________________
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