________________
SEPTEMBER, 1892.]
THE INSCRIPTIONS OF PIYADASI.
259
and, consequently, belonging to different linguistic strata, are found in justa position on the same monuments or on monuments of the same date.
In the first category, the most general fact is the inconsistency with which the dental n and the cerebral are employed. Sometimes one or other is introduced indifferently into the same word, or they are even applied in a manner contrary to every known rule; and sometimes one or other is exclusively used. This cannot be a question of dialectic divergencies, for instances occur in contemporary and neighbouring monuments. I quote a few examples! Nás. 11 A; ánapayati and dnata : the same in Nás. 15. C.T.I., p. 33, No. 13: nadiya, yapanatha. Nâs. 22: sénápati. Kanh. 15 : dnanda, ápanô. C.T.I., p. 46, No. 14: udéséta ; p. 55, No. 33: yavana, bhojana; p. 44, No. 8: bhátúnas, dána ; p. 42, No. 2: béna janána; p. 30, No. 6: dhénukákatakéņa ; p. 6, No. 5: bháginéyiya. Kaph. 28: bodhikána, pániya, sainghánan, diná. Kayh. 15: ána[t]déna, sanghéna, &c. Nás. 12., Kanh. 10., C. T. I., p. 38, No. 2; p. 18, No. 25, &c., use exclusively n: C.T.I., p. 44, No. 9; p. 9, No. 9: Amravati, No. 175, &c., use exclusively the dental n.
Inconsistencies of orthography are manifested in an infinity of other cases. Take the weakening of hard consonants into soft ones ; sugha, Karli, 22; Kanh. 15, 28, &c.; mugha C. T. I., p. 29, No. 4, No. 6, beside sukha, pamukha (e. g. Amrav. No. 196); kuduribini, Kaņh. 15, Nås. 8-9, C.T.I., p. 38, No. 2, &c., beside kutumbini (e. g. Kaụh. 4); dhénukákada, C.T.I., p. 38, No. 2, beside dhenukakaļa, C. T. I., p. 24, No. 4; p. 31, No. 7; thuba, Kaņh. 10 (of the time of Vasithipata Palamayi), beside thupa, O. T. I., p. 24, No. 3; p. 26, No. 1. The inscription of Madhariputa (C. T. I, p. 60, No. 2) gives patithàpita, while elsewbere, as for example Amr. 8 (pp. 52-53), we find patithavita, and again elsewhere the spellings padithápita (Kanh. 15), padidátavá (Nás. 7, time of Nahapåna), patiasiya (Kaph. 4) and padiasitava (Kanh. 16-18), of the time of Siriyana Satakaņi, paithána (Kaqh. 5) in an inscription of earlier date. Of two monuments of Gôtamipata Satakaại, one (Nâs. 11 A) has Sadakani, the other Satakani. C.T.I., p. 15, No. 19 has sádak[élra, while p. 4, No. 1 and p. 9, No. 9, which belong to exactly the same date, have súdagéri. Sometimes the alteration is still more complete such as in goyama equivalent to gautamá (mí), O.T. I., p. 15, No. 160. In several instances the suffix ka is changed into ya ; C.T.I., p. 49, No. 20 presents to us, side by side, bhárukachhakánann and langudiyánari for larkutikánain; in Karli, 22, we read mahásainghiyánari in a passage dating from the 24th year of Pulumayi, and which retains several genitives in asya, beside the Prakrit form in asa. It is true that, at about the same period, the Wardak vase presents the intermediate form mahasainghiganan; and that, at Kaphêri, Nos. 12 and 20 have, at the same epoch, the spellings Sopdrayaka and Sópdraga respectively.
As a general rule, it is the soft consonants of Sanskrit which thus disappear or which leave y as the only trace behind them : páyuna (Nás. 7, an inscription of the time of Nahapåna) and páüna (C. T. I, p. 47, No. 6) equivalent to pádóna ; bhayarita, C. T. I. p. 18, No. 25; p. 24, No. 4; p. 50, No. 22, &c., or bhaanta, C. T. I, p. 24, No. 3, beside bhadainta ; siaguta, C. T. I, p. 38, No. 2, beside sivabhutimhd, p. 9, No. 9; pdvayitiká, C. T. I., p. 6, No. 5, or pavaïta, p. 6, No. 5; p. 37, Nos. 21, 22; Kanh, 21, 28, &c., beside pavajita ; bhoja, C. T. I., p. 14, No. 17; p. 4, No. 1; p. 9, No. 9, beside bhôya, in an inscription emanating from the same family (p. 15, No. 19), bhốa (p. 2, No. 9), bhôïgiya, (Kanh. 24, earlier than Gôtamiputa Satakaội), and even mahd)bhuviyá (C. T. I., p. 100). It is clear that, when y is introduced, it is done in a very arbitrary fashion. It is also on several occasions omitted.
In an inscription, No. 21, of Kanhêri, beside bhayanta, thêriya, &c., we find pavaïtikka pónakáa saņáa, and chiarika beside chivarika of the preceding numbers which are exactly contemporary. V and y are here subjected to the same treatment, and we, therefore, need not
1 I quote in general Cave Temple Inscriptions according to number and page in the collection of Messrs. Burgess and Bhagwanlal. For N Asik, I follow the numbers given in the Arch. Suru. IV, 98, &c. For Kanbêri, the numbers of the order in the same collection, V. pp. 74 and ff.
