194.  This is a triplet in all the editions.

195.  The brother of the Kalinga prince.

196.  Patanipam is explained by Nilakantha as something that causes the patana or downfall of a person hence sin. [There is no reference for this note in the body of this page, so I have placed it in a likely location.—­JBH]

197.  A nalwa measured four hundred cubits.

198.  Nilakantha explains that there were Pisachas.

199.  Aswatthaman and the Pandavas were like brothers, for both were disciples of Drona Ghatotkacha, therefore, having been Bhima’s son was Aswatthaman’s brother’s son.

200. i.e., the weapon endued with the force of the thunder.

201.  Different species of Rakshasas.

202.  Tripura, belonging to an Asura of the same.

203.  Asani literally means the thunder.  Probably, some kind of iron mace.

204.  The Bengal texts read Utkrisha-vikramas.  The correct reading seems to be Aklivhtavikramas.  Then again Sahanujam seems to be inaccurate.  I follow the Bombay reading Sahanugam.

205.  Achyuta, when used as a proper noun, refers to Krishna.  It means of unfading glory and ‘the immortal.’

206.  Sight differences are observable between the Bengal and the Bombay texts as regards the last three verses.

207.  This is a triplet.

208.  This is a triplet.

209.  In the second line of 4, utsedha and not udvrita is the true reading.  So also kanchit and not kinchit.  The paraphrase, according to Nilakantha, in kanchit dhanurdharam na ganayan, etc.

210. 147 is a triplet.

211.  The Bengal reading sudakshinas at the end of 49 dose not seem to be correct.  I adopt the Bombay reading sudarnnam.

212.  The Bombay edition reads the first line of 3 differently.  The Bengal reading is also defective.  The correct reading seems to be Rathanaga instead of Naranaga.

213.  This is a Triplet.

214.  Instead of mattagaje, the Bombay edition reads tatragaje.

215.  There seems to be a mistake in this sloka in its reference to the Pandavas.  The reading, however, that occurs in all the printed edition, is the same.  In one manuscript I find Kamrava-yodhavurgais (which I adopt) for Pandava-Kauraveyais.

216.  The second line of 30, as it occurs in the Bengal texts, is adopted by me.  A slight difference of reading occurs between the Bengal and the Bombay editions.

217.  As regards almost every one of these slokas, differences of reading are observable between the Bengal texts and the Bombay edition.  The readings of the Bombay edition are almost uniformly better.  Then, again, many of those verses are disfigured with syntactical pleonasms and other grave errors.  Abounding with tiresome repetitions that scarcely attract notice amid the variety of synonyms with which the language of the original abounds and amid also the melodious flow of the rhythm, the defects become glaring in translation.  At the latter, however, of faithfulness, I have been obliged to sacrifice elegance, in rendering this section.