South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

explanation I propose in N. 18 to take dhaṁmâtmanâ in a similar way. I believe the reading ºtmanâ, not ºtmano, is certain, and the manner in which the construction is interrupted after the preceding genitives confirms the impression that dharmâtmanâ is intentionally put forward, in order to dwell on the fact of a change having taken place in the religious belief or inclination of the donor Indrâgnidatta.

I consider varshâratuṁ intimately connected with rudhaṁ. Besides the fact that the accusative commonly denotes duration, I beg to insist once more upon that rule of Sanskṛit construction which requires the determinant to precede the determined, and to which it is so important to pay attention in the, so to say, amorphous style of inscriptions. I have unfortunately nothing to add to the explanations, though little conclusive, which have been given by others respecting some other topics in this first postscript. Of the Uttamabhadras we know nothing, and as to the Mâlayas, though it seems natural to look for them in the inhabitants of the Malaya or southern hills, it must be owned that if, as seems possible, they were on the way or at least in the direction towards Pokhara, i.e. Ajmer, the equation Mâlaya = Mâlava, proposed by Bhagwanlal, would be well worthy of consideration. Of course ‘ mountaineers ’ of the same region may also be meant.

In the second additional paragraph, the principal difficulty lies in yasapitusataka. Bhagwanlal divides : yasa pitu sataka, ‘ belonging to whose (Aśvibhûti’s) father.’ Bühler transcribes ya sa(sva)pitusa(ṁ)taka and translates ‘ which belongs to my (Aśvibhûti’s) father ;’ and he is of course obliged to connect the epithet sapitusataka with nagarasîmâya. It is evident to my mind that Bühler was mistaken, and that the adjective, which, if applied to nagarasîmâya, would be meaningless, must be referred to the field. As to the grammatical analysis, the matter is different. The relative ya is construed less naturally with Aśvibhûtisa which is far off, than with kshetraṁ, the idea of which pervades the whole sentence. I, therefore, divide ya sapitusataka = svapiº, sva being applied to Aśvibhûti’s father. It is just because the field does not belong to this Brâhmaṇ himself, and because he plays in this transaction the part of a representative only of his father, that the epigraph uses the expression Aśvibhûtisa hathe instead of the ablative case : ‘ at the hand of Aśvibhûti,’─ a shade of meaning which ought not to have passed unnoticed.

On account of the proximity of mama leṇe vasatânaṁ and châtudisasa saṁghasa, this inscription is one of those where the exact meaning of châtudisa saṁgha is most clearly brought out, as I have tried to show in K. 13.

No. 11, Plate vii. (Ksh. 10.)

In the veranda of Cave No. 10, over the doorway of the left cell.

TEXT.

1 Sîdhaṁ (1) râṁño (2) Kshaharâtasa kshatrapasa Nahapanasa dîhi-
2 tu Dînîkaputrasa Ushavadâtasa kuḍuṁbiniya Dakhamitrâya (3) deyadhaṁ- maṁ (4) ovarako.

REMARKS.

(1) G. and AS. sidhaṁ.─ (2) G. râño ; AS. raño.─ (3) AS. ºmitâya.─ (4) G. ºdhammaṁ.

This epigraph is repeated twice, with, as it seems, only slight graphical differences ; compare N. 13 below. Although AS. refers to the facsimile on Plate lii., the way in which the lines are cut proves that the transcription was made, not from the estampage which corresponds with our N. 13, but from that which we transcribed here, and which figures on the accompanying Plate vii.