1837.] to the No. \ Inscriptions of the Ldts. 471 



of my reign/ The anomalous form of the second letter perplexed 

 me for some time, and it was only after collation with other readings 

 of the same passage that I became persuaded of its being a double d. 

 Thus I found sometimes f{j ^ or sada, and once ({j /\ sata, but gene- 

 rally rb d > tlie lower stroke seeming to imply duplication. That the 

 d should be substituted for tt agreed with the observation by Messrs. 

 Burnouf and Lassen of the frequent interchange of these letters in 

 their analysis of a Pali manuscript, the Boromat, from Ceylon. I have 

 also found in other parts of the inscription that the double dental t is 

 as frequently rendered by the cerebral t ( , as by d f . 



That we are not mistaken in the interpretation of this passage we 

 have the most satisfactory proof in the commencement of the eastern 

 tablet, which perhaps ought to rank first, as it speaks of an earlier 

 date. The expression here is ^i'r'rbirij HrTrbAJ_"8 Duwddasa 

 vasa abhisitena me ; ' In the twelfth year of my reign.' It may be 

 perhaps objected that duwddasa is a very corrupt mode of writing 

 dwddasa, ' twelve :' the separation into two syllables of dwd, and the 

 substitution of the cerebral d being too great a latitude to sanction 

 unexplained. Here again, fortunately, other manuscripts come to our 

 aid. In the Cuttack inscription just received from Lieutenant Kittoe 

 we find the dental d restored ; and the undue collision of the two 

 short a's grammatically corrected, thus : 



r'i r'rbifbr/rbA-LB duwddasa vasdbhisitename*, 



leaving the first error still uncorrected ; but this again disappears 

 when we turn to the Girnar version, which seems generally to have 

 been executed with greater orthographical propriety. It is there, 

 (38th line)— 



r 7 ^irCr/rC"Al>il , r'JLUJLdrb 

 Dwddasavdsdbhisitena devdnam day a piya thisa. 

 This is on other accounts a most important variation, because it 

 shews the value of the abbreviated pronoun me (mama) ' of me,' to have 

 been correctly rendered. The pronoun would in the present instance 

 be superfluous, because it is replaced by the name of the raja ; which 

 has also two remarkable deviations from the common spelling — daya 

 for piya may be a fault in transcription, but it is also translatable. 

 The substitution of thisa for dasi, a change not so easily explained, 

 leads us to an inquiry who this potentate could have been, to spread 

 his edicts thus over the continent of India? 



* The facsimile lias dbhisdtename, — a mistake, probably, ia copying. 

 3 p 2 



