|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
fifty-[second] of the augmenting years of the victorious reign of him who is
distinguished by the name of the glorious Amôghavarsha-Nṛipatuṅga was continuing
(with) an increase of sovereignty to an extent ever greater and greater :─
(L. 20)─ While, by the favour of his majesty the king Atiśayadhavaḷa, the illustrious
Dêvaṇṇayya, a very bee on the water-lilies that are the feet of Amôghavarshadêva and a very
asylum for excellent people, was dwelling at Annigere,[1] governing the Beḷvola three-hundred ;
and while his [brother-in-law][2] Kulappayya was governing the Muḷgunda twelve :─
(L. 23)─ When it was the new-moon day of the dark fortnight of the month
Jyêshṭha in that [year*], and when there was an eclipse of the sun,─ on Kulappayya
making a request, Dêvaṇṇayya obtained a royal decree from Amôghavarshadêva,[3] and,
with his (Amôghavarsha’s) approval, the two of them, for the . . . . . . of their
parents, in a meritorious manner, at the time of that eclipse, laved the hundred-and-twenty Mahâjanas on Nîrgunda, and relinquished[4] (to them) the tax on clarified butter, with a
conveyance of the usufruct of it.
(L. 27)─ He who protects this act of religion shall attain the reward of the merit of
giving at Vâraṇâsi, at the time of an eclipse of the sun, a thousand tawny-coloured cows to
Brâhmaṇs who know the Vêdas ; whosoever destroys this, shall incur the guilt of the five great
sins of destroying a thousand tawny-coloured cows and a thousand Brâhmaṇs and Vâraṇâsi ![5]
Ôm ! And there is the saying of Vyâsa :─ (V. 7 ; l. 30). He who confiscates land that has been
given, whether by himself or by another, is born as a worm in ordure for the duration of sixty
________________________________________________________
[1] Regarding the second syllable of this name, as written here, see page 100 above, note 3.
[2] The meanings given to mayduna in Kittel’s Dictionary, which seem to mark clearly the relationship that is
ordinarily intended, are ‘ a sister’s husband, a husband’s brother, a wife’s brother ;’ and other meanings are ‘ a
connection, friend, or husband,’ and ‘ a brother’s son in his relation to a sister’s son.’ Reeve and Sanderson’s
Dictionary gives (under maiduna, which is the same word) ‘ the son of a mother’s brother, or of a father’s sister,
or a man’s brother-in-law, if younger than one’s self ;’ and on this authority I have, I think, sometimes translated
it by ‘ cousin.’
[3] Lit., “ Dêvaṇṇayya having made a râjaśrâvita on Amôghavarshadêva.” For râjaśrâvita, ‘ a royal decree,’
see page 99 above, note 2.
[4] Biḍu means ‘ to let loose, to quite hold, to let go, to leave, to abandon, to give up,’ etc., etc. We mightperhaps understand it to mean here that tax in question was abolished. But the verb is often used, in the
ancient records, in the place of koḍu, ‘ to give ;’ that is to say, in the sense of ‘ to relinquish, to assign ;’
see, for instance, Vol. IV. above, p. 65, text line 23, and p. 353, lines 21, 34, and Vol. V. p. 25, lines 25, 26, 28,
and Ind. Ant. Vol. XI. p. 127, line 12, and Vol. XII. p. 225, line 19, p. 256, line 18, and p. 271, line 17-18 : and the
causal biḍisu occurs in the sense of ‘ causing to relinquish, assign, or allot,’ in Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 225, line 10.
The expression sa-bhôga-sâdhakam-âgi, “ in a manner accomplishing or effecting the enjoyment, with a conveyance
of the usufruct,” seems to shew clearly that it must be taken in that sense here. And there are three other references
to the same matter, of the same period, one of which distinctly specifies a grant of the tax in question. The Sirûr
inscription, of precisely the same date (see page 98 above), records that Dêvaṇṇayya, while governing the Beḷvola
three-hundred, laved the feet of the two-hundred Mahâjanas of Śrivûra and relinquished (to them) (biṭṭoṁ)
the tuppadere. An inscription at Soraṭûr, dated, without full details, in the same year, the Vyaya saṁvatsara,
Śaka-Saṁvat 788 (expired), = A.D. 866-67, records that, while he was governing the Purigere nâḍ, the
Mahâsâmanta Kuppeyarasa “ graciously abandoned (ulidon) the tuppadere to the fifty (Mahâjans) of
Saraṭavura.” And an inscription at Gâwarawâḍ, dated in Ś-S. 791 (expired), in A.D. 869, records that, while he
was still governing the Beḷvola three-hundred, Dêvaṇṇayya, under a royal decree (râjaśrâvita), “ laved the feet
of the Mahâjanas and . . . . . . of Gavadivâḍa, and gave (to them) (dânaṁ-goṭṭa) the
tuppada tere, to continue as long as the moon and sun should last.”─ It seems probable, now, that biḍu should
be taken in the same sense of ‘ assigning ’ in line 6 of the Baḷagâmi inscription of the time of Vinayâditya and the
Sêndraka prince Pogilli (Ind. Ant. Vol. XIX. p. 144). And the purport of that record, accordingly, will be that
Kândarba, under a royal decree, conferred a favour on the specified establishments, etc., by assigning to them the
specified fees and duties.
[5] One might, perhaps, rather expect “ at Vâraṇâsi.” But plenty of other cases might be quoted, in which the
accusative is used just as it is here. We may quote, in particular, lines 13, 14 of the Doḍḍahuṇḍi inscription
(page 44 above), where the destruction of only Vâraṇâsi is mentioned.
|
