________________
No. 41.]
A NEW ASOKAN INSCRIPTION FROM TAXILA.
263
Line 7: Begins with the other pron. dem. 1 “that." Follows a word which begins also with 17, if we consider the first letter to be the Aram. prepos. 2" with, by." Else, it could almost be read " bahuvrihi" and is apparently non-Semitio, Indian.
Line 8 : Again a word beginning with 177 of which I am unable to propose any Semitic explanation, and the second word of the same line, of which only three letters remain, begins once more with 17. As the third letter is n, it cannot be a form of the auxiliary verb 1717.
Line 9: This line, as also l. 12, is of high importance. There are clearly and beyond any doubts, the two words: marana Priyadar.., in l. 12: 11-márána Priyadars.., i.e. “our (or to our lord Priyadarsa."
Line 10: First letter , either beginning of the following word, or, since it is the enol. pron. of the 3. pers. sg., the end of the preceding word from line 9. Then a mutilation of the stone, a rest of the letters, and surely 13; the last letter is n.. I venture to restore this word, by supplying a Di in the lacuna, and to read it ini2501" and his queens," or, less probable "his kingdoms.”
Line 11: Begins with the copula 1 followed by the particle " also." Second word is the plur. of a formed from the stem 12 , with pron. of the 3. pers. sg., bence" and also his sons.
Line 12: As already explained, has the words to our lord Priyadars .." The last letter Vs, though much mutilated, is certain, and that rendering of g is not without interest.
If we regard the last lines: "our lord Priyad...... his (..) his queens... and also his sons... to our lord Priyadars..." we may be inclined to believe that the missing part of the inscription has not been much larger than the narrow slab that forms the remaining part of it. That impression becomes strengthened if we consider the close following of the words beginning with hu., and which were apparently closely connected in the original sequence of the phrase.
Although the word priyadarçana has more than one meaning, I think, we cannot doubt that it stands here for Açoka himself. It has been his official title, which, in all but one of his inscriptions, he uses alone instead of his proper name. M. SENART's suggestion, that he had adopted this title as his ordination name, is more than probable, and does not become contradicted by the fact, that the emperor himself uses once the plural of even that word in the sense practically of “ kings." Daçaratha, and maybe all of his successors, used that ordination name as a title, not unlike the case of the word Cesar in Rome. But there are better reasons : according to the style of the script, we are, I feel sure, not allowed to put the inscription down too late. It belongs certainly to the IIIrd cent. B.C., but rather to its first half, than to its end. And even more cogent, I believe absolutely conclusive, is the following reason : Who, unless Açoka himself, in his endeavourings to propagate the new faith, could have had any interest to employ, in India, at that period, an occidental, the Aramaic script and language ?
Hence, I take it for settled, that the Taxila inscription is a new Açoka inscription. As I thought that you might be interested in the subject, as the discoverer of so extraordi. nary a monument, I have written these lines.
Believe me, dear Sir John,
Yours very faithfully,
ERNEST HERZFELD.
