|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
No. 5. Though the syllable sa is wanting in Nâsik No. 3,─ which seems to imply that this
addition is at least redundant,─ we cannot well consider such a frequent repetition as a material
error. Bühler also was surprised at this expression in Nâsik No. 5 (p. 104, note) and supposed
that “the sa . . . . . is purely pleonastic, just as in Pâli sache, ‘if ,’ and similar words.”
He though evidently of sayadi and sayyathâ of the Buddhist Sanskṛit and of Pâli. I cannot see
what “pleonastic” means here ; perhaps he wanted to say ‘expletive.’ But it seems to me difficult
to assimilate, without positive proof, a prothetical particle to an enclitical one, which we are obliged
to admit here. I can discover only a single expedient, viz. to take sa = sya = svid, as in the
language of the Mahâvastu ; see my edition, Vol. I. p. 412. In the expression trayôsya which
I have quoted, as well as in the Pâli tayassu, the particle seems to imply a shade of doubt which
would be inadmissible here ; but I do not know any other example of its use after cha.
Bühler happily explained aviyena by a reference to Hêmachandra, who gives aviya as
a synonym of ukta. This is the equivalent of the formula svamukhâjñâ, etc., of later inscriptions ;
see Dr. Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 100, note. I do not believe that Bühler was equally
successful with regard to chhata. His interpretation rested on the supposed parallelism of mata in Nâsik No. 5 ; but as this inscription actually reads chhata, his argument loses its support.
Besides, I cannot persuade myself that the king required the ‘permission’ of a subordinate officer (amacha) for making his grants valid, and even that kshânta could really be used in this
way. As regards the guess of Bhagwanlal, according to whom chhata stands probably for the
Sanskṛit chhupta, meaning ‘touched,’ neither is it admissible phonetically nor is it corroborated by
the analogies which he invoked (Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. XVI. p. 558, note). The operations or
formalities connected with royal grants which our inscriptions record (Kârlê No. 19, and Nâsik
Nos. 3, 4 and 5) are characterised by the terms âṇata and chhata (in all four), datâ paṭikâ (in
three of them, but not in Nâsik No. 5), kaṭa (here and in Nâsik No. 5) and uparakhita (Nâsik
No. 4), the equivalent of which I believe to find in Nâsik No. 3. The later inscriptions offer us a
large quantity of probable or at least possible equivalents. I need not dwell on âṇata, the meaning
of which is clear ; it refers to the announcement of the royal order either by the sovereign himself,
or by his representative who is generally delegated to this duty by the title of dûtaka ; see
Dr. Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, Index, s. v. Besides, frequent mention is made of the manual
drafting of the document (likhita) and of its transcription on copper or on stone, expressed by utkîrṇa ; see Dr. Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, p. 99, note. In the grant of Śivaskandavarman
(Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 7, text line 50) we read . . . . Bhaṭṭisammasa sahatthalikhiteṇa
paṭṭikâ kada=tti. The participle kṛita refers here to the drafting, as the writing is expressed by likhita, while in our inscriptions kaṭâ, which ends the text and whose agent, being always named
without any title, is evidently a subordinate officer, clearly corresponds to utkîrṇa compare the
end of No. 35 of Dr. Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions. Besides, I believe that in our documents this
‘engraving’ does not mean the preparation of the stone, but that of the copper-plates which
served as title-deeds to the donees, and of which our epigraphs only state the delivery. Several
documents mention a keeper of records (âkshapaṭalika or âkshaśâlika), who consequently must
have been in charge of the documents. I believe that such an officer was Rohiṇi─ for, Rohaṇiguttâ=ti must be read ─ who is mentioned at the end of the grant of Vijayabuddhavarman (Ind.
Ant. Vol. IX. p. 102).[1] In this connection we have to understand the word uparakhita in Nâsik
Nos. 3 and 4. If it is not admitted that our chhata corresponds to the likhita of the traditional
formulas, it would lead us to the paradoxical conclusion that the operation which is nowhere
wanting in the known protocol is the only one of which there is no trace in our own inscription,
and on the other hand that the only operation which is common to our four documents is just the
only one unknown to the later redactions. What would be a conjecture, though very probable to
_______________________________
[1] [Monsieur Senart’s improved reading is no doubt current ; but I would prefer to translate :─ “The âjñapti
(or dûtaka) was Rôhiṇîgupta.” ─E. H.]
|
