302 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XVI, 
Now, nobody, I believe, would question the soundness of 
the first two points above. The third, I am afraid, is unten- 
able, for it rests upon false premises. There is hardly any 
ground for the assumption either that Mahipala lived till 1060 
A.D. or that Vigrahapala ruled in the eleventh century. The 
reasons which led Cunningham to propound such a view are 
laid down as follows :— 
“ Veracharya, a Raja of Orissa, is said to have been tribut- 
ary to him (Mahipala); but there is no such name in the list 
of kings given by Dr. Hunter, which is :— 
A.D. 999 Nritya Kesari. 
,, 1013 Narsinh Kesari. 
, 1050 Varaha Kesari. 
Amongst these the only name at all like Veracharya is 
that of Varaha Kesari but, as his reign did not begin until A.D. 
1050, the identification would show that the reign of Mahipal 
60 
in the present state of our knowledge. As a matter of fact, as 
Mr. R. D. Banerji has himself maintained, the probability is 
that Vigrahapala II and Mahipala I ceased to rule before 980 
and 1026 A.D. respectively. It thus follows that the colophon 
in question should be assigned to either Vigrahapala II or 
Vigrahapala III, and there is no ground to hold that any one 
of these suppositions is more probable than the other. 
o far as regards Mr. Bendall’s position. Now Jet us turn 
to Mr. R. D. Banerji’s statement to the effect that the MS. in 
question was written in the 26th year of Vigrahapaladeva II. 
This is not supported even by what Mr. Bendall says. For he 
at best held it as more probable that the MS. should be 
referred to the reign of Vigrahapala II, whereas Mr. Banerji 
looks upon this as a certain fact. But in view of what has 
been said above it cannot be held to be even probable, and of 
course far less a certain conclusion. 
year of Mahipala I.2. For there is nothing in the colophon 
itself to show that the king Mahipala referred to therein is 
Mahipala I and not Mahipala II. Indeed this is clearly pointed 
out by Dr. Theodor Bloch who noticed the colophon. 
There is another instance of a similar error on the part of 
| Proc, A.S.B, 1899, p. 69. 2 Palas of Bengal, p. 75. 
