North Indian Inscriptions

THE GUPTA INSCRIPTIONS

13 hasthasya bhāryyā y . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14 =ātma-puṇy-ōpachay-[ārtthaṁ]. . . . . . . .
15 sadā-sattra-sāmānya-b[rāhmaṇa] . . . . . . . .
16 dīnārāḥ daśa 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [ ﺍﺍ ] [Yaś=ch=ainaṁ]
17 dharmma-skanda(ndha)ṁ vyuchchhindā[t=sa] pañcha-mahāpātakaiḥ saṁyuktaḥ syād=iti [ﺍﺍ]

TRANSLATION

First Part

       (Line 1-3) In the year of the (dynastic) rule¹ of the prosperous Chandragupta the Mahārājādhirāja, an ardent devotee of Bhagavat (Vāsudēva), when this was the specification of the date,

       (Lines 3-7) . . . Mātṛidāsa, the Chief (of the Householders)² . . for the purpose of

>

____________________________________________________

¹ Fleet proposes to correct rājya-saṁvatsarē into rājyē saṁvatsarē, because the original, if it is accepted as it stands, would have to be translated “in the year eighty-eight of the reign of Chanddragupta.” But the numerals, both here and elsewhere, says he, show that the expression cannot possibly refer to regnal years. “This method of expression,” he adds, “was a very common one in early times; and is due, of course, to the fact that the early years of most eras were regnal years, and that, after the death of the founder of each era, the expression was continued mechanically in the case of his successors.” But this emendation of reading is altogether unnecessary, and consequently the explanation in support of it, unconvincing. The word rājya in rājya-saṁvatsarē may be compared to that in Gupta-nṛipa- rājya-bhuktau occurring in the grants of the kings belonging to the Nṛipatiparivrājaka family, and the whole expression had better be translated by “in the year of the (dynastic) rule of Chandragupta, etc.” This may be compared to Gupt-ānvayānāṁ nṛipa-sattamānāṁ rājyē kulasy=ābhivivardhamānē occurring in verse 1 of Udayagiri Cave Inscription, the year 106 (CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 61). What this means is that the year 88 is of the Gupta sovereignty and pertains to Chandragupta II inasmuchas it fell in his reign. The phrase rājya-saṁvatsarē does not occur for the first time in this inscription, or, for the matter of that, in any other Gupta record. It is met with also in the Kushāṇa period; e.g., in Mahārājasya Kaṇishkasya rājya-saṁvatsarē navamē (No. 22 of Lüders’ List), in . . . . . . . .shkasya rājya-saṁvatsarē 20 8 (No. 33 of ibid.,) and in Mahārājasya dēvaputrasya Huvishkasya rājya-saṁ 50 (No. 51 of ibid.). A fuller form of the same expression is abhivarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsarē which occurs in line 6 of the Bilsad Pillar inscription of Kumāragupta, No. 16 below, line 3 of the Indor plate of Skandagupta, No. 30 below, and line 1 of the Gaḍhwā inscription of the year 148 (CII., Vol. III, 1888, No. 66). Sometimes the word rājya is dropped, and simply saṁvatsarē or its equivalent varshē is used, e.g., rājñō Kshatrapasya svāmi-Rudrasīhasya [va]rshē [tri] y-uttara-śatē 100 3 in lines 2-3 of the Guṇḍa inscription (Ep. Ind., Vol. XVI, p. 235) or rājnō Mahākshatrapasya . . . . . . . . . . Rudradāmnō varshē dvisaptatitamē 70 2 in line 4 of the celebrated Junāgaḍh rock inscription (ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 42). This last record was edited by F. Kielhorn who has rendered it by “in the seventy-second—72nd—year of the king, the Mahākshatrapa Rudradāman” but in the introductory part of his paper on the same remarks as follows: “the meaning clearly is that it took place during the reign of Rudradāman on the given day in the 72nd year of the era used by Rudradāman (and the Western Kshatrapas generally)” (ibid., p. 41). It had better be translated by “in the seventy-second—72nd—year (of the dynastic rule) of the king, the Mahākshatrapa, Rudradāman.”
² It pra following Mātṛidāsa in the first part of the Text is restored to prathama, [gṛi]hasthasya of the second part may be taken to be the second component of the name. The whole word may thus be restored to prathama-gṛihastha, which seems to be equivalent to prathama-kulika of the Dāmōdarpur plates edited below (Nos. 22, 24, 41 and 47). Gṛihastha appears to be identical with Gṛihapati, a term frequently met with in cave inscriptions. We thus hear of Gahapati-Negama (Lüder’ List, Nos. 1001, 1127 and 1153), Gahapati-Seṭhi (ibid., Nos. 1056, 1073 and 1075), and Gahapati-Sathavaha (ibid., No. 1062). As one of these Gṛihapatis is a Naigama, one a Śrēshṭhin and one a Sārthavāha, this is apt to create the impression that Gṛihapatis represented the mercantile class only. But we have also an instance of a Gahapati (Gṛihapati) called Ṇaṁda (Nanda) who is mentioned as a son of Usabhaṇaka (Ṛishabha), who is, however, described not only as Kuḍubika (=Kuṭumbika=Gṛihapati) but also as Hālakiya (ibid., No. 1121). As Hālakiya is the same as Hālika, ‘a ploughman, an agriculturist,’ it is quite clear that Nanda, though a Gṛihapati, belonged to the cultivators’ class. Besides, it is worthy of note that Kuṭumbika is identical with Gṛihapati as both the words signify ‘a householder.’ It thus seems that in ancient times the higher middle class was composed of agriculturists and mercantile people. In later times, the term gṛihapati was forgotten and kuṭumbin was alone in use. And the latter denoted exclusively the cultivating caste, and is, no doubt, traceable in the Marāṭhi word Kuṇbī or Kuḷṁbī and the Gujarati Kaṇbi.