________________
800
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[NOVEMBER, 1893.
inscriptions required corrections in every line, and were full of the most absurd mistakes. Thanks to Drs. Burgess and Fleet, it is now evident that they have been well incised and that most of them show only few and trifling mistakes. Moreover, the necessity for, nay the inclination to make, extensive or even more frequent alterations disappears, in the same degree as the character of the language and the contents of the edicts come to be better understood. The retention of the forms saḍvachhalé and chhavachharé with the sense of "a period of six years" has, of course, a most important bearing. With this explanation it appears that the Beloved of the gods had been an adherent of the Samgha not about four, but about nine years, and that when the inscriptions were incised his reign must have been longer than those of most of the later Maurya princes.
With respect to the substitution of the reading samt[a] for Dr. Bhagvânlal's conjectural emendation husam te, I have to add that M. Senart has vindicated its correctness long ago, and has been the first to recognise that the reading of the Mysore versions samáná, the present participle of the Atmanêpada of the verb as, fully agrees. I must also acknowledge that the division of the words likhúpayáthá (1.7) and likhapayatha have been taken over from his edition.
Turning to the Rûpnâth version the most important new readings are satilékáni for sátirakékáni, adhatiyani for adhitisani, and sagha up.te for sangha-papite, all in line 1. M. Senart had long ago given sáti(lé)káni. Dr. Fleet's paper-cast shews that the indistinctness of the sign is due to an attempt at correcting the Magadhî sátiléka to sátiréka, which the ancient dialect of the Central Provinces, no doubt, required. My old reading adhitisáni, on which I based one half of the historical deductions given in the introduction to my first edition, has been objected to by Professor Oldenberg and afterwards by M. Senart, who have proposed adhitiyáni or adhatiyani equivalent to Pâli addhatiya or addhateyya "two and a half." The paper-cast certainly makes the second form very probable, and the distinct reading of Mr. Rice's Brahmagiri version aḍhátiyáni fully confirms it. With respect to the third charge, I must confess that, looking now at my old facsimile, I cannot understand how I ever came to read papite. The first letter is their clearly an u, not a pa. But, I fear, the recognition of the truth has only come to me, after seeing the Mysore versions, where Mr. Rice has at once given correctly upayite. The paper-cast of Rûpnâth shews up.te quite plainly, but it proves also that the vowel attached to the second consonant has been destroyed. There are flaws both to the right and to the left of the top of the pa, one of which in the rubbing has assumed the appearance of an i. But, the real reading of the stone was probably upêté. The new division of the words lákhapétavaya ta has been taken over from M. Senart's edition. The text of the fragments of the Bairât Edict has been prepared according to two impressions on thick country paper, likewise sent to me by Dr. Fleet. They shew the shallow letters reversed, and give a faithful picture of the state of the rock, which apparently has a very uneven surface, and has been greatly injured by the peeling of the uppermost layer. The letters are very large, between an inch and a half and two inches high, but few among them stand out quite clear.
I am unable to give at present a new translation and discussion of the contents of the New Edicts, since that would necessitate a reproduction of the exact text of the Mysore versions according to Dr. Hultzsch's new impressions, which I have agreed to reprint only after my article on the Southern edicts has been published in the continuation of the Epigraphia Indica. But, there are two points on which I must say a few words. First, I must point out that the position of those scholars, who deny the identity of the Dêvânâm Piyê of the New Edicts with Dêvânath Piyê Piyadasi, has become exceedingly difficult and precarious since the discovery of the Mysore yersions. For, there a brief résumé of Asoka's well-known Dhamma is tacked on to a free reproduction of the contents of the Sahasrâm and Rûpnâth texts, and the writer gives a
Ante, Vol. XX. pp. 1548,
See, Notes d'Epigraphie Indienne, No. 4, p. 11 (Jour. Asiatique, 1892, p. 482).
