^{page 547 note 1} I doubt that in vii, 950, Kalhana must necessarily mean ‘gold and silver coins.’ The passage might very well mean no more than that “at that time the use of gold and silver things (rukmaiś-ca rājataiś-ca) was plentiful, while that of copper money (dinnārais – tāmrajaiḤ) was rare.” He simply wanted to emphasize (no doubt exaggeratedly) the profusion of gold and silver during Harsha's reign as compared with his copper currency, which itself was very large. This interpretation is supported by the fact that no gold or silver coins of Harsha have ever been found, with the exception of the three specimens in question, the identity of which is more than doubtful. If Harsha's gold and silver currency had really been so plentiful, as the usual translation assumes, the total absence of any survival would be very strange.

^{page 549 note 1} I follow the chronology as arranged by Mr. Vincent A. Smith in the J.R.A.S., January, 1903.

^{page 550 note 1} Both names are given to him in the Mandasōr Inscription. Pace Dr. Fleet (Corpus Inscr. Ind., iii, 155, note 5), the identity is explicitly affirmed by the Sanskrit phrase sa eva narādhipati, ‘this very same sovereign.’ The words janendra and narādhipati are not exactly ‘titles’ (like mahārāja), but synonymic descriptions of sovereignty or chiefship.

^{page 552 note 1} I had already done so in 1888; see Proceedings As. Soc. Beng., 1888, pp. 180–183.

^{page 552 note 2} Mr. Rapson, who, at my request, has kindly re-examined them, writes me (27–iv–O3), “so far as I know, there is no trace of -gupta.”

^{page 553 note 1} The view set forth in the sequel is substantially the same as that suggested by me, in 1889, in the Journal A.S.B., lviii, pp. 95 ff. It is now explained and supported more in detail, and especially relieved of the erroneous identification of Yaśodharman with Śīlīditya, which vitiated the theory in its original form.

^{page 553 note 2} The identity of the Śīlāditya of the Rāja Taraṅgiṇī with the Śīlāditya of Hiuen Tsiang has always been assumed (Dr. Stein in note to R.T., iii, 330, and Introd., p. 66); with what amount of truth, will be seen from the sequel. I may here note that for the Rāja Taraṅgiṇī (R.T.) I always refer to Dr. Stein's edition and translation.

^{page 554 note 1} The possible dates, as shown by Dr. Fleet (Indian Antiquary, xiv, 68), are g.s. 245 or 265 or 275 = a.d. 565 or 585 or 595. But as the genealogies show, 565 is the only admissible date. See the chart in Journal A.S.B., vol. lviii. Cunningham read g.s. 257 = a.d. 577, which would not affect my argument.

^{page 555 note 1} In all the references to the Harṣa Carita (H.C.), I quote Cowell and Thomas' translation, by pages.

^{page 555 note 2} It is worth noting that the Gauḍa king who murdered Rājya Vardhana is also never named, though it was the celebrated Śāśānka. The claims of Devagupta to be the lord of Mālava will be discussed in the sequel.

^{page 555 note 3} The Gupta princes were sons of the king of Eastern Malwa (H.C. 119). They were kinsmen of Prabhākara; they were, in fact, his first cousins, though of course considerably younger than himself, for Prabhākara's mother, Mahāsenaguptā, was the sister of the two princes' father, Mahāsenagupta. The princes were the constant companions of Prabhākara's sons, and accompanied them on all their expeditions (cf. H.C. 235). Mādhava, though the younger brother, eventually succeeded to the throne of Eastern Malwa, because his elder brother Kumāra must have been massacred with his companion Rājya by the Gauḍa king (H.C. 178).

^{page 557 note 1} Grahavarman was the eldest son of the ruling Maukharī chief Avantivarman. He may have been about 18 years of age, his bride, as above shown, being about 11 years old. The wedding would have been in 604 a.d., and between that year and 606, when he was killed, Grahavarman must have succeeded his father.

^{page 559 note 1} Bāṇa does not say what became of Śīlāditya himself, whether he escaped or was killed. It has generally been assumed that be was slain in the battle (Hall, F. E. in Vāsavadattā, pref., 52Google Scholar; Müller, M. in Ind. Ant., xiv, 233Google Scholar; Bühler, in Epigr. Ind., i, 70Google Scholar), but I do not know on what ground. But whether slain or not, it is certain that the battle finally disposed of him as an emperor.

^{page 561 note 1} Bühler, who also holds that Devagupta was a king of Malwa, , suggests (Epigr. Ind., i, 70)Google Scholar that this country might be a “Mālwa in the Panjab, much nearer to Thanesar.” Thia is an error. There is no Malwa in the Panjab at all, so far as I know. There is, however, a Malwa in the North-West Provinces, in the Fatehpur District, on the Ganges; and probably Bühler had this Malwa in his mind. (Cowell and Thomas, in the Preface to their translation, p. xii, state it as a fact.) But it is distant no less than about 350 miles from Thanesar. Moreover, it is a small place, and there is no evidence that it ever was the capital of a state.

^{page 564 note 1} According to Tsiang, Hiuen (Siyuki, i, 210)Google Scholar the king of Gauḍa's name was Śāśṅka, and his country was Karṇa-suvarṇa. The latter has been rightly identified by MrBeveridge, with Rangmaṭī, near Berhampur in Bengal (Journal A.S.B., lxii, 315)Google Scholar. The name Narendragupta has also been attributed to Śāśṅka, but on quite insufficient grounds. Cunningham, (Survey Reports, ix, 157)Google Scholar says (in 1879) that he “learned from Dr. Bühler that in the Jain Books Sasāngka is called Narendra Gupta.” But Bühler, (Epigr. Ind., i, 70)Google Scholar, in 1888, bases his information only on “one MS. of the Śrīharshacharita.” That manuscript information cannot have been of much value, for it is entirely ignored by the translators Cowell and Thomas. Beal, , in n. 16 to his Siyki, i, 210Google Scholar, states the name as a fact; but it does not appear that he had any other basis for his statement than Cunningham's apparently misunderstood information of Bühler. Practically, therefore, Narendragupta as a name of Śāśāṅka is a delusion. The latter's real identity and relation to contemporary dynasties still requires elucidation. I may return to this some day; the present paper is already too long for it.

^{page 567 note 1} In the passage (Siyuki, i, 267) where he says that Dhruvabhaṭa was the nephew of Śīlāditya, the latter name may or may not be correct. I have not investigated the point as it in no way affects the history of the period I am considering. If Hiuen Tsiang's report is correct that Dhruvabhaṭa was both the nephew of Śīlāditya, and grandson-in-law of Harsha Vardhana, of course, he cannot in this case be confounded with Vikramāditya, but must be the real man of that name. But is the report necessarily correct?

^{page 570 note 1} In the light of this information it seems desirable to re-examine the coins of Hiraṇya, Toramāṇa, and Mihiragula. See Ind. Ant., xv, 245, and Proceedings A.S.B., 1885.

^{page 570 note 2} Mātṛigupta is said to have reigned only about 5 years (R.T. iii, 264), but Sandhimat is given 47 years (R.T. ii, 142). Deducting 47 from 583, we obtain 536 as the year of Vikramāditya's conquest of Kashmir.