Indian Antiquary Vol 18

Author(s): John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 13

JANUARY, 1889.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI
5
extent of the punishments to be inflicted? This, it must be observed, is the meaning to which the translation of the learned Leyden professor leads. All is explained if we take atman as referring to the king himself, and, in this agreeing with Barnouf, the prosecations and the punishments as concerning, not the persons committed to the charge of the rajjúkas, but these functionaries themselves. "I reserve to myself, personally,' says the king, the institution of prosecutions against, and the awarding of punishments upon, them. It is manifest that this is an excellent method for establishing a perfect uniformity in the legal responsibilities of these officers; and it is at the same time a weighty guarantee on behalf of those most interested. They could fulfil their duties without inquietude, 'knowing that they were responsible to the king alone, and that therefore they escaped the possible intrigues and enmities of any official superiors. I deem it useless to insist on the reasons which render inadmissible the interpretation which Burnouf, misled by a false analysis of atapatiyé, proposed for this sentence.
3. There can, I think, be no doubt as to these last words, regarding which the reading opacha, instead of ovu chá, bas hitherto misled interpreters. Anugalinévu is nothing but the optative of anugrihnáti, derived and spelled according to all the analogies of Prakrit, and in particular of the dialect of our inscriptions. The vu is for yu, as in wpadahévu, and in many other instances to which attention either has been or will be drawn. The translation is quite • simple. The aim of the king is that the rajjúkas " should provide for, and favour the welfare and the happiness of the populations." We have previously shown how familiar the word anugraha is to the language of the king. It has almost the appearance of a technical term.
4. In order to understand this member of the sentence, it is indispensable to compare with it the expression of the viiith Col. Ed., 1.2, which refers to it and sums it up. There the king expresses the mission given to rajjúkas as follows: hévarh cha hévah cha paliyavadátha janan dharmayutan. This comparison appears to me to condemn the translation proposed by Dr. Kern (cf. again J. R. A. S., N. S., xii. pp. 392 and 393, note). Ova lati has in Buddhist language the exact and ascertained meaning of to exhort,' to preach.' We have already explained this in discussing the VIth edict. Vivóvadati has the same signification, except for the shade of diffusion which, marked here by the prefix vi, is in the circular edict given by the prefix pari. We have a direct proof of this in Dhanli, vi. ii; viyovalita [vé ] corresponding to óvaditaviyan of the other versions. This meaning is also the only one which suits the following Bentence.
On the other hand, the same comparison prevents our taking yuta in dharmayuténa as a neuter, and translating, with Burnouf, conformably to law. I have on a former occasion (I. 78) had occasion to remark that throughout our inscriptions harimayuta, or its equivalent. yuta, whether in the singular or in the plural, has always the same meaning, and designates the faithful people, the co-religionists of the king. So it is in the xiiith edict, in which the king enjoins his officials to confirm them by their exhortations in their good sentiments; so it is also here. We have, in fact, a very simple means of putting the present passage in complete ngreement with the former one: it is to take the instrumental in its meaning, so common and well known, of association. We accordingly translate, and with the faithfal (at the same time as the faithful) they will exhort all the people.'
We are now in a position to restore all its regularity to the rest of the sentence. We can only, if we follow the asual style of these edicts, refer áladhayera to the people, to those who are set under authority, as the subject. Kimti, in short, always announces the intention attributed to the subject of the proposition; here, to the subject of viyovadisanti, i.e. to the rajjúkas. As we enter, with kinti and ti, into the direct style, it would be necessary, if the verb applied to these officials, that it should be in the first person and not in the third. The idea of the king is therefore incontestably this the rajjúkas shall preach the gospel to my subjects, in order to provide for their welfare in this world and in the world to come.'
5. There can be little doubt here about the restoration of lagharnti to chaghamti. The difference between J and d is very slight, and the evidence of the other versions seems to be decisive. As to this form, no one has as yet noted its parallel use in Prakpit, or has determined