Sāmanta—its varying significance in Ancient India

Lallanji Gopal

doi:10.1017/S0035869X00121380

Sāmanta—its varying significance in Ancient India

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011

Lallanji Gopal

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

In the epigraphic and literary records of medieval Hindu India the term sāmanta is used to mean vassals and nobles. Thus the sāmantas were vitally connected with the structure of Indian society. But, in spite of its importance, the term has not received a full-length study.

According to its derivation the term sāmanta is an adjective and means ‘being on all sides’, ‘neighbouring’ or ‘bordering’. In earlier works we find it used in this sense.

Type: Articles
Information: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society , Volume 95 , Issue 1-2 , April 1963 , pp. 21 - 37

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0035869X00121380 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Royal Asiatic Society 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 21 note 1} Among the most important studies of the term is that of Agrawala, V. S. — Harṣacarita: Eka Sāṁkṛtika Adhyayana, pp. 217–220Google Scholar.

^{page 21 note 2} In Kātyāyana śrautasūtra (1.7.25) it is used in connection with rites performed on all sides of the sacrificial fire (āvṛttisāmanteṣu pradakṣiṇam). In Pali works sāmanto means ‘neighbouring’, ‘bordering’, or ‘in the neighbourhood’, ‘closely’.

^{page 21 note 3} Vasiṣṭha Dharma sūtra (XVI, 13–15), Arthaṡāstra (III, 8, 9), Manu (VIII, 258–263), Yājñavalkya (II, 150–152), Nārada (XI, 1–4), Kātyāyana (737, 743–745, 749–751); Pañcatantra (of Pūrṇabhadra, pp. 188–89) and Agnipurāṇa (CCLVII, 1–3).

^{page 21 note 4} VIII, 258— samantabhāḥ sāmantāstadvāsinaḥ; also VIII, 259, 262, 263.

^{page 21 note 5} II, 150— samantādbhavāḥ sāmantāḥ catasṛṣu dikṣvanantaraṁ grāmādayaste capratisīmaṁ vyavasthitāḥ.

^{page 21 note 6} Cf. texts quoted by the Mitākṣarā on Yājña, II, 150 — ‘grāmo grāmasya sāmantaḥ kṣetro kṣetrasya kīrtitaṁ/gṛham gṛahasya nirdiṣṭaṁ samantātparibhāvayet//” 'and ‘ye tatra pūrvaṁ sāmantāḥ paścāddeśāntaraṁ gatāḥ / tanmūlatvāttu te maulā ṛṣibhiḥ parikirtitāḥ//’

^{page 21 note 7} The rule that the boundary should be settled by an even number of sāmantas, four, eight or ten and inhabitants of the same village (Yājña, II, 152; Manu, VIII, 258) ill suits the position of a sāmanta as the single lord of his feudal estate.

^{page 22 note 1} Manusmṛti (VIII, 258–60) indicates that sāmantas mean the neighbouring cultivators. The rule aims at relying at first on the evidence of those who are nearer to the field, and in their absence to widen the scope of men included in the term sāmanta.

^{page 22 note 2} Vasiṣṭha Dharma sūtra (XVI, 13–15 cf. Śaṅkhalikhita q. in Vivādaratnākara, p. 208) shows that the right of the sāmantas was of a very elementary nature and there were many others who had a stronger jurisdiction in such cases. The sāmantas could settle cases only as long as they had not grown complicated and a just judgment could be reached on the basis of spot inspection — Nārada, XI, 11; Yājña, II, 153.

^{page 22 note 3} Nārada, XI, 7; Manu, VIII, 263.

^{page 22 note 4} JRASB., XVI, p. 115.

^{page 22 note 5} Harṣacarita, p. 219.

^{page 22 note 6} This suits better the construction of the phrase ‘sāmantaiḥ avasitasya vinayo’. Moreover, the next rule, apparently related to it, runs: ‘saṁvadane rūpakāḥ catuṣpañcāśat'. According to the interpretation suggested by Dr. Agrawala the second rule would mean that if information had duly been given to the king about the case, the fine was only 54 silver coins. It is not quite understandable why a sāmanta should make decisions in cases on landed property if he had no jurisdiction and why the two claimants should come to him for settlement. A happier sense is indicated by the second interpretation. In that case it would mean that a fine of 54 silver coins only was to be paid by the party that had itself invited arbitration in a boundary dispute but was defeated. If the cultivator had not asked for the arbitration, it indicated that he had false title to the land and so had to pay the double of 54 silver coins. Further, the rules that follow these two refer to fines or sums to be paid by the parties in a dispute. It would appear that the rule 34 was also of this nature.

^{page 23 note 1} Artha, III, 9. Also Vyāsa, , Bhāradvāja, and Bhṛaspati, q. in Vyavahāranirṇaya, p. 355 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 23 note 2} Replies, p. 23 ff. q. by Appadorai, A. – Economic Conditions in Southern India, p. 326 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 23 note 3} On Yājña, II, 114; ‘Land is conveyed by six formalities, by the assent of townsmen, of kindred, of neighbours and of heirs, and by the delivery of gold and water.’

^{page 23 note 4} Ibid. The Mitākṣarā says that these are not absolutely necessary formalities of a sale, but they are recommended for the sake of greater caution and convenience, and that the assent of the villagers is to be secured for the publication of the transaction of sale, as a text says that acceptance, particularly of immovables, should be public, so that the consent of neighbours should be secured to obviate any dispute concerning the boundary.

^{page 23 note 5} The word sāmanta is not confined to the seventh book of the Arthaśātra – Index Verborum to the Arthaśāstra, Vol. III pp. 264–66.

^{page 23 note 6} The commentary by T. Ganapati Sastri (Vol. II, pp. 272, 278, 301; III, p. 87; also I, pp. 48, 85; II, pp. 210, 219, as also the one contained in the edition of Jolly and Schmidt (Vol. II, pp. 1,2 etc.) explain sāmanta as the king of the neighbouring territory.

^{page 23 note 7} Nath, Pran — Economic condition of Ancient India, p. 132 fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 24 note 1} Cf. also Artha, III, 8, 9.

^{page 24 note 2} Artha, I, 10, 13, 17, 18, 21; V, 4, 6; VI, 2; VIII, 4; IX, 3, 6, 7; XII, 4; XIII, 3,4.

^{page 24 note 3} In the second Edict, Rock (CII., I, p. 184 ff.Google Scholar) Aśoka refers to his benevolent deeds in the domains of Antiochus and other kings who were his sāmaṁtas (ye vā pi tasa Aṁtiyokasa sāmaṁtā rājāno). The Girnar version of the second Rock Edict has ‘sāmipā rājāno’ for sāmaṁtā rājāno (Ibid., p. 2, 1.3; Select Inscriptions, p. 18, L. 3; f. n. 3). The kings of southern India and the Greek kingdoms to the west of India have been mentioned in the Second Rock Edict as pracantas (pratyantas) (Select Inscriptions, p. 18, 1.2). In the thirteenth Rock Edict Aśoka speaks of his dhammavijaya in these neighbouring territories (aṁhteṣu) (Ibid., p. 37, 1.8). The second separate Kalinga Edict is addressed to the people of the aṁta territories (Ibid., p. 46, 11.2, 4, 15). The first Pillar Edict refers to aṁtamahāmātā or the mahāmātras for the frontier kingdoms (Ibid., p. 55 f.). It is apparent that the terms sāmantas, antas and pratyantas are similar in import and alike mean ‘neighbouring kings’.

^{page 24 note 4} The fact that any state, whatever its extent, may have an unfriendly neighbouring state which it tries to win or appease has been developed into the maṇḍala theory, permuting all possible combinations of relations with neighbouring states, some friendly others antagonistic.

^{page 24 note 5} Artha, VI, 2; cf. Manu, VII, 155–157; Kāmandaka, Chs. VIII, XII, XIII; Mbh., XIII, 59, 70–71; Viṣṇudharmottara, II, 145, 11–15; Agni, CCXL, 4–5; CCXXIII, 21–22; Sarasvativilāsa, pp. 30–41; Mit. on Yājña, I, 345; Nītivākyamṛta, p. 318 f. It is not possible to decide which of these descriptions reflects the conditions of its time.

^{page 24 note 6} (Ed. J. Vidyasagar) XI, 6; XIII, 29; XIV, 22; XV, 51.

^{page 24 note 7} GIL., III, p. 526 q. in the Classical Age, p. 300.

^{page 24 note 8} Introduction to the Kauṭaliya Arthaśāstra, pp. 6–8.

^{page 24 note 9} R. L. Mitra, Preface pp. 1, 4h; T. Ganapati Sastri, Preface pp. v–vi. Jayaswal, K. P. — History of India, p. 118 f.Google Scholar; JBORS., XVIII, pp. 37–39; IA., 1918 p. 159; Dikshitar, V R. R. — The Gupta Polity, pp. 12–15Google Scholar.

^{page 25 note 1} I, 2–8.

^{page 25 note 2} In Bhartṛhari, (Śatakatrayādi-Subhāṣitasangraha, Vairāgya p. 66f.Google Scholar, verse 169) also sāmanta in ‘Bhrātaḥ kaṣṭamaho mahānsa nṛpatiḥ sāmantacakraṃ ca tat’ refers to the kings circling a kingdom according to the theory of maṇḍalas.

^{page 25 note 3} EI., XXVIII, 34 (B).

^{page 25 note 4} IA. VII, p. 33.

^{page 25 note 5} In the Gunaighar inscription of Vainyagupta dated 507 a.d. (Select Inscriptions, p. 333 f.) the executor Mahārāja Śrimahāsāmanta Vijayasena probably entrusted the business to the Kumārāmātya Revajjasvāmin and two other officers. Also Valabhi plate of Dharasena II dated somewhere between 571 and 588 a.d. (JBBRAS., I, p. 24), Coras plates of Dhruvasena III of 633 a.d. (Ibid., I, 17p. 57) and Madhuban grant of Harṣavardhana, (EI., VII, 22Google Scholar. Also XXIII, 42A).

^{page 25 note 6} Palitana Plate dated 525 a.d. — EI., XI, 9 (p. 108); Plate, Kathiawad — EI., XVIII, p. 110Google Scholar.

^{page 26 note 1} Sunaokalo plates of Saṁganasimha, Mahāsāmanta Mahāraja (EI.., XI, p. 74Google Scholar) dated 540 a.d. In the Barabar Hill inscription of Anantavarman, (CII, III, 48Google Scholar) he calls Śardūlavarman one of his ancestors the cūḍamaṇi among sāmantas. Cf. Palitana, plates dated 574 a.d. (EI., XI, 2 p. 18Google Scholar) of Sāmanta-mahārāja Siṁhāditya; inscriptions of the Gūrjara kings of Nāndīpurī (Shandarkar's list Nos. 1209–1213); inscription of Mahāsāmanta Mahārāja Viṣṇuṣena (592 a.d.) and sāmanta Avanti (605 or 676 a.d.) (IHQ., XXV, pp. 287–291), Rohtasgadh seal matrix of Śaśāṇkadeva, Śrīmahāsāmanta (CII, III, 78)Google Scholar; Nirmand Plates of Mahāsāmanta Mahārāja Samudrasena (Ibid., 80).

^{page 26 note 2} In his two copper plates from Midnapore, (JRASBL., XI, pp. 1–9)Google Scholar as well as the inscriptions of the Śeailodbhava kings of Orissa (JAHRS., X, pp. 1–15) Śaśāṅka has been given full imperial titles. The Rohtasgadh seal indicates earlier times when Śaśāṅka was a subordinate ruler, no matter whether of Mahāsenagupta, (Classical Age, p. 78)Google Scholar or of the Maukharis, (IHQ., XII, p. 457Google Scholar). The earlier rulers of the Maitraka family are referred to by the title of mahāsāmanta mahārāja. Sometime during the reign of Guhasena (556–567 a.d.) they discontinued the payment of allegiance to the Guptas. The Wala plates of the year 588 a.d. (IA., VI, p. 11) mark the period of transition. Whereas in the text of the grant king Dharasena II is mentioned with his titles of mahāsāmanta mahārāja the royal signature towards the end of the plate contains the title of mahādhirāja. After some changes of fortune the dynasty emerges as completely sovereign under Dharasena IV, who ascended the throne in 644 a.d. This is indicated by the high title of cakravarti which he assumed.

^{page 26 note 3} The title of mahārāja for sāmantas is quite common (IA., VII, p. 33); EL, XI, p. 74, p. 18, CII, III, 80). The Nirmand Plates (Ibid., 80) use abhikhyātanarapativaṁśajaḥ for Mahāsāmanta Samudrasena. Inscriptions and literary works in describing the feet of a sovereign as touched by the heads of defeated rulers employ for the latter nṛpa and sāmanta without any discrimination — EI., XVIII, 27; XXVIII, 3, 34 (A and B); XXII, 6; XVII, 21; XIII, 9; XII, 17; XII, 10; IX, 28; VII, 13; Gupta Inscriptions, 40. Pañicatantra (, Ryder tr.), pp. 12, 351Google Scholar; Ibid., p. 120 (Hertel p. 102 f.); Raghu, IX, 13; IV, 88; Vāsavadattā (, Gray tr.), p. 47Google Scholar, Harṣacarita (tr.), p. 59. The Mundesvari, inscription (EI., IX, 41Google Scholar) uses rājye for the kingdom of Mahāsāmanta Mahārāja Udayasena.

^{page 27 note 1} All those officers who are addressed in the grants of sovereign kings also find mention in the records of Sāmanta kings. Cf. the inscription of Sāmanta Viṣṇuṣeṇa which contains a list of rules according to which he governed his subjects (JRASB., XVI, p. 11 f.). These rules show that he exercised the same powers and had the same jurisdiction as any ruler might be expected to possess.

^{page 27 note 2} Badakhimedi plates of Indravarman, (EI., XXIII, 13)Google Scholar; Bugude plates of Mādhavavarman, (EI., III, 6)Google Scholar; Patiakella grant of Śivarāja, Mahārāja (EI., IX, 40)Google Scholar; Kasare plates of Nikumbhāllaśakti, Sendraka (EI., XXVIII, 34 (B))Google Scholar; Tipperah grant of Lokanātha, (EI., XV, 19)Google Scholar.

^{page 27 note 3} Cf. EL, XVIII, 7— Tatpādānudhyātaśrisāmantanārāyaṇabhadrasyaudumvarīkavisayasambhogakāle.

^{page 27 note 4} Baloda and Rajim grants of Tīvaradeva, (EI., VII, 13Google Scholar; CIL, III, p. 294 ff.); Kasare plates of Sendraka Nikumbhāllaśakti and Ellora grant of Dantidurga. Cf. EL, XXII, 15. Also EL, XXVIII, 34B; EL, XXV, p. 25; Tiwarkhed Plate of Nannarāja, (EI., XI, 27 (p. 279))Google Scholar, Baudh grant of Raṇabhañjadeva, (EI., XI, 36 (B))Google Scholar and Sankheda grants of Praśāntarāga, Dadda IV (EI., V, 5)Google Scholar; EL, XII, 13. Cf. IA., IX, p. 126 — Vijayāditya Satyāsraya is said to have acquired for his father the tokens of the river Yamunā and the pālidhvaja, and the insignia of the dhakkā drum and the mahāśeabda, and rubies and elephants·

^{page 27 note 5} In a Devagiri inscription dated 600 a.d. Mahāśāmantādhipati Śantivarman who had acquired the pañcamahāśabdas is said also to have employed the Nandanavana umbrella, the horse crest and the mirror banner (EL, XI, p. 6). The inscription is undoubtedly spurious: But as it has nothing irreconcilable with the known history of the region for its true period (EL, XI, pp. 3–4) the information may be utilized as it is in line with other references in the inscriptions of this period.

^{page 28 note 1} Harṣacarita, p. 219.

^{page 28 note 2} I., 365–384. Prasad, B. — Theory of Government in Ancient India, p. 252Google Scholar.

^{page 28 note 3} IV, 7, 389–418.

^{page 28 note 4} After writing this paper the author came to the conclusion that the Śukranīti was a work of the 19th century. His views are published in BSOAS., xxv, 524–56, which see for earlier theories on the date of text. [Ed.]

^{page 28 note 5} Raghu, V, 28; VI, 33; Vikramorvaśī, III, 19.

^{page 28 note 6} The commentary of Mallinātha also derives the term sāmantānāṁ as samantādbhavānārṁ rājñām.

^{page 28 note 7} XLII, 2–5 ff. The list also appears elsewhere in connection with the description of crowns (ch. XLIX), thrones (ch. XLV), etc.

^{page 28 note 8} II.8, 2.

^{page 29 note 1} Cf. Bhanuji Diksit (p. 447) — Saṁlagno'nta ekadesośyāḥ samantāyāḥ svadeśavyavahitabhũmerime rājānaḥ, praṇatā aśeṣāḥ sāmantāḥ svadeśdnantarārājā yasya.

^{page 29 note 2} K. G. Oka in his Introduction p. vi.

^{page 29 note 3} Cf. the observation of Sulaiman the Arab merchant — Elliot and Dowson Vol. I, p. 7.

^{page 29 note 4} Vedic Index, II, 433.

^{page 29 note 5} VII, 3, 14; VIII, 12, 4–5; VIII, 14, 2–3.

^{page 29 note 6} VIII, 4, 1.

^{page 29 note 7} Cf. Aitareya Br., XXXIX. Śatapatha Br., IX, 3, 4, 8; V, 1, 1, 3, 13–14.

^{page 29 note 8} Prasad, B. — State in Ancient India, p. 59fGoogle Scholar.

^{page 30 note 1} Mbh., II, 45. Also II, 25, 3; II, 5; XV, 6, 16; III, 25.

^{page 30 note 2} Dīgha, III, p. 62f — Yathābhuttañca bhuñjathā ti.

^{page 30 note 3} Jātaka, III, 13, 116, 153; V, 425.

^{page 30 note 4} Jātaka, V. p. 316.

^{page 30 note 5} Cf. reference to Śaliśuka, in the Gārgīsamhitā (JBORS., IV, p. 261)Google Scholar — sthāpayiṣyati mohātmā vijayaṁ nāma dhāmikam. This ideal has to be interpreted in line with the Buddhist view of a cakkavatti described in the Cakkavatti Sihanāda Sutta as consisting of conquest not by the sword, but by righteousness — Dialogues of the Buddha, Part III, p. 59.

^{page 30 note 6} Separate Edict, Kalinga II — Select Inscriptions, p. 46Google Scholar.

^{page 30 note 7} Ibid., p. 37.

^{page 30 note 8} Ibid., p. 18.

^{page 30 note 9} Manu, VII, 202; Viṣṇu, III, 30.

^{page 30 note 10} Artha, XII, 1.

^{page 31 note 1} Ch. IV.

^{page 31 note 2} IV, 43.

^{page 31 note 3} Cf. Raychaudhuri, — Political History, p. 199 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 31 note 4} XIII, 5, 4, 1–23.

^{page 31 note 5} Cf. Senāpateḥ Puṣyamitrasya dviraśvamedhayājinaḥ — Select Inscriptions, p. 96; Mālavikāgnimitra; Harivaṁśa, III, 2, 40; Iha Puṣyamitraṁ yājayāmah — Patañjali, (IA., 1872, p. 300)Google Scholar.

^{page 31 note 6} Select Inscriptions, p. 186 ff.

^{page 31 note 7} Ibid., p. 91.

^{page 31 note 8} Age of Imperial Unity, p. 224.

^{page 31 note 9} Select Inscriptions, p. 437.

^{page 31 note 10} Classical Age, p. 272.

^{page 31 note 11} Ibid., p. 205.

^{page 31 note 12} Select Inscriptions, pp. 407, 419.

^{page 32 note 1} Ibid., p. 419.

^{page 32 note 2} Ibid., p. 412.

^{page 32 note 3} Allan, — Gupta Coins, p. 21 ffGoogle Scholar.

^{page 32 note 4} Cf. Allan, —Gupta Coins, p. xxxiGoogle Scholarand JRAS., 1901, p. 102 for a seal and a stone figurine suggesting this Aśvamedha.

^{page 32 note 5} Select Inscriptions, p. 254 ff.

^{page 32 note 6} Select Inscriptions, p. 271.

^{page 32 note 7} Cf. the picture in Kālidāsa — Upadhyaya, B. S. — India in Kālidāsa, p. 114Google Scholar. It is this characteristic of the Gupta empire which DrPrasad, B. (State in Ancient India, p. 285 ff.Google Scholar) describes by calling it a feudal-federal organization. But here the terms feudal and federal are to be used only in a restricted sense. The empire was a federal organization only in the sense that it comprised a number of states. Likewise the empire cannot properly be called feudal in character because sāmantas in India denoted a class of rulers and not of landlords.

^{page 32 note 8} Ibid., p. 377 ff.

^{page 33 note 1} Ibid., p. 379 ff.

^{page 33 note 2} Ibid., p. 288 ff.

^{page 33 note 3} Cf. Si-yu-ki I, pp. 90, 91, 98. 136 143, 163; II, 193, 268 f., 274, 275, 276.

^{page 33 note 4} Whereas during the reign of Kumāra Gupta, the Governor of Puṇḍravardhana was called uparika, in the inscriptions from the time of Budha Gupta onwards, he assumes the title of uparika-mahārāja — Select Inscriptions, pp. 284, 295, 324, 328, 338.

^{page 33 note 5} EL, XXIII, 32 (B and C).

^{page 33 note 6} JRASB., (L), XI, p. 7 f.

^{page 33 note 7} Mahāsāmantaśrisāmanta in the list of officers addressed to in grants — EI., XXIII, 13; HI, 6; XV, 19; XXVIII, 41.

^{page 33 note 8} Harṣacarita, p. 153 — Anatikramaṇavacanairupasṛtya pradhānasāmantair vijñāpyamānaḥ.

^{page 33 note 9} Cf. the expression samatikkrāntakirttiranekasāmantottamāṅgāvanatamukutamaṇimāyūkhavicchūritacaraṇdravindayugalaḥ applied to Mahāsāmantamahārāja Śrīvaruṇāsena — Gupta Inscriptions, 80. Some of the grants of our period made by sāmantas are also addressed, among others, to their own sāmantas.

^{page 33 note 10} Cf. EI., XII, 31. The term is mentioned in the spurious inscription from Devagiri dated 600 a.d. (EI., XI, 1, p. 6).

^{page 34 note 1} Thus the Maitrakas, had their own sāmantas (EI., XI, 17Google Scholar — the Gārulaka family). See also Eran stone Pillar inscription of the time of Budhagupta — Select Inscriptions, p. 326 f. Pṛthivlvigraha ruling over Kaliṅga under the suzerainty of the Guptas had Dharmarāja, Mahārāja as his subordinate (IHQ., XXVI, p. 75)Google Scholar.

^{page 34 note 2} The inscriptions of the Parivrājakas, (Gupta Inscriptions, 21 23Google Scholar; EI., XXI, 20), the Uccakalpas, (Gupta Inscriptions, 26, 27Google Scholar) and Lakṣmaṇa, Mahārājas (EI., II, p. 364Google Scholar; ASL., 1936–7 p. 88) and Subandhu, (EI., XIX, 44Google Scholar) have only a very veiled reference to their overlords the Guptas. Cf. the early history of the Maukharis, the Vardhanas and the Aulikaras. The inscription of king Mānadeva of Nepal (Indraji No. 1) describes how subordinate rulers used to raise the banner of revolt at the first sign of confusion after the death of the sovereign king. Prabhākaravardhana is compared with Mandāra for churning, like an ocean, the whole ring of feudatories drunk with the intoxication of valourous frenzy (Harṣacarita, p. 155). The inscriptions also almost invariably refer to kings as having subdued their sāmantas by their might (EI., XXIII, 15; XII, 13, 7; VI, 29; IX, 45; XXVI, 5A; IX, 50; VIII, 24) or won them over by the pre-eminence of their three-fold powers (EI., XXIII, 42A; XV, 14; XXVI, 23). It was a common belief that the sāmantas remained loyal only through fear of the might of the sovereign. The Aihole inscription of Pulakeśin (EI., VI, 17) remarks that the Lāṭas, Mālavas and Gūrjaras subdued by Pulakeśin' splendour became as it were teachers of how sāmantas, subdued by force, ought to behave.

^{page 34 note 3} Harṣa, p. 121. The Aihole inscription of Pulakeśin II in referring to the defeat inflicted by Pulakeśin on Harṣa describes Harṣa's feet as arrayed with the rays of the jewels of the diadems of hosts of feudatories prosperous with unmeasured might (EI., VI, 1). It is likely that Harṣa's army was swelled by contingents of soldiers supplied by his sāmantas.

^{page 34 note 4} Ibid., p. 74.

^{page 34 note 5} In the Harṣacarita (p. 74) king Puṣyabhūti is said to have made the sāmantas, defeated by the might of his arm, pay taxes.

^{page 35 note 1} Pañcatantra, I (tr.) p. 85 — the envoys from King Valour, monarch of the south, go to collect yearly tribute from the king of the Sugarcane city but on not receiving the customary honour, grow indignant and remark, “Come, king! Payday is past, why have you failed to offer the taxes due”.

^{page 35 note 2} Cf. Kathākośa, p. 136—Tatra rājñaḥ samīpe sevākaraṇārthaṁ sāmantamahāsāmantaśrikaraṇavyayakaraṇapramukhasabheṣūpasthiteṣu.

^{page 35 note 3} Harṣacarita, p. 168 f. The Harṣacarita has many references to the presence of sāmantas in the capital or at the court — Ibid., pp. 121, 126, 144, 156.

^{page 35 note 4} p. 140.

^{page 35 note 5} pp. 193–4.

^{page 36 note 1} In some records a sāmanta appears as the dūtaka of the grant made by a king (Select Inscriptions, p. 333 f.; JB.BRAS., I, 5, p. 24; I, 17 p. 57; EI., VII, 22). In the Madhuban grant of Harṣa, Skandagupta, Sāmanta and Iśvaragupta, Sāmanta appear respectively as mahāpramatāra and mahākṣapatalādhikaraṇādhikṛta — EI., VII, 22Google Scholar. Cf. bhāṇḍāgārādhikṛtamahāsāmanta — Divākaraprabhaḥ — EI., XII, 13. The Mundesvari inscription of Udayasena, Mahārāja (EI., IX, 41Google Scholar) calls him both mahāsāmanta and mahāpratihāra. The Sarangarh grant mentions a Mahāsāmanta Indrabalarāja as the sarvādhikārādhikrta of king Sudevarāja of Śarabhapura, — EI., IX, 39Google Scholar. Cf. EI., XXIII, 13; XVIII 32.

^{page 36 note 2} Cf. the reference mahāsandhivigrahisriśāmantasūnunā Khaṇḍena — EI., XXIII, 42(A).

^{page 36 note 3} The Mundesvari inscription of Udayasena refers to his reign and also describes him both as mahāsāmanta and mahāpratihāra — EI., IX, 41. Also see Kanas Plate of Bhānudatta, — EI., XXVIII, 51 (B)Google Scholar.

^{page 37 note 1} Aparājitapṛcchāof Bhuvanadeva, , LXIX, 35–4Google Scholar; LXXVHJ, 3–7, 32–34; LXXXI, 1–4.

^{page 37 note 2} XVIII, 126–130; XXX, 137–138; XLIX, 61–62; LIII, 72.

^{page 37 note 3} XLII, 115.

^{page 37 note 4} Cf. Rājataraṇgiṇi (ed. , Pandit), V, 250Google Scholar — the ministers, sāmantas, tantrins and ekāṅgas assemble to invest some fit person with the regal power. See also III, 232; IV, 556, 643; V, 224, 343, 355, 395.

^{page 37 note 5} VI, p. 77 — Iyamaśeṣasāmantamastakottaṁsaparagarāñjitacaraṇā ṇguleramātyabhūrivasoḥ. Cf. also Harṣacarita, p. 205 for a reference to an āṭavikasāmanta. EI., XV, 19 — grant made to a brāhmaṇa mahāsdmanta.

^{page 37 note 6} Cf. Bṛhatsaṁhitā, LII, 8 — Nṛpasacivāntaratulyaṁ sāmantapravarārajapuruṣaḥ. Nṛpayuvarājaviśeṣaḥ kañcukiveśydkalājñānam.

Article contents

Sāmanta—its varying significance in Ancient India

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests