Vol. VII, No. 6.) The Evidence of the Faridpur Grants. 303 
[V.S.] 
nection that the word Sadhanika is not a new word as Mr. 
Pargiter is apt to think.' It occurs in the majority of copper- 
plate grants in several forms, such as, Dausadhanika, usad- 
hasadhanika, etc. Its meaning is snot yet certain. In the 
copperplate grants this name is to be found along with those 
~ other officers like Uparika, Antaranga. One of the new 
es of officials Kulavara, which occurs in the third and 
fetdth grants, cannot be definitely translated as ‘‘ referees ’’ or 
‘*arbitrators.’’ I read this word as Kulacaradn in the fourth 
grant, but of course must admit that I was wrong. About 
proper names: Brhac-catta would not bear comparison with 
modern Cattopadhyaya. In this connection I may note that 
the Co RS of the word Cata seems to be definitely settled at 
last. Rai Bahadur Hiralal and Dr. J. P. Vogel are agreed on 
this point. In his article on the Sarangarh Plates of “Mahasu- 
deva Mr. Hiralal quotes some remarks of Dr. Vogel which are 
_ worth reproducing :—‘‘On my first visit to the ancient hill 
state of Chamba (Panjab) I learnt that the head of a pargana 
there has the title of Char, which is evidently derived from the 
Sanskrit Chata, The Char collects villagers who have to do 
work (forced labour) on behalf of the State; he arranges for 
load carriers and supplies in case the Raja or some traveller 
visits his district. I have little doubt that the Chata of the 
copperplates is the same as the Char of the Chamba State. 
In the Chamba Copperplates published in the Annual Report 
of the Archeological Survey (1902-03) I have therefore ren- 
dered the word by “‘ district officer.’’ It was clearly a . 
lege of importance that the head of the district was not 
allowed to interfere with the granted land; in other words, he 
was not allowed to collect labourers or to demand supplies etc. 
on behalf of the State.’’—#pi. Ind., Vol. [X, p. 284, Note 10. 
rug Somaghosa (second grant, line 8), Vihitaghosa (4th 
grant, line 7), etc., cannot be taken as the progenitors of the 
modern Ghosas of Bengal, and Nayasena is not a Kayastha of 
the Sena family. As Candragupta the Maurya cannot be taken 
to be the progenitor of the Guptas of the Vaidya caste, and 
Rsabhadatta (Usabhadatta) the Scythian to be the progenitor 
of the Dattas of the Kayastha caste, so Somaghosa and Naya- 
sena cannot be said to be the forefathers of the Ghosas and 
Senas of Bengal. If we agree to do so, we shall have to 
admit that the Brahmana pee ectiee was the forefather of the 
Vatdya and Kayastha Dattas ngal! 
Finally I must note that the cata of the three grants 
edited by Mr. Pargiter is not so vague as that of the fourth 
rant. A comparison with the three other plates has enabled 
me to a eo the reading of Mr. Stapleton’s grant in many 
ints : 
1 Ind. ke. vol. ani, p- 194. 
