138 T)r. Hoernle —An instalment of the Bower Manuscript. [No. 3, 
Thus on fl. 46 9 the original writing in black ink was me nu , which is 
false, for me srinu ; here the akshara sri is inserted below, in the inter¬ 
linear space, in light-ink, and the proper place of insertion between me 
and nu is marked by two minute strokes above those two aksharas. 
Again on fl. 3 IA the original black writing was *Wt ; this is corrected 
into OTtR'* ^f, the visarga being inserted and the top-stroke of the second 
vowel 6 cancelled by two minute strokes, all in light in k. Similarly in 
fl. sa-mustdm is corrected to sa-mustam. It might be supposed 
that the original writer might have, on revision, made these corrections 
himself. But this is not probable,—for two reasons : firstly, occasion¬ 
ally a letter in light ink is met with in the middle of a word, in the 
ordinary line, showing that the original writer had left a blank which 
was afterwards filled in by the re visor. Thus in fl. 3 6 7 , ajarah, and 
fl. 56 6 , lavanopetair , the visarga and the akshara no respectively are 
in light ink, while all the rest is in black. Secondly, occasionally 
a correction was made by the original writer himself, and these correc¬ 
tions are in the same black ink as the rest of the writing; thus 
on fl. 5a 3 the original writer first wrote which he afterwards altered 
to all in black ink. He still left another error, which the revisor 
also did not notice, for the word should really be These observa¬ 
tions seem to suggest the conclusion, that the manuscript is a copy, 
prepared somewhat inaccurately by a scribe and afterwards revised by 
another person ; and that, in any case, it is not the autograph of the 
composer of the work whoever he may have been. But neither did the 
revisor do his work accurately, for he overlooked some palpable mistakes, 
thus on fl. 3& l we have munir instead of munihhir ; here the akshara bhi 
is omitted, but has not been supplied by the revisor, though the omission 
is clearly indicated both by the sense and the metre of the verse. Other 
similar errors I shall note further on. 
With a small exception, the whole of the portion of the manuscript 
now published is written in verse. The metres employed exhibit a 
very great variety. They are the following :— 
Metres. 
Nos. 
Verses. 
Arjcij * *» »•( 
5* 
51, 52, 53a, 86, 100, 110 
2, Indravajra* ... 
42J 
12, 14, 23, 38, 67-85o, 88-103, 
105-108 
3, S'loka 
49i 
10, 11, 28-30, 39, 43-50, 54-66, 
87, 104, 111.131a 
* I e, either pure Indravajra or various combinations of Indravajra and 
Upendravajra. 
