e wheels). So we have Parshni-rakshas and
Prishata-rakshas, &c.

456. In the first line of the 3rd verse, the Bengal reading is bhayam.
The true reading, however, is khayam.

457. In the second line of 8th, for the Bengal reading, vachaymasa
yodhanam, the Bombay reading is yachtacha Suyodhanam. This is better. The
Bengal reading has no meaning.

458. Literally, "when its impetuosity is stirred up by the wind."

459. The Bengal reading, which I adopt is sardula iva vegavan. The Bombay
reading is sardula iva darpitas.

460. In the first line of 54, the Bombay reading pragrihya is better than
the Bengal reading visrijya.

461. Literally, hundred-slayers; supposed to be a kind of rockets.

462. Some of the Bengal texts, in the first line of the 6th, incorrectly
read sa-run for Sakram.

463. The Bengal reading atmana, the last word of the verse, seems to be a
mistake. The Bombay text gives the right word, which is aimanas
(genitive). Sarvatobhadra seems to have been a kind of square array in
which the troops faced all the points of the compass.

464. In the Bengal texts, savdas in the first line is vicious. The true
reading seems to be sahkhan, as in the Bombay edition. Then again in
Kunjaran (Bengal), the Bombay text reads Pushkaran which is
unquestionably correct.

465. The Bengal reading vanya-nagendra is better than the Bombay reading
gandha-nagendra.

466. In Hindu mythology, solar eclipses are caused by Rahu's attempts at
swallowing the Sun.

467. Budha is Mercury, and Sukra is Venus.

468. Both the Bombay and the Bengal texts repeat Chamarais in the second
line of 24th. This is certainly erroneous. The Burdwan Pundits read it
tomarais. This is correct.

469. In the second line of 30th, the correct reading is Rathas (nom.
plural) and not Rathan. So in the first line of 31st, the word is
turangas (nom. plural) and not turangan.

470. Lit. "reached him with shafts etc."

471. Both the Bengal and the Bombay printed texts are in fault regarding
the word Pandupurvaja. The Bombay text makes it a nom. plural. The Bengal
text makes it an accusative singular. There can be no doubt that the
Burdwan Pundits are right in taking it as a vocative.

472. That you know me to be invincible is a fortunate circumstance, for
if you had not known this, you would have fought on for days together and
thus caused a tremendous destruction of creatures. By your coming to
know, that destruction may be stopped.

473. The a