The Antiquities of Orissa v1.c10.216

v1.c10.216

the whole of the leg part of it ornamented by oblique lines, leaving the foot plain. A second image of Sūrya, found in the same locality and of about the same age, shows a bootee or something like a ploughman's highlow, covering about one-third of the leg, and having both its leg and foot parts marked with diagonal lines: it resembles very closely the side spring boots of the present day, but without the springs. (Woodcut No. 23). On another figure of Sūrya, found near Murshidabad, which, judging from its material and make, I take to be of about the same age as the preceding two, there is a boot the top of which has a Vandyked edge marked with double lines. (Woodcut No. 24). The desecration of this figure by a European, lately formed the subject of a criminal action in the High Court of Calcutta, and it was then brought to light that its true character was unknown to the people, and that it was worshipped as an image of Viṣṇu. A sixth specimen is to be seen on the temples of Kedāreśvara and Mukteśvara as also on the back frame of the Murshidabad Sūrya, and in it the top is so cut as to leave a flap like the Napoleon flap projecting in front and another behind, the sides showing triangular notches. (Illustration No. 166). This boot is also remarkable from the circumstance of its being worn by a lady: her lover has boots of the same kind. Curiously enough the figures on which these boots have been found are all dressed in *dhutis*, having the upper part of the body bare. None of the boots shows any marking for the sole or heel, and so they may be taken for moccasins, or buskins without the cork soles which were used to add to the height of actors on the Grecian stage. That the boots or buskins under notice are genuine Hindu articles of dress, and not borrowed from foreigners is evident from their having been known from very ancient times. Pāṇini notices a variety of boots which covered the whole of the foot and was tied at the ankle. Its name is *anupadīna*. It must have been common enough at the time to serve as an example for the illustration of a rule in grammar, and already so old and familiar as to have lost its radical derivation in the mazes of antiquity⁹⁹. Amara Siṁha describes it as a kind of shoe that covered the whole of the foot, *padupānat strī saivānupadīnā padāyatā*, and most of his commentators, who lived after the advent of the Muhammadans in this country, explain it by reference to the familiar Persian boot called *mujāh*: *mojā iti khyātah*. Paṇḍits of the present day, finding that in India the word *mujāh* is used for stockings or socks, suppose that *anupadīna* means that article; but neither the interpretation of Amara, nor the original meaning of the Persian word, supports their inference. Bharata Mallika says that it was an ankle boot. *saivaḥ upānat padāyatā padāyāmapramāṇā cet anupadīna mojā khyātā syāt* [97] *gulphādisahitamaséṣapadam anupadaṃ, sākalye avyayībhāvaḥ anu-padaṃ vyāpnoti anupadīnā* In the Amarakoṣa-mālā of Paramānanda, we have: *Sa'v-opānat padasamānāyatā dīrghā cet anupadīnā padasya tulyāyāmam syāt anupadasya tulyāyāmam syāt anuryasya cāyāma ityavyayībhāvaḥ* As. Soc. MS. 448, fol. That the Persian *mujāh*, when first introduced into India, was a boot or buskin, i, e., an outer leather covering for the foot is evident from such phrases as *muzā dārgil mādan* "to have one's *mujāh* stuck in clay" i. e., being under a difficulty—*muzā nehūdan* put forth the *mujāh* " for proceeding on a journey, having become idiomatic and proverbial in the Persian language. The last is equivalent to the American slang "pull-foot", which again is a Yankee version of the *a'nairon e'k domáton podá* of Euripides. Had the *mujāh* meant a sock, or an inner covering protected by outer leather shoes, it could never have been used for starting on a journey.