A22 Remarks on the Taxila Inseription. [No. 4, 
his reading and my own, I in every instance prefer my own translitera- 
tion. In his laudable desire to prepare an entirely independent version, 
he was necessarily hurried, and was unable to bestow upon the Inscrip- 
tion the same amount of attention and study as it received from me. 
I am sanguine therefore as to the probability of his acquiescing 
in most if not in all of my readings, and that eventually our differences 
both of transliteration and interpretation will be reduced to a mini- 
mum. 
It is not my intention to minutely compare our readings, or to 
comment upon all the differences. Any passages in my version which 
may be impugned, I shall be ready to defend, or frankly surrender when 
the time comes; but there are a few points of difference which are of 
some importance, and deserve notice, one especially in which General 
Cunningham’s version enables me to improve my own translation. 
First as to the transliteration. The compound character which I have 
rendered ft, General Cunningham has made to be ¢h in the date and 
in the Ohind date. ‘The same character really appears again in the 
third line, in the word which I have read aprattitavita, but the copy 
published in this Journal is defective in this instance, having v instead 
of ff. This blemish in the copy renders necessary a revision of Gener- 
al Cunningham’s reading, and I doubt not that he will accept my ver- 
sion. General Cunningham corrects the word prachu (east) mto pa- 
cham (west), because Hussun Abdal, the place where the plate was 
found, is N. W. not N. E. of Taxila. I cannot, however, assent to 
this alteration. The letters of this word are as perfect and distinct as 
any in the whole Inscription, and they form most unequivocally the 
word prachu. ‘This may be a blunder, but it is just as possible that 
it may admit of explanation. The plate was “found” at Hussun Ab- 
dal but we are not sufficiently acquaimted with the facts of its disco- 
very, to justify us in a positive assumption of its having been originally 
deposited there. However this may be, it is surely better to trans- 
eribe the word as it stands, and if it be an error, to prove it so. The one 
course decides the matter, whether rightly or wrongly; the other 
leaves it open to discussion and to the light of future discoveries. 
‘The next point of difference which requires notice, is the words which 
I read “sangharamam cha,” but in which General Cunningham finds 
“Sangha Rachile (na)” and understands them as forming the name 
of the person who deposited the relic. We agree in the word “ Sangha” 
