South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

Sanskrit spelling of the words. The use of n for ṇ in baṁbhana-samana (Sanksrit brāhmaṇa-śramaṇa) also connects our record with the Kālsī, Dhauli, Jaugaḍa and Erraguḍi texts. But there are some peculiarities of the orthography of the present text of the edict, which are not noticed in any other versions. In retaining r of Sanskrit without changing it to l, our text shows affinity with the Girnār, Mānsehrā and Shāhbāzgarhī versions as against the Dhauli, Erraguḍi, Jaugaḍa and Kālsī texts. But the present text exhibits the interesting feature of changing l of Sanskrit to r not generally noticed in any other version of the edict. Indeed this characteristic is found only in a few cases in the Girnār, Mānsehrā and Shāhbāzgarhī versions of the fourteen Rock Edicts (cf. the root ārabh for Sanskrit ālabh in Rack Edict I). The Sanskrit words maṅgala and phala have been modified to maṁgara (six times in lines 2, 4, 6, 6-7, 8 and 10-11) and phara (twice in line 7). The word samiya in samiya-paṭipati (Sanskrit samyak-pratipatti) in lines 8-9 is spelt in the other versions as samya, samyā or saṁma. The modification of k into y in nirathiyaṁ (line 6) is noticed in several other texts of the edict ; but the elision of y in e (Sanskrit yaḥ) in line 7 is noticed at Dhauli and Erraguḍi while the other texts (except Jaugaḍa which is damaged in this part) have ye, although the same consonant in Sanskrit yāvat is elided in all the versions except Shāhbāzgarhï which retains it in one out of two cases.^[1] The introduction of h in heta (Sanskrit atra ; cf.eta in line 5 ) in line 8 is noticed in the Kālsī and Erraguḍi texts. But edise (Sanskrit etādṛiśaḥ) in line 10 is found as heḍise in the Kālsī, ediśa in the Mānsehrā and etārisaṁ in the Girnār version. In dāsa-bhaṭakasi (Sanskrit dāsa-bhṛitake) our text differs from the Girnār version which has dāsa-bhatakaṁhi.

TEXT^[2]

1 (I) D[e]vā[na]^[3]ṁpiye Piyadasi r[ā]j[ā] hevaṁ
2 āha [|*] (II) jane uch-āvuchaṁ maṁgaraṁ ka[ro]ti
3 [ā]b[ā]dhasi [ā]vāhasi^[4] vivāhasi paj-ūpadāye pav[ā]sa-
4 si [|*] (III) etāye aṁnāye chu edisāye jane bahū maraṁ^[5] ka[ro]-
5 ti [|*] (IV) [e]ta chu aṁbaka-janiko bahū cha ba[hū]-vidhaṁ cha khudaṁ cha
6 ni[rathiya]ṁ cha maṁgaraṁ ka[ro]ti [|*] (V) se ka[ṭa]viye ch=eva kho maṁ-
7 gare [|*] (VI) apa-phare chu kho es[o]^[6] [|*] (VII) i[yaṁ] chu kho maha-phare e dhaṁ-
8 ma-maṁgare [|*] (VIII) heta iyaṁ^[7] dāsa-[bha]ṭakasi samiya-paṭi-
9 pat[i] gurun[o] apachiti pānānaṁ saya[me] baṁbhana-
10 sama[nā]naṁ dāne^[8] [|*] (IX)esa aṁno^[9] cha edise dhaṁma-ma[ṁ]-
11 [gare] nāma [|*] (X) [se] vatavi^[10][y]e pitīnā pi putena pi^[11]

______________________________________________________

^[1] See Girnār once in line 6 (Hultzsch, op. cit., p. 16), Kālsī twice in lines 25-26 (ibid., p. 37), Shāhbāzgarhī in one of the two cases in line 19 (ibid., p. 60), Mānsehrā twice in line 6 (ibid., p. 78) and Dhauli once in line 5 (ibid., p. 90). This part of Jaugaḍa is damaged. But Kālsī exhibits the elision of y in e elsewhere in the edict, e.g., in line 26 (ibid., p. 37).
^[2] From impressions.
^[3] What looks like an ā-mātrā of n seems to be due to a flaw in the stone.
^[4] What looks like and ā-mātrā of h appears to be due to a flaw in the stone.
^[5] Read maṁgaraṁ.
^[6] The intended reading seems to be ese.
^[7] What looks like an e-mātrā of y appears to be due to a flaw in the stone.
^[8] What looks like an anusvāra after dā seems to be due to a flaw in the stone.
^[9] The intended reading is possibly aṁne. Cf. note 6 above. But it may be aṁṇa also.
^[10] What looks like an ā-mātrā of t seems to be due to a flaw in the stone.
^[11] A comparison with the text of the edict in the other versions (e.g., Erraguḍi above, pp. 26-27) will show that the extant part of the record contains a little more than a half of the edict. The lost part contained a few letters less than the number of letters in the extant portion.