|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA The Erraguḍi text of Minor Rock Edict I closely follows text of the Mysore versions. But the passages samānā, kāmaṁ tu kho, iyaṁ cha aṭhe and vaḍhisiti are absent from our text (V, VIII and X), while we have sakiye (VIII) for sakye or sake, etāya cha aṭhāya (IX) for etāy=aṭhāya, and khudaka-mahalakā (X) for khudakā cha mahātpā cha. There is considerable difference between tha Erraguḍi text of Minor Rock Edict II and its Mysore versions, from which a number of sentences as found in the Erraguḍi copy (II-IV, X-XII, etc.) are omitted. For rpā(prā)-ṇesu drahyitavyaṁ of the Mysore texts, we have rpā(prā)nesu dayitaviye (VII). The sentence mentioning the scribe is wanting in the Erraguḍi version. A marked difference between the language of the Minor Rock Edicts and that of the Rock Edicts at Erraguḍi is that the latter exhibits the change of r of Sanskrit to l in all the cases. The Erraguḍi version of the Rock Edicts also exhibits other characteristics of the Magadha dialect.[1] It uses n for both ñ and ṇ, and s for ś and sh. The nominator singular case-ending for both masculine and neuter words ending in a is generally e and the locative singular case-ending for the same is si. In point of language, the Erraguḍi copy of the Rock Edicts closely resembles that of the Dhauli and Jaugaḍa versions ; but its draft is in some places closer to the Kālsī text, although it does not exhibit the use of ś and sh and of the redundant subscript y noticed so often at Kālsī. An interesting fact about the vocabulary of the Erraguḍi text of the Rock Edicts is that the word mana, mina or minā standing for Sanskrit punaḥ occurs in it for no less than seven times.[2] In many of these cases, the corresponding passages in the other versions of the edicts have pana or puna for Sanskrit punaḥ.[3] But pana or puna (Sanskrit punaḥ) itself occurs several times in the Erraguḍi text of the edicts ; cf. Rock Edict XIII, line 30 (XX) ; Rock Edict XIV, line 4 (V) ; and Minor Rock Edict II, line 21 (XV). The word mina or minā, however, occurs in the third sentence of Pillar Edict III of Aśoka and it is generally taken to stand for Sanskrit manāk. [4] But the sense of Sanskrit punaḥ in these cases would suit the context equally well.
The relation of the Erraguḍi text of the Rock Edicts with other versions of the records, especially the Dhauli, Jaugaḍa and Kālsī texts, and some of its linguistic features may be illustrated by an analysis of a few of the edicts. Rock Edict I at Erraguḍi generally agrees with the Dhauli, Jaugaḍa and Kālsī texts. But we have ālabhisu (lines 4-5, VI) and ālabhisaṁti (lines 6, IX) instead of ālabhiyisu and ālabhiyisaṁti respectively. The forms of the verb in our text may be compared with these found in the other versions, such as ārabhisu (Girnār), arabhisu (Mānsehra) and arabhiśaṁti (Shāhbāzgarhī). Similar is the case with Rock Edict II. But we have Satīka-pute and tasa sāmaṁtā Aṁtiyogasa (lines 1-2, I) and not Satiya-pute (or Sātiya-pute) Kelala-pute and tasa Aṁtiyogasa sāmaṁtā, as also munis-opakā cha pasu-opakā cha (line 3, II) instead of manus-opagāni pasu-opagāni cha. The change of g to k in upaka (Sanskrit upaga), found also at Shāhbāzgarhī and Mānsehra, is not a characteristic of the Magadha dialect. Our text (lines 4-5, IV) has lukhāni lōpāpitāni udupānāni cha khānāpitāni after Kālśī and not udupānāni khānāpitāni lukhāni cha lōpāpitāni as in Dhauli and Jaugaḍa. In line 4 (III), we have savata ata ata nathi instead of the ________________________________________________
[1] In a few cases, our version exhibits the influence of the language of the Shāhbāzgarhī and Mānsehra texts ;
cf. the use of the word upaka noticed below.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
