________________
98
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
MARCH, 1890.
svagam âlâdhayisatha mama cha ananiyam êhatha [] êtâyê cha athấyê iyam lipi likhita hida ena mahâmâta svasatamo samam (10) yajisamti asvâsanâyê dhammachalanayê cha têsu aṁtânam ['] iyam cha lipi anuchâtummasam tisêna nakhatêna sôtaviyalo kama cha khanôkhanasi amtalapitisêna êkêna (11) sôtaviya [:] hêvam kalantami taphê chaghatha sampațipadayitavê [].
. Alädhayisatham mama cha Ananêyam ésatha [•] (14) êtîyê cha athâyê iyam lipi likhita hida ēna mahîmâta sasvatam saman yujêva asvasanayê cha (15) dharmachalanayê . amtanam [: iyam cha lipi a . châtummasam staviya tisêna antalápicha sotaviya18 (16) khane samtam êkêna pi sötaviya (:) hêvam cha kalantamchaghatha sampatipatayitáv819 [:]
NOTES.
DHAULI. 1. In all that precedes this word, this second edict is so completely the fellow of the first that comparison with it enables us to fill up with every certainty the lacunce of our present text. It is from this point that the differences between the two edicts begin. The first words are characteristic of them, but owing to their not having been understood, the special object which inspires each of these two writings has hitherto not been clearly developed. Antánari avijitánann shows us from the commencement that the king here has in view the unconquered frontier populations, which do not form an integral portion of bis empire; and, indeed, towards the end of the edict, Piyadasi expressly declares that he has had this edict engraved dhainmachalanáyê têsu antánari, to cause the Religion to be practised amongst these frontier populations. For this use of anita we may compare Kh. xiii., 4, and Sahasrâm, line 5 (and the parallel versions), in which latter Prof. Bühler's translation requires correction. We should also specially refer to Jaugada ii., 6 (Kh. 1. 4), where anta is contrasted with vijita in such a way that the sentence forms a decisive commentary on anitá avijitá, our phrase here. This explains why the king in this edict omits to mention the assemblies of the anusanyána upon which he lays so much stress in the preceding one. It is natural that, when buying himself with populations which escape his direct action, he should not presume to summon them to regular periodical assemblies. I think that Dr. Kern has accurately analysed the word which follows, kimchhande su, as equivalent to kinchhandah svid; the text is certain, being perfectly clear at Jaugada, with which the traces at Dhauli entirely agree; but that he is in error as regards the subject to which he refers the pronoun aphesu (i.e. asmesu). He puts the phrase in the mouth of the people, the subjects of the king. Given as correct the certain reading and the translation of antánam avijitánar, such an explanation would make the construction impossible. Moreover, the experience of the preceding edict ought to guide us here. We have seen therein that it is, throughout, his officials whom the king is addressing, and that it necessarily follows that when he employs the direct style with the first person, there being no express indication to the contrary (cf. 1. 4, gachhéma, 1. 12, játá no huveva mama), they are the persons whom we must take for the subject. We thus get in the present case a perfectly well-connected sentence,
If you ask yourselves, - what is the will of the king with regard to us in relation to the unannexed frontier populations ? This is my wish in what touches the frontier populations.' The slightly loose use of the genitive amtánam is sufficiently explained not only by the liberty of idiom which is common in this style, but specially by the impossibility of placing together two locatives, anitêsu and aphesu, with different syntactic functions.
2. It is certain that two aksharas are wanting before pápunéor. This would be sufficient in itself to put aside Dr. Kern's conjecture, if it were not already condemned by the exact explana
