the translator, but do not imply want of skill in composition. The following versions are as literal as differences of idiom will permit, and, if considered at all successful renderings, will, I hope, support my View of the style of the originals. The accuracy of the texts is Wonderful. A clerical error or engraver's blunder very rarely occurs, and the beauty of the lettering may be judged from the facsimile of the Rummindeî inscription in Plate II. I have seen the original twice, and can certify that it is quite as clear as the reduced copy of the impression.
The reasons for treating all the inscriptions as the work of one author and for adopting the renderings chosen for the royal titles have been stated in Chapter I (ante, pp. 20, 22). The subject headings, of course, are not in the originals. All modern studies of the inscriptions known to me have been utilized in the preparation of the revised versions, which differ materially from those published in the earlier editions. References will be found in the Bibliographical Note appended to Chapter V.
Assuming the correctness of the chronology accepted by M. Senart, Mr. F. W. Thomas, and myself, which is not admitted by all scholars, the extant inscriptions may be classified in order of date as follows:—
Edicts.
| 'Regnal Year.' | B.C. | |
| Minor Rock Edicts | 13th | 257. |
| Bhâbrû Edict | ? ditto | ? ditto. |
| Fourteen Rock Edicts | 13th & 14th | 257 & 256. |
