________________
164
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MAY, 1891.
the vocalization, which, whether owing to the rock being worn away or to the imperfections of the facsimile, unfortunately escapes us, we must either understand lékhápita va yata (in which yatra commences the following sentence), or lékhápitaviyé ti. It is possible to adduce arguments in favour of either solution; but I do not venture to decide absolutely, and console myself with the small importance of the question, so far as regards the general meaning of the passage which is not affected. What is certain, is that the king, here as at Sahasarâm, gives an order, or at least a counsel, to the readers whom he addresses. We shall see that the following sentence throws still further light on this new construction. For hadha, I correct with Dr. Bühler, but not without some hesitation, hidha, equivalent to iha. It is unnecessary to point out the corrections athi, sílálhaibhé.
16. In the interpretation of this passage, I differ entirely from Dr. Bühler: the difficulties and improbabilities in the translation proposed by him are evident. I hope that the solution which I propose will recommend itself by its simplicity, and by its agreement with the general tone of the edicts of the king. Regarding the reading, I only differ from my eininent predecessor as regards two details : in the place of savara, I read savata; if the reader will take the trouble to refer to the facsimile, and to note, on the one hand the distance which séparates the so-called from the letter following, and on the other hand, the form , and not
which t has in this inscription, I do not think that he will have any further doubt as to this correction. The other reading is no less easy; it consists in reading tuphaka (more correctly tuphúkan) instead of tupaka, the L and the be being, as we know, very similar. I do not speak of additions of vowels which are necessary according to any hypothesis, and which the experience of all the rest of the inscription shews to be perfectly legitimate. This being settled it is sufficient to distribute the characters suitably, in order to obtain a natural, as well as an excellent, meaning. I read : étina cha viyanjanêná yavataké (cf. avataké in the edict of Bhabra) tuphákann dhale savata vivasétaviyê ti. Viyanjuna means 'sign,' and marks, as we have seen in the 3rd of the Fourteen (Rock) Edicts, the exterior and material form of the thought. We could, therefore, understand, 'and by the order here engraven.' If this turn of speech appear a little vague, it is justified by the existence of a pun. In fact, the continuation is clear, you must set out on your mission as far as you will find nourishment,' that is to say, as far as is humanly possible. Now vyminjana has also the meaning of condiment, relish,' and, by designating his written will by this word, Piyadasi represents it as in some sort a viaticum which should accompany and sustain his missionaries whom he exhorts to expatriate themselves. It is unnecessary to draw further attention to the corroboration which this sentence, as well as the one which I have cited in commenting on the text of Sahasaram, gives to my translation of vyutha. If this special exhortation is missing in the other texts, it will be noted that it is particularly appropriate here, at the frontier zone in which Rapnath is situated.
17. We must, of course, read ryuthéna, and civásá ti.
BAIRAT. The version of Bairat, very fragmentary, and very imperfectly reproduced as it is, does not lend itself, at present, to a detailed examination. There is only one passage, in line 3, where it can serve to fill up a lacuna in the other texts, and I have already said that there also the read. ing appears very doubtful. It would be useless to enamerate all the corrections which the comparison of the parallel versions authorises us to make in the text as we have it now. Any one can make them for himself. There are other doubtful passages, such as amisánain &c., where conjectures would be without interest, as being based on no serious authority. The only point which deserves notice, is that to which Dr. Bühler has drawn attention, that the figures represented in the facsimile of the Corpus, are wanting in the rabbing. I can only state my agreement with his opinion, when he adds that the position which they occupy renders him very sceptical as to their existence.
