________________
296
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. VI.
second king, Samkaragana, shew that the author was acquainted with, and borrowed or imitated, certain epithets which are found only in some of the Gupta inscriptions. On the other hand, it is clear that the eulogistic part of this inscription or of some similar Katachchuri grant was known to, and made use of by, the authors of the corresponding portions of the grants of the Gurjara Dadda (11.) Prasantaraga of the (Kalachuri] years 380 and 385, and of the [Gujarat] Chalukya Vijayaraja % of the [Kalachuri) year 394. Of the last named grant the first two lines may be said to be identical with the same lines of the present grant, and the description of Vijayaraja in lines 5-8 to a great extent literally agrees with the description of Sankaragana in lines 8-14 of the present inscription. In the case of the Gurjara grants the agreement is not so close, but about the fact that their author knew and made use of some such Katachchuri giant as the one here edited, there cannot be the slightest doubt. In his opening sentence he too compares the family of the Gurjara kings with the great ocean (mahôdadhi), and in describing that ocean he employs the words vividha, vimala, gunaratna, udbhasita, avilanghitavadhi, gambhirya, and the phrase mahasattunyatiduravagâhé, which to the reader of the present grant will surely betray their origin. Then, as in the present inscription Krishnaraja is described as from his very birth (a janmana eva) devoted to the service of Siva, so the eulogist of Dadda makes that chief from his very birth (utpattita dva) worship the sun. He moreover, just as is the case in the present grant, continues the description of his chief in a series of relative sentences (yena.. yam cha ... yasya cha, etc.); and in the clause commencing with yasya cha in line 7 and ending with Vindhyanag-ôpatyakah in line 10, he imitates, and labours to improve on, the relative sentence beginning with yếna cha in line 6 and ending with diso in line 7 of the present grant. So far as I can judge, his plagiarism, if I may call it so, is not without some importance for the history of the Gurjaras. In my opinion, it tends to indicate that the family of these chiefs rose to independence only after the time of the Katachchuri Buddharaja. If Dadda Prafântarága had been preceded by other Gurjara kings, a eulogist of his, in drawing up his prasasti, most probably would have taken for his model some older Gurjara grant, and would not have allowed himself to be inspired by a Katachchuri grant.
1 See my notes on the translation.
See Ind. Ant. Vol. XIll. pp. 82 and 88. * See ibid. Vol. VII. p. 248.
• The present inscription shows that in line 7 of Vijayaraja's grant the intended rending is nishdur, not eirmochi.
. In both inscriptions the king is compared with an elephant (vanardrana-yithapa and bhadra-matanga). Instead of the epithet ruchira-tanía-f6bin of the present grant, the author of the Gurjara grant puts sad. vanh-dhita-f6bd-gaurava, where also the word vanka has the double meaning of 'backbone' and 'lineage.' The word ruchira, which the imitator hero discards, he employs in the same line in ruokira-kirti-paid-sahdya, 'accompanied by his bright fame' as the elephant is by his cbarming mate. In a similar way be treats the following epithet of the present inscription, askhalita-ddna-prasara. The first and last word of this compound suggest to bim his askhalita-padan prasarataḥ, and the sonse of the whole compound he expresses, in a more elaborate manner, by the compound commencing with avirata.ddns-pravdha. or his own he adds, that his chief took delight in the lands lying at the foot of the Vindhya mountain.--As it concerns a point of history, I may perhaps state here that I differ from those scholars who understand the epithet dkrishta fatru-naga-kula-santati in lines 3 and 4 of the Gurjars grant (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 89) to mean that Dadda I. conquered some hostile tribe or family of the Nigas. In my opinion, ndga here means nothing but 'snake,' and the author simply says that Dadds uprooted bis enemies as the bird Garuda destroys the snakes. The compound is exactly like pripit-arthi-madhukara-kula
line 8 of the same inscription, which everybody would admit to mean that the king (by bia liberality) delighted the suppliants as the elephant (by his rutting.juice) does the bees. If the eulogy of Dadda I. does contain any histrionl allusion, it is furnisbed, in my opinion, by the epithet Krishna-hriday.dhitdopadah in lines 2 and 3, the word Krishna of which, in addition to denoting the god Krishna, may perhaps denote the Katachchuri Krishnarajs, and which therefore may represent Dadda I. 89 a favourite (or feudatory) of that Katachchuri king; as the Kaustubha gem is placed on Krishna's breast, so Dadda found a place in Kpishṇaraja's beart.' That the epithet Kțiakna-kriday-dhildspadah, just like the Srt-sahajasmá by which it is preceded, does convey a double meaning, is not at all doubtful; the only question is whether it might not be taken to menn he whose actions (aspada-kritya) were hostile to the evil-minded.'
6 Compare Dr. Fleet's Dynasties, p. 816.
