South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

The inscription records, in the first place, the death of a Western Ganga prince, who is mentioned in it by the appellation of Nîtimârga, without his proper name being disclosed. We are told, however, that he left a son who had the appellation of Satyavâkya. We know that Satyavâkya was the appellation of a prince Râjamalla, for whom we have the date of A.D. 870-71. We know also that Śrîpurusha-Muttarasa, who is to be placed about A.D.765 to 805, had a son named Raṇavikrama, and that the latter had a son named Râjamalla. And consequently, since the characters place the record justifiably, if not of absolute necessity, in the period A.D. 800 to 860, we naturally indentify this Satyavâkya with the Râjamalla of A.D. 870-71, and this Nîtimârga with Raṇavikrama ; and, till we learn anything more definite as to the actual year of Raṇavikrama’s death, we place the record roughly about A.D. 840. In the second place, the inscription registers the fact that Satyavâkya-(Râjamalla) granted to a follower of his father, named Agarayya, a kalnâḍu or allotment of uncultivated land^[1] known by the name of Guldapâḍi, the components of which were evidently specified in lines 16 to 22.

TEXT.^[2]

1 Ôm^[3] Svasti Ni(ni)timârgga-Koṁguṇî(ṇi)varmma-dharmmamahârâ-
2 jâdhirâja Kovaḷâla-purapar-êsvara^[4] Nanda-
3 giri-nâtha śrîmar(t) Permmanaḍigaḷ svarggam^[5]= êrida[ṁ]^[6] [|*]
4 Êridoḍe Pemmânaḍigaḷa mane-magattin Aga-
5 rayyaṁ Ni(ni)timârgga-Permmanaḍige kil-guṇṭhey=âda[ṁ] [|*] Permama-
6 naḍigaḷ=agga-putraṁ^[7] Satyavakhya^[8]-Pem[m]ânaḍigaḷ=Gulda- Down the side of the stone 7 pâ]ḍiya[ṁ]
8 7 pâ]ḍiya[ṁ]
8 kalnâḍu

____________________________________-________
Kanarese characters, as time went on, until at length the distinction practically disappeared altogether, and it remained for modern invention,─ on the part, I believe, of the early Jesuit missionaries,─ to devise the mark by which the long î is now distinguished from the short i, and also the long ê and ô from the short e and o. The ancient alphabet does not seem to have ever marked the difference between the long and the short forms of e and o ; we read the signs as e or ê and o or ô, just as is required. As regards the i and î, it is a question, in publishing critical texts, how far it is necessary to complicate the texts by, for instance, shewing the short i when it actually occurs in an original by mistake for a long î, and then making a correction in brackets or in a footnote. But probably, while attending to the detail in the case of the earlier records, we may ignore the point in records dating from about A.D.1000 onwards, and may give the short i or the long î as is actually required, irrespective of the exact form in the original.─ Dr. Burnell has traced back the present Kanarese method of marking the long î, ê, and ô, as attached to consonants, to the first half of the sixteenth century A.D (South-Ind. Palæo. p.30).

^[1] The word kal-nâḍu may be translated literally by “ stoney tract.” Mr. Rice has pointed out,─ quite correctly, I think,─ that, as used in inscriptions, “ it seems to designate what is now known as Government “ waste, that is, land that has not been taken up for cultivation or that having been cultivated has been “ abandoned ” (Ep. Carn. Vol. III. Introd. p. 8)
^[2] From the ink-impression.
^[3] Represented by a plain symbol. So, also, in line 15, where, however, the symbol is turned the other way.
^[4] Read puravar-êśvara.
^[5] We have here a rather pointed instance, to which my attention was specially drawn by Mr. Kittel, of the use of the nominative instead of the accusative, which is mentioned by Kêśirâja in his Śabdamaṇidarpaṇa, sûtra 136. In other records, we often find in this expression the dative, svarggakke, instead of the accusative ; this usage is mentioned in sûtra 135
^[6] Read êridar, more correctly, in agreement with the honorific plural Permmanaḍigaḷ.
^[7] Mr. Rice’s text gives Pemmanaḍigaḷa su-putra. The real reading is quite certain, though the gga is somewhat damaged.
^[8] Read Satyavâkya.