________________
70
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. VII.
The five different terms have been explained in K. 19. The same is not the case with the titles and names which are special to our text, and which the imperfect preservation of the latter renders more or less obscure. As for the first, as stated before, I join with some confidence in Bhagwanlal's reading vinibadhakarehi. He understood the word as 'document writer.' It is certain, on the testimony of the use of nibamdhapehi, that nibandha, as in N. 5, has to be taken here in some analogous sense. But how did Bhagwanlal dispose of the initial vi, which implies a meaning of suppression, or negation? We have seen besides (in K. 11) that nibandha more specially means 'investment.' The object of the deed is to unmake the gift of the Sudasana village by substituting the gift of another. I therefore explain vinibamdhakára by: who unmakes an investment,' and take it as an epithet applied to the officers entitled to register the withdrawal of the former donation, whichever may have been the proper qualification of these Dûtakas.
As to the Mahásénápati, the proper name alone seems obliterated or doubtful; but the lacuna may have contained something else than his name. Other inscriptions do not attribute to the Senapati the menial work of drafting, but perpetuate his name as that of a high officer entrusted with this charge at the end of the grant; see e.g. Dr. Fleet's Gupta Inscr. Nos. 55 and 56. In a still higher degree the title of Mahásénápati, which comes near to that of Maharaja (ibid. p. 15, note), seems to place the person who is honoured with it above any such mean task. This is why I suspect that the obliterated letters, if exactly known, would let his part appear in a different light.
There remains the third qualification, of which the greater part is erased, and which begins with batika. Although this reading seems more likely than patiká, the two forms would be equivalent, and all I venture to say is that the first part of the title seems to refer to some function of an archivist, analogous to what is elsewhere expressed by akshapatalika and akshasálika. This meaning would suit the general bearing which, I think, points to the mention of such an officer. At the utmost I would note that the reading våsakehi, which G. and AS. have put in at the end of the word, reminds of sámiyehi (= suamikehi) which, in N. 4, closes the title of the Mahásvámikas entrusted with an identical task. I must add that the visible traces do not favour the restoration of the reading sámikehi.
It is most improbable that we should have to read Satakanind, and it would indeed be extremely puzzling if this royal name were borne by a simple engraver.
With kata the inscription proper comes to an end, as is indicated by the blank which is left after it. The difficulties in the following sentence are chiefly due to the uncertainty of several readings. It does not, however, seem to me impossible to do away with them. One point is certain, namely that the second part forms an adoration to the Buddha. The first ought to introduce and explain it. To this natural desideratum neither the translation of Bhagwanlal nor that of Bühler do justice. That of Bühler has the drawback of resting on the reading svámivachana, which is at variance with the original; it presupposes the name Vinhupdlana, which has to be explained as a mistake for Vinhupálita; lastly it has recourse, in explaining the supposed phesakaye, to comparisons and interpretations singularly open to controversy. The readings of Bhagwanlal are more plausible; but his translation: 'the description of the king has been given by Vishnupâla for imparting pleasure to the inhabitants of Govardhana' is certainly odd, as no 'description of the king' is given here. In fact the translation requires only a few slight alterations to become quite satisfactory. Phásu, from which the abstract phasuka is derived, means, in Buddhist style, not exactly satisfaction,' but health,' and thence well-being.' The interpretation of svámi involves a more essential modification. If we refer this title to the king, we are confronted with several difficulties. Could it not be a
1 [See my remarks on these two terms, above, Vol. VII, p. 107, note 4.-E. H.]
