Footnote 49: Hopkins, _R. I._, Chaps. XIV and XV; Bose, _H. C._, Vol. I, 3. Footnote 50: _See_ Telang’s translation throughout, and _cf._ Hopkins, _G. E. I._, 28-46; Amalnerkar, 4-5. Footnote 51: Telang, 15. Footnote 52: _Cf._ Hopkins, _R. I._, 429. Footnote 53: _G._, IV, 8. Footnote 54: Hopkins, _R. I._, 399. Footnote 55: _G._, IV, 1-3. Footnote 56: _G._, XVIII, 13. Footnote 57: _G._, XVIII, 19. Footnote 58: _G._, X, 26. This is a noticeable point; for Kapila is the only founder of a philosophical system known to the Epic; he alone is authoritative in all philosophical matters. _See_ Hopkins, _G. E. I._, 97. Footnote 59: _G._, X, 24. Footnote 60: _See_ Hopkins, _R. I._, 414. Footnote 61: _G._, X, 27. Footnote 62: _G._, X, 27. Footnote 63: _G._, X, 28. Footnote 64: _G._, X, 31. Footnote 65: _G._, II, 72; V, 24; 25; 26; VI, 15. Footnote 66: Hopkins, _G. E. I._, 88; _R. I._, 427. Footnote 67: _Mahābhārata_, Bhīshma Parvan. Footnote 68: _G._, VIII, 24-25. Footnote 69: Amalnerkar, 13. Footnote 70: See _Jacob’s Concordance to the Principal Upanishads and Bhagavadgītā_. Footnote 71: Mr. Justice Telang was inclined to put the date before the third century B.C., but his otherwise most judicious criticism is faulty in this that it does not take all the factors of the problem into consideration. Others, such as Müller, Weber, Davies and Lorinser, incline to a very late date, about the third century A.D. Most writers believe that the true date lies between these extremes. So Monier-Williams, Hopkins, Fraser and others. Prof. Amalnerkar’s pamphlet contains a number of most interesting points. His contention, that the phrase, _Brahmasūtrapadaih_ (_G._ XIII, 4) refers to the _Vedānta Sūtras_, and that the _Gītā_ is therefore the later work of the two, has been accepted by Max Müller (_S. S. I. P._, 155), but Prof. Hopkins thinks the _Gītā_ is earlier than the Sūtra (_R. I._, 400). The theory which Prof. Hopkins holds, that the Divine Song was originally an Upanishad, and that it was redacted, first as a Vishuite poem, and then a second time in the interests of Krishnaism (_R. I._, 389), would account, on the one hand, for the numerous inconsistencies in its teaching, and, on the other, for the very conflicting signs of date which it presents. For a criticism of Bunkim Chundra’s views, _see_ the Appendix. Footnote 72: Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. I, 9-11; Bunkim Ch. Chatterji, _Krishnacharitra_, 46; Macdonell, 174-175, 285; Hopkins, _R. I._, 33, 177-179. Footnote 73: Macdonell, 285; Weber, _I. L._, 90. Footnote 74: _S. B. E._, Vol. XII, pp. XLI-XLII; Macdonell, 213. Footnote 75: _S. B. E._, Vol. XIV, Index. _Cf._ Weber, _I. L._, 186; _Krishnacharitra_, 31. Footnote 76: 3, 17, 6. _See_ Dutt, _C. A. I._, Vol. I, 189; Weber, _I. L._, 71; Bose, _H. C._, Vol. I, 26; Hopkins, _R. I._, 465. Footnote 77: