Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Indian Epigraphy c16: Chapter VIII. Technical Expressions

Indian Epigraphy c16

Language
English

Contents

Chapter VIII. Technical Expressions

1. Abbreviations

c16.s1.1

From about the early centuries of the Christian era, contraction of words began to appear in the date portion of inscriptions. The Prakrit forms of the words *saṃvatsara*, *pakṣa*, *divasa*, *grīṣma*, *varṣā* and *hemanta* were contracted respectively as (1) *sa*, *saṃ*, *sava*, *saṃva* or *saṃvat*, (2) *pa*, (3) *di* or *diva*, (4) *gi*, *gr* or *gri*, (5) *va* or *vā* (for Prakrit *vāsa*) and (6) *he* or *hema*.¹ These abbreviations were used when the numbers of years, etc., were expressed in figures. The contractions *saṃvat* for *saṃvatsara*, *śu-di*, *su-di* or *śu-ti* for *śukla-pakṣa-dina* or °*tithi*, and *ba-di*, *va-di*, *ba-ti* or *va-ti* for *bahala-pakṣa-dina* or °*tithi* or *vadya-pakṣa-dina* or °*tithi* are popular even to this day.²

c16.s1.2

¹ See, e. g., *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 126, 129, 132-33, 148, 151, 203, 205, 220, 253, 283, etc. For *ka* for *kāla* and *va* for *vāra*, see ibid., pp. 131, 168.

c16.s1.3

² The form *ti* for *di* is found in records of the north-western regions. For these contractions, see Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 21, 23, 38, 70, 316, 1072, etc. In many cases, we have *śu-di*, *su-di*, *ba-di* and *va-di* further contracted into *śu*, *su*, *ba* and *va* (see ibid., Nos. 39, 136, 208, 1295, etc.). The names of the months *Bhādrapada* and *Mārgaśīrṣa* were often abbreviated to *Bhādra* and *Mārga* (ibid., Nos. 92, 125, etc.). while occasionally we have *Phā* for *Phālguna*, *Śrā* for *Śrāvaṇa*, *pra* for *prathama*, etc. (ibid., Nos. 842, 361, 1443, 1451). In medieval records in the South Indian languages, we have often *So* for *Somavāra*, *Ma* for *Maṅgalavāra*, *Va* for *Vaḍḍavāra* (Saturday or Thursday), etc.

c16.s1.4

In later epigraphs also, we have *saṃ*, *saṃva* (sometimes spelt *samva* or *samba*), *saṃvat* (often spelt *samvat* and rarely *sambat*) and *saṃvacha* or *saṃvaccha* for the word *saṃvatsara*.³ But in many medieval records the contraction is noticed in various corrupt forms such as *samata*, *samatta*, *samanta*, *saṃvatta*, *saṃvvat*, *saṃvata*, *saṃvatu*, *saṃvatū*, *samaṃthu*, *saṃvatuṃ*, *sammat*, *samat*, *samta*, *smat*, etc.⁴ In medieval Orissa, the word was generally written as *samasta*.⁵ When *saṃvat* came to be stereotyped in the sense of ‘an era’, it was occasionally used with case-endings, e.g., saṁvataḥ, saṁvatā, saṁvati and saṁvatām.¹ The word was sometimes regarded as saṁvata, and we have in rarely saṁvate in the seventh case-ending.² The word śrāhi or śrāhi is often found in the medieval inscriptions of Orissa and the Telugu-Kannaḍa area in the sense of saṁvat; but sometimes both the words are used together apparently through some sort of confusion. The word śrāhi seems to be derived from Sanskrit śaradi through Prakrit sarahi.³

c16.s1.5

³ See Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 578, 1271, 1272, 1291, 1307, 1375, etc.

c16.s1.6

⁴ Ibid., Nos. 49, 357, 360, 366, 599, 1097, 1632, etc.; IHQ, Vol. XXX, pp. 187, 383; *JAS*, Letters, Vol. XIX, Plate I; etc.

c16.s1.7

⁵ Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 1133, 1769, etc.

c16.s1.8

¹ Ibid., Nos. 36, 262, 932, 1003, etc.; Or. Hist. Res. Journ., Vol. I, No. 2, p. 8; etc. See above, p. 309, note 1.

c16.s1.9

² Bhandarkar’s List, No. 988.

c16.s1.10

³ Cf. Ep. Ind., Vol. XXIX, p. 106.

c16.s1.11

From about the 6th century, abbreviations like dū for dūtaka, rū for rūpaka, dvi for dvitīya, etc., occur in West Indian inscriptions,⁴ while in later records contractions of titles, technical terms, etc., appear very often.⁵ Ni for nirīkṣita (examined) or nibaddha (registered) is common in the early medieval copper-plate grants of Eastern India, which also show composite contractions like mahākṣa-ni in which mahākṣa stands for Mahākṣapaṭalika.⁶

c16.s1.12

⁴ See, e.g., Ind. Ant., Vol. VII, p. 73, line 20; Vol. XIII, p.84, lines 37 and 40; Vol. XV, p. 340, line 57; Ep. Ind., Vol. XXX, pp. 175 ff.

c16.s1.13

⁵ See, e.g., JAS, Letters, Vol. XX, 1954, pp. 201 ff.; Ep. Ind., Vol. XXX, pp. 55 ff.

c16.s1.14

⁶ See, e.g., N. G. Majumdar, Ins. Beng., Vol. III, p. 21, text line 51; p. 64, text line 50; p. 75, text line 64, etc.

c16.s1.15

In some cases, we have the contraction śrī-ni⁷ in which śrī seems to stand for śrī-hasta or śrī-caraṇa, both of them being honorific expressions to indicate the king.⁸ Sometimes the endorsement reads śrī-ni mahāsā-ni⁹ which suggests that both the king and the Mahāsāndhivigrahika had occasion to examine the charter. In ni anu mahākṣa-ni,¹⁰ the first ni seems to stand for śrī-ni while the endorsement means that the charter was first examined by the king and then by the Mahākṣapaṭalika. In the contraction mahā-ni,¹¹ it is difficult to determine whether mahā stands for the *Mahāsāndhivigrahika* or any other high officer whose designation begins with the word *mahā*. Sometimes we have *mahāsām-karaṇa-ni*¹ indicating that the document was examined by the *karaṇa* (*adhikaraṇa*) or office (or clerk) of the *Mahāsāndhivigrahika*.

c16.s1.16

⁷ Majumdar, op. cit., p. 88.

c16.s1.17

⁸ Ep. Ind., Vol. XXVIII, p. 304.

c16.s1.18

⁹ Majumdar, op. cit., p. 103.

c16.s1.19

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 21.

c16.s1.20

¹¹ Ibid., p. 64.

c16.s1.21

¹ Ibid., p. 75.

c16.s1.22

But that such abbreviations were popular in earlier times is not only indicated by the date portion of early inscriptions referred to above, but also by the use of *ga* for *gāthā* in the Khotanese manuscript of the Dhammapada and *ślo* for *śloka* and *pā* for *pāda* in the Bower manuscripts.² In the medieval inscriptions and manuscripts, often a *daṇḍa* and sometimes a globular mark are used to indicate contractions; e.g., *ṭha* and *pam* followed by such a mark would indicate *ṭhakkura* and *paṇḍita* respectively.³ In the manuscripts of Prakrit works, the same mark seems to indicate reduplication of the following consonant.⁴

c16.s1.23

² Buhler, op. cit., p. 92.

c16.s1.24

³ See, e.g., *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXII, p. 125, text line 12; p. 153, text lines 97, 99, 101, 103, etc.

c16.s1.25

⁴ See Buhler, loc. cit.

c16.s1.26

In some regions, especially in the Orissa area, a word like *pala* was often contracted to *pla*.⁵

c16.s1.27

⁵ See, e.g., *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXVIII, p. 47. Cf. *prama* for *parama*.

c16.s1.28

In certain medieval inscriptions from Bengal, we have a large number of contractions such as *sām* for *sāmvatsarika* (i.e. annual), *hi* for *hiraṇya* (i.e. tax to be paid in cash), *vā-bhū* for *vāstu-bhūmi* (i.e. homestead land), *nā-bhū* for *nāla-bhūmi* (i.e. cultivated land), *dro* for the land measure called *droṇa* or *droṇavāpa*, *u* for the land measure called *udāna*, *ṭi* for *ṭikara* or *ṭikkara* meaning ‘a mound’ in some Neo-Indo-Aryan languages, *vyā-bhū* for *vyāmiśra-bhūmi* (i.e. mixed land of different categories such as homestead, fallow, cultivated, etc.) and others.⁶ *Sam* for *sambaddha* noticed in these records is also found in inscriptions found elsewhere.

c16.s1.29

⁶ See *JAS, Letters*, Vol. XX, p. 203; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXX, p. 53.

c16.s1.30

Instances of an interesting type of contraction are offered by the Midnapur plates of the time of Śaśāṅka, in which the words *adhi* (or *ādhi*) and *karaṇa* have been used in the senses respectively of *Adhikaraṇika* (or *Ādhikaraṇika*) and *adhikaraṇa*.¹ Abbreviations like *droṇa* for *droṇavāpa*, noticed in these records, are however quite common in the early medieval epigraphs of Eastern India.

c16.s1.31

¹ Cf. *Ind. Cult.*, Vol. IX, p. 121, note.

2. Royal Titles and Epithets

c16.s2.1

The earliest Indian monarchs known from epigraphic sources enjoyed the simple royal title *Rājan*, ‘the king.’ Thus the Maurya emperor Aśoka (c. 272-232 B.C.), who ruled over the major part of India and Afghanistan, refers to his own self in his inscriptions as *Devānāmpriya Priyadarśī Rājā*.² The earliest use of the more dignified title *Mahārāja* (literally ‘the great king’) in Indian epigraphic and numismatic records is found in the coin-legend of the Indo-Greek rulers who flourished in the first half of the second century B.C. Thus certain bilingual coins of king Eucratides has on the overse the Greek legend *Basilēōs Mégalou Eukratidou*, ‘[the coin] of the great king Eucratides’, which is translated in Prakrit on the reverse of the coins as *Maharajasa Evukratidasa* (Sanskrit *Mahārājasya Evukratidasya*, ‘[the coin] of the great king Eucratides’).³ Eucratides originally issued coins with the simpler Greek legend *Basilēōs Eukratidou*, ‘[the coin] of king Eucratides’, without any Indian translation, probably when his dominions did not yet include any part of India.⁴ The word *Mégalou* was added to the legend in certain issues which have also likewise no Indian translation.⁵ These may have been issued shortly after the expansion of his dominions. It is interesting to note that the Greek legend *Basilēōs Mégalou Eukratidou* was originally translated into Prakrit as *Rajasa mahatakasa* *Evukratidasa* (Sanskrit *Rājñaḥ mahataḥ Evukratidasya*),¹ the expression *Rajasa mahatakasa* (Sanskrit *Rājñaḥ mahataḥ*) in it being later changed to *Mahārājasa* (Sanskrit *Mahārājasya*). The modification of the original simpler title ‘king’ to the more dignified ‘great king’ was apparently done in imitation of the style of the Achaemenian monarchs of ancient Iran, who referred to themselves in their inscriptions as *Khshāyaθiya vazṛka*, ‘the great king’.² The Indo-Greek kings assumed certain other titles, of which *Soter*, ‘saviour’, translated into Prakrit as *Tratara* (Sanskrit *Trātṛ*),³ became popular with some of the foreign rulers who succeeded them in North-Western Bhāratavarṣa.

c16.s2.2

² Cf. *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 16, 18, etc.

c16.s2.3

³ See Smith, *Catalogue*, p. 12, No. 17, etc. Demetrius, an older contemporary of Eucratides, or more probably a later king named Demetrius also used the title *Mahārāja* on some of his coins (cf. Whitehead, *Catalogue*, Vol. I, p. 14).

c16.s2.4

⁴ Smith, op. cit., p. 11, No. 1, etc.

c16.s2.5

⁵ Loc. cit., No. 7, etc.

c16.s2.6

¹ Ibid., p. 13, No. 29.

c16.s2.7

² See *Select Inscriptions*, p. 1, etc.

c16.s2.8

³ Cf. Smith, op. cit., pp. 16, 18, etc. Other such titles were *Dikaios* (Prakrit *Dhramika*), *Anikētos* (Prakrit *Apadihata*), *Nikēphoros* (Prakrit *Jayadhara*), etc.

c16.s2.9

A feudatory of the Indo-Greek king Menander is known to have enjoyed the Prakrit title *Apracaraja*, which seems to stand for Sanskrit *Apratyagrāja*, ‘the king having no rival or equal.’⁴

c16.s2.10

⁴ *Select Inscriptions*, p. 103.

c16.s2.11

While the title *Mahārāja* was being used by the Greek rulers of North-Western Bhāratavarṣa, the title *Rājan* was still popular with the indigenous rulers of India in the second century B.C. The Besnagar inscription⁵ of Heliodorus mentions the Indo-Greek king Antiacidas of Taxila as *Mahārāja*, but the contemporary Indian monarch Bhāgabhadra of Vidiśā as *Rājan*.

c16.s2.12

⁵ Ibid., pp. 90-91.

c16.s2.13

The earliest indigenous Indian ruler who used the title *Mahārāja* is king Khāravela of Kaliṅga, who flourished about the last quarter of the first century B.C.⁶ But, in the north-western part of Bhāratavarṣa, foreign rulers of Parthian and Scythian extraction, who were gradually supplanting Greek rule from that area, began to adopt more dignified royal titles. Thus certain coins of Maues, Azes I and Azilises use the epithet ‘the great king of kings’. The expression *Basileōs Basileōn Megalou* in Greek on the obverse of their coins has its Prakrit translation *Maharajasa Rajarajasa* (or *Rajadirajasa*) *mahatasa* (Sanskrit *Mahārājasya Rājārājasya mahataḥ* or *Rājātirājasya mahataḥ*) on the reverse.¹ This style was also an imitation of that of the old Achaemenian emperors who described themselves in their inscriptions as *Khshāyathiya Khshāyathiyānām* (modern Persian *Shāhān Shāh*, ‘the king of kings’).² In the Prakrit legend on certain coins of the Parthian king Gondophernes, the title used in *Maharaja-rajatiraja-tratara* (Sanskrit *Mahārāja-rājātirāja-trātṛ*, ‘the great king, the supreme king amongst kings, the saviour’),³ in which the word *tratara* is a translation of the Greek epithet *soter* used, as indicated above, by many of the Indo-Greek rulers. The coins of the early Kuṣāṇa kings called them *Mahārāja Mahān*, *Mahārāja Rājarāja* and *Mahārāja Rājātirāja*, while some of them also used the title *Devaputra* believed by some scholars to have been borrowed from the Chinese royal title ‘the Son of Heaven.’⁴ The later Kuṣāṇas of Kaniṣka’s house also enjoyed the titles *Mahārāja*, *Rājātirāja* and *Devaputra*.⁵ They assumed the Persian title *Shaonano Shao* (*Shāhān Shāh*)⁶ and are mentioned in a Gupta inscription as *Daivaputra-Ṣāhi-Ṣāhānuṣāhi*.⁷ The successors of Kaniṣka sometimes called themselves *Ṣāhi* (Persian *Shāh*) and rarely *Kaïsara* from Roman Caesar).⁸

c16.s2.14

⁶ Cf. the Hāthigumphā inscription (*Select Inscriptions*, pp. 206 ff.) in which he is called both *Mahārāja* (lines 1 and 3) and *Rājan* (line 17). See op. cit., p. 214, for another ruler of Khāravela’s family enjoying the title *Mahārāja*. Khāravela is also called *Cakravartin*. Cf. *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXV, p. 67, note 6, on the suggestion about Śuṅga Bhāgavata being called *Mahārāja*.

c16.s2.15

¹ Smith’s *Catalogue*, pp. 38 ff.; *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 110-11.

c16.s2.16

² *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 1-2, etc.

c16.s2.17

³ Ibid., p. 123. Gondophernes also enjoyed the title *Devavrata* which may be compared with the Kuṣāṇa title *Devaputra*.

c16.s2.18

⁴ *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 120 ff. Kadphises I was called *Dhramathida* (Sanskrit *Dharma-sthita* or *Sacadhamathida* (Sanskrit *Satya-dharma-sthita*), possibly referring to his adherence to the Buddhist faith. He was also called a *Yavuga* which is believed to be a Scythian word meaning ‘a prince’ (ibid., p. 108). The Hūṇa king Toramāṇa enjoyed the same title in the form *Jauvla* (ibid. p. 399).

c16.s2.19

⁵ Ibid., pp. 135, 144, 149, etc..

c16.s2.20

⁶ Ibid., pp. 142 155.

c16.s2.21

⁷ Cf. the Allahabad pillar inscription (ibid., p. 258).

c16.s2.22

⁸ Ibid., pp. 144, 146, 149, etc.

c16.s2.23

The viceroy of the Scytho-Parthian rulers sometimes enjoyed the official designation *Strategos* (commander of forces).¹ The viceroys or subordinate rulers under the Kuṣāṇas enjoyed the titles *Kṣatrapa* (derived from old Persian *Kṣathrapāvan* meaning ‘a provincial governor’) and *Mahākṣatrapa* (literally, ‘the great *Kṣatrapa*’). The earlier Śaka subordinates of the Kuṣāṇas, who ruled in Western India, called themselves *Kṣatrapa* or *Mahākṣatrapa* and also often *Rājan* and *Svāmin*.² The inscriptions and coins of the Śaka rulers of Caṣṭana’s house, who ruled in Western India almost as independent monarchs, represent the kings as *Rājan* and *Mahākṣatrapa*, although they were often referred to by their contemporaries as *Mahārāja*.³

c16.s2.24

¹ *Select Inscriptions*, p. 111, note.

c16.s2.25

² *Ibid*., pp. 157, 160, 164 ff. In one of the Nasik inscriptions (*ibid*., p. 162), the Śaka chief Ṛṣabhadatta refers to his overlord in the honorific expression *bhaṭṭāraka*. The reference may be to the Kuṣāṇa overlord of his immediate liegelord Nahapāna rather than to Nahapāna himself.

c16.s2.26

³ *Ibid*., pp. 175, p. 221 and note 5.

c16.s2.27

The Imperial Guptas who extended their power over wide areas of Northern India in the 4th century A.D. at first called themselves *Mahārājādhirāja* or *Bhaṭṭāraka-Mahārāja-Rājādhirāja* the title being soon more or less stereotyped as *Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja*,⁴ while the subordinate rulers under them as well as their viceroys enjoyed the title *Mahārāja*.⁵ The Gupta emperors were also called *Rājarājādhirāja* but only in verses and this was probably not a formal title.⁶ In private records, the Gupta emperors were sometimes referred to as *Mahārāja*; but there is no doubt that, in the Gupta empire, the official designation of the paramount ruler was *Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja* and that of a subordinate ruler *Mahārāja*, although there were still smaller feudatory rulers generally called *Rājan*. Sometimes the word *bhaṭṭāraka* was suffixed to the name of an independent or a semi-independent ruler of the Gupta age.⁷

c16.s2.28

⁴ *Ibid*., pp. 239, 270-71. Kumāragupta I is sometimes called *Paramarājādhirāja* and *Adhirāja* on his coins (*Allan, Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties*, pp. 63, 81). See Bhandarkar’s List, No. 341 for *Adhirāja* as a feudatory title.

c16.s2.29

⁵ *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 267, 271-72, 324, 327-28.

c16.s2.30

⁶ *Ibid*., p. 300.

c16.s2.31

⁷ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 16, 84.

c16.s2.32

The Gupta emperor Candragupta II assumed the title *Vikramāditya*. His successors also assumed similar *āditya*-ending titles like *Mahendrāditya*, *Kramāditya*, etc., besides *Vikramādityo*. No name or title ending in *āditya* is known to have been assumed by any historical personage before Candragupta II, though names and titles of this type became gradually popular from the days of the Imperial Guptas.¹

c16.s2.33

¹ It is clear from this fact that the tradition regarding the existence of a king named Vikramāditya in the 1st century B. C. is not genuine. Cf. above, p. 255.

c16.s2.34

Gradually the title *Parameśvara* came to be intimately associated with *Paramabhaṭṭāraka* and *Mahārājādhirāja*. Thus king Yaśodharman Viṣṇuvardhana of West Malwa, who ruled about the second quarter of the 6th century A.D., claims to have obtained for himself the title *Rājādhirāja-Parameśvara*² which is stated to have been difficult to attain, while the Alina plates³ of Maitraka Śīlāditya VI, dated the Gupta year 447 (766-67 A.D.) represent the kings of this dynasty from Śīlāditya II (662-84 A.D.) as *Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara*. The order of the three designations in the compound was sometimes different.⁴ Later on when the said imperial style was stereotyped, it was sometimes felt unnecessary to mention all the three titles and the combination of the three was indicated by a passage like *Paramabhaṭṭārakādi-rāj-āvalī-tray-opeta* (i.e. ‘endowed with the three royal titles commencing with *Paramabhaṭṭāraka*’) as in records like the Rewa plates⁵ of Candella Trailokyavarman, dated 1230 A.D. Instead of *rāj-āvalī-tray-opeta* often we have *rāj-āvalī-pūrvavat* (i.e. ‘the royal titles as before’).⁶ The contraction is also found as *Parameśvarādi-rāj-āvalī-pūrvavat* in many records⁷ since, as indicated above, it has often its full form as *Parameśvara-Mahārājādhirāja-Paramabhaṭṭāraka*. The combination of the three epithets is sometimes indicated in a still shorter form as *Parameśvar-ety-ādi*.¹ Similarly sometimes the king is introduced with the epithet *samast-ety-ādi* which stands for *samasta-supraśasty-upeta* noticed at the beginning of the string of imperial titles, e.g., in the charters of the later Senas.²

c16.s2.35

² *Select Inscriptions*, p. 388.

c16.s2.36

³ *CII*, Vol. III, pp. 171 ff.

c16.s2.37

⁴ In the records of the Pālas and Senas of Eastern India, *Parameśvara* comes first in the compound.

c16.s2.38

⁵ *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XVII, pp. 235-36.

c16.s2.39

⁶ *JASB*, N. S., Vol. XX, p. 372; *JAS*, Letters, Vol. XVIII, p. 71.

c16.s2.40

⁷ R. D. Banerji, *The Pālas of Bengal*, p. 111.

c16.s2.41

¹ See *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXX, p. 79.

c16.s2.42

² Cf. *JASB*, N. S., Vol. XX, p. 374; N.G. Majumdar, *Ins. Beng.*, Vol. III, pp. 124, 136, 145.

c16.s2.43

When the combination of the said three titles was stereotyped as the designation of imperial rulers, their feudatories were usually styled *Mahārājādhirāja*, although smaller subordinates were called *Mahārāja* and *Rājan*. In rare cases, a feudatory was also called *Mahārājādhirāja Parameśvara*.³

c16.s2.44

³ See the Rajor inscription of Mathanadeva (*Ep. Ind.*, Vol. III, pp. 263 ff.).

c16.s2.45

The above is, however, an indication of the modification of the imperial and feudatory styles in North India. The position was somewhat different in the South.

c16.s2.46

The Śātavāhana kings generally called themselves *Rājan* and sometimes also *Svāmin* which was adopted probably after their contact with the Śaka kings of Western India.⁴ But king Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi is once called *Rājarāja* in his son's inscription.⁵ In the same record, the mother of Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi and the grandmother of his son Vāsiṣṭhīputra Puḷumāvi is described as *Mahārāja-mātā* and *Mahārāja-pitāmahī*. This shows that the title *Mahārāja* was known in the South as early as the second century A.D., although it was not yet quite popular.⁶

c16.s2.47

⁴ See *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 184-85, 191, 193, 195, etc.

c16.s2.48

⁵ Ibid., p. 196.

c16.s2.49

⁶ The Velpuru inscription applies the title *Mahārāja* to a 2nd century ruler of the Guntur region. This king seems to have been related to the house of Khāravela who is known to have used the title at an earlier date. See *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXII, pp. 82 ff.

c16.s2.50

The custom of mentioning royal and private personages with metronymics like *Gautamīputra*, ‘the son of a lady whose paternal *gotra* is Gautama’, was popular in the early centuries of the Christian era especially in the southern areas of the country. The purpose was to distinguish a person from his step-brothers and a king also from his predecessors bearing the same name. It has to be noticed that some popular forms of marriage in ancient India did not involve *gotra-antara* or the change of the wife’s paternal *gotra* to that of her husband. At a later date, such a metronymic was conventionally applied to all the members of a ruling family. Thus the Kadambas of Banavasi and the Cālukya kings of Badami claimed to have been *Hārītiputras*.¹ The practice of mentioning metronymics went out of fashion in the early medieval period. But from this time the popularity of mentioning a man’s name jointly with that of his father began to increase in the southern areas of the country. Thus the Early Cālukya king Kīrtivarman II seems to be mentioned in an inscription² as Vikramāditya-Kīrtivarman, i.e. Kīrtivarman II the son of Vikramāditya II.

c16.s2.51

¹ See *Suc. Sāt. L. Dec.*, p. 155. It was later misunderstood as *Hāriti-putra*.

c16.s2.52

² *A. R. Ep.*, 1958-59, p. 8.

c16.s2.53

That the more dignified title *Mahārājādhirāja* was used in the South side by side with *Mahārāja* about the middle of the 4th century A.D. is indicated by the Mayidavolu and Hirahadagalli plates³ of the Pallava king Śivaskandavarman, in the first of which he is called *Yuva-mahārāja* (a modification of the usual *Yuvarāja*, ‘crown prince’) and in the second *Dharma-Mahārājādhirāja*.⁴ The second inscription refers to the unnamed father of Śivaskandavarman as *Mahārāja-bappa-svāmin* (i.e. ‘the *Mahārāja*, the father, the lord’). But the kings of South India belonging to the period upto the 6th century, including the successors of the said Śivaskandavarman, called themselves only *Mahārāja* (sometimes *Dharma-Mahārāja*).⁵ In the Penukonda plates,¹ the Pallava overlords have been called *Mahārāja* while the Gaṅga feudatories have been endowed with the title *Mahādhirāja*. The epithet *Adhirāja* is sometimes known to have been used as a subordinate title.²

c16.s2.54

³ *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 433 ff.

c16.s2.55

⁴ The Kadamba king of the Malavalli inscription also calls himself *Dharma-Mahārājādhirāja* while the same title was assumed by Gaṅga Nītimārga Koṅgunivarma-Permanaḍi and his successors (cf. *Bomb. Gaz.*, Vol. I, Part ii, p. 303, note 3; p. 288, note 5). The title *Dharma-Mahārāja* is supposed to mean ‘a *Mahārāja* who, at the particular time of the record, was engaged in an act of religious merit’. The word *dharma* was sometimes affixed to the royal title by several kings of both North and South India. See *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 96, 211, 407, 437, 456. For its penetration into the land beyond the Bay of Bengal, see ibid., p. 473. Sometimes a crown-prince was called *Dharma-Yuvamahārāja* in South India (*Suc. Sāt. L. Dec.*, p. 207). We have also *Mahāvarāja* for *Yuvamahārāja* (*Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXII, p. 202, note 1).

c16.s2.56

⁵ See *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 443, 446, etc.

c16.s2.57

¹ Ibid., p. 457.

c16.s2.58

² See *Suc. Sāt. L. Dec.*, p. 113 and note.

c16.s2.59

The Cālukya emperors of Bādāmi, including the great Pulakeśin II (610-42 A.D.), called themselves *Mahārāja*, though they soon adopted the more dignified combination of the three titles *Mahārājādhirāja*, *Parameśvara* and *Bhaṭṭāraka* (usually note *Paramabhaṭṭāraka*).³ In the records of the successors of Pulakeśin II, that king is stated to have assumed the title *Parameśvara* as a result of his victory over the imperial ruler Harṣavardhana of Northern India, though Pulakeśin’s own Hyderabad plates state that he assumed the said title after defeating certain hostile kings by 612 A.D. apparently before his engagement with Harṣa.⁴

c16.s2.60

³ *The Classical Age*, p. 235; cf. *SII*, Vol. I, p. 146 (Vakkaleri plate). *Bhaṭṭāraka* is found in the form *Bhaṭāra* or *Bhalāra* in Kannada epigraphs.

c16.s2.61

⁴ *The Classical Age*, p. 237.

c16.s2.62

An interesting title of the Cālukya kings was *Śrī-Pṛthivī-vallabha* often contracted into *Śrī-vallabha* or *Vallabha*.⁵ They were therefore known as *Vallabha-rājas*. The same title was later adopted by their Rāṣṭrakūṭa successors who were known to the Arabs as the *Balharā* (Sanskrit *Vallabharāja*). The epithet seems to suggest that these rulers claimed to have been the incarnation of Viṣṇu, the husband of Śrī and Pṛthivī. The usual style of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas was *Paramabhaṭṭāraka Mahārājādhirāja Parameśvara*.⁶

c16.s2.63

⁵ Ibid., p.

c16.s2.64

⁶ See, e. g., *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XVIII, p. 249, text lines 57-58.

c16.s2.65

The combination of the three titles was not popular with the Pallavas who ruled further south contemporaneously with the Cālukyas and Rāṣṭrakūṭas, though sometimes they called themselves *Rājādhirāja Parameśvara*.⁷ Similar is the case with the Coḷas and Pāṇḍyas.⁸

c16.s2.66

²¹³ Often a word meaning ‘king’ was suffixed to these.

c16.s2.67

⁷ Cf. *SII*, Vol. II, p. 350, text lines 71-72.

c16.s2.68

⁸ Cf. ibid., Vol. III, p. 423, note.

c16.s2.69

Early rulers of the Eastern Cālukya dynasty of Veṅgī enjoyed the title *Mahārāja*.¹ But the later members of the family called themselves *Mahārājādhirāja Parameśvara Bhaṭṭāraka* (or *Paramabhaṭṭāraka*).² Sometimes the paramount title *Paramabhaṭṭāraka* was used by the later Eastern Cālukyas together with the title *Samadhigata-pañca-mahāśabda*³ which was generally assumed by subordinate rulers. In this, however, the Eastern Cālukyas appear to have imitated the Imperial Rāṣṭrakūṭas who are known to have rarely used that title.⁴ There are a few such instances of an independent ruler claiming this title.⁵

c16.s2.70

¹ See, e.g., *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XVIII, p. 4.

c16.s2.71

² *SII*, Vol. I, p. 33, text line 16; p. 45, text lines 20-21. See also p. 40, text lines 42-43, where the king is called *Mahārāja*.

c16.s2.72

³ See, e.g., the Vemalurpadu plates (*Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XVIII, p. 231, text lines 47-48) of Amma II.

c16.s2.73

⁴ Cf. the Sirur inscription of Amoghavarṣa I in *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XII, p. 218, text lines 6-7.

c16.s2.74

⁵ See the Chirawa inscription of Paramāra Devapāla (*JBBRS*, Vol. XVI, p. 108).

c16.s2.75

In medieval times, the imperial rulers of North India were sometimes called *Aśvapati-Gajapati-Narapati-rāja-tray-ādhipati*.⁶ The word *rāja* in this compound may be regarded as having the same meaning as in *rāj-āvali-traya*, i.e. 3 of the groups of royal epithets. The Vijayanagara kings called themselves *Aśvapati-Gajapati-Narapati-mūvaru-rāyara-gaṇḍa* which is the Kannaḍa translation of the same epithet.¹ The expression seems to represent a king as the lord of threefold sovereignty, i.e. of the three wings of sovereignty, viz. the cavalry, elephant force and infantry. In an inscription of the 13th century,² the Yajvapāla king Āsalla of Nalapur is represented as *trividha-kṣitīśa-cūḍā-maṇi* (literally, ‘the head-jewel of the three kinds of rulers’) probably with reference to an idea of grouping kings as *Aśvapati*, *Gajapati* or *Narapati* according as they were strong in cavalry, elephant force or infantry. It appears that some of the medieval Indian kings considered themselves sufficiently strong in all the three wings of sovereignty and claimed the comprehensive title referred to above, while their neighbours were inclined to apply to them any one of the three epithets with reference to the wing in which they were regarded as especially strong. This is how the latest rulers of the Imperial Gaṅga dynasty of Orissa and their Sūryavaṁśī successors gradually became famous as *Gajapati*.³

c16.s2.76

⁶ The title was assumed by Kalacuri Karṇa (1041-71 A.D.) and his successors, Gāhaḍavāla Govindacandra (1114-54 A.D.) and his successors, the Sena king Lakṣmaṇasena (1179-1206 A.D. ) and his successors and the Candella king Trailokyavarman (1205-50 A.D.). Mirashi suggests that Karṇa assumed the title after subduing three kings regarded as *Aśvapati*, *Gajapati* and *Narapati* (*CII*, Vol. IV, pp. c-ci). The Gāhaḍavālas and Candellas appear to have assumed it after their success against the Kalacuris and the Senas as a result of their success against the Gāhaḍavālas. But, as regards Candella Trailokyavarman, his name may have been inserted in the place of that of a Kalacuri king in the ready-made introductory part of the grants of the Kaurava feudatories of Karkareḍi, since the typical Kalacuri title *Vāmadeva-pād-ānudhyāta* (i. e. meditating on or favoured by the Śaiva religious teacher Vāmadeva to whom the Kalacuri kingdom was dedicated by his disciple Gāṅgeya) and *Trikaliṅgādhipati* are also found to have been used along with his name. See the Rewa plates in *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XVII. pp. 230 ff.; cf. *Ep. Ind.*, Vol., XXX, pp.46 ff. Rapson associates the title with the Allahabad region and suggests that its assumption indicates the possession of the said region (*Woolner Com. Vol.*, pp. 196 ff.). It is difficult to accept this view. We have, to note that the same title was assumed by the Vijayanagara kings.

c16.s2.77

¹ Cf. *SII*, Vol. VII, No. 202 (p. 95). They are said to have been specially known as *Aśvapati* because of the strength of their cavalry (Mahalingam, *Administration and Social Life under Vijayanagar*, p. 147).

c16.s2.78

² *Ep. Ind.*, Vol XXXII, p. 340.

c16.s2.79

³ Ibid., Vol. XXXIII, p. 4, note 2. The Vijayanagara kings are believed to have been famous as *Aśvapati* just as the later Imperial Gangas of Orissa and their successors became celebrated as *Gajapati* (*IHQ*, Vol. XXXIII, p. 275). For the conception of *Gajapati* in the south (India), *Ratnapati* in the west (Persia), *Aśvapati* in the north (Turk or Hun) and *Narapati* in the west (China), see P. C. Bagchi, *Twelve Years of Wandering of Buddha*, offprint, pp. 19 ff.; Watters, *On Yuan Chwang’s Travels in India*, Vol. I, pp. 35 ff.

c16.s2.80

Sometimes kings assumed titles with reference to their particular achievements. Thus the title *Gaṅgakoṇḍa* assumed by the Coḷa king Rājendra I (1012-43 A.D.) refers to his success against the Gaṅgas or the land watered by the Gaṅgā. But, in certain cases, such a title was continuously used by the successors of a ruler who first assumed it. Thus the Sūryavaṁśī monarch Kapileśvara, who became king of Orissa in 1434-35 A.D., claimed to be *Gauḍeśvara* and *Navakoṭi-Karṇāṭa-Kalavargeśvara*, i.e. ‘the lord of Gauḍa’ and ‘the master of the Karṇāṭa-nine-crores as well as of Kalavarga (Gulbarga)’, although the claim is more or less vainglorious. But it is interesting to note that the same title was continued not only by his successors but also by later Oriya rulers who claimed to have been the successors of the medieval emperors of Orissa. Sometimes kings of a family, especially of the Kannaḍa region, represented themselves as the lord of a particular city or locality from which it claimed to have hailed. Thus the Imperial Rāṣṭrakūṭas often called themselves *Lattalūrapura-parameśvara*, ‘lord of Lattalūrapura (modern Lātūr in the Osmanabad District of the former Hyderabad State).’¹

c16.s2.81

¹ *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XII, p. 220; *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXX, p. 138.

c16.s2.82

The name of a king generally had the word *śrī* prefixed to it. Particular epithets were also sometimes prefixed to royal names. Thus certain medieval rulers of the Kannaḍa-speaking area prefixed words like *Nūrmaḍi*, *Immaḍi* and *Mum-muḍi* to their names probably to distinguish them from their predecessors bearing the same names.² But names like Kubja-Viṣṇuvardhana falls in another category in which a descriptive epithet was added to the name. The word *vīra* became a popular prefix to royal names in some families. Thus the later Gaṅga kings, alternately named Narasimha and Bhānu, are usually called Vīra-Narasimha and Vīra-Bhānu. The word *pratāpa* and sometimes the expression *Vīra-pratāpa* were similarly used as prefixes to royal names. The expression *prauḍha-pratāpa* was also used.³

c16.s2.83

² Bomb Gaz., Vol. I, Part ii, pp. 332, 428, 433, 459, etc. They mean ‘hundred times’, ‘double’ and ‘three times’ respectively. Cf. Savāi Jayasimha, ‘one-and-a-quarter Jayasimha.’

c16.s2.84

³ The Yādavas of Devagiri, e.g., called themselves *Pratāpacakravartin*, *Prauḍhapratāpacakravartin*, *Bhujabalapratāpacakravartin*, *Bhujabalaprauḍhapratāpacakravartin*, *Yādavacakravartin*, etc. Among the Hoysalas, we have also *Niḥśaṅkapratāpacakravartin*. Cf. Bomb. Gaz., Vol. I, Part ii, pp. 507, 523, 528-29.

c16.s2.85

Sometimes the king was indicated by expressions like *śrīhasta*, *śrīpāda*, *śrīcaraṇa*, etc.⁴ The predecessor of the ruling monarch was often mentioned as ‘the big king’, and we have expressions like *bṛhan-nṛpati-caraṇāḥ*, *periya-devar* (Tamil), *Bada-Narasimha* (Oḍiyā), *Pedda-Narasimha* (Telugu), etc.⁵

c16.s2.86

⁴ See above, p. 328; also below.

c16.s2.87

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXII, p. 231 and note; *JAS, Letters*, Vol. XX, p. 212, etc.

c16.s2.88

With the advent of the Muhammadans in Indian politics, some of the titles of the Muslim rulers were Indianised. Thus the Arabic title *Amīr* was Indianised as *Hammīra* or *Hamīra*.¹ Although no Indian king is known to have assumed *Hammīra* or *Hamīra* as a title, there were a number of kings and princes who adopted it as a personal name.² Even princesses were sometimes named *Hamīradevī* or *Hammīradevī*.³ Another Muslim royal title similarly Indianised was *Sulṭān* which is often found in the form of *Suratrāṇa*.⁴ As a title, it was very rarely assumed by Indian rulers;⁵ but it was often adopted by Indian princes as a personal name.⁶ Sometimes it was written as *Sulutāna*, etc., along with *Pātisāha*=*Pādshāh*, etc., in Sanskritic epigraphs referring to Muslim rulers.

c16.s2.89

¹ Cf. *Rājatarangiṇī*, VII. 53. 64; Bhandarkar’s List, No. 598, etc.

c16.s2.90

² See Bhandarkar’s List, Nos. 623, 702, etc. Cf. also *Hambīra* and *Ahamvīra* in *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXIV, p. 178.

c16.s2.91

³ Bhandarkar’s List, No. 615.

c16.s2.92

⁴ Ibid., Nos. 535, 579, etc.

c16.s2.93

⁵ Cf. the case of the Vijayanagara kings who called themselves *Hindurāya-Suratrāṇa*.

c16.s2.94

⁶ Bhandarkar’s List, Nos. 919-20, etc. It was often spelt as *Suratāna* (ibid., No. 919).

c16.s2.95

The feudatories often claimed to have obtained the five great *śabdas* (usually *samadhigata-pañca-mahā-śabda* or *prāpta-pañca-mahā-śabda*) in which *śabda* means either ‘a title’ or ‘a sound’. Kalhaṇa’s *Rājatarangiṇī* (IV. 140-43, 512, 630) explains the five *mahā-śabdas* as the five official designations beginning with the word *mahā*, viz. (1) *Mahā-Pratīhāra* (superintendent of the king’s chamber or of the gate and guards of the palace or capital city), (2) *Mahā-Sāndhivigrahika* (minister for peace and war, i.e. of foreign affairs), (3) *Mahā-Aśvaśālā-dhikṛta* (superintendent of the stables), (4) *Mahā-Bhaṇḍāgārika* (treasurer) and (5) *Mahā-Sādhanika* (commander of the forces).⁷ This seems to be the meaning of the expression *pañca-mahāśabda* as was current in most parts of North India although the designation may not have referred to the same group of five as mentioned above.⁸ In some West Indian records, the five titles appear to have been *Mahārāja*, *Mahāsāmanta* (feudatory), *Mahākārtākṛtika* (probably, a royal agent or remembrancer), *Mahādaṇḍanāyaka* (commander of forces) and *Mahāpratihāra*. In South India, however, the title seems to refer to the privilege allowed by the overlord to enjoy the sounds of five kinds of musical instruments. These five instruments are mentioned by some authorities as the trumpet, tambour, conch-shell used as a horn, kettledrum and gong.¹ The use of these was allowed as a special mark of distinction not only to feudatory rulers but also to other persons of high rank and authority.² That the distinction or privilege was often conferred on a subordinate by his master is indicated by passages like *tat-pradatta-pañca-mahāśabda* (i.e. [enjoying] the five *mahāśabdas* conferred by the master) in respect of a feudatory of Pratihāra Bhoja I in the Deogadh inscription³ of 862 A.D. Instead of *pañca-mahāśabda* sometimes we have *aśeṣa-mahāśabda* ('all the *mahāśabdas*') or *aśeṣa-pañca-mahāśabda* ('all the five *mahāśabdas*').⁴

c16.s2.96

⁷ Cf. *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXII, pp. 141-42.

c16.s2.97

⁸ Ibid., Vol. XXX, p. 167, note 7.

c16.s2.98

¹ *CII*, Vol. III, 196, note 9. S. K. Aiyangar interpreted the *Rājatarangiṇī* stanzas referred to above in support of the musical sounds theory (*JBBRAS*, Vol. I, N.S. 1925, pp. 238-45). But Kalhaṇa's meaning is quite clear from op. cit., IV. 680. See *JBBRAS*, Vol. VII, pp. 48-51; P. N. Bhattacharya, *Kāmarūpaśāsanāvalī*, p. 42, note.

c16.s2.99

² Cf. *Indian Linguistics*, Turner Jubilee Volume, I, pp. 302 ff.

c16.s2.100

³ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. IV, p. 310.

c16.s2.101

⁴ Cf. *Ind. Ant.*, Vol. XII, pp. 126, 160; Vol. XIV, p. 199; *JBBRAS*, Vol. IX, p. 219; Vol. XII, p. 329.

c16.s2.102

In medieval records, a subordinate ruler or viceroy was often described as 'conducting the entire business of the seal' (cf. *samasta-mudrā-vyāpārān=paripanthayati*).⁵

c16.s2.103

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXXII, p. 152, note 2; p. 166. Sometimes *śrī-śrī-karaṇa-ādi-samasta-mudrā-vyāpārān* (i.e. the entire business including the preparation of documents) is used. See below, p. 359.

c16.s2.104

A common feudatory title is *Sāmanta*, of which *Mahāsāmanta* and *Mahāsāmantādhipati* of latter records appear to indicate superior grades.⁶ *Rāṇaka* (later *Rāṇā* in Rajasthan) is another popular feudatory title of the medieval period. It seems to have been derived from *Rājanaka*, *Rājānaka* or *Rājanyaka* found in the list of addressees in the early medieval copper-plate grants of Northern India. In these lists, the *Rājanaka* is mentioned after the *Rājan* who was also a feudatory but of a higher rank. Rarely *Rājanaka* and *Rāṇaka* are distinguished, the distinction being no doubt based on their being stereotyped without regard to the original meaning of the designation.

c16.s2.105

⁶ For a feudatory ruler called both *Mahāsāmantādhipati* and *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvarādhipati*, see Bomb. Gaz., Vol. I, Part ii, p. 543.

c16.s2.106

Some of the feudatories enjoyed the designation *Maṇḍaleśvara*, i.e. ruler of a *maṇḍala* (a district of a kingdom) sometimes modified to *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara*.¹ The same designation is also found in the form *Māṇḍalika* or *Mahāmāṇḍalika*.² The designation *Māṇḍalika* was sometimes adopted as a personal name, though it was often spelt as *Maṇḍalika*.³ It is, in some cases, difficult to determine whether a provincial governor was a viceroy or a feudatory of an imperial ruler. There was no great difference between these two classes of rulers since a post was often held by an officer hereditarily. Thus the son and successor of a viceroy became practically a feudatory. These feudatories or viceroys very often enjoyed one or more official designations. Thus Vijayasena, a subordinate of Vainyagupta, is known from the Gunaighar plate⁴ to have enjoyed the designations *Mahārāja* and *Mahāsāmanta* as well as *Mahāpratihāra* (chief of the door-keepers of the king's chamber or the royal palace or the capital city), *Mahāpīlupati* (master of elephants),⁵ *Pañcādhikaraṇoparika* (head of five administrative offices or departments), *Pāṭyuparika* (probably, head of the accounts department) and *Purapāloparika* (chief amongst the governors of cities). It is difficult to say whether the different posts were held by Vijayasena at the same time or one after another.

c16.s2.107

¹ Bhandarkar's List, Nos. 24, 133, etc., and Nos. 141, 265, etc.

c16.s2.108

² Ibid., No. 454, and Nos. 180, 205, etc.

c16.s2.109

³ Ibid., Nos. 133, etc., and 751, etc.

c16.s2.110

⁴ Select Inscriptions, p. 333.

c16.s2.111

⁵ We have also *Pilupati*.

c16.s2.112

In medieval times, *Rājan* was often spelt *Rāya* or *Rāva* and similar change is also noticed in respect of *Mahārāja*.⁶ Sanskrit *Rājaputra* was likewise modified to *Rāvata* (spelt as *Rāutta*, *Rāuta*, *Rāhutta*, etc., in Orissa) which was used as a title of nobility. After the formal dedication of the Gaṅga kingdom to the god Puruṣottama-Jagannātha of Purī, the Gaṅga kings, who then regarded themselves as subordinates of the god, usually called themselves Rāuta.¹

c16.s2.113

⁶ Cf. royal names like Kṛṣṇadeva-rāya, Kṛṣṇadeva-mahārāya, etc.

c16.s2.114

¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. XXX, p. 19.

c16.s2.115

Sometimes particular feudatory titles were popular in particular areas. Thus a number of dignitaries in the dominions of the Ikṣvākus of the Krishna-Guntur region enjoyed the title Talavara or Mahātalavara, their wives being similarly called Mahātalavarī. Although the wife of an official like Mahāsenāpati is often found to enjoy the designation Mahāsenāpatnī,² the large number of persons enjoying the above designation would suggest that Talavara in these cases indicates a title of nobility and not merely an official designation. Vinaya-vijaya’s Subodhikā commentary on the Jain Kalpasūtra explains it as tuṣṭa-bhūpāla-pradatta-paṭṭa-bandha-vibhūṣita-rājasthānīya, i. e. a subordinate ruler (or viceroy) favoured by a turban by his master, and this meaning is suitable here,³ even though Hariṣeṇa’s Bṛhatkathākośa (931-32 A. D.) uses Talāra, apparently the same as Talavara, to indicate the administrator of a city or the prefect of the city police.⁴ In the age of the Śātavāhanas, certain feudatories enjoyed the title Mahābhoja (from Bhoja or Bhojaka meaning ‘a Jāgīrdār’) and their wives were called Mahābhojī.⁵ Subordinate rulers of the Kannaḍa-speaking region often called themselves Ammana (or Appana)-gandha-vāraṇa (‘the musk-elephant of the father’), Ayyana-gandhavāraṇa (‘the musk-elephant of the grandfather’), Ayyana-siṅga (‘the lion of the grandfather’), Aṇṇana-siṅga (‘the lion of the brother’), Śaraṇāgata-vajrapañjara (‘the impregnable shelter for one who seeks for it’), etc.

c16.s2.116

² Cf. Select Inscriptions, p. 204.

c16.s2.117

³ JUPHS, Vol. XIX, pp. 79-83.

c16.s2.118

⁴ Hemacandra’s Deśīnāmamālā (V. 3) gives nagara-rakṣaka as the meaning of talāra. In some cases, the Talāra or Talārī was called the Kotwāl. Cf. Bhār. Vid., Vol. XVII, Nos. 3-4, pp. 127 ff.

c16.s2.119

⁵ Lüders’ List, No. 1021, etc.

c16.s2.120

Sometimes the titles assumed by subordinate rulers are found to be an admixture of both imperial and feudatory titles or an ambiguous admixture of the two elements.¹ This indicates their newly achieved semi-independent status. The Panchobh plate² represents king Saṅgrāmagupta of Jayapura and his grandfather and predecessor Rājādityagupta as *Parama-bhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara* as well as *Mahāmaṇḍalika* which is a feudatory title originally enjoyed by this family of rulers. In some cases, the subordinate title enjoyed by a family of feudatory rulers was continued even when they began to rule as independent monarchs. Thus the Śaka *Mahākṣatrapas* continued to use the feudatory title even when they ruled as almost independent rulers.

c16.s2.121

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXIX, p. 186. For a ruler called both *Mahāmaṇḍaleśvara* and *Cakravartin*, see *Bomb. Gaz.*, Vol. I, Part ii, p. 555.

c16.s2.122

² *JBORS*, Vol. V, p. 588.

c16.s2.123

In the inscriptions of Aśoka, a queen of the emperor is called *Devī*,³ though they were apparently also called *Rājñī* and *Mahiṣī*. Later on the queens of imperial rulers were called *Mahādevī*⁴ and apparently also *Mahārājñī*, while the chief amongst the queens was called *Agra-mahiṣī*,⁵ *Paṭṭa-mahādevī*,⁶ etc. When subordinate rulers enjoyed the title *Mahārāja* or *Mahārājādhirāja*, their queens were also styled *Mahādevī*,⁷ *Paramadevi*,⁸ etc. Often the wife of a crown-prince or a subordinate ruler was called *Devī* or *Rājñī*⁹ and their chief wife *Paṭṭa-rājñī*.¹⁰ The word *bhaṭṭārikā* was sometimes suffixed to the name of the queen of both independent and subordinate rulers.¹ Ruling queens generally enjoyed titles corresponding to those of the rulers of the other sex. Thus queen Daṇḍimahādevī (first quarter of the 11th century) of the Bhauma Kara dynasty of Orissa called herself *Paramabhaṭṭārikā Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvarī*.²

c16.s2.124

³ *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 66, 72. Cf. also the case of *Devī* Nāgannikā, queen of Śātakarṇi I who flourished about the close of the 1st century B. C. (ibid., p. 185).

c16.s2.125

⁴ For *Mahādevī* Gautamī Balaśrī mother of Gautamīputra Śātakarṇi who flourished in the 2nd century A.D., see ibid., pp. 193, 198. For later instances, see ibid., pp. 278-79, etc.

c16.s2.126

⁵ *Mahādevī* Prabhāvatiguptā was the *Agra-mahiṣī* of Vākāṭaka Rudrasena II (ibid., pp. 413, 416). For *Piriyarasi* (for Sanskrit *Mahāmahiṣī*) and *Agramahāmahiṣī* in the inscriptions of the Kannaḍa area, see *Bomb. Gaz.*, Vol. I, Part ii, pp. 448-49.

c16.s2.127

⁶ *Gauḍalekhamālā*, p. 154.

c16.s2.128

⁷ Cf. the cases of the queens of the *Mahārājas* of Uccakalpa (*CII*, Vol. III, pp. 117 ff., Nos. 26 ff.).

c16.s2.129

⁸ *CII*, Vol. III, p. 288.

c16.s2.130

⁹ See *Select Inscriptions*, p. 433.

c16.s2.131

¹⁰ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXX, p. 84.

c16.s2.132

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXIV. p. 136; *CII*, Vol. III, p. 211.

c16.s2.133

² Cf. *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXIX, p. 88. The Kākatīya queen Rudramma or Rudrāmbā was sometimes called Rudradeva and was endowed with epithets in the masculine gender.

c16.s2.134

In the inscriptions of Aśoka, the king's son seems to be called *Āryaputra* while princes of the royal blood were probably called *Kumāra*.³ The expression *Āryaputra* in this sense does not appear in later records, although *Kumāra* and its regional variants occur in numerous epigraphs. Some of the medieval Paramāra rulers called themselves *Mahākumāra*.⁴ The epithet *Prāpta-pañca-mahāśabda* and the suffix *bhaṭṭāraka* were sometimes added to the names of the *Yuvarāja* or crown-prince.⁵ The word *bhaṭṭāraka* was also suffixed to the name of a king's son who may not have been the crown-prince.⁶ In South India, the *Yuvarāja* was sometimes called *Yuva-mahārāja*.⁷

c16.s2.135

³ See *Select Inscriptions*, p. 49, note 4; pp. 44, 66; *CII*, Vol. I, p. 97, etc.

c16.s2.136

⁴ Bhandarkar's List, No. 257, etc.

c16.s2.137

⁵ See *IHQ*, Vol. XXIII, p. 238.

c16.s2.138

⁶ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XVII, pp. 335, 337.

c16.s2.139

⁷ *Select Inscriptions*, p. 433, etc.; above, p. 336.

c16.s2.140

Sectarian epithets indicating the religious persuasion of the rulers is often noticed in their records. We have referred above to the epithet *Dharmasthita* or *Satyadharmasthita* applied to the Kuṣāṇa king Kadphises I probably with reference to his adherence to the Buddhist faith. Kadphises II seems to be called *Māheśvara*, ‘a devotee of the god Maheśvara or Śiva’, on some of his coins.⁸ Such sectarian epithets became popular from about the 4th century A.D.

c16.s2.141

⁸ *Select Inscriptions* p. 125.

c16.s2.142

The Imperial Guptas were followers of the Vaiṣṇava faith; but the epithet *Paramabhāgavata* (literally, ‘a devout worshipper or the Bhagavat or Viṣṇu’), indicating their adherence to the Bhāgavata form of Vaiṣṇavism, appears in epigraphic and numismatic records for the first time with reference to Candragupta II (376-414 A.D.).¹ A similar epithet of sectarian character used with the names of the Gupta emperors is *Paramadaivata*. Thus Kumāragupta I is called *Paramabhāgavata* in some epigraphic and numismatic records,² but *Paramadaivata* in certain grants issued by his subordinates.³ The expression *paramadaivata* means ‘a devout worshipper of the *devatā* or god’, the word *devatā* here apparently indicating the god Viṣṇu. Similarly the Sendraka king Nikumbhǎllaśakti is called *Paramamāheśvara* and *Paramabrahmaṇya* at the same time.⁴ The expression *Paramabrahmaṇya* means ‘a devout follower of the Brāhmaṇas’ and not ‘a devout worshipper of the god Brahman’ since the king in question is specifically stated to have been a Śaiva. There are only a few instances representing a ruler as devoted to two different deities. The Eastern Gaṅgas were Śaivas. But Anantavarman Coḍagaṅga (1078-1147 A.D.) became a devotee of the god Puruṣottama-Jagannātha (Viṣṇu) of Purī after his conquest of that region. It is interesting to note that Coḍagaṅga’s earlier records represent him as a *Paramamāheśvara* and later epigraphs as a *Paramavaiṣṇava*, while an inscription of the intervening period calls him both *Paramamāheśvara* and *Paramavaiṣṇava*.⁵

c16.s2.143

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXVI, p. 136.

c16.s2.144

² Cf. *Select Inscriptions*, p. 313; Allan, *Catalogue of the Coins of the Gupta Dynasties*, p. 89.

c16.s2.145

³ *Select Inscriptions*, pp. 280, 283, 285; cf. *Atyanta-deva-Brāhmaṇa-bhakta* (ibid., p. 375). *Paramadaivata* is often wrongly taken to be an imperial title and interpreted as ‘a great divinity’. See my note read at XXVI International Congress of Orientalists, New Delhi, 1964.

c16.s2.146

⁴ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXVIII, pp. 201, 204. For a ruler claiming to be *Paramamāheśvara* and *Mahābrahmaṇya*, see *Int. Ant.*, Vol. XVII, p. 226, text line 5. Cf. *Atyanta-deva-Brāhmaṇa-bhakta* in note 3 above.

c16.s2.147

⁵ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXVIII, p. 240. Some of the successors of this king also claimed to have been devoted to both Śiva and Viṣṇu at the same time. See ibid., Vol. XXXIII, p. 43. For other rulers enjoying similar epithets, see *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. II, p. 353, text line 48; Vogel, *Antiquities of Chamba State*, Part I, p. 185, text line 18.

c16.s2.148

Instead of *Paramadaivata*, sometimes we have *Paramadaivatādhidaivata*. Thus a sixth century ruler of Orissa, named Śambhuyaśas, is called both *Paramamāheśvara* (a devout worshipper of the god Maheśvara or Śiva) and *Paramadaivatādhidai-vata* meaning ‘one who is firmly devoted to the gods and the supreme god’.¹ Similarly the Pāṇḍava rulers of Mekalā called themselves *Paramagurudavatādhaidaivaviśeṣa* side by side with *Paramamāheśvara* and *Paramabrahmanya*.² The meaning of this epithet is ‘one who is a great teacher [of his subjects] and devotee of the gods and the supreme god’. There are numerous instances of the Śaiva kings styling themselves *Paramamāheśvara* in all parts of India.

c16.s2.149

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, Vol. XXIII, p. 200. It is often wrongly taken to be *Paramadevatādhi-*.

c16.s2.150

² Ibid., Vol. XXVII, p. 140, where the expression is wrongly interpreted.

c16.s2.151

Instead of the epithets *Paramabhāgavata* for a Vaiṣṇava ruler and *Paramamāheśvara* for a Śaiva king, we have differently worded epithets in rare cases. Thus the Vākāṭaka queen Prabhāvatiguptā called herself *Atyantabhagavadbhaktā* (staunchly devoted to the Bhagavat or the god Viṣṇu) and *Bhagavat-pād-ānudhyātā* (meditating on, or favoured by, the feet of Viṣṇu),³ while the epithet *Atyantamāheśvara* is found in the records of her son Pravarasena II.⁴ A number of rulers including the Traikūṭaka kings of the 5th century A.D. preferred to call themselves *Paramavaiṣṇava* (a devout worshipper of Viṣṇu).⁵ Probably they followed a school different from the Bhāgavata. The worship of the *Avatāras* (incarnations) of Viṣṇu is reflected in eipthets like *Paramanārasimha* (a devout worshipper of the Narasiṃha or man-lion incarnation of Viṣṇu) adopted by king Lakṣmaṇasena of Bengal, though most of his records represent him as *Paramavaiṣṇava*.⁶

First 182 of 720 passages. Read on

Linked texts (47)