|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
were correct, one would at least except Ḿahâratha and not Mahârathi, which is not necessarily
the same thing. At any rate Mahâraṭhi is a title. This is also Bühler’s view (AS. p. 107, note) ;
but the special reason which he adduces in support of it is not as all decisive, viz., that in the
Kârlê inscription No. 14 Okhaḷakiyânaṁ Mahârathi should be translated by “the Mahârathi of
the Okhaḷakiyas.” Nothing proves that the genitive depends on Mahârathi. Several instances
show us the proper name of a donor accompanied by the name of the tribe or the people to which
he belongs in the genitive plural, e.g. Junnar Nos. 5 and 6 (CTI. and AS.). The fact that, in the
other cases where we find the word again and in that same No. 14 in the very next line, Mahârathi does not govern a genitive, forces us to reject altogether the construction proposed by
Bühler.[1] Hence this instance cannot furnish, as he thought, a positive argument against the
interpretation previously proposed by Garrez,[2] who saw in it a kind of ethnical name equivalent
to Marâṭha. Etymologically this explanation seems to me strongly supported by the ṭh, which
presupposes a Sanskrit form Mahârâshṭrin. But .Mahârâshṭrin has not necessarily a geographical
meaning, and it is difficult to separate the word from Mahâbhôja and Mahâsâmanta, which are
connected with it in our inscriptions. As râshṭra often means a province, it is quite natural
that râshṭrin follows the same analogy as bhôja and sâmanta, so that, if Mahâbhôja has become a
title applied even to women, the same could very easily happen in the case Mahârâshtṛin and Mahârâshṭriṇî, or Mahâraṭhi and Mahâraṭhinî.[3] This is possible, but not absolutely certain ; it
may as well have been that the name, starting from the geographical and ethnical meaning,
became fixed as a title of honour in certain families, perhaps because of certain important
relatives or of special circumstances.[4] It may be noted that to our Mahâraṭhi Agimitraṇaka
corresponds a Mahârathi Mitadeva in No. 14 ; that this Mitadeva is a Kausikîputra, like
Vishṇudatta at Bhâjâ (No. 2) ; and lastly that the Mahâraṭhinî Sâmaḍinikâ at Bêḍsâ (No. 2)
was married to an Âpadevaṇaka. Do not these different names look as if were connected
with each other in such a way as to suggest the idea that they may have belonged to the same
circle of families or relations ? We find a Sthavira Âgimita, i.e. Agnimitra, at Kuḍâ (CTI.
No. 5). I believe that the names in ṇaka in our inscriptions, as here and as Nandaṇaka at
Junnar (CTI. No. 22), etc., are not different names, but simply equivalents of Agnimitra, Nanda, etc.─ Gotiputra[5] is the same as Gauptîputra, from Gupta.
Dr. Hultzsch contributes the following note on the three coins figured at the bottom of
Plate iii., which are of interest in connection with the explanation of Mahâraṭhi :-
âIn the year 1888, Mr. A. Mervyn Smith, while prospecting for gold, found a number of
lead coins on an ancient site near Chitaldroog in the Mysore State and distributed them to
various coin-collectors. The smaller ones among these coins bore only Buddhist and other
symbols, but a few larger ones had incomplete legends. On my specimen (Plate iii. B.) I found
__________________________________
[1] The occurrence of the feminine Mahâraṭhinî in Bêḍsâ No. 2 also indicate rather that the term does not
imply the actual office of governor of a district or province, but an honorific or nobiliary title.
[2] Journ. Asiat. VIth series, Vol. XX. p. 201 f.
[3] I may here as well draw attention to the use of raṭṭhika in Pâli (e.g. Jâtaka, II. 253, 12) as an equivalent
of gṛihapati and Vaiśya. Compare Śatapatha-Brâhmaṇa, XIII. 2, 9, 7, where the Viśâs are brought in special
connection with the râshṭrin, the wielder of royal power.
[4] We may compare the parallel use of the attributes Sôḍage(ke)ra and Mandava (Mâṇḍavya) ; on the latter
see Jacobi in Ind. Ant. Vol. VII. p. 254. The occurrence of Maṁdavânaṁ at Kuḍâ (CTI. No. 14) leaves no
doubt regarding the ethnical meaning of the word, though the use of the dental d renders the identification with
the Mâṇḍavyas of literature problematical. At Bêḍsâ (CTI. No. 2) Mandava is connected with Mahâraṭhi ; the
reading Maṁdaviya is quite clear in the fac-simile and excludes the useless and improbable conjecture ma[hâ*]deviya. It will be remarked that in this instance Maṁdavi precedes Mahâraṭhinî. Seeing that Mahâbhôja always precedes either attributes when connected with it, this position does not seems to indicate that Mahâraṭhi could imply a title of superior nobility, and consequently still less that it could designate a very high dignity.
[5] [The same epithet occurs in the Śuṅga inscription of the Bharhut Stûpa ; see Ind. Ant. Vol. XIV. p. 138 f.
─ E.H.]
|
