South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

snēhā and ºm=ēva (line 3), ºshēkaḥ (line 6), etc. In some of the cases, the sign looks a pṛishṭhamātrā while in some it is a śirō-mātrā ; cf. also the form of medial ai in ºsy=aisha (line 10), etc.

The language of the record is Sanskrit. With the exception of the introductory benediction, Siddham, and two sentences in prose at the end, the document, which is a eulogy, is entirely written in verse. Among orthographical peculiarities of the record, attention may be drawn to some of the numerous errors of spelling. Besides the use of siṅgha for siṁha (line 1), aṅśu for aṁśu (line 1), ºmāṁ for ºmān (line 5), ujvala for ujjvala (lines 6, 12), etc., which are often noticed in epigraphic literature, we have in the record under discussion many cases of the confusion between ṛi and ri (cf. drishṭi in line 2, adṛi in line 13, etc.) as well as of the reduplication of the nasal sounds (cf. bhrūbhaṁṅga in line 2, maṁṇḍala in line6, etc.). Moreover it has to be pointed out that the author’s style is weak as his knowledge of the Sanskrit language and skill in handling the metres were both very poor. The defects of the composition will be clear from the corrections inserted in the transcript of the inscription and the notes on the text ; but some points may be briefly discussed here. In a number of cases, the author has employed sāpēksha-samāsa not only unnecessarily but even quite wrongly. He has often taken the syllable preceding a conjunct as short and used the word yaśa for yaśas and probably also vaksha for vakshas and vapusha for vapus. Passages like tēṇ=ēshaḥ śaśiº (correctly tēn=aisha śasiº), yat=pūnyaṁ iha (correctly yat=puṇyam=iha), etc., in verse 12 show how the author was struggling with his metre and was ready to sacrifice grammar to it.^[1] The poverty of the author’s style is demonstrated by the fact that he could have easily avoided a clash between his grammar and metre by writing instead, say, tēn=āyaṁ śaśiº, yat=puṇyaṁ tv=iha, etc. There are numerous cases of similar attempts of a desperate and ludicrous nature to save the metre at the cost of grammar, although in a few places the metre has been sacrificed for the sake of grammar.

The date of the inscription is given in the last stanza (verse 13) as the tenth tithi of the bright half of the month of Māgha in the expired year 500 plus 40 plus 7 (i.e. 547), no doubt of the Vikrama Saṁvat. The date falls in January 491 A.D.

The inscription begins with the word siddham and two stanzas (verses 1-2) in praise of the Dēvī (i.e. the goddess par excellence, the Mother-goddess) described as the consort of Hara (i.e. Śiva). The second of the two stanzas refers to the Ardhanārīśvara conception. In verse 3, the poet says that, after having bowed down to the goddess, he is willing to describe the glory of a family of Kshatriya rulers belonging to the Māṇavāyaṇi-kula (probably Mānavāyaniº). The name of the kula, Māṇavāyaṇi or Mānavāyani, appears to refer to the gōtra claimed by the family. The word seems to be derived from the name of Manu through the expressions Mānava and Mānavāyana. The name reminds us of the similar gōtra called Manavya which is often found to have been claimed by royal families^[2] probably of non-Aryan extraction. When a family did not find an opportunity of claiming any of the recognized gōtras, it was indeed easy for it to declare its descent from Manu Svāyambhuva, the mythical progenitor of human beings. It may be pointed out here that Pandit G. H. Ojha, who succeeded in reading only kul-ōdbhava-vaṅśa(vaṁśa)-gaurāḥ out of the passage Māṇavāyaṇi-kul-ōdbhava-vaṅśa(vaṁśa)-guurāḥ, explained the above passage of the third verse of the inscription as indicating the existence of a clan of Kshatriyas (Rājputs), called Gaura.^[3] We find it difficult to agree with this view. It seems that the expression vaṁśa-gaura merely means a person who purified his family by virtuous acts or was himself illustrious owing to his birth in the family in question.

________________________________________________

^[1] Such cases remind us of Mallinātha’s remarks on the Raghuvaṁśa, XIX, 23 ; atra ṅīb-antasy=āpi dūtī-śab-dasya chhandō-bhaṅga-bhayād=dhrasvatvaṁ kṛitam “ api māshaṁ mashaṁ kuryāh=chhandō-bhaṅgaṁ tyajēd=girām” ity=upadēśāt.
^[2] Cf. Successors of the Sātavāhanas, p. 222 ; Bomb. Gaz., Vol. I, part ii, pp. 278, 337, etc.
^[3] Op. cit., pp. 1443-44. Ojha also wrongly read Gauriḥ in verse 11 (line 14) of the record as Gauraḥ and took it to be the dynastic appellation of Yaśagupta (Yaśōgupta) described in verses 7-8 (lines 8-10). This view was party due to Ojha’s inability to make out even a word of verses 9-10 and a portion of verse 11.