7 
1903.] C. Bendall— History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. 
This was called after the Yuvaraj ( sbYttst ) Tndra or Mahendra-deva, 
Mahendra-saras. It was otherwise known as Madanasaras. 1 It will be 
seen that this date falls in the year before the writing of a MS. in 
the same reign. 
I have lingered over these somewhat minute details for two reasons : 
(1) Because it forms a new feature of the present chronicle to find 
so early as this 2 dates expressed both in words and figures that accord 
with the contemporary evidence of the scribes; (2) because doubt 8 has 
been expressed whether the Nepal Samvat (of 879-80) was actually 
in use in the eleventh century A.D. It is satisfactory to note that our 
chronicle, following the tradition already known from Kirkpatrick, 
does mention 4 the aforesaid Indradeva both as yuvardja and raja , 
as we have now a MS. of his reign. It will be seen, however, that the 
number of years (12) assigned to his reign is probably excessive. The 
dates of the next two reigns overlap one anther. If this is not a 
case of subdivision of the kingdom of which there are so many instan¬ 
ces, it may be quite well explained by the tradition preserved in the 
records of Wright and Bhagvanlal, that Mahadeva retired early in his 
reign from active sovereignty and Narendra (or Narasimha) 6 became 
his regent. Of the reign of the next king, Ananda, MSS. are now 
numerous. It is curious that the other chronicles either give his name 
wrongly (Wright, Bh ) or omit his reign altogether (Kirkpatrick). It is 
found, however, correctly spelt at f. 316. of our MS. 6 chronicle. Of Rudra’s 
reign no MSS. are extant. The years assigned by our MS. to his reign 
(8) seem to show the origin of the curious error in the length of the 
reign (80 years) assigned by Kirkpatrick. Equally correctly given is 
the form Amj-ta, which is now verified by a MS. 7 The ‘ great dearth ’ re- 
1 The event is again chronicled with the same date in V2. See Plate, fig. 9, 
1. 4. 
8 Kirkpatrick’s dates begin later (thirteenth century). Those in Wright only 
become correct somewhat later (invasion of Harisirpha). 
8 A. Foncher, Iconographie Bouddhique, p. 28, n. 1 
4 The records preserved by Wright and Bhagavanlal (Ind. A. XIY. 413) pass this 
king over. 
8 The actually discrepant date is that supplied by the colophon in the Cat., p. 
62. Here there can be no doubt as to the interpretation of the chronogram, through 
some of the-terminations of the other words must be corrected for the scansion. Bat 
the date seems not to work out. The obscure phrase rajardjasadriye may quite 
possibly refer to regency. 
8 The common mistake * Nanda-’deva is found at f. 25 a (plate, fig. 5, 11.). Riijen- 
dralal Mitra makes the same blunder in his text of Astas. Pr. pref., p. XXIV. note. 
1 Cat. p. 65 (?r). 1 find from a tracing sent from Nepal by Col. Loch that the 
Pandit’s reading of the year (296) is quite correct, and in that in the next line 
Sri Amrtadevasya is quite clear- 
