[INDOLOGY] Thakkana again

[Roland Steiner]

Walter Slaje has asked me to forward the following message to the list:

* * *

    Allow me to prolong the fun with a final remark on the  
relationship between the names Thakkana and Śakuna, if they are  
supposed to denote the same person, the Śāhi king of that name, which  
seems likely.
 
For little is in favour of the assumption that /śrīmacchakuna/- could  
be a corruption of /śrīmatthakkana/-, and indeed, this is almost  
impossible.
 
What Roland Steiner had earlier written is basically correct, but it  
is only half the truth:
“In Śāradā, the two akṣaras tha and ṣa are semi-homograph. One could,  
therefore, speculate whether Thakkana was first misread to  
Sakkana/Ṣakuna and then improved to Śakuna.”
 
The problematic point here is that the assumed misinterpretation by a  
scribe could hardly have been caused by mistaking an initial consonant  
/THA/ for /ṣA/. Given the exact wording of the beginning of the line  
“/śrīmaCCHAkunadevena/” it actually would presuppose a confusion of  
the conjunct characters -TTHA- (of an assumed */śrīmaTTHAkkana-/) and  
-/CCH/- (of /śrīmaCCHAkuna-/ as handed down), to begin with. The  
sandhi with its effects on the written characters does not seem to  
have been considered. I cannot see how these conjunct /akṣara/s could  
be confused in the Śāradā script in any way. The same applies to the  
possibility of confusion between /ka/ (/kka/) and /ku/, unless we  
imply a deliberate “improvement”. Here, at the latest, intention would  
come into play.
Moreover, Roland’s final caution seems to have fallen a little behind:
“But it’s just speculation, not more.” It is.
 
Consider the introductory sentence and the polite way Śakunadeva is  
referred to as commissioning authority:
/śRīMACCHAKUNADEVENA/ /PRERITO hṛdaye sphuṭam |/
/buddhyā kariṣyāmi guroḥ saṃsmṛtya caraṇāmbujam/ || 2 ||
 
Now Thakkana (*/sthagana/) clearly belongs to the category of  
ignominious names, and one may speculate who gave him, or what caused  
this name. It could be a nickname referring to unflattering personal  
characteristics, or a given name. Would an author refer to his ruler,  
who commissioned his work, by a mocking name? I doubt it.
If, on the other hand, it was a given name, which is by far more  
likely, then we have to take the following background seriously into  
consideration:
The kind of names we are concerned with here were not very rare, if  
one thinks of only Ḍomba and Bhikṣācara among Kashmiri kings. Kalhaṇa  
refers to the latter name expressly as /abhavya/ (“ignominious”) [RT  
8.17cd]. Moreover, our Thakkana is not the only bearer of that name.  
Kalhaṇa records even a courtesan namesake (tellingly called Thakkanā  
[RT 7.1252]).
Stein explains this name-giving practice on the basis of  
“superstitious reasons […]. Such names are still common throughout the  
whole of India, and are usually given to children born after the death  
of their elder predecessors.” (Stein, note on RT 7.1065).  
Cp. also Stein’s translation of (and notes on) RT 8.16–18:
“/Bhoja, Harṣa/’s son, had […] a male child. As he was born after two  
or three other sons had died [in childhood], the Gurus, anxious [to  
assure him] a long life, had given him the ignominious name of  
/Bhikṣācara/ (“beggar”).”
 
Note on 8.16-18: “The custom of giving opprobrious names to children  
born after the death of their elder predecessors, is widely spread  
throughout India. It takes its origin from the superstition that a  
disgusting name will save the child from evil influences which  
otherwise seem to threaten it. […]”.
 
Thakkana, too, belongs to this category of inauspicious or disgusting names.
 
If an author starts his work with a maṅgala śloka (1) and with an  
homage to his king (2), is it really reasonable to assume he would  
have used an inauspicious name where auspiciousness and nothing but  
auspiciousness is called for? Alternatively, should we not rather  
assume an elegant twist, by which the author makes use of a partial  
semantic congruency in the lexical field of “concealment”, by  
replacing the negatively connoted /sthagana/ with a positively  
connoted /śakuna/? Note that /śakuna/ in general denotes a good omen,  
which perfectly fits a maṅgalaic purpose.
 
In my opinion, the assumption that /śakuna/ could owe its existence to  
scribal corruptions and “betterments” starting from /thakkana/ has  
become baseless in light of the conjunct consonants -/tth/- and -/cch/-.
 
By contrast, a deliberate change from /thakkana/ to /śakuna/ by the  
author of this verse of homage, who composed a work his ruler bearing  
an inauspicious name had personally commissioned (/preritaḥ/) (with  
the consequence that some remuneration could be expected), is an  
alternative interpretation I am inclined to follow.
 
Best regards,
WS

* * *


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20191015/698b140f/attachment.htm>