________________
306
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[OCTOBER, 1890.
(see the Sônpat seal, Gupta Inscriptions, p. 231, and the Madhuban plate, Epigraphia Indica, p. 67). And it was certainly not invented in his time; for we find it used, nearly a century earlier, by Vishņuvardhana of Malwa (Gupta Inscriptions, p. 153). But it is used, to denote him, in the Harshacharita (see, for instance, the special passage quoted by Dr. Bühler at page 41 above). And, very shortly after his time, we find it used technically, in conjunction with Maharajadhiraja and Paramabhaftáraka, by Davagupta and Vishņugupta of the Gupta family of Magadha (Gupta Inscriptions, p. 215), and by Dharaséna IV. of Valabhi (id. Introd. p. 41 ; and ante, Vol. I. p. 16, with Jour. Bo. Br. R. 48. Soc. Vol. X. p. 79). I entertain no doubt, however, that this title was really used in the case of Harshavardhana as a regal title, and not simply as a secondary name or as a substitute for a name; and that, though Pulikesin II. probably first obtained it from some conquest in the direction of Malwa, the special pride in the possession of it by him, exhibited in the grants of his successors, is due to his having been able to resist an invasion of his dominions by the great king of Kanauj. The next step in advance appears, as far as the records at present available go, in the grants of the next generation. Adityavarman in his grant (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XVI. p. 234) wed for himself the titles Maharajadhiraja and Paramèsvara, and also attached them both to his father's name. But Vikramaditya I., while using the same titles in his own case, in one instance applied them both to his father (ante, Vol. VI. p. 76); in another, --if the grant is genuine, - gave him only the title of Maharajadhiraja (Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XVI. p. 240); in another gave him the titles of Mahúrája and Paraméávara (id. p. 236); and in another gave him only the title of Maharaja (id. p. 238). To Pulikesin I, and Kirtivarman 1., all of these grants, following that of Pulikesin II. of Saka-Samvat 534 expired, give the title of Mahárája. This grander title of Mahárdjádhirdja, however, must have been obtained by Pulikêśin II, from Kanauj; and. I feel tolerably certain that, if we obtain any formal grants of the later years of his reign, we shall find that it was actually brought into use in his time; orly, at present, the first instances are in the grants of his sons. In the next generation, another change was made. The Mahárájádhi. rája was entirely dropped in the case of Vikramaditya I.; but the Paraméśvara was retained, and was supplemented by Bhattaraka, which, I suppose, must be looked upon as an amplification of the Bhattára, or more usually Bhatáru, of the Old-Kanarese inscriptions.? To the narae of Vinayaditya himself there were attached, in three cases, the three titles of Maharajadhiraja, Paramokvara, and Bhattarake (ante, Vol. VI. pp. 86, 89, 92; and Vol. VII. p. 302, also Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XVI. p. 244); while, in one case the Bhattáraka is omitted (page 150 above). In the next generation, again, another change was made, by the restoration of the Maharajadhiraja in the case of Vikramaditya I.; and the three titles of Maharajadkirája. Paraméśvara, and Bhattáraka, were used for him, his son Vinayaditya, and his grandson Vijayaditya (ante, Vol. IX. pp. 127 f., 131). Also, the title of Paramabhattaraka appears for the first time, as a certainty, in this generation ;9 being attached to the name of Vijayaditya in his Badá mi inscription (ante, Vol. X. p. 60), which, it may also be noted, speaks of his ancestors as "the Maharajas, Satyasraya, &c." But in his Aihoļe inscription (ante, Vol. VIII. p. 286), the simple Bhatára is used, as in other Kanarese stone records. And the new title of Paramabhatt áraka does not appear to have come into habitual use, until the Western Chalukyas were
.
Pulikekin II. had acquired the title before the date of his grant of A. D. 612. In Hiuen Tsiang's account. I can find nothing to render it impossible that he had defeated Hareha vardhana before that time; all that seems certain, is, that, when Hiuen Tsiang was making his notes (about A. D. 640), the power and activity of Pulikibin II. were still at their height, and that his succeusful resistance of Harshavardhana had taken place, at some unspecified time before the moment of writing. Still, if Pulikebin II. defeated him before A. D. 612, it is almost inexplicable that Harshavardhana's name should not have been specifically mentioned in the record of that year, just as it was mentioned in the Aihole inscription of A. D. 634-35 (ante, Vol. VIII. p. 244).
For bhattara, see ante, Vol, XI. p. 125 ; for bhatára, ante, Vol. VIII. pp. 285, 286; Vol. I, pp. 103, 164, 165, 166; and other places.
As a matter of fact, it is attached to the name of Vinayaditya in the Lakshm ehwar, inscription of Vijay Aditya, which, curiously enough, does not attach even the Bhattaraka to the name of Vijay Aditya himself (ante, Vol. VII. D. 107). That, however, is not altogether a reliable record; having been at any rate not engraved at the time to which it belongs.
