Book Title: Epigraphic Notes Author(s): A Wezler Publisher: A Wezler View full book textPage 3
________________ 404 СТХАПАКАІШРАДДХА. Сборник статей памяти Г. А. Зографа By A. WEZLER. Epigraphic notes 405 penance and only then fine him, or does it mean that the king should also fine the thief if he has perfomed the prescribed prayascina? As Bharuci's aim - like that of all the other Dharmasastra commentators -- cannot but be to demonstrate that the Manusmrti is a homogeneous, consistent text, free of contradictions, there is however, no room for doubting that it is the first alternative which he has in view. To say of the king that he does not, or must not", interfere with the prayascita already begun by the thief, amounts therefore to the statement that the king, in this case, is free from the commitment to see to it that the expiation prescribed is imposed on the culprit and that it is carried out by him correctly and fully. His interference is not necessary because what it would effect is already done by the thief on his own. 4) The passage quoted from Bharuci's Manu-Sastra-Vivaraua shows that the expression a-hastapraksepaniya found in certain inscriptions represents an irregularly formed compound, derived from or rather based on the sen tence/syntagma na (x + affix of the locative) ly+ affix of the genitive] hastapraksepo (asti). This is quite evidently an idiomatic expression, even though the still more basic syntagma hastanhastau praksip is apparently not attested": it is equally patent that it is used metaphorically, and the metaphor is also immediately intelligible even to people who do not know similar metaphorical idiomatic expressions from their own mother tongue 20 Interestingly enough, the expression hastapraksepa itself is attested in the Mallasarul copper plate of Vijayasena". but, of course, within a sentence containing the negative particle: ... asya brahmanasya parica-mahd. yarla pravarttanenopabhurijānasya na kenacid etad-vamisajendnyatamena vå svalpåpy åbådhå praksepo vd käryyah... . "nobody born in this family (ie, of the donator Vijayasena) or any other person must make i.e. cause) even a slight pain/distress/anguish for or interfere with the Brahmin (Vatsasvamin) who uses (the land donated to him) by regularly performing the five mahayajras"". Though the construction is slightly different, there are similarities with the passage from the Manu-Sastra Vivarana: here, too. it is an individual who is wamed that he must not interfere and here, too, il is a religious activity which is the object of a possible interference. This interference, however, has to all appearances nothing to do with the donator's, or rather his descendent's duty/duties. It seems that in this case has tapraksepa refers to anything that would ultimately disturb or hinder the sacrificial activities of the Brahmin. 5) The parallel from Bharuci's commentary is, however, especially in structive in that it intimates, to say the least, that "non-interference of the king means not more than that the king refrains from doing something that me nart of his duties and/or rights if the particular context, that of the king's interference with the domain of dharma, is rightly regarded as an accidental element only which can hence be ignored. This "non rence" is therefore a deliberate act, and has to be distinguished also e. g. from a king's failure to do what he ought to do, in certain cases, jus. tified by Medhatithi in a way both fair and convincing by its realism It is this terminological meaning from which one has to start when try. ing to interpret the expression (... rajakiydnám) ahastapraksepaniya as used in inscriptions, e. g. that of Siladitya mentioned above (2) or the two copper plate inscriptions from Berar", as one of the usually many attributes of grama, i. e, a village, given by a king. Njammasch, whes in one of her studies of the inscriptions of the Maitrakas of Valabhi comes to speak of this expression at several places. proposes, when she quotes it for the first time, the literal translation "(the village or plot of land) must not even be touched with the band by all men of the king". i.e. by adding "even" she leaves her readers in doubt as to whether she has recognized the metaphorical character of the expression or not. Yet, she calls it a formula, and seems to be certain that it expresses the fact that "the bureaucracy of the state withdraws" e. g. from a monastery, that "donations of villages to Buddhist monasteries were furnished with the usual administrative immu. nity . It is true that in these cases a word in the locative is missing, i.e. it is not expressly stated to which particular duty of the rajakiyar the "privilege", to use Sircar's term, refers, what it is which they must not "interfere with": but does this fact alone warrant the conclusion that not a particular act or type of acts it is that none of the rdjakiyas must interfere with whatever his special duty may be), but -- the totality of possible administrative, etc., acts is meant? Certainly not. But it is, of course, logically equally possible that the qualification "all" (sarva) of the rdjakiyas is meant to include this very totality of the various official functions or du ties, which each of the rājakiyas has, respectively. That is to say. I do not want to dispute the correctness of Njammasch's interpretation; I simply wonder on which evidence or deliberations it is based. For, quite evidently Sircar's 'method. viz. to simply contend the "sameness" of the expression at issue here and expressions like ab. hatacataprdvesya ". is not only just bighly problematic in itsell, but is also shown to be not applicable at all by the fact that in one and the same in. scription" both these expressions are used one after the other, that is to say, first acd/abhara-právesya and then sanarajakiydndm ahastaprak. Sepaniya”. There are, of course, texts, e. g. the Buddhist suitas, etc., a characteristic feature of which is precisely the juxtaposition of not just two, but many quasi-synonyms. But is it probable that the device ofPage Navigation
1 2 3 4