________________
NOVEMBER, 1893.] ASOKA'S SAHASRAM, RUPNATH AND BAIRAT EDICTS.
Iyam
thêna
The Rupnâth Edict. Vivu lêkhâpêta vâlata hadha32 duvê saparhnâlâ cha [ ] Athi [4]silathubhê-siti-[6] satâ10 vivuthâ-ti [sa lathambhasi-lâkhâpôtavaya31 na phu] 256 [] Ima. cha ta[.] Etinâ cha vayaatham pavatêsu [1] janenâ-yâvatakatu paka-ahåle y thâ ya. [v] a-[7] savara vivasô-tavâ[yu]ti [.] thi hêtâ silâthambha Vyuṭhênâ-sávane-katê (sa na tata pi likh.... th.. [8] phu) 256 sa-[3] tavivâsâ-ta [6]
1. B shows that the last syllable is ké, not ko, as A and the facsimile might suggest. The direct photograph used for the first edition has clearly iyani samvachhalani, before am upásaké and hévam á at the beginning of the line.
The Sahasrâm Edict.
-
The Bairât Edict.
303
2. The upper half of the vertical stroke of na is injured, and the reading may have been no.
3. Neither A nor B shews any trace of an Anusvira after the second syllable. But B shews a deep abrasion to the right of the va, extending about a third of an inch from the circular portion and the vertical stroke as far as the horizontal line at the top of vu. It is deepest close to the akshara, but the outlines of the latter are nevertheless clearly distinguishable.. From the right end of the horizontal line at the top of the ra issues a vertical one, which is longer than that of the vowel i. For this reason and because the Rupnath edict has clearly chhuvachhare, it is necessary to read saḍvachhale instead of savichhale, which latter form besides makes no sense. The mistake was originally mine, but has been adopted by all my successors in the explanation of the edict. The photograph has súdhiké am and after the breák t. été na cha amtaléna.
4. The a-stroke is not certain, and the reading may have been also santam or samta, which both are equally admissible. The new materials make Dr. Bhagvânlâl's conjecture husam te, which I adopted in my first edition, absolutely impossible. Before sam stands only the stroke marking the division of the words. The photograph has in line 3 munisa misam deva kata pala, after the first break [h]i iyam phale, and after the second yam mahatata, etc.
5. The space between the vertical stroke of ki and the right hand stroke of g. is about an inch and a quarter, and just double the size of that between the vertical stroke of ki and the left side of ye. It is, therefore, most probable that a letter, either sa or cha, has been lost, the restoration sakiyé or chakiyé being required by the sense and the parallel passage of the Rupnâth edict. The photograph has álú before the break.
6. Read sávané. As the apparent á-stroke of the second syllable is rather short and running off into a point, it is possible that it is due to a flaw in the rock.
7. There is no Anusvára after cha, but there is a rather deep abrasion, which extends all along the upper half of the vertical stroke.
8. The photograph has plainly chilathitike. The last two vowels are now injured.
9. The photograph has plainly athe, the second syllable of which is at present almos entirely gone.
10. The photograph has distinctly iyam cha savané. Possibly sapannákátisatá to be read. 11. The photograph has distinctly likhapayáthá and likhapayatha. The word pi stands above the line. Of the last syllable of the edict nothing has been preserved, but the upper part of a vertical stroke to which the vowel i, is attached. The ya, which Sir A. Cunningham and I have given formerly, does not exist. B shows clearly that peculiar shape of the edge of a large exfoliation, by which the real consonant has been destroyed, has produced the mistake. The lost consonant no doubt was ta and the reading ti, as M. Senart has suggested. The correct division of the words likhapayáthá and likhapayatha has been first given by M. Senart.
