|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
kind of a suggestion as to why the succession passed to the younger brother.[1] And the
conclusion at which we arrive from the authoritative early records, is, that Dhruva set himself
up as king immediately on the death of Kṛishṇa I., and that Gôvinda II. had not any real part
at all in the succession.[2] The Kaḍaba grant, which purports to have been issued in A.D. 813,
would set up for Gôvinda II. the biruda of Prabhûtavarsha.[3] But we do not accept this, until
we find it in some unquestionable record. And the only secondary appellation that is as yet
established for him, is that of Vallabha ; it is supplied by the Paiṭhaṇ grant, which, in the first
verse that mentions him, says that he was Gôvindarâja who had the âkhyâ or name of Vallabha,
and, in the other passage, uses that name to denote him.
The successor, then, of Kṛishṇa I. was his younger son Dhruva. The Paiṭhaṇ grant of
A.D. 794, of his son and successor Gôvinda III., mentions him, in the verses, by the name of
Dhruvarâja and the biruda of Nirupama ;[4] and the formal preamble of the prose part of it
further establishes for him the biruda of Dhârâvarsha, because, using a certain technical
expression of very constant occurrence, it describes Gôvinda III. as meditating on the feet of
the Paramabhaṭṭâraka, Mahârâjâdhirâja, and Paramêśvara Dhârâvarshadêva.[5] A verse in the
Waṇî grant of A.D. 807 gives his proper name in the Prâkṛit form of Dhôra,[6] though a
subsequent verse in the same record gives it in the usual Sanskṛit form of Dhruva ;[7] and an
intermediate verse in the same record further establishes for him the biruda of Kalivallabha.[8]
In the Paṭṭadakal inscription of his time, he is designated Dhârâvarsha and Kaliballaha,[9]─ the latter being the Prâkṛit form of Kalivallabha. And the Naregal inscription gives Dôra,
as another variety of the Prâkṛit form of his proper name.[10] Another important biruda of his,
Śrîvallabha, will be brought forward further on. A verse in the Sâṅglî grant of A.D. 933
__________________________________________
[1] We have a similar flight of fancy, or at any rate an unquestionably erroneous statement, in the assertion
made in the Śilâhâra Bhâdâna grant of A.D. 997, that Amôghavarsha II. reigned for a year ; see page 176 below.
[2] The other Râshṭrakûṭa records which deal with this part of the genealogy and succession, treat Gôvinda
II. as follows. The Râdhanpur grant of A.D. 807 follows the draft of the Waṇî grant, and refers to him, in
the same way, only as the unnamed elder brother whom Dhruva superseded (Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 69, verse 5).
The Baroda grant of A.D. 811 or 812 passes him over without any allusion of any kind (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII.
pp. 162, 163) ; and so does the Kâpaḍwaṇaj grant of A.D. 909 or 910 (Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 56) ; and so
also, do even the Nausârî grants of A.D. 915 (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XVIII. p. 266), which aim
at presenting the whole line from Dantidurga to Indra III., with the first rudimentary introduction of a
Purâṇic preface. The Nausârî grant of A.D. 817 (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XX. pp. 144, 145, verses 18,
19), and the Kâvî grant of A.D. 826 or 827 (Ind. Ant. Vol. V. pp. 149, 150, verses 18, 19), and the Baroda grant
of A.D. 834 or 835 (id. Vol. XIV. p. 201, verses 2, 3), and the Bagumrâ grant of A.D. 866 or 867 (id.
Vol. XII. p. 187, verses 15, 16), and the Bagumrâ grant, of doubtful authenticity, of A.D. 888 (id. Vol. XIII.
p. 67 verses 9, 10), repeat the two verses which introduce the two brothers in the Paiṭhaṇ grant, but do not
include the subsequent matter stated in that record about them. The Sâṅglî grant of A.D. 933 mentions
Gôvinda II. between his father Kṛishṇa I. and his younger brother Nirupama-(Dhruva), but does not make
any assertion that he reigned (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 252). The Karhâḍ grant of A.D. 959 follows the draft
of the Dêôlî grant of A.D. 940, and so repeats the statement that sensual pleasures made him careless of
the kingdom, etc. (above, Vol. IV. p. 287, verse 11). And the Kardâ grant of A.D. 972 mentions him between
his father and his younger brother, but does not revive the statement that is made in the Dêôlî and Karhâḍ
grants, and does not say anything else tending to suggest that he reigned (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 267).
[3] Above, Vol. IV. p. 342, line 40.
Above, Vol. III. p. 107, text lines 29, 35, 37.
[5] Ibid. p. 108, text lines 42, 43. It seems that the biruda was actually written there, carelessly, as
Dhârâvatsadêva. If any doubt should be entertained as to what was really intended, reference may be made to
the corresponding passages in the Waṇî and Râdhanpur grants, both of which, it may be added, give the biruda
with the ending dêva, just as the Paiṭhaṇ record does.
[6] Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 157, text line 6.
[7] Loc. cit. text line 26. When this passage was translated, and, before it, the same passage in the Râdhanpur
grant (Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 70, verse 17), the fact that the word is here a proper name was not recognised, and
it was rendered, with the following iva, by “ already.”
[8] Ibid. text line 14. Regarding the meaning of this biruda, which had evidently been misunderstood both
by Dr. Bühler and by myself, see page 105 above, note 9.
[9] Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 125, text lines 1, 2.
[10] Page 163 above, text line 1.
|
