North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

bhakty-avanati-mātra-grāhya-mṛidu-hṛidayasy=ānukampāvatō=nēka-gō- śata-sahasra-pradāyinaḥ
26 k[ṛi]paṇa-dīn-ānāth-ātura-jan-ōddharaṇa-sattra-¹ dīksh-ābhyupaganu² -manasaḥ samiddhasya vigrahavatō lōk-ānugrahasya Dhanada-Varuṇ-Ēndr-Āntaka-samasya sva-bhuja-bala-vijit-ānēka-narapati-vibhava-pratyarppaṇā-nitya -vyāpṛit-āyukta-purushasya
27 niśita-vidagdha-mati-gāndharvva-laḷitair=vṛīḍi[ta]-tridaśapatiguru-Tumburu-Nāradādēr=vvidvaj-jan-ōpa[jī]vy-ānēka-kāvya-kkriyābhiḥ pratishṭhita-kavi-rāja-śabdasya suchira-stōtavy-ānēk-ādbhut-ōdāra-charitasya 28 l[ō]ka-samaya-kkriy-ānuvidhāna-mātra-mānushasya lōka-dhāmnō dēvasya mahārāja-śrī-Gupta³-prapautrasya mahārāja-śrī-Ghaṭōtkacha-pautrasya mahārājādhirāja-śrī-Chandragupta-putrasya

>

__________________

¹ [Fleet reads maṁtra in place of sattra. –Ed.].
² Read –ābhyupagata-.
³ It is possible to argue, as V.A.Smith once did (JASB., Vol. LIII, Part i, p. 119, and note), though he gave up the view subsequently (EHI, 4th edition, 296, note 1), that the name here intended is Śrīgupta, and not Gupta. Gupta, it may be contended, is a mere past participle meaning ‘protected’ and cannot stand as a proper name by itself. Śrīgupta, on the other hand, signifies ‘protected by Śrī (goddess of prosperity),’ and can make a suitable individual name. And, as a matter of fact, the Chinese pilgrim I-tsing, who was in India in the second half of the seventh century, mentions ‘a great king’ (mahārāja), Śrīgupta, who lived about 500 years prior to him (JRAS, N.S., Vol. XIII, p. 571; Ind. Ant., Vol. X, p. 110). In regard to the first of these arguments it has been pointed out (see above, Introduction p. 2) that Gupta can stand very well as a proper name. Secondly, if the name of the grand-father of Chandragupta I had been Śrīgupta and not Gupta, we should have had in this line, not Śrīgupta, but śrī-Śrīgupta; in other words, the honorific śrī would certainly have been prefixed to the individual name Śrīgupta. Thus, as pointed out by Fleet, we have such instances as mahādēvyāṁ śrī-Śrīmatyām=utpannaḥ in line 2 of the Deo-Baranark inscription of Jīvitagupta II (CII., Vol. III, 1888, Plate XXIX B); śrī-Śrīpathāyāṁ puri, in verse, in line 6 of the Bayānā inscription of V.S. 1100 (Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 10), and śrī-Śrīpathāyāṁ in prose in the Bayānā inscription of V. S. 1503 (Ibid., Vol. XV, p. 239). Similarly, we should have had in this record mahārāja-śrī-Śrīgupta-prapautrasya, which wording, however, does not occur even once in any Gupta inscription. The third argument which relates to the mention of an actual king called Śrīgupta by I-tsing has also been set forth at length and disposed of (see above, Introduction p. 3), where it has been pointed out that this Śrīgupta was at least one century prior in time to the grandfather of Chandragupta I and cannot, thus, be identified with the latter. The question that now arises is whether the name Gupta here is a full name or an abbreviation of some fuller original name. In this connection Fleet cites the authority of Bühler to show from Sanskrit literature that shortening of names was in popular use in ancient India and was allowed even by the grammarian, Kātyāyana. Thus, the latter’s vārttika 4 on Pāṇini VII,, 3,45 shows that in his time Dēvaka and Yajñaka were well-known short forms of Dēvadatta and Yajñadatta. Similarly, Bühler correctly adduces the instances of the popularshortening of such common nouns as mṛiganābhi into nābhi, and, of such proper nouns as Satyabhāmā into Sātyā or Bhāmaā. Likewise, Fleet on his own initiative cites many instances of such abbreviated names from inscriptions When he gives Vikrama and Mahēndra as short forms of Vikramāditya and Mahēndrāditya—the titles of the Gupta and other sovereigns–such a procedure is intelligible enough and cannot possibly be objected to. When, however, he adverts to the use of mere Samudra, Chandra and Kumāra for Samudragupta, Chandragupta II and Kumāragupta I on the gold coins of these Gupta monarchs, his view may rightly be called in question, because in these cases Gupta is a family name and not part of the proper name, as Fleet apparently supposes. Thus, Samudragupta, Chandragupta and Kumāragupta are full names of these sovereigns of which the first part, namely, Samudra, Chandra or Kumāra, is a proper name, and the second part, namely, Gupta, is their family name. Thus, when the father of Chandragupta I is named Ghaṭōtkacha, we can very well understand that in this case his proper name alone has been mentioned without the clan name Gupta being affixed to it. But what about Gupta ? Is it the proper name or the family name? If we accept the former supposition, his full name becomes Guptagupta which sounds very fanciful. On the other hand, it seems more natural to suppose that Ghaṭōtkacha’s father is here denoted by his family name alone. Instances of this nature are not unknown. Thus, above the relievo figure of a prince in the celebrated Nānāghāṭ cave the following name is labelled: “the Kumāra Sātavāhana” (Lüders’ List, No. 1118). Now Sātavāhana is known to be the name of a royal family ruling over the Deccan. Nevertheless, a prince of this dynasty has been here mentioned, not by his individual, but family, name. It is quite possible that the father of Ghaṭotkacha has been similarly referred to in the Gupta records by his family name only, apparently because he was a person of no importance. This point has already been dealt with (see