North Indian Inscriptions

BITRAGUNTA GRANT OF SAMGAMA II.

comparatively old in their formation. The vowels i and î, o and ô, though distinguished in some cases by a partial and complete loop on the top respectively, are however often confounded. To avoid constant corrections arising from close transcription, I have, in the case of i and î, always adopted that form which the context proves to be correct. The vowels ê, ai and au are the undeveloped forms of their modern modifications in Telugu. The ê of prâyêṇa in line 53, and the length of ô of bhâgô in line 146, are shown as in the modern Telugu character.

......As regards orthography,─ dhdha for ddha frequently occurs (ll. 20, 101, 108, 157 and 163). The redundant use of an anusvâra before a conjunct nasal is quite common (ll. 10, 12, 48, 113, 131, etc.). As in other inscriptions, a consonant which follows r, is sometimes doubled. In lines 15, 20, and 21 the pa of Kaṁppa, and in line 31 the ya of saṁyyuga are doubled after an anusvâra. A curious mistake is committed in line 60, where kadâchiptriyaṁ is written for kadâchit=priyaṁ. There are a number of other graphical peculiarities which are due to the influence of the Telugu pronunciation of Sanskṛit. Except in nirvṛitiṁ in line 59, ṛi is generally represented by ru. In lines 66 and 122, both ṛi and u, ḷi and u are respectively affixed to the same consonant, and once (l. 181) ṛi is represented by ṛi. It is worth noticing that the word nâtha, which occurs four times in the inscription (ll. 50, 52, 161 and 189), is spelt in the first three cases with an anusvâra in such cases (compare tammuḍu and tammuṁdu). The spelling braṁhmassoṁ (ll. 178 and 179 f.) for brahmasvaṁ, saijñi (l. 87) for saṁjñi, saijña (l. 186) for saṁjña, the prefixing of a y before i and ê and vice versa (ll. 21, 22, 23, 44, 65, 160, 168 and 180) are also due to the Telugu pronunciation of Sanskṛit.

......The inscription opens with an invocation to the Boar-incarnation of Vishṇu (verse 1). Saṁgama I., the first historical ancestor of the first Vijayanagara dynasty, is then introduced without any reference to his mythical descent from the Moon, as is done in other Vijayanagara grants (verse 2). He had five sons,─ Harihara, Kampa, Bukka, Mârapa and Muddapa (verses 3 and 4). Of these, the first two ruled one after the other. Harihara is said to have defeated the Muḥammadans (verse 5). Kampa (verse 4) or Kampaṇa (verse 6) had a son, called Saṁgama II. (verse 7), during whose time the subjoined inscription was written. Of this king we learn nothing but a number of bîrudas (verse 11). The inscription records the grant of the village of Biṭraguṇṭa (verses 20, 21) or Biṭṭarakuṇṭa (verse 19) to twenty-eight Brâhmaṇas, whose names and gôtras are specified in verses 27 to 33 ; and refers incidentally to the grant of another village, viz. Siṁkêsari (verse 24). Both grants were made at the suggestion of the king’s spiritual preceptor, the Śaiva philosopher Śrîkaṇṭhanâtha (verse 12 and line 189), after whose name the village of Biṭraguṇṭa received the surname Śrîkaṇṭhapura (verses 21, 34, 35 and 42). The date of the first grant was the new-moon day of the third month of Śaka-Saṁvat 1278 (in numerical words and figures), the cyclic year Durmukha. The inscription was written by Bhôganâtha, the court-jester of Saṁgama II. (verse 35). At the end of the document (l. 184), the king is stated to have affixed by his own hand the name of Śrî-Virûpâksha, the tutelary deity of the city of Vijayanagara (verse 42). This explains the origin of the colophons Śrî-Virûpâksha, Śrî-Veṅkaṭêśa or Śrî-Râma at the end of other Vijayanagara inscriptions.

......The motive for making the grant under consideration is stated to have been twofold, — first, a request, or almost a compulsory demand, of the preceptor Śrîkaṇṭhanâtha, and, secondly, the king’s own desire to produce immortality to his father (verses 17 and 20). The second statement further suggests that the expression pratyabdakâlê in verse 20 means “at the anniversary (of his father’s death).” The inscription does not inform us if the first or any following anniversary is meant. But the motive why the king made the grant, i.e. for procuring immortality to his father, gives us sufficient room for conjecture. It is a well-known Hindû notion that the spirit of a dead man will continue to be a Prêta, or an evil spirit, until the