215 ([return])
[ 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 ([return])
[ 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 ([return])
[ 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.]
218 ([return])
[ The Bengal reading tatha loka is incorrect. The Bombay text correctly reads tadaloka. Then also, instead of the Bengal reading rajasacaa samavrite (which is faulty), the true reading is raja tamasa vrite.]
219 ([return])
[ Lokanamabhave is explained by Nilakantha as pralaya-kale.]