Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c8.s3.t1: 3.3.1 The earliest Sanskrit inscriptions
Indian Epigraphy: A Guide to the Study of Inscriptions in Sanskrit, Prakrit, and the Other Indo-Aryan Languages c8.s3.t1
- Language
- English
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.