South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

prince Dhârâvarsha-Dhruvarâja.^[1] In the Bagumrâ grant, of doubtful authenticity, which purports to have been issued by a feudatory prince Akâlavarsha-Kṛishṇarâja in A.D. 888, the dêva is omitted in the formal prose passage ;^[2] and this omission now furnishes anotherpoint against the genuineness of that record. In the formal prose passages of the Paiṭhaṇ grant of A.D. 794, of the Râdhanpur grant of A.D. 807, of the Nausârî grants of A.D. 915, of the Sâṅglî grant of A.D. 933, of the Dêôlî grant of A.D 940, of the Karhâḍ grant of A.D 959, and of the Kardâ grant of A.D. 972, other appellations are used, instead of the proper names : but the ending dêva is attached to them in the same way ; and, in the Paiṭhaṇ and Râdhanpur grants, Gôvinda III. is styled Śrîvallabhanarêndradêva,^[3]─ in the Nausârî grants, Indra III. is styled Nityavarshanarêndradêva,^[4]─ in the Sâṅglî grant, Gôvinda IV. is styled Vallabhanarêndradêva,^[5]─ in the Dêôlî and Karhâḍ grants, Kṛishṇa III. is similarly styled Vallabhanarêndradêva,^[6]─ and in the Kardâ grant, Kakka II., again, is styled Vallabhanarêndradêva.^[7] From all these facts we gather, in first place, that the authors of the later records,─ from about A.D. 900 onwards,─ in abandoning the drafts that had been followed in the introductory passages of the earlier records, and in adopting a more florid style of composition in verses of their own invention, freely neglected, whenever it suited their convenience, certain rules that had been previously observed, with almost unfailing uniformity, in respect of the proper names in their Sanskṛit forms. But we also learn that the ending dêva was not an integral part of these names, but was only a honorific termination used, properly, only in prose passages for an enhancement of dignity.

>

And we also learn that the ending râja was not an essential part of those proper names. In dealing with the records, whether in editing fresh ones or in revising published versions, it may be convenient sometimes to translate those ending,─ râja by “ king,” and dêva by “ his majesty,”─ or sometimes, and in fact more usually, to let them stand as parts of the proper names. But, for other purposes,─ for genealogical tables, general historical accounts, etc.,─ it is most convenient, and most conducive to an easy discrimination between different persons of the same name, to drop those ending altogether in the case of the paramount sovereigns (whom we have occasion to mention most frequently), retaining them in the case of the feudatory princes (whom it is not necessary to refer to so often). Only one instance is as yet forthcoming, of the use of any special word, except râja, in immediate combination with a proper name in its Sanskṛit form ; it is found in the Muḷgund inscription of A.D 902-903, in a verse which speaks of Kṛishṇa II. as śrî-Kṛishṇavallabha-nṛipa, “ the glorious king Kṛishṇavallabha,” or “ the glorious king Kṛishṇa, the Vallabha.”^[8] And there is one instance in which, after the word râja, there is added the ending indra, which seems to have been more properly restricted ─ (except, of course, in the word narêndra)─ to the combination vallabhêndra ;^[9] it occurs in the inscription of A.D. 982 at Śravaṇa-Beḷgoḷa,^[10] in the verse which mentions Kṛishṇa III. as Kṛishṇarâjêndra : this appellation─ (if it is sought to translate it)─ may be taken as meaning either “ Kṛishṇa, the chief of kings,” or “ Kṛishṇarâja, the chief of Kṛishṇarâjas.”

Secondly, as regards the proper names in their Prâkṛit forms, by which I mean, not simply and strictly such forms as would be recognised astechnically Prâkṛit forms by

________________________________
^[1] Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 184, plate ii. b, text line 2.
^[2] Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 67, plate ii. b, text line 2.
^[3] Above, Vol. III. p. 108, text line 43-44 ; and Ind. Ant. Vol. VI. p. 67, plate ii. b, text line 4.
^[4] Loc. cit. (note 4 on page 183 above), p. 259, B. plate ii. b, text line 13, and p. 261, .. plate ii. b, text line 12.
^[5] Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 251, text line 40.
^[6] Above, Vol. V. p. 195, text line 45-46, and Vol. IV. p. 285, text line 55. In the Dêôlî record, something else was written first ; and, in the corrections that were made, the syllables llabha were not brought out quite clearly.
^[7] Ind. Ant. Vol. XII. p. 266, text line 44-45.
^[8] Jour. Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. X. p. 190, text line 3. A revised version of this inscription will be given in the present selection of Râshṭrakûṭa records.
^[9] See page 187 below, and note 10.
^[10] Inscrs. at Śrav.- Beḷ. No. 57, verse 2.