________________
22
M. A. MEHENDALE
nom. sg. neut. (phale, sävane) with which it occurs end in -e. This iyam as neut. occurs in the Mysore versions quite often. It is an eastern form which is found already in the north-western versions together with idam which is the proper form there.58
(7) There remain only two cases in respect of which the Mysore versions agree with the east and for which instances are not available in the north-western versions. Thus the tendency to add h at the beginning of a word with an initial vowel,59 cf. hevan
(evam) in the Mysore versions as also in D, J where we get such other words as hida, hedisa, etc., for which in the western and northwestern versions we have evam, idha, ediśa, etc.
Similarly the nom. sg. of the first personal pronoun in the Mysore versions is hakaneo which agrees with the form in the D, J versions but which disagrees with the western and north-western ahan. In the later Niya Prāksta and the Dhammapada also we have ahu (BURROW $78, BAILEY, The Khotan Dhammapada, BSOS 11. 488ff. Index). Therefore hakam is clearly the eastern form with which the later Māgadhi hage may be compared.
Perhaps the explanation that can be given for these two eastern words hevam and hakar in the Mysore versions and for which parallels are not to be found in the north-western versions is that they are reminiscent of the language of the Maurya king who dictated the edict. This may be especially true about hakaṁ as it refers to king Aśoka himself.
In the end we may note a point with regard to the separate edicts which goes to show that these two edicts were issued from the north-west. This point was not noticed in the article dealing with the two separate edicts referred to above at the beginning of this paper.
The north-western versions no doubt use the word jana as the other versions do. But in the tenth rock edict in section D, jana, which appears in G, is substituted by the word vagra in S, M (and by vaga in K). This use of vagra i.e. varga for jana witnessed in the north-west is again found only in the separate edicts. Thus in the first separate edict, sections AA, at Dhauli we read Ujenite
ype is not absent, cf, KOOS 11.791-93.
58. For later Prākta forms cf. PISCHEL § 429, S 430 and for Pali cf. GEIGER $ 108.
59. In the Niya Prakrta, BURROW $ 28 finds considerable irregularity in the treatment of h, owing to its absence in the native language. But a possible instance of the above type is noticed in hedi = eda (sheep). In later Kharoşthi inscriptions such instances are absent, cf. KONOW, Word Index. For the unstability of h in the Gandhari cf. BAILEY BSOS 11.791-93.
60. HULTZSCH (p. lxxviii) follow's PISCHEL. (8 417) and refers to Panini 5.3.71 in explaining thakar from * ahakam.
Madhu Vidyā/302
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
