South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

in the la of Kulappayyaṁ, line 22. Only the first part of the ink-impression, containing lines 1 to 13, is suitable for reproduction ; and here the largest akshara seems to be the kâ of kântêndu, line 3, which is about 2⅛″ high. The record uses final forms of t in line 16, of n in lines 28 and 33, of r in line 27, and of ḷ in lines 25 and 27 (twice). And it marks, in the usual way, the difference between the lingual ḍ and the dental d ; this can be recognised in the ḍâ of Gauḍân, line 6, though the akshara is somewhat damaged. As regards palæography, the record, which belongs to the transitional period, favours the older rather than the later types, not only in general style, but also in details. The kh occurs twice ; in likhitaṁ, line 35, it is somewhat damaged, and it is difficult to decide whether we have there an old square kh rather loosely formed, or a later cursive kh ; but in the kha of śaṁkha, line 12, No. 14, we have clearly the later cursive character. The j is damaged and undeterminable in vijaya, line 19, and râjyâbhivṛiddhi, line 20 ; but in every other instance it is unmistakably the old square j, of the closed form, and there is no reason to infer anything else from such marks as are discernible in line 19 and 20 : in the lithograph, the intended form of the character is recognisable best in the ja of dhirâja, line 9, No. 22. The ṅ occurs three times, in ôttuṅga, line 13 (the last akshara but one), and Nṛipatuṅga, line 17, and saṁvatsaraṅgaḷ, line 19-20 : in each instance, it is damaged and not determinable with certainty ; but such marks as are recognisable, indicate that in each case it follows the usual rule which connects it with the j, and is of the old square type, with the closed form. The b is damaged and undeterminable in baraṁ, line 17, and bbrâhmaṇarumaṁ, line 29 ; but in every other instance it is unmistakably the old square b, of the closed form, and there is no reason to infer anything else from such marks as are discernible in lines 17 and 29 : the intended form of the character is recognisable best in the bdha of labdha, line 3, No. 24.

>

The l is damaged and undeterminable in Lattalûra, line 16, Lakshmîvallabhêndra, line 17, salutt-ire and kâlâtîta, line 18, salutt-ire, line 20, Kulappayyaṁ, line 24, kâlaṁ, line 26, and kâlê-kâlê pâlanîyô, line 34 : in the li of maṇḍalikarkkaḷâ, line 10, No. 23, and in the lâ of lâñchanaṁ, line 16, we have the later cursive l, and so also in the upper l in vallabhô, line 5, ella, line 12, and kallaṁ, line 35 ; but in every other instance we have unmistakably the old square l, and the intended form of it is illustrated very well by the la of alaṁkṛitaṁ, line 3, No. 20 ; the formation of it here exhibits, though not to a very marked extent, the prolongation, with a sweep to the right, of the downstroke that makes the end of the letter, which (as will be shewn more clearly hereafter) had been the first step in the development of the later cursive type from the old square type.─ As regards the language, we have Sanskṛit ordinary verses in lines 1 to 8, and Sanskṛit benedictive and imprecatory verses in lines 30 to 35, with, among them, a verse in praise of the god Vishṇu which seems rather out of place there ; the remainder of the record is in Kanarese, of the archaic type, in prose. The record uses two words which are not included in dictionaries ; namely, in line 10, prâtirâjya, employed in the sense of pratirâja, ‘ a hostile king ;’^[1] and in line 24, râjaśrâvita, for which the best translation seems of be ‘ a royal decree.’^[2] In Vâraṇâsiyuḷ, line 27, we have the locative ending uḷ, which, in genuine records, is of sufficiently rare occurrence, as compared with the ending oḷ and al, to be

___________________________________
^[1] See above, Vol. III. p. 104. I owe this reference to Prof. Kielhorn.
^[2] The word râja-śrâvita,─ or râjâ-śrâvita, as sometimes written, and perhaps in the present record, but wrongly,─ means, literally, ‘ caused to be heard by the king, spoken by the king.’ it has been met with before, in an inscription of the period A.D. 680 to 696 at Baḷagâmi, where we have râja-śrâvitam=âge, “ on a royal decree being (issued),” i.e. “ under or in accordance with a royal decree ” (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 145, text line 11-12), and in an inscription of the period A.D. 733 to 747 at Aihoḷe, where we have râjâ(ja)-śrâvitaṁ mahâjanamuṁ naka(ga)ra-śrâvitaṁ, “ a decree by the king, a decree by the Mahâjanas and (the people of) the city “ (id. Vol. VIII. p. 286, text line 4-5 ; it may be noted here that, at the end of line 5 of this record, the correct reading is Vâraṇâsioḷ, for Vâraṇâsiyoḷ).─ The Âḍûr inscription helps to illustrate the term, by giving us [vi]śrâvya, “ having caused to be heard everywhere, having made proclamation ” (Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 69, text line 7-8).─ We have the same erroneous lengthening of the a of râja in râjâ(ja)-rakshitaṁ dharmma, “ a religious grant protected by the king,” in the Bêlûr inscription of A. D. 1021 or 1022 (id. Vol. XVIII. p. 274, text line 37).