South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

To all appearance Bhagwanlal is right in supposing that after patâka the proximity of the initial sa in satu has caused the dropping of the genitive termination sa, which is required if the compound aparâjitavijayapatâka is taken as an independent epithet of the king. Otherwise it would have to be taken as qualifying puravara, which would be a far-fetched sort of interpretation and against the phraseology of our inscriptions.

Bühler translated kulapurisaº by ‘ who bore many royal titles descended to him from a (long) line of ancestors.’ It seems to me certain that purusha implies ‘ descent by males.’ Besides, one cannot help comparing the second part of the expression vipularâjasada with a compound frequently used in more modern inscriptions : samadhigatapañchamahâśabda ; the only difference is that samadhigata is here replaced by the more emphatic paramparâgata. Vipula is used instead of the synonymous mahâ only in order to prevent the misunderstanding which the vicinity of râja could have produced ; for the adjective must refer to śabda or râjaśbda, not to râja, the title mahârâja by itself being too modest. If the comparison be correct, and I hardly think it can be doubted, we have to interpret the phrase here in the same sense as the more modern formula. Dr. Fleet (Gupta Inscr p. 296, note 9, corroborated by Ep. Ind. Vol. IV. p. 296, note 3) has conclusively discarded the translation which considered it as summing up certain royal titles. This qualification is generally applied out cases where it is applied to paramount sovereigns, as one of whom Śâtakarṇi certainly wanted to be considered.

The transcription êkâṅkuśasya, proposed by Bhagwanlal, is I think decidedly to be preferred to Bhandarkar’s correction ekakusalasa. Perhaps the epithet contains an allusion to the title “ Gajapati,” which by tradition is conferred on the principal regent of Western India (compare Lassen’s Ind. Ant. Vol. II. p. 27 f.), and which our Gautamîputra may have claimed.

In spite of the form achitaṁ instead of achi[ṁ]tiyaṁ, Bühler is certainly right in his explanation of those adverbs ; but I think that they refer not only to jitaº, but to the following epithet, which is closely connected with them. Of nagavarakhadhâ nothing satisfactory can be made ; the reading nâgaº gives a better sense. On his battle elephant the king appears as if he would rise to heaven. This is not only a hyperbolical way of describing the height of the animal, but implied more. The king is jitaripusaṁgha ─ he is seen in the glory of his triumph ; besides, as he is seconded in his fights by the divine powers, Pavana and others, he appears in some manner in the sky and among the gods. The two epithets Pavanaº jitaº and nâgaº ºvigâḍha complement each other conformably to the law which Benfey (Gesch. der Sprachwiss. p. 35) has rightly pointed out, and in virtue of which the more general term comes at the end, preceded by the determining word, ─ a rule which, to state it en passant, ought never to be lost sight of in the interpretation of inscriptions and may in more than one instance help to bring out the right shade of meaning in complicated constructions. One more point remains to be settled. Samarasirasi has been translated : ‘ in the foremost ranks in a battle ;’ and in fact this is the way in which, following some Hindu commentaries, it has been customary to interpret śiras when compounded with some word meaning ‘ fight.’ But not one of the instances which are known to me necessarily requires this signification and several would much rather, exclude it (e.g. Kathâsaritsâgara, 48, 138) ; on the other hand the idiom is used, as far as I know, only in the locative case, either simply ºśirasi or, by way of a peri-phrase, ºśirasô madhyê (Mahâbhârata, IV. 1131 ; VI. 4041), which comes exactly to the same. I have elsewhere (Mahâvastu, I. 624), in connection with another idiom, noted the inclination of the Prâkṛits to form periphrastic cases, and have drawn attention to the Pâli use, in this case, of piṭṭhe (pṛishṭhê) and matthake (mastakê). Such analogies strongly support a similar interpretation of śirasi. It would indeed be puzzling if instances were limited to the expression raṇaśirasi and its equivalents. But such is in no way the case, and to saraḥśirasi, i.e. ‘ in, or on, the pond,’ which the St. Pet. Dict. cites from the Nâradapañchar. I. 3, 56, other cases will, I believe,