North Indian Inscriptions

UDAYENDIRAM PLATES OF NANDIVARMAN.

only ; the writing on the first side of the first plate, however, does not form part of the body of the inscription (which is in Sanskṛit), but is an endorsement in Tamil. The plates are held together by a ring, 3” in diameter and about ⅜” thick, which is now cut. It holds a circular seal, 2⅛” in diameter, which contains in bas-relief a standing bull, facing the proper left, and a much worn and illegible inscription round the margin. The engraving is good, and the writing is well preserved.— Of the inscription proper (on plates i.b, ii. and iii.a) the size of the letters is between ¼” and ⅜”. The characters belong to the southern class of alphabets. They closely resemble the characters of what the late Dr. Burnell has termed the Eastern Châlukya alphabet about A.D. 680 (Elements of South-Indian Palæography, second edition, Plate v.), and differ¹ therefore decidedly from those of the Uruvupalli grant of the Pallava dynasty (Ind. Ant. Vol. V. p. 51, Plate), with which the present inscription otherwise has much in common. The language is Sanskṛit, and, excepting two imprecatory verses in lines 17 and 18, the whole is in prose.— The text has been drawn up most carelessly, as may be seen from the omission of single syllables and whole words, as well as from the repeated occurrence of groups of aksharas that are devoid of meaning. In respect of orthography also, the inscription is full of faults, some of which may be accounted for by the influence of the writer’s vernacular. Thus, the sign of visarga is throughout omitted ; and similarly the sign of anusvâra or of the final m is omitted everywhere except in te word Pallav[â*]nâṁ, in line 10. We have a instead of final ô in prapautra, l. 2, pautra, l. 4, -dĩkshita, l. 8 ; and instead of final ê in –râshṭira, l. 11. The palatal sibilant is used six times for the dental sibilant, and the dental five times for the palatal.

>

Unaspirated letters are employed instead of aspirates in Vaśâka (for Vaiśâkha), l. 19, lavda (for labdha), l. 8 and bakti (for bhakti), l. 6 ; and soṇant consonants instead of surd ones in bhaṭṭâragô (for bhaṭṭâraka), l. 9, and Daitṛiya (for Taittirîya), l. 12. Besides, we find ch for ś in Kuḷancharmmaṇê, l. 13 ; tth for ddh in -âttharaṇa (for –ôddharaṇa), l. 9 ; dh for d in -âdhi-prâdhânai (for –âdi-pradânaiḥ), l. 5 ; and for ddh in sidhi, l. 3, and sannadhô, l. 9 ; b for v in brata, l. 7 ; and v for p in uvanata, l. 3 ; and for b in vala, lines 1 and 14, lavda, l. 8, and vappa, l. 9. In lines 17 and 18 a final m has been five times left unchanged before a consonant, where it should have been changed to anusvâra ; and m is irregularly doubled in the body of a word in avagammya,² l. 14, and at the end of a word before a following vowel in ºsvâsanamm= atiº (for ºchahhâsanam=atiº) and śârîramm=aruhaº (for śârîram=arhaº), in l. 16. Instead of the conjunct jñ we have ñy³ in râñya (for in râñya and râjñaḥ), in lines 1 and 2 ; and, to facilitate the pronunciation, a vowel has been inserted or y vocalised in a conjunct in râahṭira (for râshṭrê) l. 11, aruhati (for arhati), l. 16, salôkâ (for ślôkâ), l. 16, -mariyâdaśya, mariyâdeyâ, mariyâdayâ (for –maryâdasya and maryâdayâ), lines 2, 11 and 13, and aisvariya (for aiśvarya), l. 14. The vowel ṛi is represented by the syllable ir in virdha (for vṛiddha), twice in l. 4, pravirdha (for pravṛiddha), l. 5, and bhavirdhaé (for abhivṛddhayê), l. 14 ; and, on the other hand, ṛi is employed instead of irî⁴ in Daitṛiya (for Taittirîya), l. 12. Lastly, the short vowel e, which is unknown to Sanskṛit, but common in Tamil, is improperly used, partly through the influence of a following y, in maryâdeyâ (for maryâdayâ), l. 11, vijeyâ and vejeya (for vijaya), in lines 8, 14, and 19, and veneya (for vinaya), l. 4. In addition to these errors the text contains others which need not be enumerated here.— The size of the letters of the endorsement on the first side of t5he first plate is between ⅛’’ and ¼” ; the characters are Tamil and Grantha ; and the language is Tamil.
__________________________________________________________________________________________

......¹ This difference is shown especially, e.g., by the forms of the initial a and of the consonants k, i, a and r.— I may state here that in the present inscription it is often quite impossible to distinguish between the superscript i and î, and that, accordingly, in my transcript of the text, I have put i and î, where either of the two was required.
......² Here the doubling of m might be justified by Pâṇini, viii. 4, 47.
......³ It is clear that jñ was so pronounced by the writer.
......⁴ Satṛi for satra (sattra) in l. 7 is probably due only to an error of the engraver.