|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
(V. 3.) Aided by[1] the total number of his wise men, He easily and swiftly drew to himself,
Vallabha as he was,[2] Fortune from the Châlukya family, which was illustrious because all the
families of great monarchs resorted to it from fear of being shorn of their partisans, was difficult
to be thwarted by others, and possessed of many stainless brilliant treasures[3]─ just as the
Mandara mountain,[4] supported by the whole assemblage of the gods, easily and swiftly drew
Lakshmî forth from the sea which glittered with the throng of all the great mountains that had
sought refuge with it from fear of having their wings clipt,[5] is difficult to be crossed by others,
and full of many flawless sparkling gems.
(V. 4.) He had a son who─ though like the cruel-rayed sun which with the intensity of its
ardour torments the quarters all around, he dominated the circle of the regions by the excess
of his prowess─ yet delighted the dwellers of the earth by his mild taxation :[6] Dhôra,
who, setting store by fortitude only, robbed of their beauty the lotus-faces of his opponents’ wives,
(and) whose fame the guardian mistresses of the quarters incessantly wore as their garland.
(V. 5.) United with Fortune unblemished, even though attained by the passing over of his
eldest brother, [and thereby like the moon] when she shines with a pure lustre even after having
passed Jyêshṭhâ, yet [surpassing the moon, whose orb is not spotless, who was wanting in continence, and is ever ‘ the maker of night ’] He kept those around him free from blemish, was
endowed with steadfastness, and noways a source of vice.[7] Seeing that His liberality exceeded the
________________________________
Kṛishṇarâja was like the god Kṛishṇa, and that yet his deeds were not like Kṛishṇa’s, he expects the reader to
reconcile the two apparently contradictory statements by taking the second of them to mean that his deeds were
not black. Compare Kâd. (here and below, except when otherwise stated, Prof. Peterson’s edition), p. 10, atiśuddha-svabhâvam api kṛishṇa-charitam, ‘ although his character was very pure, his deeds were black ’ [i.e.,
really, his deeds were like Kṛishṇa’s].
_________________________________
[1] The compound ending with âśraya I of course take as a Bahuvrîhi. For the double meaning of vibudha
compare Vaś. p. 147, Mêrur iva vibudhâlayaḥ, ‘ he was a home of the learned, and therefore like the Mêru which
is the habitation of the gods.’
[2] By the way in which the poet pointedly places the word Vallabhaḥ, at the end of the verse, and in close
proximity to the word âkṛishṭavân, I understand him to suggest that Kṛishṇarâja, just because he was Vallabha,
had a right, or was particularly qualified, to draw to himself Fortune from the Châlukya family. And he had
this right, or qualification, and Fortune came to him willingly, because he was ‘ the favourite ’ of Lakshmî, śriyô
vallabhaḥ, as he is called in another inscription (above, Vol. III. p. 107, l. 26 of the text).
[3] Ratna, ‘ a jewel,’ may be used to denote any possession of great value (‘ ratnaṁ śrêshṭhê maṇâv=api’ iti
Viśvaḥ). The epithet ratnâ-viśêsha-bhâj in the Raghuvaṁśa, XVI. 1, is explained by tattachchhrêshṭha-vastu-bhâgin. In Kâd. p. 80, the prince Chandrâpîḍa looks upon the horse Indrâyudha sent to him by his father as
one of the king’s sakalatribhuvana-durlabhâni ratnâni ; and in the gloss on Harshach. p. 142, horses, elephants
and a beautiful woman are enumerated among the mahâ-ratnâni of monarchs.
[4] Compare Harshach. p. 109 : the king Pushpabhûti (Pushyabhûti) was Mandaramaya iva lakshmî-samâkarshaṇê.
[5] In Kâd. p. 90, the author describes the royal palace as udadhim iva bhayântaḥpravishṭa-sapaksha-bhûmibhṛit-sahasra-saṁkulam.
[6] Or by the leniency with which he took tribute from those whom he had subjugated.
[7] In this first half of the verse the poet uses the figure of vyatirêka. In one respect Dhôra was like the
moon, but in others he surpassed that luminary. The clouds generally begin to gather and to hide the moon at
the beginning of the month of Âshâḍha─ compare the Mêghadûta, v. 2, Âshâḍhasya prathama-divasê mêgham
âślishṭa-sânuṁ … dadarśa─ which follows immediately upon Jyaishṭha ; yet occasionally the moon may be
clearly visible even in the rainy season. Similarly, it has even been considered sinful for a younger prince to
set aside in the succession─ compare Nirukta II. 10, adharmas tvayâ charitô jyêshṭhaṁ bhrâtaram antarity=âbhishêchitam, where antaritya is paraphrased by atikramya─ or generally to act in opposition to, an elder brother ;
yet in the case of Dhôra who was guilty of such conduct, his action─ the wording of the verse does not make it
certain wherein it exactly consisted─ and the personal advantage derived from it, were regarded as free from
blemish. On the other hand─ so the poet suggests─ the moon’s orb always has a dark spot ; (in carrying off
Bṛihaspati’s wife Târâ, though he had many beautiful wives of his own) the Moon was wanting in continence ;
and the very name dôshâkara─ really ‘ the maker of night’─ of the moon shews its possessor to be ‘ a mine of vice.’
Dhôra’s qualities on the contrary, as may be seen from the translation, were the very reverse of all these blemishes.─
As regards particulars, compare in the first instance Kâd. p. 56, śaśinô jyêshṭhâtikramaḥ ; in Târâpîḍa’s reign
|
