Indian Antiquary Vol 42

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 202

199
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[JULY, 1913.
.by (Rudradâ man) who had himself won the title Mahakshatrapa'. According to my view, 63 the author means to say that Rudradaman did not inherit the title Mahdleshatrapa from his father or grandfather (although these possessed it), but that he had to win it by ineans of his special services and that be received it from his suzerain. To this interpretation I am specially led by the meaning of the very analogous phrase, samadhigatapanchamahisabda, 'be who has won the five mahdsabdas (i.e., either five great titles, or the right to have the royal music band to play)', which is used in a very large number of inscriptions, of Samantas or Vassal-chiefs. Moreover, even supposing Rudradâman had made himself independent and had himself taken a title, it appears to me improbable that he should have chosen the title Mahakshatrapa. In that case, he would have certainly named himself maharija, Tájardja, rdjdtirdja, or rájddhiraja, as the independent kings of the first and second centuries always did. Thus Chashtana, in all probability was a dependent of some Indo-Scythian king, and it is, therefore, not possible that he should have founded a new era. He must bave used the era of his suzerain, and the same must be supposed in connection with his grandson. It then, as I believe it must be assumed, this latter also bore the same relation to the Indo-Scythians, there can be no doubt regarding the interpretation of the date of the Girnar prasasti.
According to this calculation, then, the destruction of the Sudarsana lake by the storm mentioned in our inscription falls in the year 150 or 151 A.D. The inscriptio, itself, however, mast have been written yet later, sometime towards the end of the first century of the Saka era, i.e., between 160 and 170 A.D., because it is said in lines 17-18 that the restoration of the dam was attended with great difficulties. Thus it is most conclusively proved that even during the scoond half of the second century, there was in existence a Kavya literature. Although there is wanting a colophon which might have given us the exact character of the composition, still it can be easily seen that it contains a gadyan kávyam as such. Its style is similar to that of the prose part of Harishena's kavya in many respects and besides the use of alurikáras, there is an obvious effort on the part of the poet, to satisfy all the requirements prescribed for prose-composition by poetice. At the same time, however, it can not be denied that its worth is very considerably less than that of the Allahabad prasasti, and that its author did not by far possess the imagination and talent of Harishena. The language itself which is, indeed, generally speaking, flowing and good shows several deviations from the usage of classical poets and even presents some actual mistakes. Thug in ..... no d garbhd (l. 9) there is a wrong sumdhi made. Among other offences against the rules of orthography prescribed by grammar are the frequent omission of ch before chh and the use of the anusvára for hand , in the body of words, as well as form at the end, though both these, it is true, are sanctioned by usage. Further, there is seen the influence of the Prakrit in the word visaduttardni (1.7)which stands for runaduttarani. Even the form vinnéut used only on the analogy of trinnsat etc., is not classical, bat belongs to the language of the epics and the Puranas as is shown by the quotations in the Petersburg Lexicon. If the long syllables in nirvydjam avajity dvajítya which are against rule, are not mere mistakes in writing of the scribe or of the stone-engraver, although in the ease of Orágena for Prágena, no other assumption is possible,-then they must be regarded as only instances of the Prakrit influence. Because, the Prakrit dialects frequently represent nih hy ni or ni, and the Gujarati jit.conquest', and jitavuin 'to conquer' agree with the long syllable in avajítya. So also, the instrumental patina in 1. 11 is formed against Pâņini's rules, though it is in agreement with the usage of the Vedic and epic language. There is also a mistake of syntax in anyálra Sarngrámeshu (l. 10), 'except in battles', which ought to be anyatra sangramebhyah. So also the form pratyákhyátáraibharh (1. 17) would be a worse mistake of syntax, as I believe in all probability it can not be regarded as an error in writing for pratyakhyataranble.
68 Dr. Bhagvanlal thinks otherwise. According to him the idea is that Rudradi man freed himself from the yoke of a suzerain.
The frequent avoidance of a sathdhi is not incorreot, because, according to a well-known karika, the sasidhi depends upon vivaksha, i..., it is to be made only if the words actually belong together. In the proseinscriptions, the sandhi is usually not made where we would have a comma or A semi-colon.