गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

102 CORPUS INSCRIPTIONUM INDICARUM, VOL. III.
engrossed with less care than is usual in epigraphical records of this early date.—In
respect of orthography, we have to notice (1) the use of the dental nasal, instead of the
anusvâra, before ś, in vanśa, line 6; (2) the doubling of k, in conjunction with a following
r, in vakkrâ, line 28; (3) the doubling of t, under the same circumstances, in ttri, line 1;
chaittra, line 2; and other places; but not in putrêṇa, line 29; (4) the doubling of dh, in
conjunction with a following y, in maddhyêma, line 18; but not in avadhyânêna, line 21;
and (5) the use of v for b, in lamvôshṭha, line 14.
The inscription is one of the Parivrâjaka Mahârâja Hastin. It is dated, in words,
“in the enjoyment of sovereignty by the Gupta kings,” in the year one hundred and
sixty-three¹ (A.D. 482-83), in the Mahâ-Aśvayuja saṁvatsara, and on the second lunar
day of the bright fortnight of the month Chaitra (March-April). Except for the opening
invocation of the god Śiva, under the name of Mahâdêva, the inscription is non-sectarian.
And the object of it is to record the grant, by the Mahârâja Hastin, of the agrahâra of
Kôrparika to certain Brâhmans.
TEXT.²
First Plate.
1 Namô Mahâdêvâya (||) Svasti Ttri-shashṭy-uttarê=bda-śatê Gupta-nṛipa-
râjya-bhuktau
2 Mah-Âśvayuja-saṁvatyarê³ Chaittra-mâsa-śukla-paksha-dvitîy[â]yâm=asy[â]n=
divasa-
3 pûrvv[â]yâ[m]⁴ nṛipatiparivrâjaka-kul-ôtpannêna mahârâja-Dêvâḍhya-
pranapt[r*]â
¹ In respect of the date of this inscription, Gen. Cunningham (Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX.
pp. 9 and 11, and Vol. X. p. 116) has expressed the opinion that one hundred and sixty-three
is a mistake for one hundred and seventy-three. And certainly the record in No. 21, page .95
above, that the year 156 was Mahâ-Vaiśâkha, leads primâ facie to the conclusion that 163 would
be Mahâ-Mârgaśîrsha, and that Mahâ-Aśvayuja would be (either 161 or) 173; especially since the
record of No. 25, page 112 below, that 209 was Mahâ-Aśvayuja, points to the names of the saṁvatsaras
running in regular succession, without any adjustment by expunction, through this period of fifty-four
years. But Gen. Cunningham’s suggestion that the apparent error is “a mistake of the engraver, who
has written shasht ” (sic.) “(60) instead of sapt ” (sic.) “(70), which in Gupta characters might easily
happen,” takes no account of an additional akshara that must then have been omitted altogether.
“Increased by seventy-three” would be, not ttri-sapty-uttarê, but ttri-saptaty-uttarê. And it would
not be an easy matter for the engraver to turn this full and correct form into ttri-shashṭy-uttarê.
Gen. Cunningham’s present tables for the twelve-year cycle of Jupiter (Archæol. Surv. Ind. Vol. IX.
p. 118 ff.; and Indian Eras, Table xvii. Col. 10, p. 135 ff.) will have to be re-examined. In this
process, with the possibility, which there always is, of the drafters of these epigraphical records
making a mistake between current and expired years, it may turn out that this passage really
does contain a mistake; which, if it does exist, is more likely to be in the direction of ttri, ‘three,’
having been engraved instead of dvi, ‘two,’ and perhaps of the drafter of the record having also
written one hundred and sixty-two, instead of one hundred and sixty-one.—Meanwhile, Dr. Thibaut,
who is a competent authority, has recorded his opinion (Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 322) that “observation
has, as we know, never been the strong point of Hindu astronomers; and if, according to their system,
a certain year was to be called Mahâ-Chaitra, they would scarcely have hesitated to do so, even if they
had found that the name was not justified by Jupiter’s actual position.” And, until the matter is
definitely settled one way or the other, it is better to adhere to the distinct reading of the year one
hundred and sixty-three.
² From the original plates. ³ Read saṁvatsarê. ⁴ Supply tithau.