________________
308
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1889.
THE QUEEN'S EDICT AT ALLAHABAD.
Prinsep, p. 966 and ff.
TEXT. 1 Dévånampiyasa vachanens savata mahậmata 2 vataviy [.] é hota dutiyâyê dêviyê då[]nê 3 ambi vadika va Alami va dana 8 hêva êtasi anne 4 kichhi ganiyati tîyê dêviyê sê nâni sava 5 dutiyâyê dêviyê ti tfvalamata káluvâniye
NOTES. Although General Cunningham does not express himself on this point with all the clearness which one would desire, it appears to me to be certain, as Prinsep practically admitted, that these five lines preserve for us the commencement only of an inscription which the detrition of the stone interrupts from the sixth line. Has this detrition made itself felt in the fifth line ? We shall at least see that, according to my opinion, and so far as one can judge from a single portion of a sentence, the reading of the last few words require much more correction than the rest of the fragment. On the other hand, I see no necessity for assuming that the lines which have come down to us are themselves incomplete, as Prinsep sapposed with regard to the fourth. In any case, there can be no hope here of a really certain translation, but there are at least some details which can be rectified with confidence, and the Queen Kichhigani, for example, re-enters into that non-existenco, from which she should never have emerged.
The first phrase is clear enongh: it closely follows the commencement of the detached Edicts of Dhauli and Jaugada. Of what follows, we have only the beginning. The verb is missing, so that we cannot construe the sentence. However, as far as tivalamdta, do, the functions. of the different sub-phrases appear to be pretty clear. We have two relative propositions : ó héta, &o., and & hevd, &c., but is the sé of sé náni, &c., their antecedent, so that the iti refers back to the whole of this first portion of the sentence P I think not. The meaning hardly lends itself to this construction ; for then the thought attributed to the ideal interlocutor, rendered indeterminate by the mutilation of the stone, would come to something like this: All the alms given by the second queen belong to the second queen' or come from the second queen,' an observation the parport of which it is not easy to discover. I have therefore no hesitation in considering that the two relative propositions, contain the subject of the principal proposition, the verb of which has been lost, and that the iti refers only to the proposition of nani, &c. This admitted, the division of the words presents no exceptional difficulties. Héta is for åttha, atra. In the last word of the second line, read dané by Prinsep, the first character is curiously wanting in clearness. It looks something like a , and the reading dáné suits the meaning well. We have discussed anbávadika (EJ. VIII. 1. 2) above ; and this word gives a nsefal basis for the correction of blame to alámé,' garden, grove.' There can be no doubt about the words which follow : anhné Wichhi, which must certainly be transcribed yadanyat kinchit, and ganiyati, which is the passive of the verb garayati, in the meaning of 'to prize,''to esteem.' Etasi is doubtless to be taken adverbially, and gives a meaning equivalent to the étarahi of Pali, and the Starhi, etarahish of Buddhist Sanskrit. Instead of seeking for an imaginary general in sénáni, we can remind ourselves that we have already had twice to correct ndni into káni, so as to restore a particle hitherto always misunderstood, and we shall thus write sé leáni, that is to say, in Sanskrit, tat khalu. The last words, - those which follow ti, - are unfortunately obscure. Although Prinsep's attempted interpretation requires no formal refutation, it is by no means easy to substitute anything which would be accepted as probable. I can only offers conjecture. The first word appears to be tive, which we have already met (G. XIII. 1; Kh. XIII. 35) A8 marking the activity of the religious zeal. This comparison leads me to suggest the correction of lamá to dhamá, to . In the following
