321. These fences were made of iguana skins and cased the hands of the bowmen up to a few inches of the elbow-joint.
322. Nimitta is explained by Nilakantha as the mark of object aimed at. Drona was the preceptor in arms of almost all the Bharata princes.
323. With two Bhallas Abhimanyu cut off his adversary’s standard; with one, one of the protectors of his car-wheels: and with another, his charioteer. Thus Nilakantha. A Parshni is altogether a different person from a Sarathi. Hence Nilakantha is assuredly right.
324. ‘Angaraka’ is the planet Mars, and ‘Sukra’ i.e. Venus.
325. Prativindhya was Yudhishthira’s son by Draupadi.
326. Maghavat is Indra, the chief of the celestials.
327. The word used in the original is Viparitam lit. contrary. The sense seems to be that car men fought on foot, cavalry soldiers on elephants, warriors on elephants from horseback, &c. The very character of the forces was altered.
328. i.e., though repulsed, these frequently rallied, and occupied the same ground as before.
329. The last half of the 7th with the 8th forms one sentence. It is certainly pleonastic. Ranavaranais of the Bengal texts is preferable to the Bombay reading Varavaranais. Toranas are the wooden edifices placed on the backs of elephants for the protection and comfort of the riders. These are called in India Hawdas.
330. Many of the Bengal texts read Avinitas. The correct reading, as in the Bombay text, is Abhinitas. Aprabhinna is literally “unrent,” i.e. with the temporal juice not trickling down. This juice emanates from several parts of the elephant’s body when the season of rut comes. To avoid a cumbrous periphrasis, which again would be unintelligible to the European reader, I have given the sense only.
331. For the Bengal reading ‘Mahaprajna’ the Bombay text reads ‘Mahaprasas.’
332. Rathat and not Rathan is the reading that I adopt.
333. The Bengal reading ‘narvarakshaye’ seems to be better than ‘Mahavirakshaye’ of the Bombay text.
334. Talaketu is lit. Palmyra-bannered. Without using such compounds, the ‘brevity’ of the sentences cannot be maintained.
335. Karshni is Krishna’s or Arjuna’s son Abhimanyu. Arjuna was sometimes called Krishna.
336. Laghavamargasya is a mis-reading for Laghavamargastham’; then again chapi is incorrect, the correct reading chapam as in the Bombay text.
337. The Bengal reading is ‘Suaris Vritascha Sainyena’. The Bombay reading (which I do not adopt) is ‘Vritastu Sarva Sainyena.’
338. Nine slokas and a half, from the second half of the 43rd verse to the 52nd verse (as above), are omitted in the Bengal texts. These, however, occur subsequently in section 46 following. The fact is, the whole of the passage in this section and the 116 verses in the following section, and the first 24 verses in the section 49, are regarded as an interpolation. In those sections of the Udyoga Parvam where the Rathas and the Atirathas, &c, are counted by Bhishma, no mention is made of any warrior of the name of Sweta. The Burdwan Pundits omit these passages altogether. I myself believe them to be an interpolation. Occurring, however, as it does in both the Bengal and the Bombay texts, I cannot omit in the English version.
339. The Bombay text reads ‘Yavana nihatam,’ which is better.
340. I adopt the Bombay reading of the 22nd verse.
341. ‘Swayam’ in some of the Bengal texts is a misprint for ‘Kshayam’.
342. Chakrapani is Vishnu armed with the discus.
343. For ‘Yuthan’ which gives no meaning, I read ‘Yodhas’. The Bengal reading ‘muktvagnimiva daruna’ is better than the Bombay reading ‘muktam ripumishu darunam.’
344. The Bombay reading ‘jivitam dustyajam’ is better than the Bengal reading ‘jivam taduttham’, if it has any meaning.
345. In the first line of 71st verse, the word is not ‘Laghu’ but ‘alaghu’, the initial ‘a’ being only silent according to the rule of Sandhi. Though omitted in the Bengal texts, it occurs in the Bombay edition.
346. ‘Ghoram’, ‘ugram’, ‘mahabhayam’, are pleonastic.
347. In the first line of 87 for Maheswara (meaning Siva) the Bombay text reads Dhaneswara (meaning Kuvera, the lord of treasures). For also ‘Bhimainipatitiya’ in the second line the Bombay text reads ‘Bhishma inipainya’.
348. The transgression of which Dhritarashtra alludes is the slaughter by Bhishma from his car, of Sweta who was then a combatant on foot. Or, it may be the very slaughter of Sweta, who was dear to the Pandavas and which act would, the king thought, provoke them more.
349. Verses 4 to 7 are exceedingly difficult. I am not sure that I have understood them correctly. They are of the nature of Vyasakutas, i.e., deliberate obscurities for puzzling Ganesa, who acted as the scribe, for enabling Vyasa to gain time for compositions. In verse 4 ‘Pitus’ means uncle’s and not father’s; so also ‘durga decam’ in verse 6 means entanglements, like Duryodhana’s hostility with the Gandharvas on the occasion of the tale of cattle. In verse 7 of the Bengal reading is Yudhishthiram bhaktya. The Bombay reading which I adopt, is Yudhishthire bhaktas. In 8, the purushadhamas are Sakuni and Karna. &c.
350. As both operations are useless, so are these thy regrets.
