________________
246
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
be joined according to the construction. There is not a single instance in which words written continuously belong to different sentences. It would seem that the clerks connected those words, which in reading the documents they pronounced together. Hence the breaks are equivalent to signs of interpunction, commas, semi-colons and full stops, and they, as well as the combined groups, must be taken into account in the interpretation. And it follows, e.g., that in the second edict the division of the group chakhudánepi into cha khu dáne pi is impossible, and again that the attempt to combine the separated words isyá kálanena, in the third edict, cannot be upheld.
As regards the translation and interpretation of the Pillar edicts, the majority of the numerous problems, which Lassen and Burnouf left behind, have been solved by Professor Kern in his Jaartelling der zuidelijke Buddhisten, and in his Buddhismus und seine Geschichte in Indien, or by M. Senart in his Inscriptions de Piyadasi, tome ii, and in his articles in the Indian Antiquary, vols. XVII and XVIII, which Mr. Grierson has translated in excellent style. Hence there was not very much remaining for me, especially as M. Senart in his latest publication has adopted my suggestion (Indian Antiquary, vol. XIII, p. 306) that the so-called eighth circular edict on the Debli-Sivalik pillar is only the end of the seventh. Nevertheless, I hope that my translation and notes will not be superfluous.
I differ from my predecessors, especially from M. Separt, in several essential points. First, as I hold on principle all conjectural emendations, which alter the texts of several versions, to be inadmissible, I have tried to show that in all cases, where such changes have been proposed in the Pillar edicts, the original readings admit of explanation. Secondly, I have attempted to further substantiate my view that a full explanation of Asoka's edicts can only be given with the help of the Brahmanical literature and by a careful utilisation of the actualities of Hindu life. I have called attention to this point in the introductory remarks to my German articles on the Rock edicts, and in explaining the latter, I have shown how a certain proportion of the institutions in Asoka's empire agrees with those prescribed by the Brahmanical Rajaniti, as well as, that certain other details become easily intelligible, when one consults other Sástras or pays attention to still existing Indian customs. This principle of interpretation is, it seems to me, particularly important for the fourth and fifth Pillar edicts, and hence the remarks on these two pieces have become rather extensive.
Thirdly, I believe it to be certain that Piyadasi-Asoka had not yet joined the Buddhists, when the Pillar edicts were completed. His conversion to Buddhism fell, as I shall show in a new discussion of the Sahasram and Rûpnåth edicts, in the twentyninth year of his reign. Up to the end of his twenty-seventh year the king continued to preach and otherwise to work for the spread of that general morality which all Indian religions, based on the Jñánamárga or Path of Knowledge, prescribe for the people at large and which is common to the Brahmans, Jainas and Buddhists. This conviction, of course, has forced me to demur against a specially Buddhistic interpretation of various words and terms.
Finally, there are some passages, e.g., in the second, third, fourth and seventh edicts, where I have tried, by new divisions of the continuously written syllables or new trans
In justice to Professor Kern I must point out that he has recognised this very obvious fact quite independently, Dor Buddhismus, vol. II, p. 38.
