Notes on the Pillar-Edicts of Asoka. 219
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
T. Michelson, Notes on the Pillar-Edicts of Asoka. 219 Also gewährt dialektisches Material (und so benenne ich einfach böhmisches, polnisches, russisches usw. gegenüber dem altslovenijchen) schöne Erklärungen, aber aus dem Nebeneinander eines serbischen ljuska und tuska der anderen Slavinen (vgl. z. B. serb. kr. pljosnat 'stumpf neben plosan 'glatt' usw.), oder aus dialektischen Neubildungen wie savrasyj, gtaz ein *sq-vorn-$, glndz erschließen zu wollen, heißt nur Sprachgeschichte ver- höhnen. Man ist mit dem Erschließen arischen Sprachgutes viel zu rasch vorgegangen; wie heute die Etymologien, aus denen man einst die arische Mythologie erschloß (Hermes, Elfen, Ken- tauren usw.), längst zum alten Eisen geworfen sind, so fürchte ich, wird die beliebte moderne Vergleicherei des entlegensten Sprachgutes sich nicht allzulange behaupten; am wenigsten eine Vergleicherei, die dialektische Worte oder Formen aus ihrem natürlichen Zusammenhange herausreißt und sie auf ein Pro- krustesbett spannt, um Lautgesetze, Stamm- und Wurzelabstu- fungen, arisches Sprachgut herauszubekommen. Gassenausdrücke, ja Ausdrücke aus der Gosse, sind heute nicht davor sicher, zu arischem Sprachgut umgestempelt zu werden — ich verzichte auf drastische Beispiele der Art, die von gewiegten Sprach- kennern verbrochen wurden. Mit Schrecken denke ich daran, was alles Arische man aus einem größeren russischen, litauischen usw. Wörterbuche bei etwas gutem Willen und Eifer heraus- bekommen könnte: durch ein paar Beispiele vor solchen anarchi- schen Anwandlungen zu warnen, war der Zweck dieser Zeilen. Berlin. A. Brückner. Notes on the Pillar-Edicts of Asoka. Introduction. The seven edicts of the Pillars of Asoka have come down to us in six recensions, namely, Delhi-Sivalik (originally at Topra in the Ambala district), Delhi-Mirat (originally at Mirat), Allahabad, Radhia (or Lauriya Araraj), Mathia (or Lauriya Na- vandgarh; both R. and M. near Bettia, Champaran District1), and Rampurva (in NE. corner of Champaran District). Of these DS. possesses edicts 1—7; DM. 1—5; A. R. M. 1—6; Ra. 1—4 1) V. A. Smith Asoka, 100 says R. was found in the Champaran district; Franke Pali u. Skt., 3 says in the Muzaffarpur district. Bettia is near the border of Nepal. On the names; see JRAS. 1902, 153. Brought to you by | University of Michigan-Flint Authenticated Download Date | 10/4/17 11:26 AM 220 T. Uichelson, (but this pillar has only been partly excavated; presumably 5 and 6 will be found on further excavation). The literature on these inscriptions has been admirably summed up bj Franke Pali und Sanskrit Iff.; it is only necessary for me to state that Buhler's editions in ZDMG. 45 (edicts 1—3) and 46 (4—7), and in Epigraphia Indica 2, 245—274, have been made the bases of my investigations. The early facsimiles and editions are absolutely valueless; but Burnoufs translations and obser- vations in Lotus de la bonne Loi'), 654 ff. can still be con- sulted with profit; the same applies to Kern's work in Jaar- telling der zuydelijke Buddhisten 92—100. It has long been known that the dialects of the Pillar- Edicts are closely related to those of the Kalsi, Dhauli, Jaugada recensions of the Fourteen-Edicts; etc.: see Senart, Les in- scriptions de Piyadasi, 2. 363; Johansson, Der Dialekt der sogenannten Shahbazgarhi-redaktion, 1.118 (4 of the reprint). (See Franke 1. c. 132 for some characteristics of the north-east group of dialects.) But it is not my purpose to go into this further at present; in the present paper I propose first to investigate the mutual relations of the dialects of the Pillar-Edicts, and then to examine a number of words occurring on these inscriptions. Later I shall publish a systematic exposition of these dialects, and subsequently I shall investigate the dialects of various other inscriptions of Asoka. Regarding the versions of Radhia, Mathia, and Ràmpurvà Biihler says "These three eastern versions have either been engraved according to the same MS., or, at least,' according to three MSS. written out by the same Karkun. Their verbal discrepancies are so exceedingly slight that they can not pos- sibly be ascribed to different draughtsmen". Biihler was misled into this statement by the very close linguistic relationship of the dialects of these three recensions: there is absolutely no proof that the version of Ra. agrees more closely in the wording with R. M. than with the other versions. On the other hand it is perfectly clear that R. and M. do agree re- markably in the wording of the edicts. The failure to distin- 1) This, and Prinsep's work in JASB. 1837, 581 ff. were accessible to me for a short time only. Brought to you by | University of Michigan-Flint Authenticated Download Date | 10/4/17 11:26 AM Notes on the Pillar-Edicts of Asoka. 221 guish between linguistic relationship and the wording, further led Buhler to add "The two Delhi versions are also closely allied to each other". Without question these two lingui sti- callv belong closely together, but as regards the actual wording it will be seen that they are not particularly close. The following table which shows all divergences1) in the wording of edicts 1—6 in all the versions will make the above statements clear. 1«» Edict. pi-ca, DS. 1. 7 pi, A. 1. 3, R 1. 4, M. 1. 4 (DM. Ra. have lacunas); cu, A. 1. 4 (last word) no correspondent in DS. R. M. (DM. Ra. have lacunas); anuvidhiyatftti*), DS. 1. 7 anuvidhiyamti, A. 1. 3, R. 1. 4, M. 1. 5, Ra. 1. 4 (DM. has a lacuna). Edict anupatipajarfitU2), DM. 2. 8 anupatfpajatfitu, DS. 2.15, A. 2. 7, R. 2. 10, M. 2. 11 (Ra. has a lacuna); hotu-ti-ti, DS. 2. 16 hotu ti, A. 2. 7, hotu-ti R. 2. 10, M. 2. 11; hotu-[ti\ DM. 2. 8 (Ra. has a lacuna); kachati, M. 2. 12 kachati-ti, DS. 2. 16, A. 2. 7; ka[cha\ti-[ti\ DM. 2. 9; kachati-ti2), R 2. 12 (Ra. has a lacuna). 3rd Edict. dekhati, DS. 3. 17, A. 3. 8 dekharpti, R 3. 11, M. 3. 13 (Ra. has a lacuna; d[ekhati] undoubtedly at DM. 3. 10); dekhati, DS. 3. 18, DM. 3. 11, A. 3. 8 dekharfiti, R 3. 11 d[e\kharjiti, M. 3. 14; (Ra. has a lacuna); ndma,*~DS. 3. 20, DM. 3. 13 namd-ti, R 3. 12, M. 3. 15 (A. Ra. have lacunas); ti after paltbhasayisaiji, R. 3. 13, M. 3. 15 no correspondent in DS. 3. 21 (A. Ra. have lacunas; DM. at 3. 14 presumably palibha[sd\yisa[Tfi\i; 1) Of course it is most difficult in some cases to determine whether the differences are linguistic or textual. Doubtless here and there my list will have to be amplified or curtailed. I have only included what I feel surely belongs under divergences in wording; cases where the extant versions agree but where one or more versions have lacunas, are not noted. 2) Presumably a compromise between -ti and -ti ti; similarly anu- pafipajamtu and kachati-ti; but this last may be a case of dittography. See under my discussion of the dialect of DM. Brought to you by | University of Michigan-Flint Authenticated Download Date | 10/4/17 11:26 AM 222 T. Michelson, badhadekhiye]), DS. 3. 21 badhavi-dekhiye, DM. 3. 14, 15, R. 3. 13, M. 3. 15 (A. Ra. have lacunas); mana after iyam, DS. 3. 22 s), R. 3. 13, M. 3. 15 no corres- pondent in DM. (A. Ra. have lacunas); ti last word in R. M. no correspondent in DS. DM. (A. Ra. have lacunas). 4th Edict. pavatayevu3), DS. 4. 5 pavatayevu-ti, R. 4.15, M. 4.19 (DM. A. Ra. have lacunas); upadahevu3) DS. 4. 5, M. 4. 19 upadahevu, R. 4. 16, Ra. 4. 14 (DM. A. have lacunas); aladhayevu-ti, DS. 4. 8, M. 4. 20, Ra. 4. 15 aladhayevu, R. 4. 17 (DM. A. have lacunas); ti, R. 4. 18, M. 4. 22 no correspondent in DS. 4. 11, DM. 4. 4 (A. Ra. have lacunas); aladhayevu-ti, DS.4.19, R.4.22. M.4.27 aladhayevu, A. 4.19 (Ra. has a lacuna; DM. at 4.15 has aladhay : a short lacuna follows); ti last word in the edict, DS. 4. 20, R. 4. 23, M. 4. 27 no correspondent in A. (DM. Ra. have lacunas). 5th Edict. pi after imani, R. 5. 1, M. 5. 1 no correspondent in DS. 5. 2, A. 5. 20 (DM. has a lacuna); -vasa abhisitena-l) me, DS. 5. 1, 2 1 ,. .. „. ., . ' „„ ' > -vasabhisttasa-me, -vas&bhisttena me, A. 5. 20 ) R. 5. 1, M. 5. 1 (DM. has a lacuna); pi-ca, DS. 5. 9, DM. 5.25), ca, R. 5. 6, M. 5.6 (A. has a lacuna). 6th Edict. mokhyamate, DS. 4. 9 mukhyamute, A. 6. 30, R. 6. 18; mokhyamute (a compromise between these two), M. 6. 21 (6); ti last word on edict in A. no correspondent in DS. R. M. It will be seen that R. M. agree in 20 of the 24 cases; moreover there are 19 test passages on edicts 1—4: and on Ra. there are 16 lacunas; in the three remaining passages Ra. 1) Separated batfha- by Buhler; I take it as a compound. 2) Buhler's 21 in EI. is a blunder. 3) A 'blend' of -« and -u-ti: See under my discussion of the dia- lect of DM. 4) For hiatus of -a a- see below. 5) Not grouped together. Brought to you by | University of Michigan-Flint Authenticated Download Date | 10/4/17 11:26 AM Notes on the Pillar-Edicts of Asoka.