defaced by later inscriptions. Cunningham was the first person to note its existence. It was engraved below the text of P. E. I—IV, and is followed by the Queen's Edict. Both of the short inscriptions evidently were added after the incision of the six P. E., but the precise date cannot be fixed. As the document is a replica of the first part of the Sârnâth Edict, it shows that that ordinance also must be later in date than the 28th regnal year, when the main series of P. E. was published.
The pillar originally stood at Kauśâmbi (Kosaṁbi), but was removed to Allahabad, probably in the fourteenth century by Fîrôz Tughlak. The Jain town of Kauśâmbí is represented by Kosam in the Allahabad Distiict. The Buddhist Kanśâmbî may be identified with the Yana- or 'forest' Kauśâmbî of Pâṇini (see Fleet in J. R. A. S., 1907, p. 511, note). It was distant seven days' journey through 'a great desert waste' from Praâg or Allahabad, and must have stood at or near Barhut (Bharhut), as proved by me in J. R. A. S., 1898, pp. 507-19. The Allahabad pillar presumably came from that site and not from Kosam.3. THE SÂNCHÎ EDICT
THE SAME SUBJECT; THE PENALTY OF SCHISM
(Facsimile in Ep. Ind., ii, plate facing p. 369; and transcript, not quite correct, ibid., p. 367.)
I avail myself of Professor Hultzsch's corrected reading and translation in J. R. A. S., 191 1, pp. 167-9. His version is:—
… 'path is prescribed both for the monks and the nuns.
As long as (my) sons and great-grandsons (shall reign and) as long as the sun and moon (shall shine), the monk or nun who shall cause divisions in the Saringha should be caused to put on white robes and to reside in a non-residence. For what is my desire? That the Samgha may be united and of long duration.'
