________________
304
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[NOVEMBER, 1893.
12. According to the new materials it would seem that first sútilékáni was incised and then partly erased, a ra being at the same time placed before it. No doubt the clerk copied sátilékáni, the Magadhî form, and then wanted to pnt in sátirékáni, as the vernacular of the Central Provinces required. In the transcript of this edict the horizontal lines between the words indicate that they stand close together in the original.
13. According to the new materials the reading adhatiyani, which is possible also according to my facsimile, is more probable than adhatisäni. The dhi of my first edition is simply a misreading.
14. M. Senart's vasa is a misreading, the new materials giving va-ya-sumi as plainly as the facsimile attached to the first edition.
15. Read haka; the stroke, intended for the carve of the first consonant, has been attached by mistake to the top.
16. Both according to A, and B, especially according to B, the first letter is an impers fectly formed sa, exactly as it looks in my facsimile. B seems to shew before ke the somewhat indistinct outlines of a va, while A has a blurred sign exactly like that on my facsimile. Though there is no trace of a letter in the blank space, the possibility that the reading may have been upásaké, is not absolutely precluded.
17. M. Senart's láká is neither supported by my old facsimile nor by the new materials, which all shew short vowels. The Anusvára stands low at the foot of the ka.
18. B shews gha plainly, sa more faintly, while A agrees exactly with my old facsimile. The reading may have been saghai, samgham, or sagha.
19. The first letter is undoubtedly u according to the old and the new materials, and the third te. The vowel, attached to the second, is not distinguishable in A and B, and the reading may have been either upité or upété.
20. B shews that the real reading is badhi not báḍhim, as M. Senart has, the dot after dhi being much too small for an Anusvira. Chu for cha (my misreading) is distinct on all the materials, especially on B.
21. The horizontal vowel-stroke, attached to ya, has according to B on the right a portion of an upward line, and the correct reading seems, therefore, to be yi (not ya); compare badhi for badhé and paratisu for pavatesu.
22. Both A and B shew somewhat faintly mi and to the right of the upper portion of the vertical stroke of sa a deep abrasion. It must remain uncertain, whether the reading was misa or misam.
28. The initial é of ésá consists of an acute angle and is open at the base, the third line having been left out, I suppose, accidentally.
24. The new materials, especially B, shew hi ka pi parumaminéna, which, as I have proposed formerly, must probably be altered to hi kim pi pakamaminéna. Ka might, however, stand, if it were possible to assume that the Pâli had preserved the ancient neuter kad. B makes it probable that ru was originally ka and that a very short portion of the crossbar has been lost accidentally by an abrasion on the left. B shows distinctly that the last syllable is not ná but na, the apparent á-stroke being due to a flaw in the stone.
25. The first letter of pipulé is slightly injured, but the reading given is even according to B more probable than vipulé. The form need not cause suspicion, as the sporadic change of va to pa is not uncommon in the literary Pâli and in that of the inscriptions.
26. Read árádhavé. The ro is certain, but the apparent stroke before dha, which M. Senart believes to be an é is not connected with the consonant and clearly due to a flaw in the stone.
