|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Sivaskanda is the governor of the district ; in Nâsik No. 4 the amâtya Śivagupta writes the grant ; and here Śivaskandagupta engraves the document on copper. The simultaneous occurrence of names into the composition of which Vishṇu enters prevents us from drawing from this fact hasty conclusion regarding the state of the sects in this region. Could these resemblances be the result of relationship ? I must not fail to recall the link which seems to connect this inscription with No. 13, to the commentary of which the reader is referred. I will only add that, renewed by a royal personage, the grant of the village of Karajaka was necessarily accompanied by fiscal and administrative privileges which, in spite of his connections, Ṛishabhadatta had been doubtlessly unable to confer.[1] No. 20, Plate iii. (Ksh. 21). North of the chaitya cave. On the wall of the second cell (from the south) of a vihâra, right of entrance, top.
TEXT. REMARKS.
(1) CTI. sidhaṁ.─ (2) AS. raṇo.─ (3) CTI. and AS. hematâº.─ (4) AS. and CTI. maṭapo. The ḍa is not absolutely perfect, but at least probable, which cannot be said of the ṭa.─ (5) The bh has a vertical stroke at the top, which is so pronounced that I am doubtful
if we ought not to read garbha, with which the Sanskṛitisms ºputtasya and Sovasakasya would have to be compared.─ (6) AS. ºghiyâna.─ (7) AS. and CTI. parigahe ; the ho seems
to me certain.─ (8) CTI. chatudise dinaṁ mâº. After na there is certainly room for a character,
but no positive trace of it which would show that it did really exist.─ (9) AS. and CTI. ºpituna
pûjâ. The tail of the subscribed u of pu seems to be a little more pronounced here than in the
rest of the inscription. But our engraver was so found of this flourish that, in the absence of any
additional trace on the right, we are not authorised to attribute a special phonetical value to
such as imperceptible differentiation.─ (10) CTI. ºsṭhataya, AS. ºsthataya. The th and the final e are much more district in the estampages than they appear in the Plate.─ (11) CTI. ekavisa ; [1] Together with the proofs of this article, I received from Dr. Hultzsch a proof of his paper on the newly discovered Koṇḍamudi plates (above, Vol. VI. No. 31), which throw fresh light on some doubtful points in Kârlê No. 19. In pointing out several of these corrections, Dr. Hultzsch has quoted my present article. It is consequently too late to modify my remarks, and it will be enough at present to draw attention to the principal corrections which the new plates suggest.─ (1) The reading oyapâpehi, instead of deya pâpehi ; (2) the explanation of this verb, as well as of pariharehi and nibadhâpehi, not as 1st singular aorist (with alteration of final ºhi into ºhiṁ), but as 2nd singular imperative. (3) The proposed interpretation of vijayaṭhasatâkhe ought surely to be given up ; but I do not consider the general meaning attributed to the phrase by Dr. Hultzsch as altogether satisfactory. (4) Nor do I consider his translation of chhata by ‘signed’ beyond every doubt, although the word is here accompanied by sayaṁ. (5) The reading etaṁsi taṁ in l. 25 of the Koṇḍamudi plates suggest a similar correction for etesa[ṁ] tu in l. 3 of Kârlê No. 19. But such a correction, at least so far as the second syllable is concerned, would be opposed to the apparent testimony of the estampages. Anyhow, my forthcoming article on the Nâsik inscriptions will give me an opportunity for returning to several of these difficult points. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
