________________
Albrecht Wezler the other. For it has to be taken into account that the chowrie, or to be precise: the pair of fly-whisks, together with the (white) umbrella constitute "the emblems par excellence", as rightly stressed by Gonda. There is not only textual evidence for this, but it is also strikingly confirmed by art". Hence the question arises if not at least the bhrigara, too--the other upakaranas are less likely candiJates except for the fan--has likewise to be regarded as an emblem of royalty, i.e. an identifying mark of a king. For it may be taken for granted that not an ordinary vessel of this type is meant, but one conforming to the description given subsequently, i.e. in the Whirrigaroddefa of the Yuktika. That is to say, it has to be kept in mind that neither the chowrie nor the bhpngåra nor any other of the upakaranasand the umbrella, etc., certainly don't form an exception in this regard-are as such specific to a king. It is always the material, the decoration, etc., that makes a particular object one of the royal paraphernalia; and Bhoja takes quite some pains to clearly
Blogara in Sanskrit Literature describe the difference between its ordinary and its royal character. Similarly it is not necessary to give much thought to the-theoretical - possibility that what is referred to here by the expression bhrigara is but the royal drinking Vessel; for, this passage of the Yuktika. cannot by any means be dislinked from the bhrig droeldesa section which after all is part of the detailed description of all the nine wpakaranas enumerated at the outset: bhrrigara as a rajopakarana is there. fore the abhisekapatra which evidently remains, with the king after his coronation and is perhaps even used by him albeit not as drinking vessel. And as to the abhisekapatra, it is perfectly understandable that it should have been regarded as another ensign of royalty in view of its extraordinary significance in the context of the royal consecration
On the other hand it has to be admitted that usually one looks in vain for the bhrigára, or a vessel equivalent 16 It, in tists or enumerations of the paraphernalin or emblems of royalty. E. g. Gonda does not refer to it. But clearly his outline does not exhaust the (primary) material - nor aim at reconstructing the historical development. The assumption that this particular emblem has so far simply been overlooked by most scholars is strikingly confirmed by a recent article of G.H. Khare's." But before turning to the source drawn upon by bim attention should first be focussed of another piece of evidence, viz. one which inspite of certain philological problems it poses is nevertheless ultimately so clear that any doubts one might still entertain as to the blagara forming one of the insignia of royalty once and for all.
4. 1. what i atti alluding to is a passtige in Bharuci's commentary on the Manusmrti, a text which has unfortunately come down to us only in a fragmentary state, and the trasmission of the only extant portion, viz. the Manil-Sastra-Vivaruna on adhyajas 6-12, is also far from being good.
90. O. c. (cf. fn, 87). I. c. 91. E. 8. Kalidasa, Raghuv, 3.16 c/d (adeyam asit trayam eva bhAparel fasiprabham
chartram mblie ca camare). It should be remembered that umbrella and chowrie are also named in the first place in the two sets of the Yuklike -Note that at 2.13 Dilipa is nevertheless described as onålepefrain (Bapak lantom), but that Malling tha explains: walthe perspecchettom; the only king without any insignia whoni I happened to meet in the course of my study is the lion of the vense quoted by O. Bohtlingk in his anthology Indische Sprache, Sanskrit und Deutsch, St. Petersburg 1870-73', as no. 1395 (539):
ekakin vanarasiny arajalak mony an Irisastrajne
saffrorkese m eparow djeti gira parigamontill rendered by the editor: In... the lord of the animals the title 'king' .... acquires its full significance." - In this connection it should also be meatloped that there are indications of the (white) umbrella being the only ensign of royalty or the ensign par excellence. Thus e. & the meaning of the expression nyparikkuda at Raghuv, 3,70 (see also fn. 109) is made explicit by Kalidasa himself by the subsequent slaapärane; and at Ja III. 117, the king who wants to share his kingdom with a friend of his divides his umbrella into two halves in order to demonstrate this his decision. Last but not least, Amarakoja 2.8.32, too, has to be taken into account here (chaltro IV deparrom Mastu apalaksmd tor), though the final words of this verse need not be interpreted as stating that the umbrella is the only ensign of a king, but could also be taken to mean that the umbrella of a kirg. i. e, if it belongs to a kiránd if hence
carried over his head, is an ensign, i.e. one of the royal insignia. 92. Cf. the article of B. N. Sharma's referred to in fn, 82 and that of O H. Khare
(cf. In. 95), plate 1.
93. Cr, also the cojakoddesa of the Yukika. (p. 78, verse 86 ff) as well as the
kumbha, argliyepåfra-, padjaptra- and ecomanopiro-lakfors in the Piramiiro
dara, Lek naprakasa. p. 641 ff. 94. Viz, in his work on kingship (el fo. 87). p. 37 95. "Emblems of Royalty in Art and Literature" in: ABORI LVIII and LIX,
Diamond Jubilee Volume, ed. by R. N. Dandekar, Poona 1978, pp. 683-689.
