________________
No. 22.]
THE SIDDAPURA EDICTS OF ASOKA.
137
The SiddApura edicts were sent to Isila from an office, presided over by an Ayaputa and Mahêmåtas. This scheme of government corresponds exactly to that, which, as the second Separate Edict of Dhauli teaches us, was adopted in Tosali, where a Kumala and Mahâmåtas ruled, to all of whom the edict is addressed. The natural inference is, therefore, that of Mr. Rice, who takes Ayaputa to be an equivalent of Kumála, while M. Senart's supposition that the Ayaputa is a local chief (op. cit. p. 494; Notes, p. 27) appears more far-fetched. And it is not difficult to show that ayaputa may be used in the sense which Mr. Rice attributes to it; for the St. Petersburg Dictionaries adduce passages in which the corresponding Sangkrit word dryaputra means a prince. Moreover, in Dr. Bhagvanlal's Katak inscriptions, Nos. I. and III., the kings Khåravêla and Vakadēpa receive the epithet aira, i.e. drya (aya), and in the Nasik cave-inscription No. 15,' king Pulumâyi is indicated by the word maha-airaka, i.e. maharya. Hence airaputa or ayaputa might indeed be used for'a king's son. It may also be urged that if the Ayaputa had been a mandalika or padêsika, as Asoka himself calls the local chiefs, the ministers would not be mentioned as sending their orders together with his. Such a proceeding would be against all etiquette. On the other hand, the position of a prince, sent out as a viceroy, was probably not an independent one. The distrust and the jealousy of the father and sovereign no doubt surrounded him with high officials, possessing almost, if not quite, the same powers, in order to watch, and, if necessary, to check him. Finally, we also quote the circumstance that Pada, one of the writers in the Ayaputa's office, presumably had acquired his knowledge of the Kharðshtri characters while serving in Abóka's northern possessions.
The extent of Asoka's possessions in the Dekhan cannot as yet be ascertained. But it may be considered as certain that they included more than the northern extremity of Mysore, and I believe we may venture on the guess that they extended into the Bombay presidency and that the conquest of the Dekhan had been made by governors of the Konkan, after the annexation of the latter district. In the direction of the Western Ghats I would also look for Suvannagiri, the head-quarters of the viceroy of the Dekhan. If it still exists, it will now go by & name like Songir or Sôngadh, Sondurg, Savarņdurg, or the like.
The three versions furnish in my opinion no great assistance for finally settling the most difficult problems connected with the New Edicts. They confirm, it is true, the view of Professor Oldenberg who, years ago," contended that, in the Rûpnáth Edict, adhatiyani ought to 3e read, instead of adhitisäni, as I had done. But this is also highly probable according to a new impression of the Rūpnåth version, made over to me by Dr. Fleet, according to which I shall publish a new transcript in the Indian Antiquary. The reading adhatiyani, as a matter of course, makes it necessary to give up the assumption that the statements of the inscription regarding the time of Asôka's conversion to Buddhism agree with those of the Buddhist tradition. The Beloved of the gods says, not that he was a lay-hearer for more than thirty years and a half, but for two years and a half. Again, and this is a point not yet recognised, - he does not say that he "approached or entered the Sangha" more than a year ago, but more than six years ago. When I wrote my first articles, I had not seen that the apparent i above va is the apper part of a da, and hence read in the Sahasrầm version savimchhale, instead of sadrachhale, i.e. shadvatsaram. Moreover, misled by the imperfect facsimiles, I believed that mistakes like chha for sa were common in Asoka's Edicts. Hence, I unhesitatingly corrected in the Râpâth Edict the inconvenient chhavachhare, i.e. shadvatsaram, 'a period of six years,' to
Actes du Sisième Congrdo International des Orientalistes, Vol. III. Part ii. p. 152.
* Misread vera by Dr. Bhagvanlal, who, in objecting to a PrAkşit diphthong ai, bad apparently forgotten the existence of the form thaira and similar ones.
· Rep. Arch. Suro. West. Ind. Vol. IV. p. 111, and p. 112, note 1. • Zeitschrift der Deutsch. Morg. Ges. Vol. XXXV. PP. 473 ff. [Vol. XXII. pp. 299 r.]
