66 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. [March, 1912. 
ing it to this paper marked C. Thus the antiquarian public 
have now two different copies of the transcript of the epigraph 
before them. 
. On comparing these two copies of the transcript, we 
find that the following two padas of verses 2 and 3 of Mr. 
Bhandarkar’s copy are wanting in our copy, which gives four 
names more than the fifteen names mentioned in Tod’s transla. 
tion, namely Khuman, Bhartripatta, Khuman and Mahayak :-— 
GaHU-sa: HPUSYS: | (2) 
ata sau qate AEIaat aq tl (2) 
And the following pada or stanza is in our copy after 
the second half of verse 3 of Mr. Bhandarkar’s copy :— 
feetuaneg agatty 
It is surprising that there is -so much difference in these 
two transcripts, which both are said to have been obtained 
from the pupils of the same Gyanji Jati, the Pandit employed 
y Tod. Further, it is more Surprising that the name of 
Mattata, which is wanting even in the transcript of Mr. Bhan- 
. . . . . e is a 
otherwise, it is his mistake that he has refer 
in his statement without first examining it. 
ow the question arises - Which of the two transcripts 
od, when he made his translation? To. 
Firstly, that the transcript | 
was before Tod, but he left 
satisfactorily solved, 
cripts of Gyanji Jati is a true 
