1891.] Dr. Hoernle — Uemarks on Birch Bark MS. 61 



line 3, ^^^ '^ - f^^qr^^ ^ ^^ si^j^fT^^^ "^ - irf^^TT sfT^^rwr ^ 

 line 4, 5Rfq - ^^'Trtj .tj* TO^^j xf ^^r - «r=^^TiT<T % ^rmr ^^nfr 



line 5, ^<: fq ^qmil JH^frT ^T^f^^T - ^Sf^rTH^T ^^W*r ^?t ^^r^%if "^ - 

 line 6, rRr ^T^5%*r '^ - ^^^Tf^T^iT ^ ^ft ^ft f^^^^^f '^ - iT'f R^T- 



f^\ T^r^ ?r^^ ^ 



^. e., ' may God rain all over my territory ; hail to Ilikisi ; my 

 loving trust is in Dhritarashtra ; my loving trust is in Nairavana 

 (Airavana ?) ; in Yiriipaksha is my loving trust and in Krishna Gau- 

 tama ; in Mani, the king of Nagas is my loving trust, also in Vasuki ; 

 in Dandapada, in ? and in Purnabhadra at all times ; in Nanda and 

 Upananda, the beautiful and glorious, who most successfully maintain 

 a contest even with the Gods and Asuras ; in Anavatapta, in Varuna is 

 my loving trust, and in Samharaka ; in Takshaka, Ananta, and further 

 in Yasumukha ; in Aparajita is my loving trust ; and my loving trust is 

 in Chhibbasuta (?) ; and likewise in Mahamanasvin perpetually.' 



" The language of the manuscript is Sanskrit ; not, however, the 

 ordinary standa^rd Sanskrit, but that species of ungrammatical Sans- 

 krit, which formerly used to be known by the name of the Gatha 

 dialect, and which was the language used for literary purposes by tlie 

 ISTorthern or North- Western Buddhists, outside the schools of Brali- 

 manic learning, in the centuries immediately before and after the 

 commencement of the Christian era. It was a species of Sanskrit which 

 in inflexion, syntax and metrics was not bound by the ordinary rules 

 and usages of Sanskrit Grammar. The awkwardness of the Sanskrit 

 in the introductory verses is noticeable. The word adhydya is used 

 as being of the neuter gender, while in the standard Sanskrit it is mas- 

 culine. In the second extract we have 'pishayet for the regular Sanskrit 

 pesJiayef, and, in the colophon quoted above it, the wrong concord valam 

 wpajayante (singular subject with plural predicate). In the third 

 extract, joarihiyate stands for parihiyate and hdrand is used as the 

 accusative plural, instead of Jidrandni. In the fourth extract, we have 

 the irregular sandhi devo samantena for the ordinary Sanskrit devah 

 samantena ; again the initial a. of anavataptena ^nd. oi apardjitena rnM^t 

 be dropped or taken as absorbed in the preceding syllable, in order 

 to make the verse (JloUa) scan ; moreover the initial two shorts of 



