ANNOTATIONS.                               351

commentary is not identical with the scholia edited by
Bekker. Gf Eratosthenis Gatasterisrnoritrn Reliquice, rec.
C. Robert, pp. 82-84.
 

P. 385. Plato.—This quotation is from Leges, iii. 6yy ;
but the phrases forming the conversation have been
omitted.

AGHN. Tb TToAAds dv^pwTrwv (f)Oopd.s yeyovevat KaraKXycr-
pOLS Te Kal vocroLs Kal dAAots ttoAAois, ev ots jSpayf tl to twv
dvdpwTTWv XeiTrecrdaL yevos, k.t.A. cos ot totc Trept^uydvTes ttjv
(pdopdv a')(e8ov d'petvot Ttves dv etev vopels ev Kopv(f)a.LS ttov,
(TfiLKpa ^WTTvpa. TOV TWV dvdpwTTWv yevovs 8tao-eo"wo'peva, k.t.A.
Kat 8y TOVS TOLOVTOvs ye 'd.vdyKy ttov twv dAAwv aTreipovs etvai
Te)(V(jJV Kai TWV ev TOts do"Tecri Trpbs aAAryAovs p.y^o-vwv ets Te
TrAeove^tas Kat c^tAovetKtas Kat ottoct"' dAAa KaKOvpyyjxa.Ta Trpbs
dXXyXovs eTVLVoovcTLV.
 

P. 387.—Gf. with this table Vishnit-Pitrdna, book iii.
chap. i. and ii., and the Bombay edition, 1886.

Stdmasa seems to be a mistake for Tamasa.

Caitraket instead of caitra seems to have been derived
from an erroneous reading of the beginning of the Sanskrit
caitrctkiiivpitrushadydscct.

Sudivya seems to have risen from a wrong division of
the words Parasu (other readings Parabhu, Paramo)
Divya. The Bombay edition reads prajdhparamadivyd-
dydstasya.

Antatet, the name of Indra in the fifth Manvantara, can
hardly be combined with the Vibhu of Sanskrit tradition.

Sindhu Revet.—These words, whatever their proper pro¬
nunciation may be, are not found in the Sanskrit text.

Punt Murtt is Sanskrit Urn Puru, but Prctmukhet is a
gross mistake, for the text has •urupuruscttadyumnaqwctrrtit-
khdh, i.e. Uru, Puru, Satadyumna, and others.

Nctbasa and Dhrishna are mistakes for Nabhaget and
Dhrishta.

Virajas, Ascctrvari, Nirmoghet.—The Sanskrit text runs
viracdscorvctrievdmscanirmohddyds, which Alberuni has
divided  into virctja-ascorvarivdrhscet-nirmohct.    Cf. Scor-