^{page 380 note *} The words in brackets are a repetition, with additional blunders, of what is found in l. 9. The reading required will be tuphesi or tuphâka.

^{page 381 note *} The corrections are based upon the parallel passages in the following edict.

^{page 382 note *} The rendering of âhayâmi by kâṅkshe is conjectural. To justify it we may observe that phonetieally it may answer to the Vedic âharyâmi (v. Böhtl. Roth, s.v. hary). Cf. also âhaï=kâṅkshate in Hemacandra's Prakrit Grammar (ed. Pischel), iv. 192.

^{page 382 note †} It is difficult to fill up the gap with certainty. That something like the proposed reading is intended may be inferred from the occurrence of asvatha and abhîta in a similar passage of No. 4 of the Pillar inscriptions (Corp. Inscr. p. 106).

^{page 382 note ‡} Mamiyâye (al. mamâye) is a strange form of the locative case; it has, however, its counterpart in the instrum. mamiyâ in Delhi edict viii. 1. 7 (Corp. Inscr. p. 115); cf. Hemacandra, iii. 109.

^{page 383 note *} Aṁta, standing for atta, ia Pâli atto, Skr. asta, but here obviously used in the sense of the compound nyasta.

^{page 383 note †} Sotaviya is properly Skr. çrotavya.

^{page 383 note ‡} Cagh (caggh), ‘to will,’ Hindi câhnâ, also occurs in the Pillar edict No. 4: “yena maṁ lajûkâ caghaṁti âlâdhayitave,” i.e. “by which the governors will propitiate me.” Quite like to will in English, in New-Persian, we see cagh used to form a future tense.

^{page 383 note 1} In Jaugada text: “Devânâmpriya says: ‘the magistrates royal commissioners at Samâpâ should be informed.—’”

^{page 383 note 2} Jaug.: “The King.”

^{page 384 note 1} Jaug.: “ Resolution of my mind.”

^{page 386 note *} This form of the genitive sing, in the feminine agrees with tâsâ mentioned in Hemacandra's Prâkrit Grammar, iii. 63.

^{page 386 note †} This is a striking mistake for mahâ-apâyâ; the same error in the other version.

^{page 387 note *} Perhaps part of aṁtalâ repeated by mistake; the whole should contain something like: “aṁtalâpi ca Tisena ekena khanasi sati.”

^{page 387 note †} The term intended may be phelahitavâce; I guess that phela is the equivalent of Skr. smera, ‘ smiling, kind.’

^{page 389 note 1} The reading is doubtful; tuvâh will stand to Skr. tvaksh in the same relation as e.g. Prâkrit dâhina to Skr. dakshiṅna. The form of the corresponding term in the Jaugada version is strange; perhaps tavisitaviya or tavasitaviya is meant; this would be a derivative from Vedie tavishyati, tavishîyati, “to show energy, to be valorous.” As to the sense, the word chosen in the Skr. translation will not be far amiss.

^{page 389 note 2} A(ṁ)gma I take to be the Pâli aṅgaṇa, ‘lust, impurity, sin.’ Cf. the words Pillar Edict No. 3 (Corp. Inscr. p. 108): No mina pâpaṁ dekhati, i.e. in Sanskrit: na punaḥ pâpaṁ drakshyati.

^{page 389 note 3} Or ârâddhiḥ, which form, however, is not found in Skr.

^{page 389 note 4} Nela is Pâli neḷo.

^{page 390 note 1} As varga and nikûya are synonymous terms, and the latter is used by Açoka in No. 12 of the Rock Inscriptions (Corp. Inscr. p. 84) to denote a body of officials, it will be allowed to use vargya in the sense of official; cf. Dict, of Böhtlingk and Roth, s. v.

^{page 390 note 2} The sudden change of number is very common in the style of Açoka.

^{page 390 note 3} Ekapulise, “a solitary person, a forlorn man, a person keeping himself in secrecy,” is clearly a veiled expression for what commonly is called hîna, “forlorn, forsaken”; farther, “a low, bad man, a wretch.” The synonymous term ekavîra occurs in Mṛcchakatî, 46, 17 (ed. Stenzler), applied to “a knave, a thief, a roue”: “nṛpatipurushaçaṅkitapṛacâram paragṛhadûshaṅanç-citaikavîram—rajanî saṁvṛṇoti,” which “Wilson translates: “Night, like a tender mother, shrouds those of her children whose prowess assails the dwellings of mankind, and shrinks from an encounter with the servants of the king.” A more accurate rendering would seem to be: “Night, like a mother, covers the knave bold in secrecy (and, the lonely male child) who is determined to do mischief in another's dwelling, and walks in fear of the policemen.”

^{page 390 note 4} We have to supply in mind: “And that man is prompted to do wrong by such a consideration.”

^{page 391 note 1} The Jaugada has, with a sudden transition from singular to plural: “Lest at unawares, those should break loose from captivity and vex the community further.” Both versions are deficient in syntax, and there is every reason to suppose that the clerks have been meddling with the original draught, which perhaps runs thus: “tata hetu, akasmûte b. na t. aṁne ca b. d. dukhiyeti, i.e. “the motive for such measures (viz. imprisoning or applying a chastisement) is to prevent him (the knave) from getting loose from captivity, and the community from suffering further molestation.’

^{page 391 note 2} Açoka means, of course, the beginning of any endeavour to get rid of those faults is to strive against passion and rashness.

^{page 391 note 3} This glorification of untiring exertion has a decidedly monkish ring in it, and is strikingly like the praise of carana and çrama in Aitareya-Brâhmaṇa 7, 15. The Jaugada version shows: “ Should move about and rouse his energy and go (in the administration of justice, in polity).”

^{page 391 note 4} That paribodha must be taken in the sense of disregard, slighting, appears from the manner in which the reverse of it, apalibodha, is used in No. 5 of the Rock Inscriptions; from the passage hitasukhâye dhaṁmayutûye-apalibodhâye viyûpaṭâ; se baṁdhanabadhasa paṭividhânâye opalibodhûye mokhûye ca, it results that apalibodha is ‘regard, care.’ Pari has the same meaning in this word as in the synonymous pari-man, ‘to disregard, to slight;’ in parikhyâ, paricaksh, Greek .

^{page 392 note 1} The kh in khakhase is due to the influence of the r in karkaça. Cf. also Skr. khakkhaṭa.

^{page 392 note 2} Contrary to our custom the writer denotes the place of the person to whom the letter is addressed by “here.”

^{page 392 note 3} A third term would be yuta, Skr. yukta, if the reading of the Girnar version were right. But there can be little doubt that the ca following yuta in that text is a mistake. Yuta simply means ‘appointed,’ and at another passage, No. 3 at the end, ‘an official.’

^{page 393 note 1} Translated by Burnouf in “Lotus de la Bonne Loi,” p. 741, and by the author of this paper in “Jaartelling des Zuidelijke Buddhisten.”

^{page 393 note 2} This translation of paliyovad, to which would answer a Skr. paryavavad, is founded on the parallel passage in No. 4 of the Pillar Inscriptions: dhammayutena ca viyovadisṁti janam jûnapadaṁ, “according to law they will decide (in causes) among the people (i.e. town-people) and country people.”

^{page 394 note 1} Besides the separate edict, cf. Pillar Inscription No. 4.