________________
160
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MAY, 1891.
(1. 20) and in the 8th (1.1) Columnar Edicts. In both cases the word is expressly applied to the proclamations of the king, made by him or by bis order, and recorded in his inscriptions. Iyan is, moreover, the same pronoun by which Piyadasi, in all his monuments, alludes to the inscription in which it may be found, the present inscription. We have no reason for taking it here in any other sense, and a priori we can only translate the whole by it is with a view to this resalt that the present proclamation is made.' We shall shortly see if what follows is inconsistent with this interpretation,
7. Dr. Bübler is mistaken about arata ; it is a nominative plural, which refers to the frontier populations, - to the foreign countries. Comparison with J. ii. 6, with Dh. (det. ed.) ii. 4, &c., leaves room for no doubt. As for jánaktu, if we should not read tai for chain, which would give the verb an object, the meaning of the sentence is completed without effort, by supplying an equivalent object understood. Compare the final sentence of the edict of Bhabra.
8. It will be remembered that in the 13th (Rock) Edict (n. a.) we have already noticed an analogous use, in an indefinite sense, of the word diyadha, Pali diyaddha and divaddhu. We are reminded of the meaning in Sanskșit sanctioned for parardha, to express the highest possible number. I think that we may sufficiently accurately represent the analysis of the phrase by an equivalent such as 'a handred times, & hundred times a million times.'
9. This sentence is the one of the whole edict which presents most difficulties, and wbich leaves most room for discussion. It early attracted the attention of General Cunningham ; he read the figures correctly, and this point is now undisputed. The two doubtful points, the solution of each of which is connected with the other, are, on the one hand the translation of vivutha or vyutha, and, on the other hand, what it is to which the figures refer. Regarding the second point, Dr. Bühler shews no hesitation. On the supposition that they refer to years, and contain a date, he has been almost necessarily led to find in the vivutha, which thus becomes the initial point of an era, & name of Buddha. The great authority of Dr. Bühler has evidently accounted for the assent, expressed or tacit, with which his interpretation of the figures and their meaning was at first received. Since then, Dr. Oldenberg has reconsidered the matter, and has pointed out that in the two members of the phrase in question, at Sahasaram
at Bapnath duvê sapamnâlâti satâ vivatha ti 256.
256 satavivîså ta. the word signifying 'year' is wanting, and that there are on the other hand nominatives plural, vivutha, vivásá, such as might be expected beside a noun of number. As no other instance has. yet been quoted anthorising the omission of the word masa or saihvachhala, he concludes that we should translate <256 satas are vivuthas' and there are 256 vivásas of the sata.' We shall return to these outline-translations subsequently. It appears to me, however, that under any eircumstances Dr. Oldenberg is right in his criticism, and in his general analysis of the sentence. The omission of the word for 'year' might be explained if we had to deal with a simple number, but here we have before us a whole sentence, and, if we take Dr. Bühler's interpretation, we should have to admit that the king expresses himself thus, .256 are passed," which is barely credible. I may add that, on two or three occasions, our inscriptions employ numeral figures, for instance, in the first Edict at Kapar di Giri, in the enumeration of two peacocks, and one gazelle, or in the 13th Edict at Khálsi and at Kapar di Giri, à propos of the four Greek kings. From this it follows that there is no reason à priori for assuming that the figures here necessarily refer to years. Dr. Oldenberg makes another very just remark, that we cannot separate the satá vivuthá at Sabasarâm from the satavivásá at Räpnath. From this, there results a two-fold conclursion: first, that vivuthu, vyuthá, must be derived, as Messrs. Rhys Davids and Pischel have from the first pointed ont, from the root oi-vas, and corresponds to the Sanskrit uyushita. Dr, Bühler, who, not without hesitation, opposes this analysis, relies principally on the difficulties of translation, but these have little weight, being founded on the preconceived idea that we absolutely reqdire here the meaning of 'elspeed.' I doubt if at the present day this derivation would meet
