________________
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. XIX.
The explanation of the second title marjhaka is more difficult. If my analysis of the word is right, it might characterize Kanishka as a ruler rich in treasure. Now we know that there was an Indian tradition' about four" sons of heaven", the rulers of India, China, the Yüe-chi and the Roman empire, and the country of the Roman emperor was considered to abound in treasure. The title marjhaka might accordingly be used in order to convey the idea that Kanishka had won the wealth of the Roman empire, and as we know that the Roman title Caesar itself is used, in addition to the common titles mahārāja, räjätirāja, devaputra, in the Ara inscription of Kanishka II, the use of marjhaka might be considered as the first step in that direction. We should, of course, like to know the reason for such a reference to the Roman empire in the two records, and expect it to be the result of a victorious war with the Roman armies. We do not, however, hear about any such thing having happened.
6
We know, on the other hand, that the Roman power in Asia was waning during the reign of Hadrianus (A.D. 117-138), who withdrew from Mesopotamia, which was then occupied by the Parthians. Buddhist texts preserved in Chinese translation further state that the king of the Parthians tried to close the West to Kanishka, who then defeated him. If Kanishka's date coincided with the reign of Hadrianus and if the tradition about a victorious-war with Parthia is based on fact, it would be conceivable that the idea of a ruler of a country abounding in treasure was transferred from the Roman to the Parthian emperor, and further, after Kanishka's triumph over the latter, to him, and that might be the reason for the use of the title marjhaka in our record and of the designation kaisara in the Ara inscription. It is at present impossible to make any definite statement. But, at all events, it seems to me that the terms muroda and marjhaka must be considered as titles characterizing King Kanishka.
What follows after rajami is the most difficult passage of the whole record. Cunningham read dharya dadabhasa Idamukhastrape a de asa....; M. Senart..dadabhai da[na]mukha.[pe adhia] sa [daadaasa] ti [dha].., and M. Boyer [to]yadalabhai danamukha sapeadhia sasaśushe sati vudhe. He explained sapeadhia as a compound of sapea, which he identified with Pāli sappāya, and dhia, Sanskrit dhiya, and saw in sasaśushe a Sanskrit sasyasosha. He thus arrived at the translation: the gift of Usphama..cha, a well for the obtainment of rain-clouds in the kingdom of the compassionate Kanishka, with the intention of making something salutary, after & drying up of the crops had set in.
I am unable to follow the French scholar in this interpretation. I have already remarked that the preceding portion of the inscription cannot be explained as done by him. And I do not know of any instances where a well was dug in order to obtain rain-clouds, in other words as a kind of magic. Moreover, it would be more natural to aim at producing rain than at attracting rain-clouds, and, finally, it may reasonably be doubted whether the word labha would be used with toyada, a cloud.
If we now turn to the plates, it seems to me that M. Boyer's reading is wrong in several places. The first letter after mi runs up into a fissure in the stone, but seems indeed to be a ta. The lower part, it is true, seems to end in a curve opening towards the left, which evidently led Cunningham to read dha. There is, further, apparently a stroke projecting from the lower part towards the left and running into the next akshara. It may be the o-matra, and, with every reserve, I accept M. Boyer's reading to.
Then follows ya, but the right-hand stroke is clearly broken and then bent downwards, so that we must apparently read yam. The following/akshara is certainly da, and the whole word, therefore, seems to be toyamda. I do not know what to make out of this word. It may perhaps
1 Cf. Pelliot, Toung Pao, 1923, pp. 97 ff.
Cf. Sylvain Lévi, J. A., IX, viii, 1896, pp. 444 ff.; Ind. Ant., XXXII, 1903, pp. 381 .
