|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA the sun of the king of Orissa, who was renowned as being a good swordsman, to show his skill The prince consented, but seeing that the antagonist whom the king had chosen for him was a man of low birth, he felt greatly offended and, unable to bear such an insult, he killed himself. The news of the death of this prince induced the king of Orissa to open fresh negotiations with Kṛishṇarâya, which in the end led to a conclusion of pence. Nunes generally shows himself so well informed that there is no reason to doubt that this story also is substantially correct. The only discrepancy between the chronicle and the inscription is with respect to the date when the prince was taken captive. Whereas the Portuguese author asserts that it took place more than three months after the capture of Koṇḍavîḍu, it would follow from the inscription that it was before that event. This is implied not only by the words of the text, which admit of no other interpretation, but also by the date of the inscription in verse 10, which states that ‘in the Śaka year marked by the Munis (7), the towns (3), the oceans (4), and the moon (1), (i.e. Śaka-Saṁvat 1437), in the year Yuvan, on the twelfth day in the month Âshâḍha,(the king) duly performed the gift called tulâpûrusha and gave away many incomparable agrahâras in the presence of the god Śûlapâṇi, who is renowned in the world as Amarêśa, on the bank of the Kṛishṇavêṇî, which destroys darkness.’ This date, although it is incomplete and cannot be verified, is without doubt identical with the date given above as that of the capture of Koṇḍavîḍu, the Harivâsara mentioned there being only another term for the twelfth day of the bright half of the month Âshâḍha.[1] Whether the chronicle or the inscription is to be trusted in this case, I do not venture to decide at present. It is quite possible that the text of the inscription was composed and engraved some months after the event which it is intended to commemorate, and that the author inadvertently referred to things which had happened in the meantime. But it is equally possible that Nunes has made a slight mistake. and that Vîrabhadra was taken captive on an earlier occasion.
The inscription concludes with a verse (12) invoking the blessing of Amarêśa on Kṛishṇarâya. The Amarêśa mentioned here and in verse 10 is, of course, the god of the temple where the inscription is found.
TEXT.[2]
_______________ | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
. 
.