________________
FEBRUARY, 1883.)
TWO KSHATRAPA INSCRIPTIONS.
the first line), where it is impossible to the Rudradâma Inscription, on the same rock, construct it with the person named (Indrågni- in the 7th line, ásét chatvário with subscribed t. datta); for the latter is in the genitive case, while In our present Inscription the second t of dharmátmana is in the instrumental." I think, dvátrisat naligera should be subscribed, and therefore, that dharmátmana must be taken the compound must be read dvátrisatnáligera as an independent phrase, in which apparently (not dvdtriáatanásigera, as Prof. Bühler appathe motive of the act of excavation is intended to rently reads). For the latter form, dvátrisata, be expressed : "(moved) by religious principle." there is no support in either Sanskrit or I am inclined to think that it is probably a Prakrit ; and it may easily be understood that Buddhist technical term of this, or a similar, in such rock Inscription the "subscription" was signification. The word podhiyo (Marathi podhi not always done accurately. Instances of or podí) is the Prakrit equivalent of the Sanskrit inaccurate subscription occur in the Skandaprotha "an excavation;" the feminine proths or gupta Inscription, in lines 9, 17, 21". The prothika would mean "a cistern"; hence the word varshd-raturn is again a Prákritising Gåthå Prakrit podhi(plaral podhiyo) and podhiya; both form; ratuan being, as already suggested by forms occur in Inscription, West's No. 1 (do Prof. Bhandarkar, the equivalent of Sanskțit podhiyo and ekú podhiyá). The change of the ritun. In the ordinary Pali-Prakrit the vowel dental surd th to cerebral sonant dh is not without ri of this word changes to u, (Páli utu, Praksit analogues in Prakrit; e.g., padhama "first" (H. udů or ut or riú H. C. I., 141.) The Gathả C. I, 55), for Pali pathama, Sanskrit prathama. use of the accusative for the locative has
In the third clause of the third line Professor already been noticed. Bhandarkar reads bhaftáraká ánnatiya where The last clause of the third line has been the final a of bhattáraká is unintelligible. altogether misunderstood by Dr. Stevenson and The original, however, has very clearly Prof. Bhandarkar. They were misled by a bhatárakánatiyá as a compound, and its gap which occurs between Málaye and hi division is indicated by a subscribed a under rudhan, into thinking that a portion of the okán. The compound, therefore, must be Inscription was lost. Accordingly they read divided bhattáraka áñátiya or aññátiyá (by Malaye and Hirudhain as two words, of which the command of the noble lord"), which is they make the former to be the name of a place, perfectly correct. Añatiyá or aññátiya is the
constructing it (apparently as a locative sinSanskrit djñaptyd, the Páli árattiya (or annat- gular) with gato'smi, while they make the tiyd).
latter the name of a person called Hirudha, of The following is Prof. Bühler's note on this the Uttamabhadra race of Kshatriyas. But word: “The a of anátiyá stands below the line the fact is that nothing is lost, and that the and is a correction which only causes confusion. words must be divided Malayhi ruthair "beIt ought to be either bhatárakánátiyá or bha- set by the Malayas." Reading Malayehi not táraka anatiya, i.e., bhatdrakájnaptyd." The only produces the correct form of a word, but inscription, however, has quite correctly bhald- it also completes the sense of the sentence; for Takikatiya, and the subscribed a is not meant in the next line we are told that the Mâlayas as a correction, but as a help to the right divi- fled at the approach of Ushavadata who was sion of the compound. Such subscribed letters sent to the rescue of the Uttamabhadra. In are not uncommonly met with in MSS. where this view, I find, I am supported by Prof. they serve to elucidate the sandhi. We have an- | Bühler. other instance in this very Inscription in siddham I have followed my predecessors in taking where m is subscribed. In the Skandagupta Uttamabhadra as the name of a Kshatriya race Inscription on the Junagadh rock many examples which, as Prof. Bühler notes, in the singular occur; e. g., in line 2, in sasvat Sripario the t is number refers to the chief of the race, and in subscribed, to avoid the complicated sandhi the plural to the members of the race generally. sasvachchripari". A similar instance occurs in This undoubtedly is a common usage with regard
» Professor Bhandarkar himself saw this in translat- the facsimile is quite clearly dharumdtmand. ing that Inscription. But he gets over the difficulty by * See the photographic facsimile in Burgess' Archæo. arbitrarily changing the reading to the genitive dhar. logical Suruen of Wastarn India. Vol. I. PL. XV. indtmano, so as to agree with Indragnidattassa; though
