________________
READINGS FROM THE ARIAN PALI.
NOVEMBER, 1881.]
only in the lower right-hand corner (where the first and second lines of the inscription meet) there is a large fissure, probably caused by the instrument with which it was dug out; but it is well removed from the inscription. Most of the letters are deeply cut and perfectly distinct. But a few are partially obliterated, owing to the original incision not having been sufficiently deep, in consequence of which they have become filled up by the effects of the oxidation. Still in all such cases there are traces which, on careful inspection, cannot be mistaken. The lithograph of the inscription which accompanies this paper is prepared from a squeeze which I took myself, and checked by repeated careful examination of, and comparison with, the original. The letters, as now given, may be accepted as perfectly accurate in every respect.
Most of the defective letters occur in the third line of the inscription, and it is generally noticeable that the third line is not executed with the same care as the first and second lines. This is shown in various ways; thus, in the first two lines the several words are separated by perceptible intervals, while in the third line they are often run together; again the subscribed nasal (anusvára) is not always placed accurately under the letter to which it belongs, but sidewards so as to be apparently under the succeeding letter. The engraver evidently got tired over his work and, in the third line, did not trouble himself to cut the letters with sufficient accuracy and depth. Hence the modern decipherer's difficulties. These will be noticed in detail when I come to the remarks on the translation.
There is another point worth noting. There are distinct traces still observable on the copper-plate which disclose the modus operandi of the engraver. It appears that he first drew a preliminary copy of the inscription on, the plate by means of very slight and superficially punched dots, indicating the outlines of the letters. Afterwards the letters were deeply engraved by the chisel following the dotted outlines of the copy. In a few cases, however, the engraver either departed from his copy, or, evidently from mere oversight, omitted to engrave the whole of the indicated dotted outline.
It is not shown in Plate ii of the Journal.
So in dadamti and kapajamhcha, which are written as if they were dadatim and kapajacham. Similar in
325
Most, if not all, these cases too occur in the third line of the record. Thus in the 18th letter (ni) of the third line, the cross-line indicating the vowel i was drawn, in the preliminary dotted copy, across the curved head of the consonant n, though in a wrong direction, from left to right, instead of from right to left, as in the 6th letter of the same line. Accordingly when the engraver came to incise the final copy, he drew the vowel line lower down, across the body of the consonant, as in the 18th letter of the first line (in Kanishkasya). The original dotted line across the crook of the consonant n, however, is still perfectly recognisable. Again, in the 15th letter of the third line (ki of kichhubini), only one portion of the cross-line, indicating the vowel i, has been fully incised, viz., that on the right of the crook of the consonant k; the remainder, on the left side of the crook, has, by, an oversight, been allowed to remain in its original dotted state, which is still, though faintly, recognisable. Similarly in the 32nd letter of the third line (tha of pratithanam), the upper half of the vertical stroke has been left in its original dotted state, while the rest is fully incised.
Two attempts have been previously made to read and interpret this inscription, but with very imperfect success. The first was by Sir E. C. Bayley, immediately after the discovery of the copper-plate, in 1870. His reading and translation are given in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, vol. XXXIX, pp. 65-70. The reading, though incomplete and incorrect, is yet in some points more accurate than that of Professor Dowson. The latter's reading and translation were published in the same year (1870), in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, (N. S.) vol. IV, pp. 497-502. For the sake of facilitating comparison, I shall give both the previous readings side by side with my own, and afterwards add some remarks in justification of my version of the inscription.
Transcribed into Nagari characters, the record, as I read it, is as follows; a corrected Pâli, as well as a Sanskrit version being given in parallel columns. The commencements of the four lines of the inscription are indicated by numbers.
accuracies are well known in Persian cursive writing. .e., adding the, usually, omitted double-consonants and long vowels.
