66 N. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [N.S., XIX, 
I have said that the metrical arrangement of the legend 
is often helpful in enabling us to reconstruct or restore the 
couplet, when all the words have not come on the coin. This 
is well exemplified by No. 61. The second hemistich which is 
complete shows, the metre is Hajaz-i-Musaddas i-Magsir or 
- 3 . . 
Mahzif Jsclae rclee Qlelee The first line, therefore, cannot 
possibly be (1,3 Gale sa 2, aX~. It is not difficult to say what it 
ought to be, as the second line of No. 61 is Gib ys alle XL pols 
That of No 63 is : 7 
sl ys als Ls a—Bax 
and that of No. 75 / 
gsi ys als enn! esc 
Every word of the first line is inscribed clearly and may be 
tead by any one on the obverse of P.M.C., 2839. There is, 
therefore, no room whatever for hesitation on the question, and 
it may be said with confidence that the first lines of Nos. 61, 
63 and 75 must be identical. But the order of the words as 
given in Mr. Whitehead’s catalogue (P.M.C, Nos. 2091 and 
2766) and followed by Mr. Brown, 
Gilad leita: gga S51 aS 
must be rejected for metrical reasons. The line will scan only 
if it is rea 
The variant given by Beale (Miftahu-t-Tawarikh, Lucknow 
Lith., 1867 A.C., p. 341, 1, 2) a 
is equally correct, but me ae distinctly visible on P.M.C., 
No. 2839, and must consequently be accepted as part of the 
original verse. Similarly, the rules of Persian prosody enable 
us to assert, without fear of challenge, that the first lines 
of Nos. 62 and 64 must be identical. although the word Multan 
has not come off on the Multan rupee in Mr. Nelson 
Wrights’ cabinet. The metre is Ramal-i -Musamman-i-Mahzi/ 
oe : 
hele Hels Viel Jilelas is proved by the second lines. The 
word Ske therefore has to be supplied. Here again, the 
ordering of the words of the first line is metrically false. It 
should be— 
BLe 9 2 Syle ys yytS ska ys 2} 5 Gee 
Lastly the metre of No. 77 is M ujtas-i-Musamman Makhban-t- 
u i ee Bo he ei 
Mahziif qileas uylelao Siar leloe 
