________________
MAY, 1883.) ON DR. HOERNLE'S VERSION OF A NÅSIK INSCRIPTION.
139
!
mountain Ye-hu, 7 or 8 leagues west or west- Seuen-ping, Terhing-fu, and several fortified north-west of Siuan-hoa-fu by Gaubil), and in the positions. The result of the campaign was, subsequent fight the Kin troops fled. Following therefore, rather a gain of prestige than of up this success Chinghiz, in the autumn of 1212, territory. The Kin troops were beaten in laid siege to Tai-tung-fu, the western capital, and several important engagements. Several of enticed the Kin general, Gotun," who had been their most important positions were captured, sent to raise the siege, into the Meyu Pass," where and their internal weakness was amply proved. he exterminated his troops. Chinghiz now re- As Gaubil says, the order of the Mongol newed the siege, but was presently wounded by | conquests in the years 1211 and 1212 is not an arrow from the walls in an assault in which the same as told in the Tong-kien-kang-mu, he lost many men, and accordingly drew off his Nien-1880, and other histories." The order troops and withdrew northwards into Mon- of events is, therefore, in some respects congolia. The Kin troops profited by his retrentjectural, and I do not profess to have cleared and reoccupied Paogan, Siuan-hoa, i.e., Sinan-ti- up all the difficulties of the story, which is, in fu and Kiu-yung." Douglas says they reoccupied | fact, very involved.
ON DR. HOERNLE'S VERSION OF A NASIK INSCRIPTION
AND THE GÅTHÅ DIALECT.
BY PROF. RAMKRISHNA GOPAL BHANDARKAR, M.A., POONA. In the middle of 1874 I spent about six Gazetteer. Since the time my translations weeks in deciphering and translating the in- appeared in the Transactions of the Congress, scriptions in the caves at Nasik, and prepared I have found one or two better readings proa paper and submitted it to the International posed by other scholars. Similarly there is Congress of Orientalists held in London in that one proposed by Dr. Hoernle in his paper, year. The paper has been published in the published in the Indian Antiquary, ante pp. 27 f, Transactions of the Congress. The reading of to which I should attach great weight if I were those inscriptions was a work of great difficulty, to revise the paper. But that scholar has at since some of them are in the Pali or Praksit the same time found fault with my translation dialect, and others contain a mixture of Sanskrit of the inscription which is the subject of his and Praksit. The letters, too, in several of paper, and which is one of the easiest in the them, are faintly cut. I could derive very series. He thinks I have mistranslated it. little assistance from the labours of my prede- I desire therefore to discuss the matter here, cessor in the field, for, except the one which is so that scholars at large may be able to almost entirely in Sanskrit, the inscriptions judge whether Dr. Hoernle has mistranslated were misread by him. I could, therefore, never it or I. look upon my work as final, and was aware of The inscription is No. 17 of Mr. West's its imperfections. Besides, the paper was series. Dr. Hoernle thinks he has discovered an printed in London, and as I could look over one important fact, viz. that the inscription is in the proof only, there are a good many misprints. Gâtbâ dialect. This, in my opinion, does not I have, therefore, long been thinking of revising come to more than saying that it contains a the paper, and publishing it separately; bat mixture of Sanskrit and Prakrit, or that there no opportunity has yet presented itself, and are some ungrammatical forms in the inscripI now learn that Dr. Bühler has re-read and tion. For I believe the Gåthå dialect does not re-translated the inscriptions. What I have deserve to be called a dialect with distinctive been able to do is to re-write my remarks on characteristics. My views on it as well as the relations between the Andhrabhsityas and on the language of these inscriptions, both of the Satrap kings; and these I have embodied which I also consider alike, I have given in the in a paper I have written for the Bombay Wilson Lectures which I delivered in 1877, but
. Called 0-tun by Hyacinthe.
' Me gu-kheu of Hyacinthe. " Douglas, pp. 67 and 68 ; Hyacinthe, pp. 58 and 54;
D'Ohsson, vol. 1, pp. 132 and 138 ** Gaubil, p. 18.
Op. cit. p. 18 note 1.
rito
