________________
For. #X.
Readings.-L. 1. The additional stroke in the tra, if not accidental, may denote a doubling. At least I learn from Prof. Rapson that a (cross) stroke is used in the Stein documents for that purpose.
142
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
L. 2, aggra with a cross stroke; ma in maheshi has the original form with a subscribed angle; shri has the otiose r-stroke found elsewhere.
L. 3, te in dhite is quite clear; it must be due to an error, as the regular form of tra occurs several times in the inscription.
L. 4. Is the side stroke in the r of kharaôstasa accidental, or does it possibly represent h? See p. 138 above. It occurs in the place, though not with the shape, of aspiration in other
consonants.
L. 5. No doubt namdasi should be read, on the analogy of the other names. But the lower stroke of the akshara is curtailed (being at the edge of the stone) in such a way as to produce the appearance of the cursive da in Bühler's Table, col. viii. After sa nothing can be clearly seen on the stone. The analogy of the other names would lead us to expect -sad. On the to in mátá see p. 137 above.
L. 8. From what nominative form the instrumental Hayuarând is to be derived is not
obvious.
L. 9, a[m]teüréna presents a case, rare in these inscriptions, of disappearance of a medial consonant. The only other cases are: (1) saspaé for sasvaté, 1. 13 (if that is the correct reading); (2) k in nakraraassa and mâhásamghiana; and (3) khardaassa. As in general the medial consonants are sharpened rather than weakened, this seems to show a mixture of dialects. On the word horakd see p. 140 above.
L. 11, nisime. Bühler takes this as denoting a stúpa, and he quotes Professor Pischel's view that it is a Prakrit form of niḥsama, used in the sense of high', hence stúpa. The word is certainly a substantive and the name of a manufactured object, as appears from the phrase nisimô karita niyatitô in inscription J.; but in point of etymology it may perhaps be related to the nissimamalaka of the Mahavamsa, o. xxxii: ranno sariram jhâpésum yasmin nissimamálake.
L. 13. The last akshara is doubtful, and it is indeed possible to question whether any sign is intended after vi. Bühler's reading bhúsati is out of the question. We must apparently take bhúsa as a strange optative form.
L. 12. The sign for tô is, owing to misplacement of the vowel stroke, that usually in these inscriptions denoting tra. I do not detect a sign for r.
L. 6. Whether mata or mátrá is inscribed I cannot determine.
L. 7, tra is clear in pitra, and sri in Pispasri.
L. 9. The second akshara resembles tra more than anything else; if it is really té (which in any case must be meant), the sign for é is added to the earlier form of ta.
L. 13. Bühler's reading mukihitaya. The first akshara is certainly not mu, but might be mra, unless it is simply ma, and the third is far from being an ordinary hi; the expression Buddhasya muktihitaya does not present an orthodox appearance.
L. 15, sé seems clear; compare isé in 1. 10.
Grammar and interpretation.-L. 1, ú in Rajula is supported by the Ranjubala, etc., of the coins.
L. 2. It is doubtful whether maheshi Ayasi- or maheshiá: Yasi is to be read. In the former case we have an omission (or postponement) of the sign of declension, as in pitamahi, 1. 7. It would however not be entirely out of the question to take pratiṭhávitô as an active participle with the subject mátá in the nominative and a false concord: Bühler observes (p. 535) that 'pratichavitô is the neuter, as frequently in the Shahbazgarhi version of the Rock-Edicts.' We may q te imam katavo in Edict XI. Generally however in cases parallel to the present (e.g. in
