Epigraphia Indica Vol 07

Author(s): E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 86

No. 7.]
KARLE CAVE-INSCRIPTIONS.
69
No. 5. Though the syllable sa is wanting in Nâsik No. 3,- which seems to imply that this addition is at least redundant, -- we cannot well consider such a frequent repetition as a material error. Bühler also was surprised at this expression in Nâsik No. 5 (p. 104, note) and supposed that "the sa .. . . . is purely pleonastic, just as in Páli sache, 'if,' and similar words." He thought evidently of sayadi and sayyath of the Buddhist Sanskřit and of Páli. I cannot gee what "pleonastio" means here; perhaps he wanted to say 'expletive. But it seems to me difficult to assimilate, without positive proof, a prothetical particle to an enclitical one, which we are obliged to admit here. I can discover only a single expedient, viz. to take sa = sya = svid, as in the language of the Mahüvastu; see my edition, Vol, I. p. 412. In the expression truyósya which I have quoted, as well as in the Pali tayassu, the particle seems to imply a shade of doubt which would be inadmissible here; but I do not know any other example of its use after cha.
Bühler happily explained aviyena by a reference to Hêmachandra, who gives aviya ay a synonym of ukta. This is the equivalent of the formula svamukhájña, etc., of later inscriptions; see Dr. Fleet's Cupta Inscriptions, p. 100, note. I do not believe that Bühler was equally successful with regard to chhata. His interpretation rested on the supposed parallelism of mais in Násik No. 5; but as this inscription actually reads chhata, his argument loses its support. Besides, I cannot persuade myself that the king required the permission of a subordinate officer (amacha) for making his grants valid, and even that kshúnta could really be used in this way. As regards the guess of Bhagwanlal, according to whom chhata stands probably for the Sanskrit chhupta, meaning 'touched,' neither is it admissible phonetically nor is it corroborated by the analogies which he invoked (Bombay Gazetteer, Vol. XVI. p. 558, note). The operations or formalities connected with royal grants which our inscriptions record (Karle No. 19, and Násik Nos. 3, 4 and 5) are characterised by the terms anata and chhata (in all four), data patika (in three of them, but not in Násik No. 5), kața (here and in Nâsik No. 5) and uparakhita (Nasik No. 4), the equivalent of which I believe to find in Nasik No. 3. The later inscriptions offer us a large quantity of probable or at least possible equivalents. I need not dwell on anata, the meaning of which is clear; it refers to the announcement of the royal order either by the sovereign himself, or by his representative who is generally delegated to this duty by the title of dútaka; see Dr. Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions, Index, 6. v. Besides, frequent mention is made of the manual drafting of the document (likhita) and of its transcription on copper or on stone, expressed by utkirna; see Dr. Fleet's Gupta Inscriptions, p. 99, note. In the grant of Sivaskandavarmau (Ep. Ind. Vol. I. p. 7, text line 50) we read .. . . Bhatfisammasa sahatthalikhitena paffika kada=tti. The participle krita refers here to the drafting, as the writing is expressed by likhita, while in our inscriptions kata, which ends the text and whose agent, being always named without any title, is evidently a subordinate officer, clearly corresponds to ukirna; compare the end of No. 35 of Dr. Fleet's Gupta Insoriptions. Besides, I believe that in our documents this
engraving' does not mean the preparation of the stone, but that of the copper-plates which served as title-deeds to the donees, and of which our epigraphs only state the delivery. Several documents mention a keeper of records (Akshapatalika or Akshaśdlika), who consequently must have been in charge of the documents. I believe that such an officer was Rohani-for, Rohaniguttdati must be read - who is mentioned at the end of the grant of Vijayabuddhavarman (Ind. Ant. Vol. IX. p. 102). In this connection we have to understand the word uparakhita in Nasik Nos. 3 and 4. If it is not admitted that our chhata corresponds to the likhita of the traditional formulas, it would lead us to the paradoxical conclusion that the operation which is nowhere wanting in the known protocol is the only one of which there is no trace in our own inscription, and on the other hand that the only operation which is common to our four documents is just the only one unknown to the later redactions. What would be a conjecture, though very probable to
1 Monsieur Senart's improved reading is no doubt correct; but I would prefer to translate :-" The dynapti (or ddtaka) was Rhiqlgupta."- E. H.]