Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-t9bwh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-14T03:38:15.820Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies in the Minor Rock Edicts of Aśoka1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2009

K. R. Norman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In our article on the Aśokan inscriptions, Dr Raymond Allchin and I pointed out the need for a new edition of Hultzsch's Inscriptions of Asoka, bringing it up to date by including the Aśokan inscriptions in Prakrit found in India, and those in Greek and Aramaic found in Afghanistan, since the publication of Hultzsch's work in 1925. Our statement was particularly applicable to the MREs, since only ten versions of MRE I were known to Hultzsch, of which three had the extra portion at the end usually designated as MRE II. To some extent the need for a replacement of Hultzsch's work had been filled by D. C. Sircar's Aśokan Studies which included reprints of all Sircar's articles dealing with new Aśokan inscriptions. Sircar had published a synoptic version of the 17 versions of MRE I and the seven versions of MRE II which are known to date, and a corrected version of this appeared in his Aśokan Studies, but even the corrected version was not entirely satisfactory, in as much as it did not give new editions of the versions already known to Hultzsch.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , July 1991 , pp. 243 - 253
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

Abbreviations: RE ═ Rock Edict; MRE ═ Minor Rock Edict; SepE ═ Separate Edict; PE ═ Pillar Edict. I follow Andersen's abbreviations for the names of the sites: Ah ═ Ahraurā; Bh ═ Bahāpur; Bi ═ Bairāṭ; Br ═ Brahmagiri; Er ═ Erraguḍi; Ga ═ Gavīmaṭh; Gu ═ Gujarrā (printed with a single –r– on pp. 47, 49 of Andersen's book);Jt ═ Jaṭinga-Rāmeśvara; Ma ═ Maski; Ni ═ Niṭṭūr; Pl ═ Pālkīgunḍu; Pn ═ Pāngurāriā; Ra ═ Rājula-Manḍagiri; Ru (printed as Pu by mistake on p. 86) ═ Rūpnāth; Sa ═ Sahasrām; Sd ═ Śiddāpura; Ud ═ Uḍegojam.

References

2 Allchin, F. R. and Norman, K. R., “Guide to the Aśokan inscriptions”, South Asian Studies 1, (1985), pp. 43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 Hultzsch, E., Inscriptions of Asoka, CII, I (Oxford, 1925)Google Scholar.

4 Sircar, D. C., Aśokan Studies (Calcutta, 1979)Google Scholar.

5 Sircar, D. C., “Synoptical texts of Minor Rock Edicts I and II of Aśoka”, Journal of Ancient Indian History XII, (1978/1979), pp. 1–10Google Scholar.

6 Andersen, P. K., Studies in the Minor Rock Edicts of Aśoka. I. Critical Edition, pp. 184Google Scholar. Freiburg, Hedwig Falk, 1990. DM 58.

7 He lists Bloch's edition among the editions referred to, for each of the versions included in that edition, i.e. those which had been discovered up to 1950. This is to ignore the fact that Bloch himself refers (p. 5) to his handy little book not as “une nouvelle edition savante” but as “une édition pédagogique”, based almost entirely on Hultzsch's edition and having virtually no independent value. In his presentation of the inscriptions he has the interests of students primarily at heart. In particular, for their benefit, he “restores” the double consonants which are not written in the original inscriptions. Andersen ignores this, and quotes Bloch's reconstructed readings, e.g. on pp. 40, 87, as though they were of value for establishing the correct reading. In his treatment of the version at Uḍegolam Andersen notes (p. 103) a reference by Sircar to a paper by S. H. Ritti on the Ud and Ni versions “ which appeared in the [Journal of the] Epigraphical Society of India, Vol. V”. Sircar actually stated that Ritti's paper, read at the Fifth Conference of the Epigraphical Society of India at Bangalore in January, 1979, “was still awaiting publication in the Society's Journal, Vol. V”. It actually appeared in Vol. VIII, (1981, publ. 1982), pp. 101–4, after the publication of Sircar's Aśokan Studies (in which Sircar's readings of the inscription appeared), and Ritti acknowledges having “derived much benefit from this book in finalising this paper”.

8 Norman, K. R., “Notes on the Ahraurā version of Aśoka's first Minor Rock Edict”, Indo-Iranian Journal XXVI, (1983), pp. 277–92 (p. 286)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 ═ Mehendale, M. A., Historical Grammar of Inscriptional Prakrits (Poona, 1948)Google Scholar.

10 Plate LXIV.

11 Epigraphia Indica XXXIX, facing p. 8Google Scholar

12 Sarma, I. K., Sarma, R. V. Siva and Rao, J. Varaprasada, “Rock Edicts of Aśoka from Sannati, Chitapur Taluk, Gulbarga District (Karṇāṭaka)”, Indian Museum Bulletin (1987), pp. 7–15Google Scholar.

13 Janert, K. L., Abstände und Schlussvokalverzeichnungen in Aśoka-Inschriften (Wiesbaden, 1972), p. 152Google Scholar.

14 Norman, K. R., “Some aspects of the phonology of the Prakrit underlying the Aśokan inscriptions”, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, XXXIII (1970), pp. 132–43 (p. 139).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

15 Norman, K. R., “Middle Indo-Aryan Studies X”, Journal of the Oriental Institute (Baroda), XXIII (1973), pp, 64–71 (p. 68)Google Scholar.

16 Sarma, I. K., Rao, G. V. Srinivasa, and Rao, J. Varaprasada, “ More Aśokan Edicts from Sannati (Karnataka)”, Rama Chandrikā (1989), pp. 403–17 (p. 407)Google Scholar.

17 Norman, K. R., “Studies in the epigraphy of the Aśokan inscriptions”, Studies in Indian Epigraphy (Bhāratīya Purābhilekha Patrikā) II, (1975), pp. 36–41Google Scholar.

18 Norman, K. R., Collected Papers I (Pali Text Society, Oxford, 1990), pp. 214–19Google Scholar.

19 Sir Monier Monier-Williams, Sanskrit-English Dictionary ( ═ MW), s.v. kam.

20 Kangle, R. P., The Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra I (Bombay, 1960)Google Scholar.

21 MW, s.v. sākya.

22 S.v. kin.

23 E.g. Vajjīnaṃ arahantesu dhammikârakkhâvaraṇagutti susaṃvihitā, kinti anāgatā…arahanto vijitaṃ āgaccheyyuṃ, Dīgha-nikāya II 75, 11; “rightful protection, defence and support provided by the Vajjians for the arahats, so that future arahats may come to the country”.

24 S.v. ārādheti.

25 Falk's article, listed as “in press”, has now appeared in ZDMG CXL, 1 (1990), pp. 96–122 (p. 106)Google Scholar.

26 Norman, op. cit. (in note 8 above), p. 283.

27 See MW, s.v. avara.

28 It is misleading that Andersen lists Turner 1952 in his References. It would have been helpful to have given an indication that this is merely the second (unchanged) impression of a work which first appeared in 1932, since this might explain why Turner gives the comments he does on sumi (and se [see below]). Such statements would a have been excusable in 1932, but not in 1952, when much more was known about the language of the Aśokan inscriptions.

29 S.v. as-.

30 See MW, s.v. asti.

31 On Turner 1952, see n. 26 above.

32 See n. 9 above.

33 Norman, K. R., “Notes on the Aśokan Rock Edicts”, Indo-Iranian Journal, X (1967), pp. 160–70 (p. 162 n. 13)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 For the accusative absolute construction, see Norman, K. R., “ Aśoka and capital punishment”, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1975), pp. 16–24 (P. 23)Google Scholar.