Epigraphic Notes

Author(s): A Wezler
Publisher: A Wezler
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269691/1

Page #1

П. А. ГРИНЦЕР. Генезис текста романа «Камбарғ• Банм
401
EPIGRAPHIC NOTES
4. Wezler (Hamburg)
1. AHASIA-PRAKSEPANYA
1) The proper and full oderstanding of inscriptions of the Indian subcontinent, whatever the language(s) in which they are composed, quite naturally depends to a high degree on the clarification of individual words terms, idiomatic expression etc. Nevertheless not all scholars specialized in this field of studies or drawing in their work on inscriptions seem to be aware of the many semantic problems posed by this kind of texts -- just as by most other ancient or mediaeval non-inscriptional texts. It cannot be

Page #2

402 СТХАПАКАШРАДДХА. Сборник статей памяти Г. А. Зографа
By A WEZLER. Epigraphic notes
403
denied that, phenomena like the epigraphical bybrid Sanskrit apart, the languages used in inscnptions still show so many peculianties that it is legitimate, nay even necessary to distinguish c. g. inscriptional Sanskrit as a special kind of sociolect from the other forms attested elsewhere. It would hence seem appropriate to keep the investigation of the semantical problems one is confronted with in reading e. g. Sanskrit inscriptions within the boundaries of inscriptional Sanskrit as such. However, practical as well as methodical reasons speak against this restriction: a particular word, etc., may not be attested in any other inscription; inscriptional Sanskrit inspite of all its special features was, of course, not entirely dislinked from the Sanskrit language as such, the mainstream, so to say, and its development: on the contrary it is a priori highly probable that it was closely related to 'administrative Sanskrit of which we know very little indeed because of the scarcity of pertinent documents. But there are at least two Sastras which are likely to be influenced by, or to contain traces of 'administrative Sanskrit', viz. the Dharma- and Arthasastra. It is the fomer's relevance for inscriptional Sanskrit that I intend to demonstrate here, though for the time being by one example only.
2) In "Appendix I: Privileges attached to Free Holdings" of his Indian Epigraphical Glossary D. C. Sircar lists the compound a-hasta-prakse paniya, adding references to El, i. e. Epigraphia Indica, 11 and 23; yet he does not give the meaning also, but instead states this compound to be "same as a (?)' a-bhata pravesa, etc. Cf. samasta-rajakiyanam = a-hasta praksepaniya". If the first of these references is followed up, one is faced with the fact that there is no entry a-bhara-praveśa, but only a bhajaprávesya, explained by Sircar as "same as a právesya", the latter expression being commented upon thus: "refers to the freedom of the gift of land from the entry of royal agents; same as a-bhaļa-praveśa etc. ..." In following up the second reference what one is led to is the entry "sarvarájukiyanam = a-hasta-praksepaniya (CII 3), same as a-bharapravesa, etc.", and under the preceding entry, viz. samasta-rajakiyanam = same as a-bhara-praveśa, a-cara-bhara-pravesya, a-bhata-cchátra-právesya etc.", i. c. one is referred back to the very beginning of the "Appendix"!
Now, not everybody is fond of being sent from post to pillar -- like in a municipality. But what really annoys one here is not the feeling of being the dupe, but the completely arbitrary use of the expression "same - which already in itself is also not entirely unequivocal - viz. in cases where even "being tantamount to" is not, or could not be justified. Whal one would rather expect even from a 'glossary' is that the meanings of the various terms listed are also given. And as for a-hasta-praksepaniya, Sircar's 'method' appears to be particularly strange as the compound is trans
lated and explained in the article of H. M. Bhadkamkar on "Navalakhi Plates of Siladitya I. - (Gupta-Samvat 286" published in Vol. 11 of the El', viz. in the following manner: "This word is equivalent to the Marathi idiom hata ghilane (lit. to put one's hand in a matter). This phrase, therefore, should be rendered 'not to be meddled with by and of the royal officers", this latter addition evidently being caused by the fact that in this inscription the expression a-hasta praksepaniya is (already) preceded by sar. varājakiyanam (cf. line 26f. of the second plate).
But if the scholar using Sircar's "Glossary" takes into consideration that the "Index" of El 11 on p. 347 contains a printing mistake, viz. p. 117 in stead of 177, it dawns on him how Sircar's statement in the "Preface" that "the words have been mostly taken from my Indian Epigraphy and the Indices and Glossaries appended to various epigraphical publications" has to be understood: apparently Sircar has simply extracted his material among others from the volumes of the El without taking the trouble of himself opening the book at the page concemed!
3) In his commentary on Manusmrti 8.316 cd (asāsitva tu tam raja stenasydpnoti kilbisam) by which we are led into the Dharmasastra context of "Le voleur, le roi et la massue" recently studied in detail by Fezas - Bharuci states by way of explanation that "the thief who is forcibly punished", i. e. who does not voluntarily approach the king and ask for punishment, or even put to death is not released from guilt by that punishment alone. Therefore even one who has undergone such a punishment must still perform the penance." But he continues to say: yas ca svayam eva prayascittam árabhate na tatra rajno hastaprakseposti." fatha ca vaksyari "prayascittam tu kurvånah" (9.240) iti. Derrett quite evidently scores a bull's eye when he renders this as follows: "And if he has already begun bis penance on his own initiative the king must not in. fere with this". Manu will raise the point at 'But those who perform the penance'." Unfortunately, however, Derrett does not explain how he interprets this latter remark of Bharuci which is not entirely clear by itself. For what is taught at 9.240, is that when the prior classes have performed the restoration as it is prescribed, they should not be branded on the forehead" by the king, but they should have to pay the highest fine", and Bharuci agrees. Thus any of his readers cannot but wonder whether his remark on 8.316 cd has to be understood as clarifying that a thief who has already begun his penance on his own initiative is not branded, but has to pay the uttamasähasa or rather that he has to be left in peace by the king. That is to say, the question raised by Bharuci's remark is: What does the king must not interfere with it" mean in terms of the administration of justice? Does it mean that the king should allow the culprit to first complete his

Page #3

404 СТХАПАКАІШРАДДХА. Сборник статей памяти Г. А. Зографа
By A. WEZLER. Epigraphic notes
405
penance and only then fine him, or does it mean that the king should also fine the thief if he has perfomed the prescribed prayascina?
As Bharuci's aim - like that of all the other Dharmasastra commentators -- cannot but be to demonstrate that the Manusmrti is a homogeneous, consistent text, free of contradictions, there is however, no room for doubting that it is the first alternative which he has in view. To say of the king that he does not, or must not", interfere with the prayascita already begun by the thief, amounts therefore to the statement that the king, in this case, is free from the commitment to see to it that the expiation prescribed is imposed on the culprit and that it is carried out by him correctly and fully. His interference is not necessary because what it would effect is already done by the thief on his own.
4) The passage quoted from Bharuci's Manu-Sastra-Vivaraua shows that the expression a-hastapraksepaniya found in certain inscriptions represents an irregularly formed compound, derived from or rather based on the sen tence/syntagma na (x + affix of the locative) ly+ affix of the genitive] hastapraksepo (asti). This is quite evidently an idiomatic expression, even though the still more basic syntagma hastanhastau praksip is apparently not attested": it is equally patent that it is used metaphorically, and the metaphor is also immediately intelligible even to people who do not know similar metaphorical idiomatic expressions from their own mother tongue 20
Interestingly enough, the expression hastapraksepa itself is attested in the Mallasarul copper plate of Vijayasena". but, of course, within a sentence containing the negative particle: ... asya brahmanasya parica-mahd. yarla pravarttanenopabhurijānasya na kenacid etad-vamisajendnyatamena vå svalpåpy åbådhå praksepo vd käryyah... . "nobody born in this family (ie, of the donator Vijayasena) or any other person must make i.e. cause) even a slight pain/distress/anguish for or interfere with the Brahmin (Vatsasvamin) who uses (the land donated to him) by regularly performing the five mahayajras"". Though the construction is slightly different, there are similarities with the passage from the Manu-Sastra Vivarana: here, too. it is an individual who is wamed that he must not interfere and here, too, il is a religious activity which is the object of a possible interference. This interference, however, has to all appearances nothing to do with the donator's, or rather his descendent's duty/duties. It seems that in this case has tapraksepa refers to anything that would ultimately disturb or hinder the sacrificial activities of the Brahmin.
5) The parallel from Bharuci's commentary is, however, especially in structive in that it intimates, to say the least, that "non-interference of the king means not more than that the king refrains from doing something that
me nart of his duties and/or rights if the particular context, that of the king's interference with the domain of dharma, is rightly regarded as an accidental element only which can hence be ignored. This "non
rence" is therefore a deliberate act, and has to be distinguished also e. g. from a king's failure to do what he ought to do, in certain cases, jus. tified by Medhatithi in a way both fair and convincing by its realism
It is this terminological meaning from which one has to start when try. ing to interpret the expression (... rajakiydnám) ahastapraksepaniya as used in inscriptions, e. g. that of Siladitya mentioned above (2) or the two copper plate inscriptions from Berar", as one of the usually many attributes of grama, i. e, a village, given by a king. Njammasch, whes in one of her studies of the inscriptions of the Maitrakas of Valabhi comes to speak of this expression at several places. proposes, when she quotes it for the first time, the literal translation "(the village or plot of land) must not even be touched with the band by all men of the king". i.e. by adding "even" she leaves her readers in doubt as to whether she has recognized the metaphorical character of the expression or not. Yet, she calls it a formula, and seems to be certain that it expresses the fact that "the bureaucracy of the state withdraws" e. g. from a monastery, that "donations of villages to Buddhist monasteries were furnished with the usual administrative immu. nity . It is true that in these cases a word in the locative is missing, i.e. it is not expressly stated to which particular duty of the rajakiyar the "privilege", to use Sircar's term, refers, what it is which they must not "interfere with": but does this fact alone warrant the conclusion that not a particular act or type of acts it is that none of the rdjakiyas must interfere with whatever his special duty may be), but -- the totality of possible administrative, etc., acts is meant? Certainly not. But it is, of course, logically equally possible that the qualification "all" (sarva) of the rdjakiyas is meant to include this very totality of the various official functions or du ties, which each of the rājakiyas has, respectively.
That is to say. I do not want to dispute the correctness of Njammasch's interpretation; I simply wonder on which evidence or deliberations it is based. For, quite evidently Sircar's 'method. viz. to simply contend the "sameness" of the expression at issue here and expressions like ab. hatacataprdvesya ". is not only just bighly problematic in itsell, but is also shown to be not applicable at all by the fact that in one and the same in. scription" both these expressions are used one after the other, that is to say, first acd/abhara-právesya and then sanarajakiydndm ahastaprak. Sepaniya”. There are, of course, texts, e. g. the Buddhist suitas, etc., a characteristic feature of which is precisely the juxtaposition of not just two, but many quasi-synonyms. But is it probable that the device of

Page #4
406 СТХАПАКАШРАДДХА. Сборник статей памяти Г. А. Зографа A. A. BYRACUH. <> What I have in mind is a passage from his commentary on Manu 8.349 which reads thus: na hi prasarya hasiau raja pratipurusam asitum saknori; note that this is meant to refute the opinion that a Brahmin etc. should, or rather: is allowed, to bear (a) weapon(s) only in case of an asamstha, "a total breakdown of the public order", after the death of a king. 20 Cf.: El 23. 1935-36. P. 204ff. (especially p. 211 and p. 221). Note that the reference to p. 17 is a mistake ---- which I am not able to correct. 4 Cf.: Beitrage des Sudasien Instituts, 1. Sonderheft 1993. P. 33, but also Heft 2. P. 30. 28 Cf. Beitrage des Sudasien-Instituts, 1. Sonderheft 1993. P. 33. - Ibid. P. 37; cf. also: Heft 2. P. 30. In this case, too, one wonders whether 'pravesya is really to be taken literally or if is does not only prohibit the entry of cajas, etc., in their official function. 5 Cf.: El 23. P. 221 and 221. >> The situation would, of course, be a different one if in one inscription the expression A were to be found at a place where in another inscription the expression B is used, and vice versa. But even in such a case one could not simply draw the conclusion that it has by necessity the "same" meaning as B. it The «СМЕШАННЫЕ КАСТЫ» В «ЗАКОНАХ МАНУ» A. A. Buzacun (Mockba) Axapmalactpa Mauy -- <> (<>) colepxut обстоятельное перечисление каст (джати) с указанием их происхождения. Как и во всей литературе о дхарме (дхармашастрах), джати объявляются результатом «смешения» изначально существовавших четырех вари (почему их и называют «смешанными кастами»).