Tee lee 
ee Fs 
1923.| Numismatic Supplement No. XX XVII. N. 67 
The second line, which is correctly given, leaves no room for 
doubt on that head. The first line, therefore, should read 
rie ess ey y bins woth. 
The initial ~ is not visible but the exigencies of metre demand 
its restoration. The line w ill sean only with an iza@fat after 
cH). 
In this list of coin iyi ee Mr. Brown says that there is 
a variant of No. 69 “ a gold coin of Mu‘azgzamabad (B.M.C., 
No. 937 a) which has ae ae been elucidated,” and Mr. White- 
usual couplet having been ordered wrongly. When this 
primary error in regard to the ordinary type is corrected, the 
halt in the variant is not so easily perceptible. The matter 
stands thus: This ordinary line was read 
Sy ble & ip 3; aks 
This is wrong, though it does not sound false to the untrained 
ear. But 
2 obhyt & ale a) pas Khe 
clearly does, and hence the doubt. If the ordinary hemistich 
had been read rightly in the first instance, as 
ly gbipa b xip aes 9} 
the variant would;have automatically taken the form 
as 
wy wl yhyt L ye Fae or ) 
There would then have been no obvious dissonance and 
consequently no difficult 
Mr. Brown appears to have entertained a tae as to the 
correctness of No. 39 also, —the distich inscribed on an un- 
gers admitted his inability to arrange properly the 
M tay gold ponni (Re oO. pe The first line, as he has ordered 

| This coin was read for m oe Maulvi ‘Ali sere: of Canning Col- 
lege, Lucknow. He recognised the metre and constructed the 
accordingly. But the reading digs nevertheless ; for the word he 
took to be 5); (not clear in ree ae is actually 4:', which appears quite 
distinctly on a coin now e possession of Mr. H. Nelson Wright. 
So tho first tine of aiapiok' ite poe 
<i oe 0.3. B 

