South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

which show that the learned interpreters have failed to grasp the real implication of the verse. In the first place, the words vara in the first and kṛitī in the third foot of the stanza have been left out in the translation. Secondly, the expression Dāruka-bandhu in the emended passage Dāruka-bandhur=asya in the second foot does not appear to be quite happy. Moreover, the emendation involves the unnecessary and unpoetic duplication of the word asya which actually occurs in the following (i.e., the third) foot. Thirdly, it is difficult to believe with the editors of the record that a poet worth the name would have compared a person at the same time with both Kṛishṇa (Vārshṇēya) and Kṛishṇa’s charioteer Dāruka. Fourthly, although the text of the stanza rightly gives vāraṇa-ghaṭā-satpātra-mukhya (i.e., the chief of the worthy officers in charge of the elephant columns) as a single compound expression, in the translation satpātra-mukhya, interpreted as “ the foremost among the honest courtiers ”, has been wrongly separated from the compound. Fifthly, the passage tat-tulyō=bhavad=asya vāraṇa-ghaṭā, in which vāraṇa-ghaṭā has been wrongly separated from the said compound, has been quite unjustifiably interpreted as “ His (i.e., Gaṅgādharadēva’s) elephant column was like his (i.e., the king’s).” This is clearly against the rules of Sanskrit grammar as the expression tat-tulyaḥ in the masculine cannot possibly qualify vāraṇaghaṭā in the feminine. Moreover, it is impossible to believe with the editors that a poet of any merit would have clumsily introduced the elephant force of a courtier (as the word pātra has been taken to mean) in the king’s description to indicate its equality with the elephant corps of the royal army. Is it possible that a courtier was allowed to enjoy an elephant force as strong as the king’s ? What is then the point in the former’s comparison with the charioteers Mātali and Dāruka ?

It seems to us that the intended reading of what has been read as Dāruka-vandhulasya is not Dāruka-bandhur=asya but Dārukavan=Nalasya.^[1] It should be noted that Vārshnēya was the celebrated charioteer of the famous king Nala of the Nishadhas just as Mātali and Dāruka were the charioteers respectively of Indra and Kṛishṇa. Our anvayam of the stanza would thus run as follows : yathā Mātaliḥ Dēvēndrasya khyātaḥ varaḥ yantā abhūt tat-tulyaḥ ēva Kṛishṇasya Dārukavat Nalasya Vārshṇēya-līlādharaḥ samarē Prāgjyōtishēndr-ōpamaḥ asya nṛipatēḥ vāraṇa-ghaṭā-satpātra-mukhyaḥ ēsha kṛitī śrī-Gaṅgādharadēvaḥ [asya khyātaḥ varaḥ yantā] abhavat. We are inclined to translate the verse in the following words : “ Just as Mātali was the famous (and) excellent charioteer (yantā) of the lord of the gods, exactly like him this illustrious Gaṅgāḍharadēva, who is competent, who is like Kṛishṇa’s [yantā] Dāruka, who resembles Nala’s [yantā] Vārshṇēya, who is an equal to the lord of Prāgjyōtisha in battle (and) who is the chief of the worthy officers in charge of the elephant columns of the king, was his famous (and) excellent rider (yantā).”

It may further be pointed out that the learned interpreters of the verse have absolutely nothing to say why the poet has introduced the leader of the elephant force of king Dāmōdara in a charter purporting to record a grant of land made by the king in favour of certain Brāhmaṇas. It, however, seems to us that the nature of the verse quoted above is similar to that of the two concluding stanzas of the Bangaon plate^[2] of Vigrahapāla III. In the Bangaon copper-plate inscription, a grant of land, actually made by a royal officer named Ghaṇṭīśa out of his own jāgīr, is represented as a gift of the Pāla king because, according to the legal procedure of those days, the king had to ratify the creation of a rent-free holding by any of his fief-holders. The Vaṅgīya Sāhitya Parishad (Calcutta) plate of Viśvarūpasēna likewise refers to the ratification by the Sēna king of similar grants of revenue-free land made by Prince Sūryasēna, Prince Purushōttamasēna and the minister

_____________________________________________

^[1] As regards the reading ndhu, it may be pointed out that there is usually little difference in the Gauḍīya alphabet among ndh nv and nu and that sometimes the same sign was used to indicate nn as well. For this form of nn, cf. ºunnayan in line 15 and ºāvachchhinna in line 31 of the Śōbhārāmpur plate of Dāmōdaradēva, which is being published in this journal.
^[2] Above, Vol. XXIX, pp. 48 ff.