|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
at the Daśâvatâra cave at Ellôrâ,[1] which puts forward the names of Indra I. as the father,
and Dantivarman I. as the grandfather, of Gôvinda I. The verse in the Sâmângaḍ grant which
introduces Dantidurga, gives his proper name in the form of Dantidurgarâja ; the formal
preamble of the prose passages of the record adds dêva, and styles him Dantidurgarâjadêva ;[2]
and a verse at the end of the record presented his name in the variant of Dantivarman, a form
which rather curiously and unexpectedly crops up again, two centuries and a half later, in
the Bhâdâna grant of A.D. 997.[3] ─ (a record of one of the Śilâhâra princes of the Northern
Koṅkaṇ, which recites the Râshṭrakûṭa pedigree),─ without, as yet, any trace of it, in his
case, in any of the intermediate records.[4] The second verse in the description of Dantidurga
in the Sâmângaḍ grant may be interpreted as given him the biruda of Râjasiṁha,[5] which,
we now know, occurs at any rate in the case of other kings of other lines ; but we have not
as yet obtained any corroboration of it elsewhere in his case, and from the first historical verse
in the same record, the same biruda might be equally well established in the case of Gôvinda I.,
though the latter was only an ancestor and not a reigning king. Be that as it may, the
formal preamble of the prose passages of the Sâmângaḍ grant does establish for Dantidurga
the birudas of Pṛithivîvallabha and Khaḍgâvalôka.[6] And a verse in the Paiṭhaṇ grant of
____________________________________
[1] Cave-Temple Inscriptions (No. 10 of the brochures of the Archӕological Survey of Western India), p. 92,
Pandit Bhagwanlal Indraji’s version ; see also Archӕol. Surv. West. Ind. Vol. V. p. 87, where the Pandit’s text has
been reproduced, in transliteration, by Dr. Bühler ; the latter version has thus become the more convenient
one to quote. The record is probably of the time of Amôghavarsha I. ; because, after taking the early part
of the pedigree as far as Dantidurga, it proceeds next to mention Amôghavarsha I., without any notice of
the intermediate names. But it was left unfinished, breaking off abruptly in even middle of a verse.
And therefore we cannot say with absolute certainty that it was not composed in, intended to run on to, a
later time.
[2]Ind.Ant. Vol. XI. 112, text lines 16 and 28, respectively.
[3] Above, Vol. III. p 271, text line 4.
[4] The only other known instances of this name among the Râshṭrakûṭas, are (1), as mentioned above, in
the Ellôrâ inscription, which puts it forward as the name of the original ancestor of the family ; (2) in the
Baroda grant of A.D. 811 or 812, which mentions a Râjaputra Dantivarman who was perhaps a son of the
feudatory prince Suvarṇavarsha-Karkarâja (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 161, text line 68) ; and (3) in the Bagumrâ
grant, of doubtful authenticity, purporting to have been issued in A.D. 888, which puts it forward as the
name of apparently the father of the alleged feudatory prince Akâlavarsha-Kṛishṇarâja of that record (Ind.
Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 69, verse 20).
[5] Loc. cit. (note 2 above), text line 19 ; the word is there translated, by “ a very lion of a king.”
[6] Ibid. text lines 27, 28.─ The first of these two appellations was not recognised as a formal biruda
when the record was edited ; and it was treated as an abbreviation of śrîpṛithivîvallabha. But we are now
able to see that a distinction must always be made between, on the one hand, Pṛithivîvallabha. “ favourite
of the Earth,” and Śrîvallabha, “ favourite of Fortune,” which were formal birudas restricted to individual cases, and, on the other hand, śrîpṛithivîvallabha, “ favourite of Fortune and of the Earth,” which was
a paramount epithet of general application. A pointed instance in which the distinction between the biruda
Śrîvallabha and the epithet is marked, is furnished by a passage in one of the Nausârî grants of A.D. 915,
which describes Indra III. as paramabhaṭṭâraka-mahârâjâdhirâja-paramêśvara-śrîpṛithvîvallabha-Śrîvallabha-śrîman-Nityavarshanarêndradêva (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XVIII. p. 264, A. plate ii. b, text lines 11, 12).
And, whereas we often find the biruda Śrîvallabha, at any rate, used as a substitute for a proper name, we
do not find the epithet śrîpṛithivîvallabha used in that way.─ The idea underlying both the two birudas and
the epithet, was, that Fortune and the Earth were accounted actual wives of kings ; and it would, therefore,
be more strictly correct to render vallabha by ‘ husband ’ in this epithet and in these two birudasand any exactly
similar ones, and there are a few passages in which it should be so rendered, in order to bring out the meaning
fully : but there are other birudas and expressions, in which that particular meaning of vallabha does not apply ;
and it seems on the whole desirable to render the word by ‘ favourite ’ even in the epithet and in the birudas in
question, partly for the sake of uniformity of translation, and party to mark the point that the original texts use
vallabha and not any such word as pati, bhartṛi, etc. This idea is presented by Kâlidâsa, in the Raghuvaṁśa, i.
verse 32, which says that, extensive as was his harem, the king Dilîpa considered himself reallyprovided with
wives only in the persons of Sudakshiṇâ (his actual wedded wife) and Fortune ; and ─ (the commentator points
out) ─ the poet, using for ‘ king ’ the word vasudhâdhipa, ‘ lord of the earth,’ implies that the Erath was also
his wife, but his group of real wives was not complete without Fortune and Sudakshiṇâ. An epigraphic passage in
|
