Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c12.s2: 7.2 Epigraphy and the Study of Indian Literature

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c12.s2

Language
English

Contents

7.2 Epigraphy and the Study of Indian Literature

c12.s2.1

G. Bühler, *Die indische Inschriften und das Alter der indischen Kunstpoesie*; C. Sivaramamurti, *IESIS*, 38–48; V. Raghavan, "Sanskrit and Epigraphy," in *Sanskrit: Essays on the Value of the Language and the Literature* (Madras: Sanskrit Education Society,

c12.s2.2

1972), 67–76; D. B. Diskalkar, “Indian Epigraphical Literature,” *JIH* 37, 1959, 319–39, and “The Influence of Classical Poets on the Inscriptional Poets,” *JIH* 38, 1960, 285–302. [For anthologies of literary inscriptions, see 8.1.3.1.]

7.2.1 Inscriptions as a source

c12.s2.t1.1

dynasty. The generally accepted dating for Māgha, author of the *Śiśupālavadha*, around the late seventh century is based mainly on the identification of the king Varmalākhya or Varmalāta mentioned in the poem's colophon with V (*Kirātārjunīya* 5.9) with his *pṛthu-kadamba-kadamba-kadambakam* (v. 10; cf. EI 6, 8 n. 6).

c12.s2.t1.2

Another *kavi* who is frequently cited in inscriptions is Bāṇa. The *maṅgala-śloka* of his *Harṣa-carita*, *namas tuṅgaśiraścumbicandracāmara-cārave* . . . is quoted in many Western Cālukya and Vijayanagara inscriptions, while his prose (along with that of Subandhu, author of the *Vāsavadattā*) serves as the model Diskalkar, JIH 37, 326), the *praśastis* are closely modeled on the *mahākāvya* style. But some earlier specimens partake of other genres as well; thus the Allahabad pillar inscription in mixed verse and prose reflects the *campū* style, and this and other prose inscriptions such as Mahākūṭa also show the characteristics of the prose *kāvya* style of the *ākhyāyikās* (*Indian Inscriptions*, 173).

c12.s2.t1.3

But despite their adherence to prevailing literary modes, the inscriptional compositions do not seem to have attained much acceptance in the literary tradition. Of the many notable poets such as Hariṣeṇa (Allahabad), Vatsabhaṭṭi (Mandasor), and Kubja (Tālaguṇḍa) whose names are preserved in inscriptional colophons,²¹ very few are known in the standard literary tradition.²² Cases such as that of Umāpatidhara (discussed in 7.2.1.3) are very much the exception rather than the rule, and are restricted to the medieval period. The genre of *praśasti* does, however, receive some explicit recognition in the later literary tradition, especially in the anthologies. The *Subhāṣitaratnakośa*, for example, has a brief separate section on this genre (the *praśasti-vrajyā*, section 46, containing 14 verses), though none of these have yet been correlated with actual inscriptions.²³ Other anthologies contain a few verses from known inscriptions; for instance, verses from Umāpatidhara's Deopāṛā *praśasti* are cited in Śrīdharadāsa's *Saduktikarṇāmṛta* (vv. 7, 23, 24, and 30 = *Saduktikarṇāmṛta*²⁴ 1614, 1455, 1395, and 1454).²⁵

c12.s2.t1.4

²¹ For an extensive (though admittedly not complete) list of signed authors of poetic inscriptions, see D. B. Diskalkar, “Sanskrit and Prākrit Poets Known from Inscriptions,” JOI 7, 1957–58, 78–85.

c12.s2.t1.5

²² See Diskalkar, JIH 38, 297, for further examples.

c12.s2.t1.6

²³ Cf. the comments of Daniel H. H. Ingalls in his introduction to the *praśasti-vrajyā* in his translation of the *Subhāṣitaratnakośa* (*An Anthology of Sanskrit Court Poetry*, Harvard Oriental Series, vol. 44 [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965], 409).

c12.s2.t1.7

²⁴ Ed. Sures Chandra Banerjee (Calcutta: K. L. Mukhopadhyay, 1965).

c12.s2.t1.8

²⁵ Further examples in Diskalkar, JIH 38, 292 and 298.

c12.s2.t1.9

Nonetheless, direct correlations between the literary and the inscriptional texts are on the whole disappointingly few.²⁶ It would appear that, for one thing, *praśastis* were essentially ephemeral compositions; in Diskalkar's words, “[T]he praśastis were rarely copied down and circulated among the literary world. They had their importance for the time being and though remembered by the court poets were forgotten by the general scholarly world” (JIH 38, 298). Second, it seems that, in many cases, “the inscriptional poets were not always real poets of inspiration but poets of accomplishment” (ibid., 298) who were “really practical men” and “more pandits than poets” (ibid., 299); that is to say, becoming a favored court poet may often have had more to do with political than literary skills. Moreover, poets of true talent who did attain to such positions may have expended their best efforts on other compositions (though unfortunately very few of such have been preserved; cf. Diskalkar 301), while the composition of panegyrics was perhaps more a labor of daily bread than of love.

c12.s2.t1.10

²⁶ Cf. Diskalkar, JIH 38, 297–8.

c12.s2.t1.11

7.2.2.2 Standard literary genres preserved in inscriptions

c12.s2.t1.12

7.2.2.2.1 Kāvya (poetry).

c12.s2.t1.13

There is a fair number of inscriptions which do partake of the character of *praśasti* insofar as their intention is to glorify the poet's patron portrayed in them as the hero, but which are essentially compositions of the standard literary genres.²⁷ These include *kāvya*s of various types, including a few late specimens of full *mahākāvya*s, notably the *Rājapraśasti-mahākāvya* at Udaypur.

c12.s2.t1.14

²⁷ Cf. section 4.1.8.

c12.s2.t1.15

Briefer poems which can be classed as *khaṇḍa-kāvya*s are also known, notably the several poems of the poet Narasiṃha inscribed near Warangal in Andhra Pradesh. His creations include a charming romantic adventure in sixty-two verses at Urusukoṇḍa (EI 41, 219–44) and an incomplete *niroṣṭhya-kāvya* (poem using no labial sounds) at Hanumakoṇḍa (EI 36, 209–18).

c12.s2.t1.16

7.2.2.2.2 *Nāṭaka (drama).* Complete or partial texts of some otherwise unknown dramas of the medieval period are preserved on inscribed stone slabs which were originally fixed on palace walls. These are the *Lalitavigraharāja-nāṭaka* of Somadeva and the *Harakeli-nāṭaka* attributed to the Cāhamāna king Vigraharājadeva, both of which were inscribed at Ajmer, and the *Pārijātamañjarī-nāṭikā* or *Vijayaśrī-nāṭikā* from Dhār (see 4.1.8 for references).

c12.s2.t1.17

7.2.2.2.3 *Stotra (devotional songs).* More common among literary inscriptions are poems of the *stotra* or devotional hymn genre,²⁸ which were often placed on the walls of temples. Here, contrary to the general pattern discussed previously, we find several cases where the inscriptional text matches a known literary composition. For example, the *Halāyudha-stotra* to Śiva, preserved in an inscription from the Amareśvara temple at Māndhātā, is also preserved in several manuscripts (EI 25, 174). The fragmentary hymn to the sun from Vidiśā (EI 30, 215–9) by Cittapa provides us with a composition by a poet otherwise known only from numerous quotations in the anthologies.

c12.s2.t1.18

²⁸ Cf. section 4.1.7.

c12.s2.t1.19

Sometimes *stotra*s are imbedded within larger inscriptions of the *praśasti* class. Such is the case with the *Gaurīśvara-stotra* in the first Baijnāth *praśasti* (EI 1, 97–112) and the hymn to Jvālāmukhī-Bhavānī in the Kāṅgrā Jvālāmukhī *praśasti* (EI 1, 190–5).²⁹

c12.s2.t1.20

²⁹ For other examples of inscriptional stotras, not preserved in literature, see section 4.1.7.

c12.s2.t1.21

7.2.2.3 Evaluation of inscriptional texts as literature

c12.s2.t1.22

As mentioned before (7.2.2.1), the position of epigraphic compositions within the Sanskritic literary tradition is more or less marginal. Much of the *praśasti* literature, it must be conceded, is not much better than hackwork. Nevertheless, there are not a few cases where inscriptional *kāvya* rises above the ordinary level. Besides the well-known *praśasti*s which are often cited as outstanding specimens of inscriptional poetry (Allahabad, Tālaguṇḍa, Mandasor, Aihoḷe, etc.), many other inscriptions could be mentioned as examples of good poetry; for example, the Cāṅgu-Nārāyaṇa pillar inscription (SI 1.378–82), with such fine turns of phrase as *pramṛṣṭakanaka-ślakṣṇāvadātacchaviḥ*, “whose skin was bright and smooth as burnished gold” (l. 52).³⁰ Among prose inscriptions, the Mahākūṭa inscription, among others, has been singled out for praise (cf. Naik, “Inscriptions of the Deccan,” 30). Some of the inscriptional *stotras* are of high quality, for example, the Māndhātā Halāyudha-stotra which expresses deep and sincere feelings of devotion in eloquent poetic style, as in the following verse (v. 63, ll. 47–48):

c12.s2.t1.23

³⁰ Also often cited in this connection are the Sanskrit inscriptions of Cambodia, several of which display all the standard features of the elaborate *kāvya* style (see 4.3.7.7).

c12.s2.t1.24

*avyaktākṣarajalpitair api śiśoḥ prītir ggurūṇāṃ bhavet*
*tenāsmadvacanaṃ malīmasam api syāt tuṣṭihetus tava /*
*śrāntas tvadguṇakīrttanāt kimapi yat puṇyaṃ mayopārjitaṃ*
*tena syāj jananāntare pi mahatī tvayy eva bhaktir mama //*

c12.s2.t1.25

A baby might please his parents even with babbling nonsensical sounds; so too may my words, faulty though they may be, bring you some satisfaction. And whatever merit I may have earned by exhausting myself in singing your praises, by that may I be born again with deep devotion to you alone.

c12.s2.t1.26

Altogether, the inscriptional records embody both the best and worst of Sanskrit poetry: its richness and variety of style and imagination, and its stiffness and pedantry. All of the standard features of the classical tradition—the various regional styles, the many *alaṃkāras* of sound and sense, the elaborate wordplay and manipulations of multiple meanings, even the *citra-kāvya* or visually configured verses³¹—are abundantly attested. In short, the inscriptional corpus constitutes an important branch of Indian literature as a whole which is not only significant as a historical tool but also worthy of study as a literary corpus in its own right.

c12.s2.t1.27

³¹ See, e.g., the *padma-bandha* and *cakra-bandha* in two inscriptions from Bōthpur (nos. 51 and 52), in P. Sreenivasachar, *A Corpus of Inscriptions in the Telingana Districts*, part II, 148–9, 157–61, 197.

Linked texts (14)