|
North
Indian Inscriptions |
|
|
THE SIDDAPURA EDICTS OF ASOKA.
11 âchariyê apachâ[yi]taviye ñâtikesu cha k[u?]1 ya[thâ]rahaṁ2 pavatitaviye [|*]
12 Esâ porâṇâ pakitî d[igh]âvuse cha esa hevaṁ esa káṭiviye3
13 cha [||*] Paḍena li[kh]it[aṁ] lipikareṇa4 [||*]
No. II.
1 [S]uvaṁṇgirîte5 ayaputasa mahâmâtâ-
2 ṇaṁ [cha va]chanena I[s]ilasi mahâmâtâ
3 ârogiyaṁ vatavi[yâ]6 [||*]
First Edict.
...............................................................[De]vâ . aṁ piye hevaṁ
4 âha [|*] Adhikâni a[ḍh] . t . y . [. i] vasâni
5 ya ha . [u]pâsake no tu kho bâḍha [pakaṁ]te husaṁ [|*] Ek[aṁ]
saṁva . .
6 [sâ . i] . ke7 tu kho saṁvachhare [yaṁ] . . . ghe up[y]îte
bâḍhaṁ
7 [cha me pakaṁ]te [|*] Iminâ chu kale[na] . m[i]sâ samâ . mu-
8 . . Jambud . . . [m]isâ devehi [|*] Pakama[sa] hi iyaṁ phale [|*]
No hi-
9 ya s[ak]e . . . n[eve] pâpo[t]ve [|*] Kâmaṁ tu kho khudakena
10 pi pa . . . . na vi . ul . svage sak . ârâdhetave [|*]
11 Se . . . ya [i] . ṁ sâvaṇe sâvite [|*] Yathâ khu-
12 da . . mahâtpâ cha imaṁ [pa]kameyu ti aṁtâ cha
13 . . . . . thitîke cha iyaṁ pakame hot[u]8 [|*]
14 . . . . va[ḍh]i[s]iti v[i]pu . aṁ p[i] cha vaḍhisiti a –
15 . . . . . . . yaṁ vaḍhisiti [|*] I . ṁ [cha] sâ[va]ṇe
16 . . . . . . . . . . [||*]
.Second Edict.
....... . . . . . . . taviy[e]9 [|*]
17 . . . . . . . . . . [hyi]tavyaṁ [|*] Śa[cha]ṁ va . . yaṁ [|*]
Im . dhaṁmagu-
18 . . . . . . [|*] H . m . . . . . . . . [âcha]riye apachâyi-
taviye su10
__________________________________________________________________________________________
......1 This reading is not absolutely certain. The stroke which I interpret as a u, is attached to the lower
left side of the consonant. The blot taken by others for an anusvâra is very irregular in its outline.
......2 The circle and the central dot of tha are faintly visible on the impression ; compare the much plainer thâ in
line 20 of No. II.
......3 Read kaṭaviye.
......4 Written in Northern or Kharôshṭrî characters. The apparent semicircles below the signs are not
connected with the letters, and are mere flourishes.
......5 The first syllable is damaged, but unmistakable. The impression leaves no doubt that the lines near the top
of the consonant, which have induced others to read si, are accidental.
......6 Deceived by the double vataviyâ, the writer has omitted vataviyâ cha hevaṁ before this word.
......7 The signs sâ . i are faintly visible on the impression.
......8 The reverse of the impression shows the u-stroke of hotu, and proves that the apparent i-stroke in the same
syllable is due to an accidental fissure.
......9 The lacuna in line 16 is too small to have contained the whole text of the version of No. I. Some indistinct
signs are visible before taviye.
......10 This is probably the end of ñâtikesu.
|
\D7
|