________________
ASOKA'S TWELFTH ROCK-EDICT.
3. With respect to the spelling I have scrupulously adhered to the position of the letters in the original. I transliterate priyadrasi, dhrumo, savra, though I have not the slightest doubt that the words were pronounced in the Panjab, as elsewhere, priyadarsi, dharmo, and sarva. To everybody who is acquainted with manuscripts of works in the modern Prakrits of India, or who has had to do with official correspondence in these Prakrits, the carelessness which the old inscriptions show with respect to the position of the letter ra will be nothing new or wonderful. A Hindu who is neither a Pandit nor a pupil of the Government schools, will. write for sovarna, sovran or srovan, for sarva sometimes srapa and sometimes savra, just as his fancy may direct. As long as the ra appears in the word, he is quite contented. He, of course, pronounces invariably dhar'm, sar'o, sovar'n, and so forth. There is, I think, no reason to suppose that Aboka's Rajukas were better scholars than the Karkuns of the British Government offices before the introduction of the European system of education, and I therefore believe that the abnormities in their spelling may be attributed to the same causes which operated in the case of the modern office writers. Still, in a transcript, it is as well to render the peculiarities of the text as accurately as possible.
TRANSCRIPT. L. 1-De(va)nam (p)riyo (P)riyadrasi raya savraprashamdani grahastha)ni cha puje(ti) danena vividhaye cha pujay(e) [.] N[o] chu (tatha) [da]nari va puja va
L. 2-devanam priyo m(a)ñati yatha kiti [?] sa(la)vadhi siy(a) savraprashamdana[m] [.] Salavadhi tu bahuvidha' (.) Tasa tu iyo mula ya(m) vach(a) guti ;]
L. 3-kiti [2] ataprashandapuja (va) pa[rapa]sha[m]dagaranao va no s(i)ya (apra)karanasi () lahuka va siya ta(si ta)si prakara[n]e [.] Puje[ta]y[a]" [@]va (chu) parapra(sham).)
L. 1-[da tena tena prakaraṇena [.] Ev]am' karamtam (ata)prashaṁdam vadheti
1 See e.g. Mr. NarmadAshankar's remarks on this point in the preface to his edition of Premånand's Dafamekandha of the Bhagavatapurana, p. 8.L.C.
The sign() used in the transcript indicates that the letters are slightly injured, the sign [ ] that they are very much defaced but just recognisable.
1 There is a straight line on the right side of the lower end of ra and a slanting one on the right of ya, faintly visible on the facsimile. I believe that both are accidental.
• The vowel o is very faint on the facsimile, but plain, though shallow, on the impression. • The anusvára is doubtful.
The va of devanamh shows a short upward stroke at the lower end of va. The little semicircle on the right of ma which on the facsimile is connected with the letter, appears detached from it on the impression.
• The last anusvára is doubtful. 7 A short line, slanting upwards, is attached to the lower end of br.
. Only one half of the annavdra is visible on the impression to the right of ya. The other, which was attached to the left limb, has disappeared in a great rent.
• The anusodra is doubtful. Garana is probably a mistake for garaha. The ra of this word shows below on the right horizontal line, which I believe to be accidental.
10 Pra is tolerably plain on the impression. 11 Na is better recognisable on the impression. 13 The vertical line above va seems to be accidental, just as that below.
1 On the facsimile the first letter looks like ya with a wrongly placed o-stroke. According to the impression sa is probable.
# The first twelve letters are with difficulty recognisable. Only the last two are almost entirely gone.
