^{page 168 note 1} Mr. Chanda (p. 23) argues that the Vasiṣṭhas were originally the priests of Sudās's family and that Viśvāmitra was an interloper. But PB. xv, 5. 24 distinctly implies that the Vasiṣṭhas had to obtain this office, and the fact that Vasiṣṭha performed the Aindra Mahābhiṣeka for Sudās (AB. viii, 21. 11) refers, not to the beginning of his reign, but to a later period in it.

^{page 169 note 1} Thus Haryaśva's original home is placed at Ayodhyā in the very legend on which the author relies. Cf. Vaidya, , JBRAS. xxiv, 35.Google Scholar

^{page 169 note 2} xi, 6; Vedic Index, ii, 247.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} JRAS. 1915, p. 430. References to the discussion of Dr. Spooner's views are given by MrChanda, (p. 219).Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 2} Mr. Joyce's suggested classification as Iranian is more properly replaced by connecting the race with the Tocharian speech.

^{page 171 note 1} See e.g. The Empire of India, i, 357 seqq.Google Scholar

^{page 172 note 1} 1A. xl, 21 seqq. But the identification of Gujars and Khazars is wildly speculative. Reference should also be made to an ingenious effort to equate with history the difference of races by Vaidya, C. V., JBRAS. xxiv, 33–55Google Scholar: tot homines quot sententiœ.

^{page 172 note 2} IA. xl, 32, 33.

^{page 172 note 3} p. 189.

^{page 173 note 1} pp. 92–5.

^{page 173 note 2} Holtzmann, , Zur Geschichte und Kritik des Mahābhārata, pp. 137, 138Google Scholar; Garbe, , Indien und das Christentum, p. 210.Google Scholar How Garbe explains the contrast between the infamous Epic Kṛṣṇa and the pious pupil of the CU. iii, 17. 6 I do not understand.

^{page 174 note 1} For various views compare the essays of Lang, Rivers, Thomas, , and Crawley, in Anthr. Essays presented to E. B. Tylor, pp. 203Google Scholar seqq., 309 seqq., 345 seqq., 57 seqq.

^{page 174 note 2} Cf. Haddon, , The Races of Man, pp. 60, 61.Google Scholar

^{page 174 note 3} p. 156, where it is suggested in explanation that the Tamils fell under Vedic influence before they had developed monotheism independently.

^{page 175 note 1} pp. 209–18.

^{page 175 note 2} It may be noted that Mr. Chanda's correction (p. 228) of Mr. Shamasastry's rendering of Kauṭ. i, 2 is untenable, as it involves construing anu-īkṣ with a genitive. The correct view is to construe etāsām with balābale; Anvīkṣikī considers the relative weight of the three sciences—the Vedas, business, and policy. The same text really renders impossible any doubt as to the identity of Lokāyata with the atheistic system which bears that name throughout Indian literature, and may be regarded as finally disposing of Professor Rhys Davids' ingenious suggestion in Dialogues of the Buddha (1899), pp. 166 seqq.Google Scholar