|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
(Ujjain) ; and, in the west, Varâha or Jayavarâsha,[1] in the territory of the Sauryas. It is
to be remarked that, of the two kings Indrâyudha and Śrîvallabha, one or the other is
specified in the passage as the son of a king Kṛishṇa. But we determine the application of
the passage without taking that point into account either way.
When this passage was first brought to notice, the translation that was put forward
was,─“ when Indrâyudha was ruling over the North ;─ when Śrîvallabha, the son of king
Kṛishṇa, was governing the South,” etc.[2] And I suggested that Śrîvallabha was “ perhaps the
Râshṭrakûṭa king Gôvinda II., the son of Kṛishṇa I.”[3]
Subsequently, however, it became plain, in the first place, that the biruda Śrîvallabha
is not identical with the appellation Vallabha, which is the only name of that kind we have
for Gôvinda II., and in the second place, that Gôvinda II. did not actually reign.[4] And then,
as the word meaning “ son of king Kṛishṇa ” may be construed at least as well with the
word that gives us the name of Indrâyudha as it may with the word that gives us the name of
Śrîvallabha,[5] I abandoned that view and transferred the words “ son of king Kṛishṇa ” to
Indrâyudha, and took the passage as referring to Gôvinda III., son of Dhruva, and as
establishing the date of A.D. 783-84 for him.[6]
There is nothing inherently impossible, in the way of allotting the date of A.D. 783-84 to
Gôvinda III.; except that it would perhaps give him too long a reign,─ at least thirty years,─
________________________________
[1] The original passage has jaya-yutê vîrê Varâhê ; and Dr. Peterson considered (Fourth Report on Sanskṛit
MSS., Index of Authors, p. 43, and note), that the meaning is, not “ the victorious brave Varâha,” but “ the
brave Jayavarâha,”─ just as the name of Vatsarâja is expressed in the preceding line by Vats-âdi-râjê. It is not
possible to settle that point off-hand, either way. But, in support of Dr. Peterson’s view, we may quote two other
names in which varâha is found as the termination. One Âdivarâha, a name of Bhôjadêva of Kanauj, which
occurs in verse 22 of the Gwalior inscription of A.D. 875 or 876 (Ep. Ind. Vol. I. pp. 155, 158). The other is
Dharaṇîvarâha, which we meet with most notably in the case of a Châpa prince, with the date of A.D. 914, whose
residence was Vardhamâna, and who was ruling the territory round Haḍḍâlâ on the south-east of the above-mentioned Waḍhwâṇ in the Jhâlâvâḍ division of Kâṭhiâwâr (Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. pp. 194, 195) ; and it is not
impossible that, in this prince, we have a descendant of the Varâha or Jayavarâha of A.D. 783-84, though his
pedigree is not carried back beyond a certain Vikramârka who would have to be placed, roughly, about A.D. 825.─
It may be noted here that the name Dharaṇîvarâha seems to have been rather a favourite one. We meet with it
again in the case of a prince referable roughly to about A.D. 925, in the Bulandshahr plate of A.D. 1176 or 1177
(see Prof. Kielhorn’s List of the Inscriptions of Northern India, above, Vol. V. Appendix, p. 25, No. 170), and
again in the case of a prince who was contemporaneous with a Râshṭrakûṭa king or prince named Dhavala who held
the country round Hatôṇḍî in Mârwâr just before A.D. 997 (see ibid. p. 9, No. 53). We perhaps have the same
name Dharaṇîvarâha in the case of a king or prince, of uncertain date apparently referable to “ a period not
long anterior to the Muhammadan invasion,” who ruled more to the east, in the Jaunpur district, North-West
Provinces (Jour. Beng. As. Soc. Vol. VII. pp. 635, 636) ; but, here dharaṇî may be a mistake or misreading
for dharaṇîṁ as the accusative with santôshayan=nija-guṇair, and in that case the name is simply Varâha. We
certainly, however, have Dharaṇîvarâha as a biruda of some princes, of the sixteenth century A.D., who claim
descent from the Eastern Chalukya king Kulôttuṅga I. (Report of the Government Epigraphist for 1899-1900,
p. 16). And apparently we have it again as a biruda of one or other of the kings of Vijayanagara in a record of
A.D. 1528 (Ep. Carn. Vol. III., Sr. 2).
[2] Ind. Ant. Vol. XV. p. 142. For the text, see now, preferentially, Peterson’s Fourth Report on Sanskṛit
MSS., Extracts, p. 176.
[3] Loc. cit. note 3.
[4] And, on this point, see now, more fully, page 170 ff. above.
[5] The text runs─uttarâṁ pât=Îṁdrâyudha-nâmni Kṛishṇa-nṛipa-jê Śrîvallabhê dakshiṇâṁ. We know that
Dhruva was a son of Kṛishṇa I. And, now that we know what we did not know until recently,─ namely, that
Śrîvallabha was one of his leading birudas,─ it is easy enough to say that the words “ son of king Kṛishṇa ” were
meant to qualify the Śrîvallabha of the passage, and not the other person. But it is impossible to say, simply
from the text itself, whether Kṛishṇa-nṛipa-jê was intended to be in apposition with the locative which immediately
precedes it, or with the locative which immediately follows it ; and it is fairly arguable that, Śrîvallabha being a
complete appellation in itself, whereas Indrâyudhanâman is an adjective rather than a noun, the latter wants
something, namely, the next following word, to complete its meaning.
[6] Dyn. Kan. Distrs. p. 394., and see note 1 on 395.
|
