________________
MARCH, 1890.)
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
101
struction given at will (kamani) in the interval, whenever an opportunity presents itself. The second alternative would in that case commence at kámani cha. Nothing can be more simple, but the text at Jaugada does not lend itself to this method of dividing the words. It repeats sótaviya three times, and distinguishes three cases, the public instruction at the festivals of Tishya, the instruction in the intervals between these festivals, and the individual instruction, which is to be as frequent as possible. I am persuaded that the second staviyd is an erroneous repetition, which we should omit, resting satisfied with the meaning of the preceding edict, which well agrees with the text of Dhauli. Why should the festivals of Tishya be specified at all for the public promulgation of these edicts, if the king adds immediately afterwards, and also in the interval'? With Dr. Kern, we should correct to khanékhanasi, although the use of the locative in é is rare (Cf. Jangada), at least unless it is preferred to admit a sporadic use of the cerebral I, khanakha
Jl. Kalashtain is for kalanitá (cf. I. p. 16-17) or for kalanté, i.e. kalastah (cf. Col. Ed. vii.-viž., note 21, and note 1 to the Jaugada version of the present edict.)
JAUGADA. 12. I have already said (cf. preceding edict, Dhauli, n. 2) that instead of karakmamanna (the reading of the Corpus), I read kaiména. The spelling karim mina for kaniména is not without analogies : a little lower down (1. 11; Dhauli, 1. 8) we have maye for mayan; and in this edict, 1. 16, sahtan, for the locative santé.
13. Very possibly we should correct to étasi athasi; but I do not venture to say that it is absolutely necessary. I have several times laid stress upon the very indefinite use of these oblique cases. In this very edict (Dhauli, n. 1) we have seen the genitive asitárain tsed in the sense of the locative, and in the preceding edict (Dhauli, 1. 13) the phrase dalhiye tuphákan uses the genitive in the sense of the instrumental.
14. We should evidently read savena.
15. Restore to -no [du]khan. The form mamiydyê is a carious one. It looks like an orthographical compromise between the forms mamiyá (Col. Ed. viii. 7, which I consider as simply a variant of mamayá, Prakrit mamae) and mamaye, which Dhauli has in the corresponding passage.
16. Tuphéni is another curione pronominal inflexion. The correctness of the form is vouched for by its being repeated here and line 11, and by the parallel form of the first person, aphéni, which we find in line 10. It reminds one of the Apabhramsa tumhair, amhain, given by Hêmachandra for the nominative and accusative. These forms, again, only refer us back to a spelling tuphani or tumhani, just as áni, the termination of the neater plural, becomes disa. Compare Hindi hamani, Hoerule, Comp. Gram., p. 178.
17. I have already (Dhauli, note 7) stated that, in my opinion, the words which follow védáta (read védétu) up to the end of the line are probably an erroneous repetition. However, as the character sê is not very distinct, if we could read tu and supply phákai for the two follow ing letters, it would be unnecessary, after supplying & before mama, to omit anything. The sentence woald be correct. In any case the general sense would not be affected.
18. Cf. Dhauli, N. 10, and, for saratan, note 1, above.
19. It is difficult to doubt, although indeed I have discovered nothing on the rabbing to support the theory, that the stone has really the termination -itavé.
TRANSLATION. By order of the king, dear unto the Devas;- The prince and the officers of Tôsalt are to be commanded as follows (Jaugada: Thus saith the king, dear unto the Devas; - The king's officers of Samâpâ are to be commanded as follows); - All that I believe I desire to cause to be
