South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

k. . . . . . prose and verse, which are clear, agreeable, sweet, charming, beautiful, excelling by the proper use of words and adorned ; whose beautiful frame owns the most excellent marks and signs,^[1] such as (auspicious) length, dimension and height, voice, gait, colour, vigour and strength ; who himself has acquired the name of Mahâkshatrapa ; who has been wreathed with many garlands at the svayaṁvaras of kings’ daughters ;─ he, the Mahâkshatrapa Rudradâman, in order to^[2] . . . . . . . cows and Brâhmaṇs for a thousand of years, and to increase his religious merit and fame,─ without oppressing the inhabitants of the towns and country^[3] by taxes, forced labour and acts of affection^[4]─ by (the expenditure of) a vast amount of money from his own treasury and in not too long a time made the dam three times as strong in breadth and length . . . . . . [on] all [banks]^[5] . . . . . . . . (and so) had (this lake) made (even) more beautiful to look at.^[6]

(L. 16.) When in this matter the Mahâkshatrapa’s counsellors and executive officers, who though fully endowed with the qualifications of ministers, were averse to a task (regarded as) futile^[7] on account of the enormous extent of the breach, opposed the commencement (of the work),^[8] (and) when the people in their despair of having the dam rebuilt were loudly lamenting,^[9] (the work) was carried out by the minister Suviśâkha, the son of Kulaipa, a Pahlava, who for the benefit of the inhabitants of the towns and country had been appointed by the king in this government to rule the whole of Ânarta and Surâshṭra (a minister) who by his proper dealings and views in things temporal and spiritual increased the attachment (of the people), who was able, patient, not wavering, not arrogant, upright (and) not to be bribed (and) who by his good^[10] government increased the spiritual merit, fame and glory of his master.
________________________________________________________________

vyakti, which depends on an author’s giving clear verbal expression to his thoughts instead of leaving them to be guessed. Laghu, ‘ agreeable ’ (ishṭa), and chitra, ‘ charming,’ seem too vague expressions to connect them confidently with any particular qualities of the text-books ; alaṁkṛita, ‘ adorned,’ requires no explanation.
^[1] Compare Râm. V. 33, 11, vyañjanâni hi tê yâni lakshaṇâni cha ;and, for various auspicious marks and signs, ibid. I. 1, 9 ff., II. 48, 29 ff., V. 35, 8 ff., etc.
^[2] I.e., shortly, ‘ in order to benefit.’ The original text may have contained something equivalent to gô-brâhmaṇa-hitârthâya dêśasya cha hitâya cha in Râm. I. 26, 5. The expression gô-brâhmaṇa, ‘ cows and Brâhmaṇs,’ is very common ; see e.g. ibid. III. 23, 28 ; 24, 21 ; VI. 107, 49 ; 117, 20, etc. ; Gupta Inscr. p. 89, l. 9, gô-brâhmaṇa-purôgâbhyaḥ sarvva-prajâbhyaḥ ; and above, Vol. VI. p. 20, note 1.
^[3] The words paura-jânapadaṁ janaṁ of the text clearly are the second or fourth Pâda of an ordinary Ślôka ; the same phrase we actually have e.g. in Râm. II. 111, 19 and 27, paura-jânapadô janaḥ in II. 2, 51, paura-jânapadâ janaḥ in VII. 43, 5 etc. Paurajânapada-jana occurs again in line 18 of the text.
^[4] Dr. Bhagvanlal Indraji suggested that praṇaya-kriyâ may be ‘ a kind of tax like the modern prîtidân.’ I have not found the word elsewhere, used as a technical term, and can only suggest that it may denote offerings or contributions which nominally are voluntary, but which people feel constrained to make to please somebody or for other reasons.
^[5] I.e., perhaps, ‘ planted trees on all banks.’
^[6] As above (see p. 46, note 5) there is here also a play on the words ; the lake Sudarśana was made sudarśanatara.
^[7] On the analogy of compounds like apratishêdhaḥ=anarthakaḥ pratishêdhaḥ, avachanam= anarthakaṁ vachanam, which we find in grammatical works, I explain anutsâha by anarthaka utsâha, ‘ a futile (or impossible) task.’ In connection with this explanation we may note that the two words pratyâkhyâta and ârambha of the text are just such as a grammarian would be familiar with.
^[8] Since I have translated somewhat freely, I would state that pratyâkhyât-ârambhaṁ, which has been objected to as grammatically wrong, in my opinion is correct. The word is the subject of anushṭhitam in line 20 ; ‘ that of which the commencement was opposed was carried out.’ With punaḥsêtubandha-nairâśyât compare kârya-nairâśyât in Râm. V. 35, 57 ; which hâhâbhûtâsu prajôsu, Gupta Inscr. p. 60, l. 17, vishâdya[mânâḥ khalu sarvatô ja]nâḥ kathaṁ-kathaṁ kâryam=iti pravâdinaḥ. Hâhâbhûta, ‘ exclaiming hâ hâ,’ like hâhâkṛita, is well known from the Mahâbhârata etc.
^[10] For the way in which su in svadhitishṭhatâ is prefixed to a present participle we may compare Râm. II. 33, 4, suśakyantê ; VI. 40, 18, suchêratuḥ ; VI. 110, 9, suparivartatê ; V. 62, 21, suparigṛihya ; VII. 30, 36, sunirbhartsya ; etc.