|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS (Verse 24) There was king Viśvavarman, the protector (of men), who was equal to Śukra and Bṛihaspati in understanding, who was the ornament of the kings on earth (and) whose deeds were like those of Pārtha in battles; (Verse 25) Who was compassionate to the poor; who gave consolation to the helpless and the distressed classes; who was excessively full of tenderness; who was a protector of the forlorn; who was the wish-giving tree to the supplicants; and who granted freedom from fear to the frightened; and who was the friend of (his) subjects; (Verse 26) His son (was) king Bandhuvarman possessed of firmness and statesmanship; beloved by (his) friends; a friend, as it were, to (his) people; who removed the afflictions of (his) friends; the only one skilful in destroying the haughty partisans of (his) enemies; (Verse 27) He is handsome, young, fit for battles, and possessed of modesty; a king though he is, he is not accessible to such intoxicants as self-conceit and others; he shines like the incarnation of Erotic Sentiment, even when without decoration; in point of beauty he is as it were a second God of Love; (Verse 28) Even to-day, when the long-eyed beautiful women of (his) enemies, afflicted by the fierce calamity of widowhood, remember him, a tremor springs up through fright causing torture to (their) compact breasts. (Verse 29) While that same Bandhuvarman, a bull among kings, the magnanimous (and) the high-shouldered one, was protecting this (town of) Daśapura which was abundantly prosperous, a lofty and peerless temple of the bright-rayed (Sun) was caused to be made by the weavers of silk-cloth formed into a guild, with stores of wealth acquired through (their) craft;
(Verse 30) (The temple) which has broad and lofty spires, which (thus) resembles a mountain, is pale-red like the mass of the rays of the moon just risen, and, being charming to the eye, shines like the trucked-in lovely crest-jewel of the western ward (of the town); (Verse 31) (In the season) which is pleasant in consequence of the interiors of the houses being crowded with young women (and) in consequence of the rays of the sun, (and) the warmth of fire, during which the fish lie deep in water and which is destitute of the enjoyments (caused by) the rays of the moon, flat roofs of houses, sandal paste, palm-leaf fans, and garlands; and when the water-lilies are bitten by the frost; (Verse 32) In the season which is charming on account of the swarms of bees exhilarating
with the juice of the full-blown flowers of the rōdhra (and) the priyaṅgu trees and the jasmine
creeper, when the solitary branches of myriads2 of the lavalī creepers dance with the winds
violently cold with particles of frost;
it, because Vatsabhaṭṭi was not only the composer of the panegyric but also the Overseer who was in charge of the
building and re-building of the temple. And in the present case the re-building was of a fragment only. Consequently, the more important thing was the original construction and consecration of the edifice. Secondly, it was
apparently a delicate matter to mention the name of the ruler during whose reign the temple was restored. Possibly Bandhuvarman was alive, as appears from stanzas 27-28. But during the thirty-six years intervening between
493 and 529 the two dates of this record, there was apparently a good deal of change in the succession to the Gupta
throne. This change again was of a more or less violent character. That seems to be the reason why the ruling
Gupta king is not mentioned and why the vague phraseology anyaiś=cha pārthivaiḥ has been employed by Vatsa-bhaṭṭi. Nevertheless, as this inscription does not mention any ruler in the year 529 this has been taken to be an
uncommon procedure by some scholars who have therefore proposed a different construction of the whole passage
(See e.g. Panna Lall’s article on The Dates of Skandagupta and his Successors in the Hindustan Review, for January,
1918, pp. 15 and ff.; D. B. Diskalkar’s article in JBBRAS., Vol. II (N.S.), p. 176, and his Selections from Sanskrit Inscriptions, Vol. I, pt. II, p. 64). Thus it is suggested that whereas the date 529 in verse 39 is connected with
Kumāragupta (II) in verse 23, the date 493 in verse 34 with Bandhuvarman in verse 29. But the late R. D. Banerji
(ABORI., Vol. I, p. 79) and Dasharatha Sharma (IC., Vol. III, p. 380) are quite right in saying that whereas
Kumāragupta was the suzerain and Bandhuvarman the ruler of Daśapura in 493 when the temple was built, the
inscription with equal unambiguity is silent about the rulers in 529 when it was repaired.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|