|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
POLITICAL HISTORY namely, (1) Sarva-rāj-ōchchhēttā, (2) Pṛithivyām=apratirathaḥ, and (3) Chatur-udadhi-salil- āsvādita-yaśāḥ ?1 Why should these epithets be common at all to these two Gupta sovereigns ? A reply to this question is furnished by a consideration of the titular formulary of later royal dynasties, e.g. the Rāshṭrakūṭas of Mālkhēḍ. Those, who have studied the history of this dynasty, know full well that while, on the one hand, there are epithets which are peculiar to every name, such as Akālavarsha, Prabhūtavarsha or Amōghavarsha, there are others which are common to them all, namely, Pṛithivīvallabha, Vallabharāja, and so forth.2 The same may have been the case with the appellations of the Gupta dynasty. While Parākrama and combinations formed out of it are peculiar to Samudragupta, and Vikrama and its combinations to Chandragupta II, there are other epithets which were common to them all, such as the three referred to above. And, in fact, these last are of such a character that they could be borne by powerful kings of any family. And this is just what we find about the Kaṭachchuri prince Śaṅkaragaṇa, with whose name are coupled these three Gupta epithets in the Sarasavṇī plates.3 Not far removed from Śaṅkaragaṇa was the Chalukya chieftain Vijayarāja of Gujarat known from his Kairā grant dated Kalachuri year 394. Curiously enough this grant applies to his name the following epithets:4 (1) Pṛithivyām=apratirathaḥ, (2) Chatur-udadhi-salil-āsvādita-yaśāḥ and (3) Dhanada-Varuṇ-Ēndr-Āntaka-sama-sama-prabhāvaḥ. It thus seems that this Gupta titular formulary was imitated by other royal families and was prevalent up till the middle of the seventh century.
Samudragupta was not only a first-rate soldier but also a king of exceptional ability.
He was also endowed with varied gifts. By his praiseworthy qualities and good deeds, Harishēṇa tells us, he wiped out the fame of other monarchs. He was master alike in causing the
prosperity of the good and obeisance. His mind had taken up the solemn vow to raise the
miserable, the humble, the forlorn and the distressed. Much other general and vague praise
has been lavished by Harishēṇa upon Samudragupta. Praise of this character is just what
might be expected in a composition of the praśasti type, such as the Allahabad pillar inscription, no doubt, is. And consequently when the court panegyrist goes further, and says that
Samudragupta “put to shame (Bṛihaspati) the preceptor of the lord of gods, Tumburu, Nārada
and others by his sharp and polished intellect and musical performances respectively” (No. 1,
line 27), one is apt to think that is exaggeration, pure and simple, and contains no grain
of truth at all. But he cannot but be agreeably surprised when he considers one type of the
king’s coins, where Samudragupta is represented as wearing a waistcloth, close-fitting cap,
necklace, earrings and armlets, and seated, cross-legged, on a high-backed couch, with a
musical instrument lying on his knees, the hand pressing it on the left thigh and the right
playing on the strings.5 Surely, the monarch would not have figured as a lyrist on his coins,
if he had not been something like an expert in instrumental music. In fact, no other Gupta
sovereign is represented as playing on a lyre. When Harishēṇa, therefore, says that the king
surpassed the heavenly musicians in his musical performances, we cannot help admitting
that, after all, there is a kernel of truth in the shell of his poetic hyperbole. And for the same
reason it must be admitted that there is some grain of truth also in the other statement, namely,
that he excelled Bṛihaspati in respect of his sharp and polished intellect. We know that 1 It is worthy of note that this epithet has been associated also with Kumāragupta I in the Karamdaṇḍā
stone inscription (No. 21 below).
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|