|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA merated in ll. 3 – 5, 6 – 7, 7 – 8 correspond to the first three commemorated in N. 10, while, on the other hand, ll. 10 – 11 allude to the gifts made on the Barṇâsâ river (l. 1 in N. 10). It may be remarked, en passant, that the three words suvaṇa titha cha in l. 12 prove that the interpretation I have advocated for the compound in K. 13 is correct. I do not believe that netyaka, Sanskṛit naityaka, must be understood, as taken by Bühler, in the sense of ‘ daily rites.’ No daily rites performed by Ushavadâta, on the occasion of which the Brâhmaṇs would have been fed, can be intended here, as those distributions are extended to a number of different localities. Regular continuous works and gifts are meant here in opposition to special and exceptional foundations. One doubt only remains : are we to translate ‘ among the regular liberalities,’ or is the locative used for the instrumental : ‘ by (in virtue of) regular liberalities ? ’ The vague character of the syntax in this style (many analogous cases may be found in my commentary on the Mahâvastu) does not exclude the second interpretation, which in itself seems to be the more satisfactory of the two.
Bühler gave up the interpretation of the last words : cheñayate tasa ; and Bhagwanlal’s translation of ñâyate by ‘ is known ’ does not convey any real meaning. The vowel signs are rather uncertain in this part of the inscription. I feel little hesitation in reading cha. As to what follows, a double hypothesis offers itself to my mind : either to read ñay[u]te (taṁ) tasa . . . . . or ñayât[i]ta sa . . . . . ; in either case we have to admit an irregular transcription of niy⺠or niyuº by ñay⺠or ñayuº. It would be exactly the same graphical peculiarity as is found already at Girnar in the eighth of Piyadasi’s edicts, which reads (l. 1) ñayâsu = niyyâsu. In N. 6 we have already met with an irregular palatalisation of t to ch in the same word, which is there written niyâchita instead of niyâtita. To tell the truth, it is towards the restoration of ñayâtita rather than ñayuta that I should incline. Ushavadâta seems to use the word with some predilection (as in N. 12), and it fits in better with the first at least─ suvaṇâni─ of the two substantives on which it would bear. Anyhow, and in spite of the uncertainly resulting from the sudden interruption of the text, the general meaning seems clear. No. 14b, Plate vi. (Ksh. 8.) Immediately below the preceding inscription. TEXT.
1 . . . . gavatâ brâhmaṇâ
REMARKS. (1) G. [saha]srâṇi paṁchâśa 50000 ; AS. do sahaśa 2000. AS. does not succeed any more than I in making out the traces that G. interprets as srâ, which is graphically very unlikely. AS. interprets as do the character whichG. reads ṇi, and this reading seems at least probable. In the following letters the position of G. appears to me much stronger than that of AS. But the ṁ joined to śa is at least as probable as that which seems to be appended to pa. As to the number, the ‘ thousand ’ is clearly visible, and also a bracket on the right which has caused the whole to be interpreted as 2000. But the do sahasa cannot be upheld, and paṁchâśa is at least likely ; on the other hand, it seems indeed as if the sign for ‘ thousand ’ were followed by some exponent, too much erased to be confidently made out, which probably expressed the number of thousands. If Bhagwanlal took it for 50, I must own that the visible traces do not seem to favour this reading. But it is commended by his reading of the foregoing word.─ (2) AS. mâsiyaṁ śithe. Tîrthe seems certain, especially on the back of the estampage. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|