Studies in Indian Art c11.s3: 12. Śiṁśumāra—Śiraḥ

Studies in Indian Art c11.s3

Language: English

12. Śiṁśumāra—Śiraḥ

c11.s3.1

In the Draupadī-svayaṃvara Parva of the *Mahābhārata*, Ādi Parva¹, we find the following śloka:

c11.s3.2

¹ Published from the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, under the editorship of V. S. Sukthankar.

c11.s3.3

ततः पौरजनाः सर्वे सागरोद्धतनिःस्वनाः । शिशुमारपुरं प्राप्य न्यविशंस्ते च पार्थिवाः ॥

c11.s3.5

The variant readings found in the foot-note to this verse are: K₄ D₄ S *śiṃ* (G₅śi) *śumāra-giriṃ* (K₄ *°śiraḥ*; D₄ *°śiraḥ*).

Thus we have two other readings, viz., '*śiṃśumāra-giriṃ*' and *śiraḥ* from the Mss. The reading in all the printed editions of the Vulgate text is '*śiṃśumāra-śiraḥ*'. The Kumbakonam edition (Ch. 200. 24) also confirms it. We have therefore to examine the original reading as to whether it was '*śiraḥ*', '*puram*', or '*giriṃ*'.

c11.s3.7

It seems as if '*giriṃ*' and '*puram*' were readings better suited for an intelligible meaning. Dr. Sukthankar kindly informed me that he preferred '*śiśumāra-puram*' and considered it to be the name of some locality where the '*samāja-vāṭa*' for Draupadī's '*svayaṃvara*' was built; it may have been in the vicinity of the capital of Drupada. The other reading '*śiṃśumāra-giriṃ*' appears to be the attempt of some puzzled copyist or commentator, who could make little sense out of '*śiṃśumāra-śiraḥ*' and so cut the Gordian knot by changing '*śiraḥ*' into '*puram*'. But such an emendation of the text due to lack of understanding of its meaning cannot be justified.

c11.s3.8

We, therefore, submit that the reading '*śiṃśumāra-śiraḥ*' as preserved in the Vulgate is correct. '*Śiṃśumāra-śiraḥ*' has been used as a synonym for '*makara-toraṇa*', the well known motif of the ancient gateways in Indian architecture. The verse says: "The citizens clamorous like the surging sea, as well as the other kings approached the *śiṃśumāra-śiraḥ* (the architrave of the gateway adorned with fish-tailed crocodile), and thence entered the arena".

c11.s3.9

'*Śiṃśumāra*' and '*makara*' are synonymous. The head of the fishtailed Makara occupied the ends of the architrave beams in early Indian art. There is no '*makara-toraṇa*' in any of the Sanchi gateways where only plain spiral volutes are found, but the superstructure of the three architraves of the Bharhut gateway (in the Indian Museum) shows all the twelve faces of the volute ends adorned with the '*makara*' motif represented with coiled fish-tail and a gaping mouth ('*karāla-mukha*'). The school of Mathura also abounds in '*makara toraṇas*' In the fragments Nos. M. 2. and M. 7, for example, consisting of the end of a '*toraṇa*' architrave the curled-up fish-tail of the yawning crocodile follows the curved outline of the stone. (Vogel, *Catalogue of the Mathura Museum*). Many other specimens are preserved in the museums at Mathura and Lucknow.

c11.s3.11

The 'makara' motif occurs in the art of the Sunga period and in the subsequent centuries down to the Kushāṇa epoch, roughly from the middle of the second century B.C. to the end of the second century A. D. The mention of the motif in this particular passage of the Mahābhārata incidentally sheds light on the problem of its probable date. The literary tradition of the 'makara-toraṇa' or 'śiṃśumāra-śiraḥ' antedates our knowledge of it in the lithic art of the Sunga period by several centuries; it is believed that the patterns executed in stone were preceded by works in wood.

c11.s3.12

In October 1938 I had written to late Dr. V. S. Sukthankar to enquire the meaning of the expression śiṃśumāra śiraḥ occurring in Ādiparvan, 185.16 (Vulgate text). In reply he wrote to me: "I am not sure about the meaning of Śiṃśumāra Śiraḥ, in Ādi. 185.16, Our old group of Northern Mss. has 'puram' while Southern Mss. read 'girim'. We have accepted 'puram' for our critical text, and take that it was some place—a suburb—near Drupada's capital, where a special camp was erected for the Svayaṃvara". Subsequently, I published my interpretation of the word in the Journal of Indian Society of Oriental Art for 1939, suggesting that śiṃśumāra śiraḥ could best be explained as an architectural term implying the architrave of a Toraṇa carved with an alligator's head. The meaning has come to me by looking at the old gateways of the Sanchi Stūpa in which the toraṇa beams are finished off in volutes at both ends decorated with alligator's head and coiled fish tail. This meaning suits the context admirably. In response to king Drupada's proclamation of the Svayaṃvara, many Kings, Rishis, sages and Brāhmaṇas flocked to his capital from different places to participate in and witness the ceremony. Those kings were well received by Drupada with respect due to their rank (Ādi, 176.14). Then we have—

c11.s3.13

ततः पौरजनाः सर्वे सागरोद्भूतनिःस्वनाः । शिशुमारपुरं प्राप्य न्यविशंस्ते च पार्थिवाः ॥
(Critical Text, 1.176.15)

c11.s3.14

i.e. on the next day the citizens of the capital and those royal guests proceeded with rumbling deep noise to the śiṃśumāra śiraḥ (keeping the Vulgate reading) and entered (the samāja-vāṭa).

c11.s3.15

Then the poet describes in elaborate detail the architecture of the samāja-vāṭa furnished with prākāra and parikhā, i.e. first a moat then an outer wall, and then the dvāratoraṇa or the main gateway in the enclosure wall which gave access to the inner grounds. Inside it were rich pavilions and palaces (vitāna, prāsāda) furnished with many articles of comfort and show (Ādi, 176. 16-93). The Epic description faithfully reflects the early Indian architecture of cities and city-gates as found in many places in the Buddhist and Jaina literature (cf. Milinda Pañha, 1.34 and 380 ff.). As Dr. Coomaraswamy has shown: the most conspicuous and necessary parts of a city are the moat (Parikhā) and rampast (prākāra), gates (dvāra, gopura), more specifically gate-houses (dvāra-koṭṭhaka) with their defence towers (dvāra-aṭṭālaka) and the king's palace (prāsāda, harmya, raja-niveśana, Vimāna, etc.). [Early Indian Architecture, Cities and City-gates, Eastern Art, 1930, p. 211].

c11.s3.16

¹ Letter No. Gen. 3494 of 1938-1939, dated 5/11/1938.

c11.s3.17

The Epic writer has in my opinion preserved in the word शिशुमार शिरः a conspicuous feature of the early Indian gateway architecture. The voluted ends of the architraves or temple cross-beams were adorned with figures of fish-tailed alligators in a very attractive and prominent style. This feature impressing even a casual observer of the Sanchi gateways persists upto the Kushāṇa period in the art of Mathura. It should, however, be mentioned that this artistic feature which is so very common in the style of the Sanchi Toraṇas is conspicuous by its absence at Bharhut where only the spiral motifs are carved on the two ends of the beams. I should also note that I am unable to quote any other evidence from early Jaina or Buddhist literature to corroborate the above explanation which can, therefore, be taken at best a suggestion deriving its force from the evidence of available architectural styles of early Indian art.

c11.s3.18

Dr. Sukthankar referred my suggestion to Dr. P. K. Acharya whose explanation was a bit different from mine as Dr. Sukthankar wrote to me: "I have been pursuing the question of the best interpretation of the word śiṃśumāra śiraḥ, and in that connection I wrote to Prof. P. K. Acharya of Allahabad University. I have now heard from him that he prefers the reading śiraḥ, and opines that it is an architectural term. In his opinion it means not architrave of gates, but "the hand-rail on the balustrade of the gallery of pavilion marked probably at the bottom by the head of crocodile". This gallery of pavilion, in his opinion, was probably reserved for the Paurajanāḥ. He refers me to Mānasāra Vāstuśāstra (30-78-80) where there is mention of "stair-case of elephant's trunk pattern said to be decorated with lion faces".

c11.s3.19

I am sending you the information for what is worth. I cannot make much of it myself. But it might give you a clue for further investigation".¹

c11.s3.20

¹ Letter No. Mbh. 3528 of 1940-41 dated 9/10/1940.

c11.s3.21

Although I cannot agree with the suggestion of Dr. Acharya I think we can understand his meaning. He seems to suggest that in the pavilion (विमान) inside the समाजवाट there were seats for the kings on the ground floor and an upper gallery for the sight-seeing पौरजनाः, to which a stair-case was leading. The hand-rail on the side of this stair-case was decorated with the head of crocodile, and this decoration was carved at the bottom near the first baluster or upright post. If I am right in understanding Dr. Acharya's meaning I should say that no doubt, there were upper galleries and stair-cases (cf. सुखारोहणसोपान in the present passage, Ādi, 176.20) with small hand-rails as found in the representations of early Indian art, yet I think that the term शिशुमार शिरः as applicable to this small baluster is, for one thing, of much weaker force than if applied to the full-fledged toraṇa architrave and for the other does not seem to hold good in the present context. A careful reading of the passage (Ādi 176.15-26) makes it quite clear. The शिशुमार शिरः according to the Epic was approached by the citizens and the kings and the question of any upper gallery being reserved for the former does not arise. The obvious and natural inference is that the शिशुमार शिरः (whatever be its meaning) was approached by the guests as the first thing before they made their entry into the arena.

c11.s3.22

Having accepted the reading शिशुमारशिरः to be the correct one as dictated by the propriety of meaning I had entertained doubts regarding its textual support since Dr. Sukthankar wrote to me; our *old* group of Northern Mss. has ‘puram’, while Southern Mss. read ‘girim’, we have accepted ‘puram’, for our Critical text. In the printed footnotes to the Critical edition only M₅K₄ of the Kashmiri version gives शिशुमार शिरः and D₄ of the Devanāgarī version शिशुमार शिरः, all others record पुरम् or गिरिम्. Besides the fact that feeble textual support is not always the find argument in rejecting an otherwise superior reading¹, we have here a good reason for the belief that शिशुमार शिरः represents the original reading. It is a very fit example of *lectio difficilior*, i.e. the more difficult text preserving the correct reading, which in process of simplification was substituted by a reading palpably easier of comprehension. But all doubt about it is now set at rest by the discovery of the oldest extant Ms. of the Ādiparvan from Nepal which according to Pt. Hemaraja is between seven hundred and eight hundred years old and which the learned general Editor of the Mahābhārata hailed as a discovery of capital importance of Mahābhārata Studies. The reading of this Ms. is शिशुमार शिरः (Sukthankar, Epic studies VII, Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol I. p. 282), and this to my mind sets the seal of final approval on this debated reading.

c11.s3.23

¹ Compare the reading उपसृताः in Āraṇyaka Parvan, 229, 5. Vasudeva S. Agrawala has suggested the emendation of उपसृतास्त्वपि (of the Vulgate) to उपसृतास्त्वपि (which is our reading) Though rather feebly supported by Ms. evidence, it is undoubtedly the correct reading.; (Dr. Sukthankar's Critical Notes to the Āraṇyaka Parvan, p. 1106).

c11.s3.24

Fig. 59. Śiṃśumāra—Śiraḥ-Bharhut

Linked texts (3)

Mahābhārata — Vyāsa, Sanskrit
Milindapañha — Pāli
Mānasāra — Sanskrit