________________
MARCH, 1890.)
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
91
nothing in Dhauli, or rather which cannot represent the meaning of the phrase hévamévar, which we meet instead of it at Dhaali. I conclude therefore that this nitiyarn is only an erroneous repetition of the stone cutter, and that, hence, his original had really nitiyan (and not niti iyarn) in the only instance in which it could find a legitimate entry into our text.
15. In this instance, our new rubbings improve the old readings, both at Dhauli and Jaugada in important particulars. The construction is clear. The phrase, as shown by the héva meva at the beginning of the next sentence, contains & comparison, and kilasta, which in a general manner applies to every one who is fatigued, contains an allusion to kilamatha, 'indolence,' or perhaps also to the exhaustion caused by an intemperate zeal, by túlaná. The only word which requires some explanation is ugachha in Dhauli, Jaugada, in this instance, having a different reading. We have in the one case ugachh. and in the other samchalitu uthi., and I do not hesitate to read ugachhé and sanchalitui uthihé, two potentials, the second of which warrants for the first the meaning which, while quite intelligible, is not altogether ordinary, of
to raise oneself,' 'to set oneself in motion. The repetition of api, at Jangada well expresses the insistance with which the king urges activity, and still it is necessary to bestir oneself, to move forward, to go on. On the other hand, the final vá is not admissible, at least unless the king intended to express a particular difference of meaning which I must own I am unable to detect between vrajitavyan and étavyan. I suppose that we should read chá, a correction which appears to be borne out by Mr. Burgess's facsimile.
16. The construction is here somewhat condensed, though there does not seem to be any doubt about the meaning. We have just had dekh or dakh used with reference to the supervision of the mahdmátras. We may therefore translate, So also with regard to the supervision which you have to exercise ;' in it also it is necessary to bestir oneself, to move forward.
17. We might consider the tena as correlative to the ya which precedes, but several reasons lead me to reject this explanation. In the first place téna vataviye is a locution frequently used by the king at the beginning of a sentence and without any syntactic connection with what precedes. Besides this, one feels that a close connexion between the two propositions would impart to the sentence & turn neither clearer nor more convenient. Finally, the words téna vataviyê do not occur in Jangada, and this leads one to conclude that they are not essential to the construction of the sentence, the words which precede being, so far as meaning goes, identical. This being settled, there are two ways of understanding vataviya ; viz. as we supply mayá or tuphếhi to complete the sentence. For this reason I must tell you,' or you must tell (the people). In the first case né, of the sentence following, would refer to Piyadasi; in the second to his officers. Jangada does not lend itself to this equivocal meaning. Nijhapétaviya is already sufficiently known to us from the 4th Columnar Edict (1. 17-18) where we have had rijhapayisanti and nijhapayitá (see note 10). According to precedent we must translate the passage in Jaugada thus, you must bring (the people) face to face with my orders and will say to them), "such and such are the instructions of the king dear unto the Devas." ' It appears that this comparison must be decisive in favour of the former of the two constructions for Dhauli also. One feels nevertheless tempted, to seek, in the phrase vataviya &c., for an equivalent to the causal verb of Jaugada. To make this possible, we must try an altogether different analysis for the words annash and né. The first would be the Sanskrit anyad, the second would be equivalent to no, and we should then translate bring them face to face with nothing else (but only this), "such and such are the intentions of the king dear unto the Devas." But we have hitherto met only a single example of the confusion of me with nô (Kh. XII., 31), and a reference to my notes will show that the confusion is perhaps only apparent, depending merely on an accidental omission. It must also be admitted that the construction last proposed would be very elliptical, and I have therefore the lens hesitation in preferring the former explanation. At the most I would propose, in order to reconcile the two versions, to read at Dhauli dôkch&ta, which would supply a causal verb, as at Jangada.
