Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c8.s3: 3.3 Sanskrit

Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c8.s3

Language
English

Contents

3.3 Sanskrit

3.3.1 The earliest Sanskrit inscriptions

c8.s3.t1.1

It is, in the words of Louis Renou, “le grand paradoxe linguistique de l’Inde”⁴³ that Sanskrit, the linguistic parent of MIA, first appeared in inscriptions much later than its own descendants. For Sanskrit began to come into epigraphic use only in the first century B.C., according to the now generally accepted dating (mainly on paleographic grounds) for the oldest Sanskrit inscriptions, namely, the Ayodhyā (SI I.94–5) and the Ghosuṇḍī (SI I.90–1) and Hāthībāḍā (EI 22, 198–205) stone inscriptions.

c8.s3.t1.2

⁴³ *Histoire de la langue sanskrite*, Les Langues du Monde 10 (Lyon: IAC, 1956), 84.

c8.s3.t1.3

The Ayodhyā inscription records in two lines of essentially standard Sanskrit the foundation by the “righteous king” (*dharmarājñā*) Dhana[*deva*?] of a structure (*ketanam*) in memory of his father Phalgudeva.⁴⁴ The formation of the compound *dharmarājñā* instead of the theoretically correct *dharmarājena* is of no great consequence, since compounds of this type are found frequently in less formal registers of Sanskrit. Also worthy of note is the apparent use of the genitive instead of the ablative in *puṣyamitrasya ṣaṣṭhena*, assuming that the usual interpretation⁴⁵ as "sixth [in descent] of [i.e., 'from'] . . ." is correct. But here, too, the intrusion of the stronger genitive case into the domain of the weaker ablative is not uncommon in informal Sanskrit usage.

c8.s3.t1.4

⁴⁴ The paleographic estimate of a date in the first century B.C. is corroborated by the statement that the donor is the “sixth [in descent] of [i.e., from; cf. SI I.95 n. 3] General Puṣyamitra” (*senāpateḥ puṣyamitrasya ṣaṣṭhena*), since the Puṣyamitra referred to is presumably the founder of the Śuṅga dynasty in ca. 187 B.C.

c8.s3.t1.5

⁴⁵ Cf. SI I.95 n. 3.

c8.s3.t1.6

The three inscriptions from Hāthībāḍā and one from Ghosuṇḍī are all separate renderings of the same text, recording the construction of a structure⁴⁶ for the worship of the deities Saṃkarṣaṇa and Vāsudeva. The text, which except for the beginning of the first line can be reconstructed from the four extant fragmentary versions, is again in essentially "correct" Sanskrit with a few possible exceptions. For instance, the word accompanying the names *saṃkarṣaṇa-vāsudevābhyāṃ* is spelled *bhagavabhyāṃ* instead of the expected *bhagavadbhyāṃ* in both versions (Hāthībāḍā A and Ghosuṇḍī) in which it is preserved; but this may be no more than a scribal error (cf. EI 22, 201). Also, it has been suggested (SI I.91 n. 1) that the donor's personal name, given as *sarvatāta*, "may be actually Sarvatrāta." But this is uncertain, as the king in question is otherwise unknown, and even if the inscription did record a Prakritic form of the ruler's name this would be of no great linguistic import, since personal names are frequently recorded in Prakritic forms in Sanskrit inscriptions.

c8.s3.t1.7

⁴⁶ *pūjāśīlāprākāro nārāyaṇa vāṭakā*; the exact sense of the phrase is uncertain.

c8.s3.t1.8

In conclusion, then, the language of the Hāṭhībāḍā-Ghosuṇḍī inscriptions, like that of Ayodhyā, is essentially standard Sanskrit, though with some marginal indications of informal usage and style.

3.3.2 Early Sanskrit inscriptions from Mathurā

c8.s3.t2.1

Except for these very few examples from the last century before the Christian era, the earliest Sanskrit inscriptions are found in Mathurā, which has yielded several records of the first and second centuries A.D., that is, the time of the Śaka Kṣatrapas and the early Kuṣāṇas, which are written in Sanskrit or a dialect very closely approaching it.⁴⁷ The earliest of the Sanskrit inscriptions from Mathurā are probably those of the time of the Kṣatrapa Śoḍāsa, who is dated with reasonable certainty to the early years of the first century A.D. The most important of these is the Morā well inscription discussed earlier (3.2.3.2; MI §113), which seems to record the dedication of a shrine to five epic heroes. The opening portion of this fragmentary inscription, recording its date, was written in the hybrid dialect (*mahakṣatrapasa rājūvulasa putrasa svāmi* . . . ), while the remaining three lines are in Sanskrit, evidently including a verse in the *Bhujaṅgavijṛmbhita* meter (EI 24, 198). But for minor orthographic liberties of a type often seen in Sanskrit inscriptions (cf. 3.3.8.1), such as *ārcādeśāṃ śailāṃ* instead of *arcādeśān śailān* (accusative plural), the latter part of the inscription is virtually standard Sanskrit.

c8.s3.t2.2

⁴⁷ Here, as in the case of the hybrid dialects discussed earlier, it is not always absolutely clear whether or not a given text should be labeled "Sanskrit."

c8.s3.t2.3

A similar linguistic situation is observed in another fragmentary Mathurā stone slab inscription of Śoḍāsa's time (MI §178) whose first two lines appear to be in hybrid dialect ("not quite correct Sanskrit," in Lüders' words) as indicated by the nonstandard sandhi in *pārvato prāsādo*, l. 2, but whose third and fourth lines seem to contain an *upajāti* verse in standard Sanskrit. A third inscription of Śoḍāsa's time (MI §115) on a doorjamb from Morā is in standard Sanskrit except for the typical hybrid form *svāmi(sya)* (l. 10). Other undated Sanskrit inscriptions attributable to the same general period include a fragment of a stone inscription from Kaṅkālī Ṭīlā (possibly a Jaina inscription) with text in *śārdūlavikrīḍita* meter (MI §21) and a fragmentary Mathurā coping-stone inscription in "pre-Kuṣān characters and composed in pure Sanskrit" (MI §162), which is probably a Brahmanical dedication.

c8.s3.t2.4

The Sanskrit inscriptions from the earliest phase at Mathurā show certain interesting patterns. First, they are mostly Brahmanical in affiliation. While the Kaṅkālī Ṭīlā inscription may be Jaina (it is too fragmentary to be identified), in any case there are no Buddhist inscriptions among them. Second, some of them comprise two dialects, with the practical portion (containing the date, etc.) in the hybrid language and a eulogistic portion in standard Sanskrit verse. Others, such as the Morā doorjamb inscription, are in standard Sanskrit but show occasional hybrid tinges in morphology or orthography.

c8.s3.t2.5

Moving on to the period of the Great Kuṣāṇas (i.e., Kaniṣka and his successors, provisionally assumed here for purposes of discussion to have begun ruling in A.D. 78; cf. 5.5.1.4), we now find more Mathurā inscriptions in reasonably standard Sanskrit, including for the first time some of Buddhistic content. For instance, several of the pillar base donations from the Jamālpur mound (e.g., MI §47–9 and 53) are in standard Sanskrit or very close to it; for instance, §48, *aya[ṃ kum]bh[ako dā]naṃ saṅghaprakṛtān[ā]ṃ Bh[ad]raghoṣa-pramukhā(nāṃ)*. A longer inscription is the Īsāpur *yūpa* (MI §94) of the year 24 (= ca. A.D. 102?) of Vāsiṣka, commemorating the performance of a *dvādaśarātra* sacrifice in proper Sanskrit but for some minor orthographic variations (gṛṣma- for grīṣma- [l. 3]; hiatus in -cchandogena iṣṭvā [l. 6]). A few decades younger is a pedestal inscription from Tokri Ṭīlā (MI §99) recording donations, apparently Brahmanical, during the reign of Huviṣka (the date is lost) in more or less correct Sanskrit but with some peculiarities such as the apparent gerund *dṛśya* (l. 3) and the unclear word *nanayat* (l. 1).

c8.s3.t2.6

Overall, a fair number (but still only a fraction of the total corpus) of the inscriptions of Mathurā from the early first to about the middle of the second century A.D. are written in fairly standard Sanskrit. Most of the Sanskrit inscriptions are Brahmanical in affiliation, and the Sanskrit of Buddhist inscriptions is more prone to hybridisms, though these are also not totally absent from the Brahmanical ones. In conclusion, although the hybrid dialect is still predominant, Sanskrit is beginning to establish itself as an epigraphic language in this era, especially in Brahmanical circles, continuing the trend which began in the first century B.C.

3.3.3 Sanskrit inscriptions from western India in the Kṣatrapa period

c8.s3.t3.1

The inscriptions of the earlier house of Western Kṣatrapa kings, namely, the Kṣaharāta line of Nahapāna (middle of the first century A.D.?), are mostly in Prakrit or in hybridized Prakrit, with the important exception of Nāsik inscription no. 10 of Nahapāna's son-in-law Uṣavadāta (SI I.167–70). The opening portion of this inscription (ll. 1–3), eulogizing Uṣavadāta, is written in a fair approximation of standard Sanskrit with some hybrid features such as frequent sandhi hiatus (e.g., *dharmātmanā idam*, l. 3) and hybrid morphology such as *bhojāpayitrā* (l. 1). The remainder of the inscription, recording the actual donations, is in a somewhat more hybridized style. Senart (EI 8, 79) pointed out that about the first half of the eulogistic portion is virtually a Sanskrit rendition (or, as Senart puts it, a “reproduction in Sanskṛit orthography”) of the description of Uṣavadāta in the Prakrit Kārle cave inscription of the time of Nahapāna (SI I.171–2). The linguistic innovation in this inscription presumably reflects contemporary developments in Mathurā and adjoining regions, though it is not clear why Sanskrit was used for this inscription only; apparently, this is an instance of the orthographic options alluded to previously (3.2.3.2).

c8.s3.t3.2

The Junāgaḍh rock inscription of Rudradāman (SI I.175–80), the greatest king of the second Western Kṣatrapa line of Caṣṭana, was written shortly after A.D. 150 and represents a turning point in the history of epigraphic Sanskrit. This is the first long inscription recorded entirely in more or less standard Sanskrit, as well as the first extensive record in the poetic style. Although further specimens of such poetic *praśastis* in Sanskrit are not found until the Gupta era, from a stylistic point of view Rudradāman’s inscription is clearly their prototype. But as noted by Kielhorn⁴⁸ and others,⁴⁹ the language of the Junāgaḍh inscription is not pure classical Sanskrit in the strictest sense of the term. The orthography is inconsistent in the use of *anusvāra* and *visarga* and in the notation of double consonants, and the nonclassical retroflex *ḻ* occurs several times (e.g., *pāḻī*, l. 1). Local dialect features are probably reflected in the lengthened vowels in *nīrvyājam avajītyāvajītya* (l. 12). *Vīśad-* instead of standard *viṃśati-* (l. 7) also reflects local dialect pronunciation of the epic variant *viṃśat-* (cf. *sīha* for *siṃha* in the Guṇḍā ins., discussed in the next paragraph). *Patinā* instead of *patyā* (l. 11) in the sense of ‘lord’ is likewise a common epicism, though technically incorrect. Other questionable uses from the classical point of view include *anyatra saṃgrāmeṣu* instead of *. . . saṃgrāmebhyaḥ* (l. 10; cf. Kielhorn, EI 8, 40 n. 2) and the redundant *ā garbhāt prabhṛti* (l. 9). The language of the Junāgaḍh inscription is thus a close approach to high classical Sanskrit, but, like early literary Sanskrit generally, it shows the influence of the less formal epic-vernacular style in which some of the grammatical niceties of Pāṇinian/classical Sanskrit were not observed. But the nonstandard features in question are in general not of the same order as those which characterize the hybrid and hybrid-influenced inscriptions of Mathurā. Thus although we can suspect that the inspiration for using Sanskrit for epigraphic purposes emanated from Mathurā (there are clear historical connections between the Western Kṣatrapas and the Scythian dynasties of Mathurā), the source of the Sanskrit of the Junāgaḍh inscription was evidently the preclassical literary style current among the literati of the day rather than the Sanskritized hybrid of Mathurā and adjoining regions.

c8.s3.t3.3

⁴⁸ EI 8, 39–40.

c8.s3.t3.4

⁴⁹ E.g., Renou, *Histoire de la langue sanskrite*, 96, refers to “des épismes linguistiques.”

c8.s3.t3.5

This literary style of Sanskrit was not, however, employed in the inscriptions of the time of the Western Kṣatrapa rulers who succeeded Rudradāman. These inscriptions, which are unofficial records, reflect a less formal style which retains some characteristics of the hybrid language. A typical example is the Gundā inscription (SI I.181–2) of the time of Rudrasiṃha I (Śaka 103 = A.D. 181), which contains such nonstandard forms as *(tri)yuttaraśate* for *tryuttara-* and *rudrasīhasya* for *rudrasiṃhasya* (cf. *vīśad-* for *viṃśat-* in the Junāgaḍh inscription), as well as the hybrid sandhi *rājño kṣatrapasya*. Inscriptions of contemporary dynasties in western India show similar linguistic characteristics. A Sātavāhana inscription of the time of Vāsiṣṭhīputra Śrī-Śātakarṇi (second century A.D.) from Kaṇherī (Bühler, IA 12, 1883, 272) is in hybridized Sanskrit (e.g., *śrī-sāta[karn]ī[s]ya*, l. 1). From a slightly later period, the Kānākheṛā inscription (SI I.186–7) of A.D. 279 is in mostly standard Sanskrit but still shows some features reminiscent of hybrid, such as the causative participle *khānāpito* (l. 6).

c8.s3.t3.6

Also from the third century A.D., we have several Sanskrit inscriptions on *yūpas* from Baḍvā (SI I.91–2) and Barnāla (EI 26, 118–23) in Rajasthan. Their language still shows significant hybrid characteristics, most strikingly in the dating formula *kṛtehi* or *kritehi* for Sanskrit *kṛtaiḥ*, i.e., “in [lit. ‘by’] Kṛta [= Vikrama] years.” This follows the familiar pattern of inscriptions from the early centuries of the Christian era (e.g., the Morā well inscription discussed earlier), with the portions concerning the date and other mundane information in more Prakritic language. This suggests that everyday documents were still being written in MIA or mixed dialects at this time, so that people would habitually employ set phrases like *kṛtehi* in recording dates, even at the head of documents which were to be composed in Sanskrit.⁵⁰

c8.s3.t3.7

⁵⁰ The Devnīmorī stone casket inscription (SI I.519), dated in the year 127 of the “Kathika kings” (*kathikanṛpāṇām*), is written entirely in correct classical style. The date of the inscription, however, is controversial; Sircar (ibid.) interprets it as a year of the Śaka era, equivalent to A.D. 205. Others, however, such as P. Srinivasan (EI 37, 67–8), judge the inscription to be considerably later on paleographic grounds and think that the otherwise unknown “Kathika” era may be equivalent to the Kalacuri-Cedi era, in which case the date of the inscription would be ca. A.D. 376. The latter opinion is preferable on linguistic grounds, as the classical style would be quite typical of the early Gupta era but unusual for the early third century (see also 5.5.1.16).

3.3.4 Early Sanskrit inscriptions from the Deccan and southern India

c8.s3.t4.1

In general, Sanskrit began to appear in southern Indian inscriptions somewhat later than in the north, and also lagged behind in its gradual adoption there as the primary epigraphic language. The first significant body⁵¹ of southern Sanskrit inscriptions is from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, where, in addition to many Prakrit inscriptions, a few in Sanskrit have also been found. Most of these date from the reign of the later Ikṣvāku king Ehavala Cāntamūla, who probably reigned in the late third and/or early fourth centuries A.D. The earliest dated Sanskrit inscription from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, of the year 11 of king Ehavalaśrī (= Ehavala Cāntamūla; EI 33, 147–9), records a Brahmanical (Śaiva) donation in good classical verse (*anuṣṭubh* and *sragdharā* meters). A pillar inscription of the sixteenth regnal year of the same king (EI 34, 17–20), also of Śaiva Finally, after this transitional period in the fourth and early fifth centuries A.D., Prakrit fell out of use completely in southern Indian inscriptions. For the next few centuries Sanskrit was the sole epigraphic language, until the regional Dravidian languages began to come into use around the seventh century (see 3.5.1).

c8.s3.t4.2

⁵¹ An anomalously early inscription in what appears to be hybrid Sanskrit (cf. EHS 144) is the fragmentary Amarāvatī slab inscription of the Sātavāhana ruler Gautamīputra Śrī-Yajña Sātakarṇi, of about the late second century A.D. (JAIH 4, 7–8). But here (as also in the case of the Kaṇherī Sātavāhana inscription discussed earlier) the unusually early Sanskritization is probably due to Sātavāhana contacts with the Western Kṣatrapas.

3.3.5 Early Sanskrit inscriptions from other regions

c8.s3.t5.1

With the exception of the very early Ayodhyā inscription discussed earlier (3.3.1), there are few early Sanskrit inscriptions from eastern and northeastern India. Some brief records of the "Magha" kings of Kauśāmbī of the second century A.D. are in Sanskrit or in a highly Sanskritized hybrid: for example, the Bāndhogarh inscriptions nos. 18 and 19 of Vaiśravaṇa (and apparently also the fragmentary no. 14 of Śivamagha; EI 31, 184–6) and the Kosam pillar inscription (EI 24, 146–8) of Vaiśravaṇa. Apart from such scattered and marginal examples, the earliest true Sanskrit inscription from the northeast (besides Ayodhyā) is probably the Susuniyā (West Bengal) rock inscription (SI I.351–2), datable to about the middle of the fourth century.

c8.s3.t5.2

From the far north, a notable set of relatively early Sanskrit inscriptions in more or less correct classical style are the Jagatpur (Dehradun Dist., UP) *aśvamedha* brick inscriptions of King Śīlavarman (SI I.98–9), dated paleographically to about the third century A.D.

c8.s3.t5.3

Outside of India proper, the oldest Sanskrit inscription is probably the Võ-cạnh (Vietnam) stele inscription, composed in standard Sanskrit prose and verse (*vasantatilakā* and *śārdūlavikrīḍita*).⁵³ Its date is highly controversial, but some time in the third century A.D. is the most likely (see 4.3.7.8); if this date is correct, this record would be at least as advanced linguistically and stylistically as the contemporary epigraphs within India.⁵⁴ From about the fifth century A.D., Sanskrit inscriptions become common in various countries outside of India, particularly Cambodia, Vietnam, and Nepal.

c8.s3.t5.4

⁵³ See Claude Jacques, BEFEO 55, 1969, 117–24.

c8.s3.t5.5

⁵⁴ It is interesting to note that, somewhat surprisingly, Prakrit was not used as an epigraphic language in Southeast Asia; see Jean Filliozat, BEFEO 55, 1969, 112.

3.3.6 The emergence of Sanskrit in the Gupta period

c8.s3.t6.1

It was during the reign of the early Gupta emperors in the fourth century A.D. that Sanskrit was finally established as the epigraphic language par excellence of the Indian world. The turning point appears in the inscriptions of Samudragupta (middle to late fourth century), especially the Allahabad pillar inscription (SI I.262–8), which, despite a few trivial orthographic irregularities, is often held up as a model of high classical literary style of the mixed prose and verse (*campū*) class. From this point on, all the inscriptions of the Guptas and their neighbors and feudatories in northern India were written in correct classical Sanskrit; and, as we have already seen (3.3.4), similar developments followed soon after in southern India and elsewhere.

c8.s3.t6.2

Thus by about the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries A.D., Sanskrit had at last established itself as virtually the sole language for epigraphic use throughout India. Prakrit, from this time onward, virtually fell out of epigraphic use, with occasional exceptions for literary effect or sectarian considerations (see 3.1.5). Sanskrit continued to enjoy its privileged position in the north for many centuries, until regional NIA and "Islamic" languages (3.4 and 3.5.2) began to appear in inscriptions of the medieval period; even then Sanskrit was never completely supplanted, and has continued to be used sporadically up to modern times. In the south, the regional (i.e., Dravidian) languages made their appearance earlier and more prominently (3.5.1), but there too not entirely at the cost of Sanskrit, which continued to be used as an alternative to or in bilingual combination with the Dravidian languages throughout the ancient and medieval periods.

3.3.7 Summary: Historical and cultural factors in the development of Sanskrit as an epigraphic language

c8.s3.t7.1

Near the end of the pre-Christian era, we find a smattering of inscriptions of Brahmanical content recording religious donations and foundations in standard or nearly standard Sanskrit, and we may assume that these are isolated survivals of what must have been an increasingly common practice in this period. About the beginning of the Christian era, we begin to find more examples of epigraphic Sanskrit among the abundant inscriptions from Mathurā and surrounding regions, and it appears to be more than coincidence that this development appeared at precisely the time when this area of northern India came under the domination of the Scythian "Kṣatrapa" rulers (see 3.2.3.2). This suspicion is confirmed by the appearance, in the next century, of Sanskrit inscriptions in the domains of the early Western Kṣatrapas in Maharashtra and Gujarat, culminating in Rudradāman's Junāgaḍh rock inscription, the first long epigraphic text in virtually classical language and style.

c8.s3.t7.2

Thus it appears that the use of Sanskrit for inscriptions was promoted, though not originated, by the Scythian rulers of northern and western India in the first two centuries of the Christian era. Their motivation in promoting Sanskrit was presumably a desire to establish themselves as legitimate Indian or at least Indianized rulers and to curry the favor of the educated Brahmanical elite. In other words, the forces and motivations behind epigraphic Sanskritization were evidently the same as those which promoted the development and spread of the hybrid language at the cost of MIA, and indeed these two developments must have taken place more or less simultaneously. As discussed earlier, for several centuries there was available to the composers and scribes of inscriptions a range of linguistic choices comprising MIA, hybrid, and Sanskrit, from which the appropriate dialect could be chosen according to such factors as the purpose and contents of the record, its sectarian affiliations, or simply personal preferences and abilities. But the direction of movement along this spectrum was consistently toward Sanskrit, promoted by the previously mentioned legitimizing motivations of the non-Indian rulers, as well as by the inherent status of this elite language. Thus eventually, and inevitably, Sanskrit completely supplanted Prakrit and the mixed dialects.

c8.s3.t7.3

The spread of epigraphic Sanskrit to the south in subsequent centuries can also be attributed to the influence, direct or indirect, of the Western Kṣatrapas. In this connection it is significant that the earliest southern Indian Sanskrit inscriptions come from Nāgārjunakoṇḍa (see 3.3.4), since other inscriptions from the same site attest to the connections of the Kṣatrapas and other western Indian rulers with it; for instance, a Nāgārjunakoṇḍa memorial pillar inscription of the time of King Rudrapuruṣadatta (EI 34, 20–2) attests to a marital alliance between the Western Kṣatrapas and the Ikṣvāku rulers of Nāgārjunakoṇḍa.

c8.s3.t7.4

The movement toward Sanskrit was thus already well entrenched by the early years of the Gupta empire, when Sanskrit was adopted as the sole administrative language for epigraphic and (presumably) other purposes, and when the high classical style became the standard mode. The Guptas thus merely brought to its logical conclusion a gradual process which had been going on for the previous four centuries or so. The adoption of Sanskrit by the Guptas is sometimes thought to represent a Brahmanical revival under their auspices; and while there may be something to this, it would be a serious oversimplification to picture the triumph of Sanskrit merely as a victory of the Brahmanical language over the MIA and hybrid dialects associated with the Buddhists and Jains. It is certainly true that, on the whole, Sanskrit was first and most frequently employed epigraphically in Brahmanical circles (as in Ayodhyā, Hāthībādā/Ghosuṇḍī, etc.), and that many of the earliest and best specimens of Sanskrit from subsequent sites such as Mathurā and Nāgārjunakoṇḍa are in Brahmanical records. But several other early Sanskrit inscriptions from these sites are Buddhist, and possibly also Jaina (Kaṅkālī Ṭīlā). Particularly interesting is the situation at Nāgārjunakoṇḍa, where the Sanskrit inscriptions seem to be distributed equally, in terms of number and style, between Buddhist and Brahmanical records. Thus while the Brahmans and their clients may have led the way in the Sanskritization of epigraphic language, the Buddhists did not lag far behind and were no doubt also influential in the process.

c8.s3.t7.5

These patterns should not, however, be uncritically extrapolated to nonepigraphic contexts. It should be kept in mind that, in the words of Burrow, “[T]he inscriptional evidence gives a very one-sided picture of the contemporary linguistic conditions. . . . Sanskrit was always, even when the use of Prakrit was most flourishing, the primary literary language of India.”⁵⁵ In other words, the limited and sporadic use of Sanskrit in inscriptions prior to the Gupta era does not mean that Sanskrit as a language of literature, culture, and ritual was in abeyance but simply that inscriptions were not yet felt to be literary documents worthy of its use. The gradual Sanskritization of inscriptions reflects, on the one hand, the formalization of inscriptions into a mode of literary expression, and on the other, the spread of Sanskrit into the administrative realm, which was fully accomplished under the Guptas and their contemporaries.

c8.s3.t7.6

⁵⁵ *The Sanskrit Language* (see n. 36 for reference), 59.

3.3.8 Linguistic characteristics of inscriptional Sanskrit

c8.s3.t8.1

The style and quality of inscriptional Sanskrit varies over a wide range from the finest classical to the near-illiterate. In broad terms, one may discern three levels.

c8.s3.t8.2

The first level comprises more or less standard classical Sanskrit, found most frequently in inscriptions from the Gupta era down to the early medieval period, particularly in records of the *praśasti* class. Examples of the high classical style are very numerous; among the outstanding ones, in terms of both grammatical correctness than of Sanskrit. The features described are characteristic mainly of the second class of inscriptions, that is, those in informal or "practical" Sanskrit, although Sandhi is left unapplied not only in prose (see 3.3.2) but also, not infrequently, in verse, especially at the juncture between *pādas*.

c8.s3.t8.3

3.3.8.2 Morphology

c8.s3.t8.4

The formation of causative verbs and their derivatives with the *-p-* affix where not called for by Pāṇinian rules is particularly characteristic of epigraphic Sanskrit. This occurs in both early Sanskrit inscriptions, as in *bandhāpitaś* in the Gundā stone ins. (A.D. 181; SI I.181–2, l. 5), and later, for example, *karṣāpayato* (= *karṣayato*) in the Dhulev plate (EI 30, 4, l.3). The late (A.D. 1264) Verāval inscription (SI II.402–8), which presents a good example of the second class of “functional” epigraphic Sanskrit described earlier, contains numerous forms of this type, including several derivatives of √()*vṛt* (*varttāpanārthaṃ*, *varttāpanīyaṃ*, *varttāpayatāṃ*, ll. 21, 34, 35), and *lopāpayati* (l. 42).

c8.s3.t8.5

Also typical of epigraphic Sanskrit, particularly of the second class mentioned previously, are nonstandard gerunds formed contrary to the rule of distribution of the suffixes *-tvā* and *-(t)ya* to simple and prefixed roots, respectively. A notable case is the Jodhpur stone inscription of Bāüka (SI II.236–41) with three gerunds of this type: *prahatvā*, *tyajya*, and *stambhya* (ll. 15, 17).

c8.s3.t8.6

A pleonastic *-ka* suffix is frequently applied to nominal and participial forms, for example, in *-[u]tpannakotpadyamānaka-* and *kāritaka-* in the Khoh copper plate of Śarvanātha (CII 3, 135–9, ll. 9,11).⁶³

c8.s3.t8.7

⁶³ See also the comments of Fleet in CII 3, 69, and of Bühler in EI 1, 74 n. 28.

c8.s3.t8.8

Other miscellaneous morphological peculiarities are far too numerous to list here. One example is the frequent formation of compounds of *mahant-* with *mahat-* or other stem forms, rather than *mahā-*, as the prior member; for example, *mahaddyuti* in the Sakrāī inscription (EI 27, 27–33, l. 6) and *mahaddharmma-* (also *mahāntadharmma-*!) in the Sīyadoṇī inscription (EI 1, 162–79, ll. 8, 20, 29, etc.).

c8.s3.t8.9

3.3.8.3 Syntax

c8.s3.t8.10

A notable peculiarity of epigraphic syntax is the mixing of active and passive constructions, as in *prapittrācāryeṇa . . . kṛtavān* in the Paraśurāmeśvara temple inscription (EI 26, 126–7, ll. 1–2) and *sa ca sa ca . . . tālī dātavyā* in Sīyadoṇī (EI 1, 174, l. 9). Like many of the features enumerated in this section, this peculiarity has parallels in inscriptional Prakrit, for instance, in MI §150, *kuṭubiniye . . . patiṭhāpeti*, and in some of the Nāgārjunakoṇḍa inscriptions, for example, B 5 *mahādevi rudradharabhaṭarikā imaṃ selakhaṃbaṃ . . . patiṭhapitaṃ* (SI I.231, l. 4).

c8.s3.t8.11

3.3.8.4 Vocabulary

c8.s3.t8.12

Sanskrit inscriptions (like those in other languages) contain a large number of words which are rarely or, quite often, never attested in nonepigraphic Sanskrit. The majority of this vocabulary consists of technical terms, typically connected with such matters as agriculture, weights and measures, coinage and currency, revenues and taxation, local and territorial administration, and various other official terms and titles.⁶⁴ Also included in this category are abbreviations of technical and other terms (see 2.5.2.3). The definitive collection

Linked texts (14)