Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c26: Appendix D. The Decline of the Early Gupta Empire

Political History of Ancient India, from the Accession of Parikshit to the Extinction of the Gupta Dynasty c26

Language
English

Contents

Appendix D. The Decline of the Early Gupta Empire

c26.2

¹ First published in the *Calcutta Review*, April, 1930

c26.3

Towards the close of the fifth century A.D. the empire built up by the genius of Samudra Gupta and Vikramāditya was fast hastening towards dissolution. Skanda Gupta (A.D. 455- c. 467) was the last king of the Early Gupta line who is known to have controlled the westernmost provinces. After A.D. 467 there is no evidence that the Imperial Guptas had anything to do with Surāshṭra or the major part of Western Mālwa.² Budha Gupta (A.D. 476-77 to c. 495) was probably the last prince of the family to be implicitly obeyed on the banks of the Lower Ganges as well as the Narmadā. The rulers who came after him retained a precarious hold for some time on Eastern Mālwa and North Bengal. But they had to fight with enemies on all sides, and, if a tradition recorded by Jinasena,¹ is to be believed, their power collapsed in A.D. 551 (320+231) :

c26.4

² The identity of the supreme lord (Parama-*svāmin*) mentioned in connection with the consecration of the early Valabhī king Droṇasiṁha, is unknown. The surmise that he was a Gupta, though plausible lacks convincing proof. Some scholars lay stress on the fact that the era used is the Gupta era (IC, V. 409). But the use of an era instituted by a dynasty does not *always* indicate political subordination to that line. It may simply have a geographical significance, a continuation of a custom prevailing in a particular locality. Even undoubted Gupta vassals used the *Mālava-Vikrama Saṁvat* in Mandasor. Conversely the Gupta era is found used in regions, *e.g*., Shorkot, beyond the proper limits of the Gupta empire. Tejpur, too, should possibly come under the category, as we are not sure as to whether it formed a part of the state of Kāmarūpa in the fourth century A. D. Equally conjectural is the identification of the ruler in question with a Hun or a sovereign of Mandasor. Theories and speculations in the absence of clear data are at best unprofitable. Some connection of the later kings of the Gupta line with the Mandasor region in W. Mālwa in the first quarter of the sixth century A. D. may possibly be hinted at by the expression *Guptanāthaiḥ* 'by the Gupta lords' used in the Mandasor *praśasti* or panegyric of Yaśodharman. The term *nātha* may have reference to the fact that the Guptas were once overlords of Mandasor. But the analogy of *Hūṇādhipa* occurring in the same record may suggest that *nātha* simply means 'lord' or 'king' without reference to any special relations subsisting between Mandasor and the Guptas in or about 533 A.D.

c26.5

¹ *Harivaṁśa*, Ch. 60.

c26.6

*Guptānāṁ cha śata-dvayam*
*eka-triṁśachcha varshāṇi*
*kāla-vidbhir udāhṛitam.*²

c26.7

² *Ind. Ant.*, 1886. 142; *Bhand. Com.,* Vol., 195.

c26.8

The supremacy over Āryāvarta then passed to the houses of Mukhara (cir. A.D. 554)³ and Pushyabhūti (family of Harsha, A.D. 606-47) under whom the centre of political gravity shifted from Magadha to Kanauj and that neighbourhood. Attempts were no doubt made by a line of so-called later Guptas to restore the fallen fortunes of their family, but these were not crowned with success till after the death of Harsha.

c26.9

³ *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, pp. 110-20; *JRAS*, 1906, 843f. About this time (A.D. 554 or A. D. 564) as pointed out by Drs. Bhattasali and Sircar, king Bhūtivarman of Assam is found arrogating to himself imperial titles by the performance of an *Aśvamedha* sacrifice. *Cf. Bhāratavarsha*, Āshāḍha, 1348, p. 83, etc. *Ep. Ind.*, xxvii. 18 f. Subsequently Sircar opines that he finds no Gupta year in the record.

c26.10

The causes of the decline of the early Gupta Empire are not far to seek, though a detailed presentation of facts is impossible in view of the paucity of contemporary records. The broad outline of the story is, however, perfectly clear. The same causes were at work which proved so disastrous to the Turki Sultanate of Delhi in the fourteenth century, and to the so-called Mughtal Empire in the eighteenth, *viz.*, outbreak of rebellions within, devastating invasions from without, the growth of a class of hereditary governors and other officials who commanded enormous influence in local centres, and assumed the titles of *Mahārāja* and *Mahārājādhirāja*, and dissensions in the imperial family itself.

c26.11

Already in the time of Kumāra Gupta I, the stability of the empire was seriously threatened by a turbulent people whose name is commonly read as Pushya-mitra. The danger was averted by the crown prince Skanda Gupta. But a more formidable enemy appeared from the steppes of Central Asia. Inscriptions discovered at Bhitarī, Kura, Gwalior and Eraṇ, as well as the records of several Chinese pilgrims, prove that shortly after the death of Kumāra Gupta I, the fierce Huns swooped down upon the north-western provinces of the Empire and eventually made themselves masters of the Pañjāb and Eastern Mālwa.

c26.12

The newcomers were long known to the people of India as a race of Uitlanders closely associated with the Chinese. The *Mahāvastu*¹ mentions them along with the Chīnas, while the *Sabhāparva* of the *Mahābhārata*² includes them in a list of foreign tribes amongst whom the Chīnas occupy the first place:—

c26.13

¹ I. 135.

c26.14

² II, 51, 23-24

c26.15

*Chīnān Śakāṁs tathā ch Odrān(?)*³ *Varvarān Vanavāsinaḥ*
*Vārshṇeyān(?) Hāra-Huṇāṁścha Kṛishṇān Haimavatāṁstathā.*

c26.16

³ The mention of the Odras in this connection is odd. It is tempting to read in the epic verse Chaḍotāṁcha (instead of *tathāchodrān*). Chaḍota is the name of a territory in Central Asia near Khotan.

c26.17

A verse in the *Bhīshmaparva*⁴ brings the Huns into relations with the Pārasīkas or Persians:—

c26.18

⁴ 9.65-66.

c26.19

*Yavanās Chīna-Kāmbojā dāruṇā Mlechchhajātayaḥ*
*Sakṛidgrahāḥ Kulatthāścha Huṇāḥ Pārasikaiḥ saha.*

c26.20

This verse is reminiscent of the period when the Huns came into contact with the Sassanian dynasty of Persia.⁵ Kālidāsa, too, places the Huns close to Persia—in the saffron-producing country watered by the river Vaṅkshu, the modern Oxus.⁶ Early in the reign of the Emperor Skanda Gupta they poured into the Gupta Empire, but were at first beaten back. The repulse of the Huns is mentioned in the Bhitarī Inscription and is also probably alluded to by the grammarian Chandragomin as a contemporary event.⁷ With the passing away of Skanda Gupta, however, all impediments to the steady advance of the invaders seem to have been removed and, if Somadeva, a Jaina contemporary of Kṛishṇa III, Rāshtrakūṭa, is to be believed, they penetrated into the Indian interior as far as Chitrakūṭa.¹ They certainly conquered the Eraṇ district (*Airikiṇa pradeśa*) in the northern part of the present Madhya Pradeśa. The principal centres of their power in India, in the time of their kings Toramāṇa and Mihirakula, were Pavvaiya on the Chināb² and Sākala, modern Siālkoṭ, between the Chenāb and the Degh, in the Upper Pañjāb.

c26.21

⁵ Smith. *EHI*. 4th edition, p. 339. See also W.M. McGovern, *The Early Empires of Central Asia.*

c26.22

⁶ *Ind. Ant.*, 1912, 265f.

c26.23

⁷ *Ind. Ant.*, 1896, 105,

c26.24

¹ *Bhand., Com. Vol.*, 216. Chitrakūṭa may be Chitor in Rājaputāna, or more probably the equally famous Chitrakūṭa on the Mandākinī in Central India, where Rāma lived for a short time during his banishment. A *Hūṇa-maṇḍala* is mentioned in an inscription as being situated in the Mālwa region (*Ep. Ind.* XXIII. 102).

c26.25

² JBORS. 1928, March, p. 33; C. J. Shah, *Jainism in Northern India*, 210, quoting *Kuvalayamālā* (? 8th century A. D.).

c26.26

Next to the Hun inroads must be mentioned the ambition of generals and feudatories. In the time of the Emperor Skanda Gupta, Surāshṭra was governed by a *Goptṛi* or Margrave named Parṇadatta, who was appointed by the emperor himself to the Viceroyalty of the Far West. Shortly afterwards, Bhaṭārka, a chief of the Maitraka clan, established himself in this province as general or military governor, with his capital probably at Valabhī. He, as well as his immediate successor, Dharasena I, was satisfied with the title of *Senāpati* or general, but the next chief Droṇasiṁha, the second son of Bhaṭārka (A.D. 502-03) had to be installed as *Mahārāja* by his suzerain. A branch of the dynasty established itself in Mo-la-po (Mālavaka)³ or the westernmost part of Mālwa in the latter half of the sixth century, and made extensive conquests in the direction of the Sahya and Vindhya Hills.⁴ Another, and a junior, branch continued to rule at Valabhī. In the seventh century Dhruvasena II of Valabhī married the daughter of Harsha. His son Dharasena IV (A.D. 645-49) assumed the imperial titles of *Paramabhaṭṭāraka Parameśvara Chakravartin*.

c26.27

³ Smith, EHI, 4th edition, p. 343.

c26.28

⁴ Dharasena II, king of Valabhi, left two sons, *viz.*, Sīlāditya II Dharmāditya and Kharagraha I. The account of Hiuen Tsang seems to suggest that in his time (*i.e.*, shortly after Sīlāditya) the Maitraka dominions split up into two parts, one part including Mo-la-po and its dependencies probably obeying the line of Sīlāditya-Dharmāditya, the other part, including Valabhi, obeying Kharagraha and his sons, one of whom was Dhruvasena II, Bālāditya or Dhruvabhaṭa, who married the daughter of Harsha of Kanauj. The account of the Chinese pilgrim seems to receive confirmation from the Alina plate of Sīlāditya VII (Fleet, CII, 171 f. esp. 182n) which associates Derabhaṭa, the son of Sīlāditya I Dharmāditya, with the region of the Sahya and Vindhya mountains, while the descendants of Kharagraha I are connected with Valabhī. The Navalakhi and Nogāwā plates, however, suggest that occasionally the same ruler governed both Mālavaka and Valabhī. In the latter half of the seventh century A. D. the line of Kharagraha I became extinct, and the Maitraka dominions were once more united. For an alleged connection of the Valabhī dynasty with the Kanarese country, see Moraes, *Kadamba-kula*, 64 f. The recently discovered Virdi copperplate grant of Kharagraha I of the year 297 (=A.D. 616-17) shows that for a time that ruler held Ujjain (*Pro of the 7th Or. Conf.* 659 ff.). It is from the camp at Ujjain that the grant was issued.

c26.29

But the Maitrakas of Mo-la-po and Valabhī were not the only feudatories who gradually assumed an independent position. The rulers of Mandaśor pursued the same course, and their example was followed by the Maukharis of the Madhyadeśa and the kings of Navyāvakāśikā-Vardhamāna and Karṇasuvarṇa in Bengal.

c26.30

Mandaśor, the ancient Daśapura, was one of the most important Viceregal seats of the Early Gupta Empire. It was the Capital of a long line of margraves belonging to the Aulikara family¹ who governed part of Western Mālwa on behalf of the Emperor Chandra Gupta II Vikramāditya and his son Kumāra Gupta I Mahendrāditya. With the sixth century A.D., however, a new scene opened. Yaśodharman, ruler of Mandaśor about A.D. 533, emboldened no doubt by his success over the Huns, defied the power of the Gupta lords (*Guptanātha*), and set up pillars of victory commemorating his conquests, which, in the words of his court panegyrist, embraced the whole of Hindusthān from the river Lauhitya, or the Brahmaputra, to the Westrn Ocean, and from the Himālayas to the mountain Mahendra or the Eastern Ghāṭs. After his death the Guptas figure again as lords of Mālava (Eastern Mālwa) in literature and possibly in inscriptions of the time of Harsha. But Western Mālwa could not be recovered by the family. Part of it was, as we have already seen, included within the dominions of the Maitrakas. Another part, *viz.*, Avanti or the district round Ujjain, the proud capital of Vikramāditya and Mahendrāditya in the fifth century A.D.,² is found in the next centuries in the possession of Saṁkaragaṇa of the Kaṭachchhuri or Kalachuri dynasty¹ and Kharagraha. I of the Maitraka line which gave way to a Brāhmaṇa family in the days of Hiuen Tsang.² which in its turn, was replaced by the Rāshtrakūṭas, the Gurjara Pratihāras and other families.³

c26.31

¹ *Ep. Ind.* XXVI. 130 ff; Fleet, *CII*, 153,

c26.32

² Somadeva, *Kathā-sarit-sāgara*, Bk. XVIII; Allan, *Gupta Coins*, xlix n; *Bomb. Gaz.*, I, ii, 578.

c26.33

¹ G. Jouveau Dubreuil, *Ancient History of the Deccan*, 82.

c26.34

² Watters, *Yuan Chwang*, ii. 250. This family may have been connected with the viceregal line of Naigamas mentioned in the Mandasor Inscription of the Mālava year 589, of the time of Yaśodharman and Vishṇuvardhana. Abhayadatta of this family was the viceroy (*Rājasthānīya*, *Sachiva*) of a district bounded by the Vindhya, the Pāriyātra (Western Vindhyas including the Aravali range) and the Sindhu (the sea or a Central Indian stream bearing the same name). His nephew is called a nṛipati (king). Daksha, the young brother of the ruler, excavated a well in the year 589 (=A. D. 533-34).

c26.35

³ *Ind. Ant.*, 1886, 142; *Ep. Ind.*, XVIII, 1926, 239 (verse 9 of Sañjam grant); *cf.* *Ep. Ind.*, XIV, p. 177 (reference to a governor of Ujjain under the Pratīhāra King Mahendrapāla II). In the Sañjam inscription it is claimed that at Ujjain an early Rāshtrakūṭa king made the Gurjara and other lords his door-keepers (*Pratīhāra*). It is not improbable that, like the Paramāras, the Gurjara lords brought to Ujjain were for a long time feudatories of the Rāshtrakūṭas and the name *Pratīhāra* had reference to their status under the Rāshtrakūṭas, before the theory of descent from Lakshmaṇa was adumbrated. Incidentally it may be pointed out that the home territory (Svadishaya) of Nāgabhaṭa's line was in Marwar as is clear from the Jaina Kuvalayamāla and the Buchkala inscription.

c26.36

Another family which came to the forefront in the sixth century A.D., was the line of the Mukharas or Maukharis. The stone inscriptions of the princes of this dynasty prove their control over the Bārā Bankī, Jaunpur and Gayā districts of the Uttar Pradeśa and Bihār. All these territories formed integral parts of the Gupta Empire in the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. In the next century they must have passed into the hands of the Maukharis. The feudatory titles of the earlier princes of the Mukhara line leave no room for doubt that they occupied a subordinate position in the first few decades of the sixth century A.D. In or about the year A.D. 554, however, Iśānavarman Maukhari ventured to measure swords with the Guptas, and probably also with Huns, and assumed the Imperial title of *Mahārājādhirāja*. For a period of about a quarter of a century (A.D. 554-cir. A.D. 580) the Maukharis were beyond question the strongest political powers in the Upper Ganges Valley. They anticipated to some extent the glorious achievements of Harsha, the brother-in-law, and, apparently, the successor (on the throne of Kanauj ?) of their last notable king Grahavarman.

c26.37.1

Like the Maukharis, the rulers of Bengal, too, seem to have thrown off the Gupta yoke in the second half of the sixth century A.D. In the fourth and fifth centuries Bengal undoubtedly acknowledged the suzerainty of the Gupta Empire. The reference to Samataṭa in Eastern Bengal as a *pratyanta* or border state in the Allahabad Pillar Inscription of the emperor Samudra Gupta proves that the Imperial dominions must have embraced the whole of western and central Bengal, while the inclusion of northern Bengal (Pauṇḍravardhana *bhukti*) within the empire from the days of Kumāra Gupta I (A. D. 443-44) to A. D. 543-44¹ is sufficiently attested by the Dāmodarpur plates. Samataṭa, though originally outside the limits of the Imperial provinces, had, nevertheless, been forced to feel the irresistible might of the Gupta arms. The Harāhā Inscription of Iśānavarman, however, shows that the political situation had changed completely about the middle of the sixth century A.D. A new power, *viz.*, that of the Gauḍas, was fast rising to importance in the valley of the Lower Ganges. Gauḍa was already known to Pāṇini² and the *Kauṭilīya Arthaśāstra*.³ The grammarian seems to associate it with the East.⁴ A passage occurring in the *Matsya*, *Kūrma* and *Liṅga Purāṇas*⁵ has, however, been taken to mean that the Śrāvasti region was the cradle of the Gauḍa people.

c26.37.2

But the passage in question does not occur in the corresponding text of the *Vāyu* and *Brahma Purāṇas* and the *Mahābhārata*.⁶ In early literature the people of the Śrāvasti region are always referred to as the Kosalas. Vātsyāyana, the author of the *Kāmasūtra*, writing probably in the third or fourth century of the Christian era, refers to Gauḍa and Kosala as names of distinct countries.¹ Gauḍa in the *Matsya-Kūrma-Liṅga* MSS. may have been inserted as a Sanskritised form of Goṇḍa in the same way as the term Madra-maṇḍala is employed to denote the Madras Presidency, by some modern *paṇḍits* of the Southern Presidency, as well as other scholars and journalists who are unacquainted with the topography of Ancient India.² In the Central Provinces the name "Gond" is very often Sanskritised into Gauḍa.³ Varāhamihira, writing in the sixth century A.D., places Gauḍaka in the Eastern division of India. He does not include Gauḍa in the list of countries situated in the *Madhyadeśa*. Mention is no doubt made of a place called Guḍa. But, if Alberuni⁴ is to be believed, Guḍa is Thanesar and not Oudh. The use of the term *Pañcha Gauḍa* as the designation of a territory embracing Northern India as far as Kanauj and the river Sarasvatī, is distinctly late and dates only from the twelfth century A.D. The term is possibly reminiscent of the Gauḍa empire of Dharmapāla and Devapāla, and cannot be equated with the ancient realm of the Gauḍas in the early centuries of the Christian era.

c26.37.3

The distinct statement in the Harāhā Inscription that the Gauḍas were on the seashore clearly suggests that the Bengal littoral and not Oudh, was the seat of the people in the sixth century A.D. In the next century, their king Śaśāṅka is found in possession of Karṇasuvarṇa near Murshidābād. In the century that follows a Gauḍa appears, in the *Gauḍa-vaho* of Vākpati-rāja, as the occupant of the throne of Magadha. The zenith of Gauḍa power is reached in the ninth century when the Gauḍa dominion extends over the Gangetic Doāb and Kanauj. About the early kings of the Gauḍas our information is meagre. Certain copper-plate inscriptions, discovered in the Faridpur and Burdwan⁵ Districts, disclose the existence of three kings—Dharmāditya, Gopachandra⁶ and Samāchāradeva, who are described as overlords of Navyāvakāśikā, Vāraka-maṇḍala, and, in one case, of Vardhamāna-*bhukti* (Burdwan Division). The Vappaghoshavāṭa inscription introduces to us a fourth king, viz., Jayanāga, who ruled at Karṇasuvarṇa. These kings are, however, not expressly referred to as Gauḍas. The earliest king, to whom that epithet is applied is the famous Śaśāṅka, the great rival of Rājya-vardhana of Thanesar and his brother Harsha. The title *Mahārājādhirāja* assumed by the Bengal kings mentioned above, leaves no room for doubt that they no longer acknowledged the suzerainty of the Guptas and set themselves up as independent sovereigns.

c26.38

¹ For the date, see *Ep. Ind.*, XVII, Oct., 1924, p. 345.

c26.39

² VI. ii. 100.

c26.40

³ ii. 13.

c26.41

⁴ *Cf.* VI. ii. 99 (in regard to accentuation).

c26.42

⁵ *Nirmitā yena Śrāvāstī Gauḍa-deśe dvijottamāḥ.* *Matsya*, XII. 30, *cf* *Liṅga*, I, 65. *Nirmitā yena Śrāvastī Gauḍa deśe mahāpurī* (*Kūrma*, I. 20. 19).

c26.43

⁶ *Yajñe Śrāvastako rājā Śrāvastī yena nirmitā* (*Vāyu*, 88. 27; *Brahma*, VII, 53). *Tasya Śrāvastako jñeyaḥ Śrāvastī yena nirmitā* (Mbh., III. 201. 4).

c26.44

¹ *For Kosalā, see daśanachchhedya-prakaraṇam; for Gauḍa, see nakha-chchhedya prakaraṇam and dārarakshika-prakaraṇam.*

c26.45

² *Cf.* Gieger's translation of *Mahāvaṁśa*, p. 62n.

c26.46

³ *Cf. Imperial Gazetteer of India. Provincial Series. Central Provinces*, p. 158.

c26.47

⁴ i. 300.

c26.48

⁵ Mallasārula Plate (*S. P. Patrikā*, 1344, 17).

c26.49

⁶ Gopachandra may be the Gopākhya *nṛipati* who was apparently a contemporary and rival of Prakaṭāditya, son of Bhānu Gupta (*Ārya-Mañjuśrī-mūla-* *kalpa*, ed., G. Śāstrī, p. 637). It is not altogether improbable that *Dhakārākhya* (*ibid.*, p. 644) is identical with Dharmāditya. Was he a younger brother (*anuja*) of *Vākārakhya* (Vajra) and *Pakārākhya* (Prakaṭāditya)? If this surmise turns out to be correct he may have belonged to the Gupta line.

c26.50

The uprising of the Pushyamitras, the invasions of the Huns and the intransigentism of provincial governors and feudatories, were not the only sources of trouble to the Guptas in the last days of their sovereignty. Along with foreign inroads and provincial insubordination we should not fail to take note of the dissensions in the Imperial family itself. The theory of a struggle amongst the sons of Kumāra Gupta I may or may not be true, but there is evidence to show that the descendants of Chandra Gupta II did not pull on well together, and the later kings who bore the Gupta name sometimes took opposite sides in the struggles and convulsions of the period. The later Imperial Guptas do not seem to have been on friendly terms with their Vākāṭaka cousins. Narendrasena Vākāṭaka, a great-grandson of Chandra Gupta II through his daughter Prabhāvatī, seems to have come into hostile contact with the lord of Mālava. Narendrasena's cousin Harisheṇa claims victories over Avantī. Inasmuch as the Guptas are associated with parts of Mālava as late as the time of Harsha, some of the victories gained by the Vākāṭakas must have been won over their Gupta cousins. In the seventh century A.D., Deva Gupta appears as an enemy of Harsha's family, while Mādhava Gupta was a friend.

c26.51

Lastly, it is interesting to note that while the earlier Guptas were staunch Brāhmanists, some of whom did not scruple to engage in sacrifices involving the slaughter of living beings, the later kings, or at least some of them, *e.g.*, Budha (Buddha) Gupta, Tathāgata Gupta and Bālāditya had Buddhist leanings. As in the case of Aśoka after the Kaliṅga war and Harsha after his intimate relation with the Chinese Master of the Law, the change of religion probably had its repercussions on the military and political activities of the Empire. In this connection it is interesting to recall a story recorded by Hiuen Tsang. When “Mahirakula,” the Hun tyrant ruling at Sākala, proceeded to invade the territory of Bālāditya, the latter said to his ministers, “I hear that these thieves are coming, and I cannot fight with them (their troops); by the permission of my ministers *I will conceal my poor person among the bushes of the morass*.” Having said this he withdrew to an island with many of his subjects. Mihirakula came in pursuit but was taken alive as a captive. He was, however, set free and allowed to go away on the intercession of the Queen Mother.¹ We do not know how far the story is authentic. But it seems that Indians of the seventh century A.D. from whom the Chinese pilgrim must have derived his information, did not credit the later Pro-Buddhist rulers of the Gupta dynasty with the possession of much courage or military vigour, though they bear testimony to their kindness and piety. The misplaced clemency of Bālāditya and his mother helped to prolong the tyrannical rule of Mihirakula and gave Yaśodharman and the succeeding aspirants for imperial dominion, *viz.*, Iśānavarman and Prabhākara-vardhana, an opportunity of which they were not slow to take advantage and thereby seal the doom not only of the Hun (Yetha), but also of the Gupta domination in Northern India.

c26.52

¹ Beal, *Si-yu-ki*, I, 168 f. ; Watters, I. 288-89. \* This *Index* purports to give a general idea of the kind of literature that has been utilised in preparing the work. It may also be of some little use to students. In the case of the more well-known authorities no detailed reference has been deemed to be necessary; such references will ordinarily be found in the text itself.

Linked texts (13)