1891.] Dr, Hoernle —An instalment of the Bower Manuscript. 
141 
tion of the introduction, and that of the rest of the work in which the 
prescriptions are detailed. In the former the Sanskrit is comparatively 
plain and correct, while in the latter it is very rugged and plentifully 
marked with all those anomalies of orthography, grammar, prosody 
and vocabulary which distinguish the early extra-scholastic Sanskrit of 
the North-West of India. The versifying powers of the author were 
evidently unequal to the management of the technical portion of the 
work. 
1 will now enumerate some of the more striking instances, that I 
have noted down, to illustrate the different kinds of anomalies that 
occur in the Sanskrit of the work. It might be objected that these 
apparent anomalies are mere copyists errors ; and undoubtedly in a few 
cases, they are such errors; thus in fl. 5a 1 (verse 95) the MS. reading 
ndsye Jcrita vidheya pralepdh is clearly a mere clerical error for ndsye 
hrite etc. But in most cases the surrounding circumstances forbid such 
an explanation, and show that the anomalies belong to the character of 
the language. It is also to be observed that the whole of the manuscript 
is very fairly free of clerical errors. I believe there are only about 17 
cases which are certain to come under this description ; in a few others, 
which I have also marked in my transliteration as false readings, it may 
be doubtful whether they are really errors or anomalies or simply 
slovenly writing. To the class of distinctly clerical errors belongs the 
omission of two whole padas, as in fl. 36 8 (verse 55), or of a whole syllable, 
as in fl. 3 b l munir for munibhir , fl. 2 cliha-madirdm for chhdta-madirdm, 
or of a letter, as in fl. 25 6 prayujan for prayumjan ; again the substitu¬ 
tion of a false word, as in fl. 3 b ?j pushti for paJcti, or of a false akshara, 
as in fl. 16 4 so tan for sit an or srotan, fl. 1 & 6 dtithauviva for atithdviva, 
fl. 25 s idly anna for sdly anna; or again a totally blundered word, as 
in fl. 3 a 1 Icdsyeshasno for hdsasvdsaghno. On the other hand doubtful 
cases are such as fl. 3a 4 undiram for udirnam , fl. 3a 6 astrdni for astrdni 
which more probably are real anomalies of the language ; or such as fl. 1 6 4 
sthitodupati for sthit endup ati, fl. 3a 9 hr Hat as for hrisabhds , where we 
have probably a correct letter written so slovenly as to resemble a 
false letter. 
But to return to the anomalies : there are first the irregularities of 
orthography. The following are selected examples : 
Doubling of consonants : preceding r : e. g., in fl. 2 b 2 h-hridi , fl. 36 5 
h-hriyd; or preceding y, in fl. 5 siddhyati and saddhyam. 
Confusion : of sibilants : e. g., s for s , in fl. 4a 8 kdsisa for hdsisa ; s 
for sh , in fl. 2 b s hulmdsa for hulmdslia; sh for s, in fl. 5 W shadi 
for sa ti; or n and n : in fl. 3u B hritdstrdni for kritdstrdni , fl. 45 8 
sthaunaiyaha for sthauneyaha; or of ri and ri, in fl. 36 6 mriyate 
