________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. VIII.
works- we find in the inscription a decided predominance of compounds over simple words. On a rough calculation the text contains about 1,330 syllables; about 440 of them belong to 144 simple words, while the remaining 890 are taken up by 88 compound nouns, consisting variously of from two to as many as fifteen members. But throughout, these compounds are plain and easy to understand, so that there is nothing embarrassing about their prevalence. In respect of inflection and syntax, the language is generally correct. Of grammatically wrong forms there is only the instrumental patina (for patyd), in line 11; but this form is equally found in the Ramayana, Mahabharala and similar works, with which the writer seems to have been familiar. An unusual construction we have in anyatra saigrámêshu, 'except in battles,' in line 10, for the customary anyatra samgrâmébhyaḥ; & redundant word in a garbhát=prabhriti, 'from the womb,' in line 9, for either à garbhát or garbhat-prabhriti; and an apparently wrong addition of púrva in anupassishtapúrva, in line 10, used in the sense of simply anupassishta. Of words not found in dictionaries the text presents only upatalpa, in line 6, denoting in my opinion 'an upper story,' and Svabhra, in line 11, as the name of a particular country or people; but attention may also be drawn to the words midha, 1.3, rashtriya, 1. 8, and pranayakriya, 1. 16, the meanings of which will be considered below.
The author's disposition of his subject matter is simple and lucid. His object being to record the restoration, by the Mahakshatrapa Budi adâ man, of the lake Sudarsana near which the inscription was engraved, he treats of his theme in six sentences, five of which have for their subject the words this lake Sudarsana' with which the inscription opens. This lake is now in an excellent condition (lines 1-3). It was destroyed by a storm during the reign of Rudradaman (II. 3-7). All the water having escaped, the lake, from being sudarśana, became durdarsana (11. 7-8). The lake had been originally constructed during the reign of the Maurya Chandragupta, and was perfected under the Maurya Asoka (11. 8.9). It has now been restored and made more beautiful than ever (sudarsanatara) by Rudradaman (11. 9-16), under whom this work has been carried out by the provincial governor Suvisakha (11. 17-20).- From this it will be seen that the greater part of the text is devoted to the actual restoration of the lake, which naturally furnishes the occasion for a full eulogistic description, and a record of the exploits, of the Mahakshatrapa by whom it was accomplished (11. 9-15). The previous history of the lake is sketched in a short, though historically important,* sentence. On the other hand, a vivid and striking account is given of the storm by which the lake and the surrounding country were devastated, in
1 Thut the author has used what I may call the epic pinkat- the text actually has vilat--for vinbati, has been already stated. The phrase paura janapadam janan in line 16 is Pads of an ordinary sloks, and actually occurs in the Ramayana ; and we find in the text & number of words which seem peculiar to, or at any rate occur often in, epic poetry.
* Anyatra sangrameshu has been said to be tho quite correct expression for except in battles ;' but whether correct or bo from a theoretical point of view, it is not the engtomary Sonakpit expression, as may be seen from the umerous quotations on ler anyatra in the St. Petersburg dictionary. In fact, the authors of that work quote only & single passage from the Mahabharata in which anyatra "quite exceptionally "is not construed with the ablative. The case, for all I know, may be different in Pali; but when in Afoka's edict VI. (Girnar, 1. 14, Ep. Ind. Vol. II. p. 455) we rend dukaran tu idam anata agena pardkramena, but this is difficult to do except by the utmost ezertion, this in Sansksit would have to be expressed by dushkaran traidamuanyatradgrydt-pardkramát. And I could certainly quote many passages from the Jdtakas in which shiatra is construed with the ablativu, while theoretically another case might have been considered more appropriate. With the passage in nur inscription we may to a certain extent compare Ram. V. 68, 19 and 64, 32: drisktá na chenyena Hasumata for drisktá so CA=anyena Hanimataḥ.
I must leave it to Páli scholars to decide whether the author could have been possibly misled by the PAli to employ anuparsishta půrva for anuparsishta (or na kaddchid=upassishta). In Jdt. Vol. VI. p. 76, 1. 15 (tatra man amachchd puchoh hissanti : api nu kho te mahardja Himacante vasantena na kichi achchhariyan ditthapubbaw'ti) ditthapubbani undoubtedly is equivalent to simply diffhami
• I refer to the fact that the Mauryas Chandragupts and (bis grandson) Asoks (under this arme) are mentioned in this sentence.
