The Antiquities of Orissa v2.c16.117

Language: English

v2.c16.117.1

The second sentence opens with a series of seven words in the instrumental case, or nominative in the causal form. The first of these *airena* is probably a proper name, Aira, derived from *ira* or *irā*. He was 'a great king', *mahārāja*; who has 'a noble elephant', *mahāmegha*, or 'a great cloud', for his 'carries', *vāhana*; who had 'lavished his wealth in erecting *chaityas*'; the epithet being a compound of *cheta* for *chaitya*, *kāja* 'work', *tatchha*, for Sanskrit *tatstha*, 'devoted to', thence 'exhausted', 'weakened', 'spent', and *dhana* 'wealth'; who 'is distinguished', *pasatha*, Sanskrit *praśasta*, by the 'attributes', *lakṣaṇa* 'of *saka*', or Śākya; who was 'renowned', *khatena*, from the Sanskrit *khyāta* for 'despoiling', *luṭhana* 'to commit loot', all over the earth 'to its extreme four abutments', *chaturānta*;¹⁹ and who 'was the sovereign', *adhipati*, 'of Kaliṅga'. As to who Aira was, I shall notice further on. The second epithet calls for no remark. The third, if taken in the sense of a cloud, would apply to Indra but seeing that the personage named was a sovereign of Kaliṅga, and the kings of Kaliṅga and Orissa have always borne the title of *gajapati*, or 'lord of elephants', I prefer to take it in that sense. It may be the proper personal name, with *aira* for the race name, but I can say nothing in support of this idea.

v2.c16.117.2

The fourth has been rendered by "rich in the possession of the purest wealth of heart and desire", in Prinsep's version, but how this meaning was got at, Prinsep does not explain, and I cannot make out. The words *cheta* and *kāja*, coming together, suggest the idea of building *chaityas*; and I think it much more appropriate than Prinsep's rendering. The fifth in Prinsep's version is "of exceeding personal beauty". This meaning has been arrived at by taking the word *saka* to be equal to *sukra* or semen-virile, and that standing for the body; but I have never seen the word *suka* used in the sense of the body; the vowel-mark *u* is illegible in my cast; Prinsep has doubtfully indicated it by a dotted line; I prefer to take *suka* for Śākya, and believe the author meant to say that the prince bore the noble characteristics of Śākya, the founder of the Buddhist religion, and did not wish to praise his personal appearance. The word Saka may of course mean Scythian, but a Buddhist prince would scarcely feel proud of bearing the characteristic marks of a nameless foreigner. If we prefer the reading *suka* to *saka*, the word would mean Śukrāchārya, the preceptor of the Asuras, who was renowned for his wisdom, and, as the Buddhist did not repudiate the celestial host of Hindus, the epithet would imply that the Prince had the characteristic wisdom of the divine sage Śukra.

v2.c16.117.3

The sixth, in Prinsep's version, is "having an army of undaunted courage", but his reading is not correct, and his translation is necessarily wrong. To Europeans, raids and looting cannot but convey an offensive idea, but Indian writers invariably associate the idea of greatness with extensive conquest (*digvijaya*) and always assign it to their great kings as a mark of praise. The meaning of the seventh is clear enough, but Prinsep has transferred the case-mask to the next word, and thereby made the epithet *kaliṅgādhipa* stand by itself, unconnected grammatically with the word it qualifies. The two letters which form the mark are indistinct; in my cast they may be read *tina* or *tera*; I take them for the former for the sake of grammatical construction. Prinsep, reading them with the following letter, made out the word *tirāsi*, eighty-three. The letter *si* is clear enough, but it is not repeated to support Prinsep's reading of the subsequent word *sikhara*, of which the *kha* and *ra* are barely legible. I propose, therefore, to read the last two words *sikhara*, 'hill', in the object case, and the participle *avalonam*, 'excavated', from the Sanskrit *avaluna*, combined by synizesis into *sikharāvalonam*, meaning the hill was excavated by him, leaving the number of caves undefined.

v2.c16.117.4

Prinsep's reading of *tirāsi sikharāvalonam* cannot mean eighty-three caves, but eighty-three hills, which would be inconsistent, as there are nothing near eighty-three hillocks in the neighbourhood. It is not to be supposed that the inscription refers to distant hills, even if we [19] could set aside the grammatical objection by assuming that the writer was not particular in that respect. The meaning of the sentence, according to my interpretation will be: "By Aira, the great king, who has a mighty elephant for his vehicle, who has lavished his wealth in erecting Chaityas, who is distingushed by the attributes of Sākya, who is renowned for having looted the earth to its outermost limits, who is the sovereign of Kaliṅga, has this hill been excavated."