The Antiquities of Orissa v1.c7.336

v1.c7.336

The words *toraṇa*, “arched gateways”, *harmya* “masonry houses”, *devāyatana* “temples”, *sabhā* “assembly hall”, *prāsāda* “palaces”, *śikhara* “steeples,” and *vimāna*²² “pavilions” in the above extract are noteworthy. None of them can consistently be applied to huts and thatched houses, for which the poet invariably uses different words. Prurient fancy may extol and exaggerate, but it never suffices to create names of material objects which the fanciful have never seen or heard of ;—a Ruskin may amuse himself and his readers by building an imaginary palace in the air for the habitation of an imaginary queen of the air,²³ but his ideas are always of the earth, earthy, from material objects with which he is familiar. Mr. Wheeler has given a translation of this passage in his *History of India*, but, like the version of the *Mahābhārata* above noticed, it is corrupt and quite unreliable. Commenting on it, he says, “His (the Mahārāja’s) palace was magnificient and resplendent, but in describing the walls, the Brahminical bard had indulged in a simile which furnishes a glimpse of the reality. They were so tall that the birds could not fly over them, and so strong that no beast could force its way through them. From this, it is evident that the walls could not have been made of brick or stone ; for in that case the attempt of a beast to force his way through them, would never have entered the mind of the bard. In all possibility, the palace was surrounded by a hedge, which was sufficiently strong to keep out wild beasts, or stray cattle”.²⁴ Unfortunately for this commentary, the text is entirely imaginary. We have examined five different editions of the *Rāmāyaṇa*, including those of Gorresio, and Carey, and eight MSS., but we have nowhere met with any passage that would give the idea of a tall wall, which the birds of the air could not fly over, or the beasts of the field could not force through. “Bees flying away from white lotuses, like brides from their husbands,” “ducks and geese swimming in tanks”, “brilliant king-fishers”, “plantain trees round the tanks bending with the weight of the fruit, like reverential pupils bowing at the feet of their preceptors”, and other objects prominently noticed by Mr. Wheeler, have likewise no place in the original ; and it is unnecessary, therefore, to refute the deductions that have been drawn from them. Probably the whole of the historian’s extracts are taken from the Bengali version of Kīrtivāsa written about three hundred years ago, and utterly unworthy of critical notice. Adverting to treasures, he says, “the treasures, which probably contained the land revenue of rice and other grains, were placed for security within the enclosure,” apparently disbelieving the possibility of any metallic wealth. The word in the original *dhana*, however, leaves no option in the matter, and seeing that in the time of the *Ṛgveda* frequent mention was made of pieces of gold of a fixed weight and specific name, *niṣka*,²⁵ which were reckoned by hundreds, and presented to Brahmans and beggars on festive and other occasions; that the nuptial present made to Sītā, included “a whole measure of gold pieces and a vast quantity of the same precious metal in ingots”; that “Daśaratha gave a full *ayuta* (ten thousand pieces) of gold, and a quantity of unwrought gold to the value of an *ayuta*”; and that descriptions [21] are given of presents of from ten to twenty crores²⁶ it would be a perversion of truth to assert that in the age of Daśaratha there was no more convenient form of wealth accessible to Indian princes than corn, and their treasuries were nothing better than granaries. It is scarecely likely that all these proceeded from the imagination of poets, and had no substratum whatever of truth.