be grateful to any reader who may suggest, either in the pages of the Journal or to me direct, explanations of these difficult passages.

^{page 509 note 1} Regarding the spelling of the word Auḍhra, see footnote on p. 497.Google Scholar

^{page 509 note 2} The Sanskrit equivalent of jamaüacchaüi is very doubtful. What is given here has been suggested to me by a friend to whom I submitted the passage.

^{page 510 note 1} Cf. another version of these lines on p. 498.

^{page 515 note 1} Another meaning of vi has been suggested to me, which may also influence the connotation of the word as indicating a form of Prakrit. Vi-bhāṣā may mean “a minor bhāṣā”, in accordance with the use of bhāva and vibhāva in rhetoric.