पुराणे विश्वासटिप्पन्यः

[[Two Sanskrit Inscriptions Source: EB]]

ARTICLE IV.

____________

TWO SANSKRIT INSCRIPTIONS

ENGRAVEN ON STONE :

THE ORIGINAL TEXTS,

WITH TRANSLATIONS AND COMMENTS.

BY FITZ-EDWARD HALL, EsQ., M. A.

____________

Presented to the Society October 26, 1859.

____________

THE stones containing the inscriptions now published were procured, the first at Bhera Ghat^(a) on the Nerbudda, and the other at the village of Tewar.^(b) Both these places I visited, in 1857, while on the first march from Jubulpoor to Nursinghpoor. The larger stone had been brought, as serviceable buildingmaterial, to the side of a temple which was in course of erection. When rescued, it was on the point of being buried, face downward, in one of the walls. Had its threatened fate been realized, quite possibly it would not have been spoken of in print for several centuries.

More than one historical fact deserving of record has been discovered from these monuments. The queen of Gayakarṇa Deva, Alhaṇa Deví, was daughter of a Rana of Udeypoor, and granddaughter, through her mother, of Udayáditya,^(c) king of Malwa. The paternal greatgrandfather of this lady, Hansapála, is, further, a representative of the royal house of Mewar, now first brought to light. A near approximation to the dates of three of her progenitors being practicable, a basis is afforded by which a portion of the current chronology, for the mediæval period, of preëminently the foremost family of Rajpoots may be readjusted to advantage.

The names of the modern rulers of Chedi,^(d) beginning with the earliest, and the names of their consorts and kinsmen, so faras they have been ascertained, shall here be exhibited. The first genealogical table shows the family that reigned in Central India :

Lakshmana Deva^(e) or Yuvarája Deva.^(f)
Kokalla Deva.
Gángeya Deva.
Karṇa Deva.^(g) He married A’valia Deví, a Húṇa.^(h)
Yas’ahkarna Deva.^(i)
Gayakarṇa Deva.^(j) He married Alhaṇa Deví.^(k)
Narasinha Deva.^(l)
Jayasinha Deva, brother of the last.
Vijayasinha. He married Gásala Deví.
Ajayasinha Deva,^(m) heir apparent.

Alhaṇa Devi’^(s) ancestry, as deduced from my larger inscription, was as follows:

Hansapála, a Gobhila.^(n)
Vairisinha.
Vijayasinha.^(o) He married Śyámala Deví, daughter of Udayáditya of Málava; and these were the parents of Alhaṇa Deví.

The second person mentioned in my larger inscription has a very unusual name. That his kingdom was that of Chedi is beyond doubt. I am not prepared to pronounce him identical with the Kokalla who is expressly said to have been lord of that country, and who was likewise a Haihaya; but as, on further enquiry, the two may turn out to be one, I shall enumerate such of the descendants of the latter as are known from inscriptions that have been found in the west:

S’adruka. Śankaragaṇa Mahádeví. Arjuna.

or Raṇavigraha. His son was
Mahálakshmí Aggaṇa (?) Deva,
or Lakshmí, and who had adaughter Dwijámbá.

Govindámbá, were his daughters.

This Kokalla thus had, at least, three sons and one daughter. Śadruka, after a single glimpse, is seen no more. Śankaragaṇa^(p)is termed lord of Chedi: but it is questionable whether the title was ever more than a compliment of hopeful expectation. Mahádeví married a royalet named Krishṇa. Who he was we are still to learn. Their son, Jagadrudra or Jagattunga, as to whose nationality equally little has transpired, married his two cousins german, Lakshmí and Govindámbá. This spirited polygamist had, however, already wedded a daughter of Akálavarsha; but he had by her, it should seem, no issue. Indra, his son by Lakshmí, was nevertheless allowed—so elastic is Hindu courtesy-to be a grandson of Akálavarsha, and was his heir to theYádava raja-ship. Indra’s wife was Dwijámbá, granddaughter of his grandparents’ brother Arjuna.^(q)

Far from insignificant were the later dukes of Chedi,^(r) as is patent from their matrimonial alliances: and yet-such is the caprice of fortune-the extent of their occupancy can now be estimated only by the opinion of their power; and the determination of its locality has not been effected without some little research. In the most recent of their inscriptions is the last word of them that oblivion has not usurped. Their neighbors, the kings of Gaḍhámandala, may have wrought their extinction; for, as it appears, their territory passed in part to those chieftains, while the eastern shire of it was ultimately possessed by the Baghelas of Rewa.

The later Bhoja of Central India has been assigned, on tolerably cogent gounds, to the middle of the eleventh century. Of his grandsons, one, Lakshmídhara, was living in A. D. 1104; and another, Naravarman, died in 1133. Udayáditya, who connects the two generations, may, then, have flourished about 1075. Alhaṇa Deví, who is named, in the older of my two inscriptions, as if she were still surviving at the time of its execution, was a granddaughter,^(t) as we have seen, of Udayáditya. She may thus have been born about 1100. According to the sequel of this paper, and other evidence, one of her sons, Narasinha, was reigning in a year 907; another, Jayasinha, in 928; and her greatgrandson, Ajayasinha, was a minor in 932.^(u) Her birth may, therefore, have taken place as early as 850, which carries back Udayáditya perhaps to 790. These lesser numbers plainly do not denote either the era of S’áliváhana or that of Vikramáditya.^(v) Nor can they be computed from that of Valabhi, as ordinarily assumed to count from A. D. 319: a position which, in passing, I believe to be contestable. The specifications attached to the dates 907 and 928 are, however, so full, that any one who chooses to undertake a somewhat tedious calculation is provided with data from which the first year of this, or of some other unaccustomed epoch, may be definitely determined.

Of the two inscriptions now edited, the second, a rude specimen of engraving, I copied with its stone before me. As for the first, I have made use of a couple of fac-simile tracings from it: but they were prepared by a native, a Muhammadan, who was unable to read a letter of the original, and who, consequently, is not to be suspected of conscious attempts at amendment.^(w)The style and conformation of its characters resemble, as nearly as possible, those observed on the copperplate of Gásala Deví. At the end of the sixth, sixteenth, and thirty-first stanzas are elaborate flourishes. Once they were, it may be, of some significance, now forgotten: here they simply mark the conclusions of paragraphs.

ओम्। नमः शिवाय।

कल्याणितामविकलां भवतां तनोतु

भाले कलानिधिकला शशिशेखरस्य।

एकैव या प्रमथसार्थगतां द्वितीया

बुद्धिं प्रदोषविरहेऽपि करोति नित्यम्॥ १ ॥

किं मालाः कुमुदस्य किं शशिकलाः किं धर्म्यर्कांमकुराः

किं वा कञ्चुकिकञ्चुकाः किमथवा भूत्युद्गमा भान्त्यमी।

इत्थं नाकिवितर्किताः शिवशिरःसञ्चारिनाकापगा-

रिङ्गद्वल्गुरङ्गभङ्गिततवः पुण्यप्रपाः पान्तु वः॥ ३२॥

भूतं सद् विभु यद् विभाति भुवनं यद्विभ्रमाद् यज्जगन्-

नेत्रानन्दकरं धराश्रयरसाद्यन्यत्वहेतुश्च यत्।

यद् गन्धोद्धुरधाम यच् च यजते शीतं यदेकान्ततः

सस्पर्शंयदनूपमेभिरवताद् युष्मान् शरीरैः शिवः॥ ३ ॥

शक्तिहेतिपरप्रीतिहेतुश्चन्द्रकचर्चितः

ताण्डवाडम्बरः कुर्यान् नीलकण्ठः प्रियाणि वः॥४॥

विघ्नौघसन्तमससंहरणाय शक्तं

मुक्तं कलङ्ककलया शकलं सुधांशोः।

कुन्दावदाततरदन्तमिषाद् दधानः

श्रेयः परं दिशतु वः सदयं द्विपास्यः॥ ५ ॥

रपैरनेकैर्व्यवहारजातम्

आतन्वती पातु सरस्वती वः।

यल्लेशलालित्यलवादपि स्यात्

संसत्सु पुंसां गरिमा गरीयान्॥ ६ ॥

गोत्रे रात्रिकरस्य भूपतिरभूद् बिभ्रत् सहस्रं करान्

प्रत्येकं त्रिजगन्मनोविनयने रात्रिन्दिवं जागृविः।

तेजोभिर्जगतीभृतां परिभवी नाम्नार्जुनःसंस्मृतेर्

यस्याऽद्याऽप्यधिगम्यते वसु गतं नीतं च चौरैश्चिरम्॥ ७॥

तस्याऽन्वये समभवत् प्रथितः पृथिव्या

नाथः कथाऽद्भुततमाऽपि वृथा न यस्य।

कोकल्लदेव इति बिभ्रदुदाररूपं

नाम त्रिलोकसुखसञ्जननैकधाम॥८॥

निर्जित्योर्जितगर्वपर्वतभृतः प्रत्यर्थिपृथ्वीभुजः

प्राप्तानन्तयशा बभूव नृपतिर्गाङ्गेयदेवस्ततः।

पृथ्वी येन विधाय मेरुमतुलं कल्पद्रुमेणाऽर्थिनां

स्वर्गादूर्ध्वमधःस्थिताऽपि विबुधाधारेयमापादिता॥ ९॥

पुण्यामृतेन संसिक्ता शुद्धसत्त्वप्रवर्धिका।

यत्कीर्तिव्रततिः सर्वं व्याप ब्रह्माण्डमण्डपम्॥१०॥

तेनाऽजनि महीपालः कर्णः स्वर्णेन कुर्वता।

पूर्णतृष्णार्णवानर्थिसार्थानर्थितकीर्तिना ॥११॥

पाण्यश्चण्डिमतां मुमोच मुरलस्तयाज गर्वस्पृहं[❋¹

कङ्गः †²सङ्गतिमाजगाम चकमे वङ्गः कलिङ्गैः सह।

कीरःकोरवदास पञ्जरगृहे हूणः प्रहर्षंजहौ

यस्मिन् राजनि शौर्यविभ्रमभरं बिभ्रत्यपूर्वप्रभे॥१५॥

अस्मद्भर्तृपराभवेन सकलां भुङ्क्ते भुवं यामसौ

तामेतां तनवामहै तनुतराकारामितीव स्त्रियः।

यत्प्रत्यर्थिमहीभुजां नयनजैर्बाष्पैः पयोधीन् व्यधुः

स्फारान् रत्नमव्होर्मिभिः पुनरमी ‡³संवर्धकाश्चक्रिरे॥१३॥

चम्पारण्यविदारणोद्गतयशःशुभ्रांशुना भासयन्

आशाचक्रमवक्रभावहृदयः क्ष्मापालचूडामणिः।

तस्माज्जन्म समाससाद विशदं श्रीमान् यशःकर्ण इ-^(§)⁴

त्यौदार्याद् “⁵धनिकीचकार विबुधान् यः प्रेक्ष्य सर्वानपि

तस्मादशेषगुणरत्ननिधेरगाधाद्

भूवल्लभः समभवद् गयकर्णदेवः।

यस्य प्रतापतपनोऽप्यरिसुन्दरीणां

शोकार्णवोदयनिदानपदं प्रपेदे॥ १५ ॥

द्युतिजितहरितालः शीलताकल्पशालः

पृथुतरगुणमालः शत्रुवर्गैककालः।

विमलितरणभालः कान्तकीर्त्याशटालः

शिततरकरवालः सो ऽभवद् भूमिपालः॥ १६ ॥

अस्ति प्रसिद्धमिह गोभिलपुत्रगोत्रं

तत्राऽजनिष्ट नृपतिः किल हंसपालः।

शौर्यावसज्जितनिरर्गलसैन्यसङ्घ-

नम्रीकृताखिलमिलद्रिपुचक्रवालः॥१७॥

तस्याऽभवत् तनुभवः प्रणमत्समस्त-

सामन्तशेखरशिरोमणिरञ्जितांह्रिः।

श्रीवैरिसिंहवसुधाधिपतिर्विशुद्ध-

बुद्धेर्निधिर्न परमर्थितनस्य चोच्चैः॥१८॥

स वैरिसिंहो ऽप्यनयद् रिपूणां

कुलानि गम्भीरगुहागृहाणि।

स्वयं च तेषामधिशय्य चक्रे

पुराणि दूरावजितालकानि॥ ११ ॥

तस्मादजायत समस्तजनाभिनन्द्य-

सौन्दर्यशौर्यभरभङ्गुरिताहितश्रीः।

पृथ्वीपतिर्विजयसिंह इति प्रवर्ध-

मानः सदा जगति यस्य यशःसुधांशुः॥ २० ॥

तस्याऽभवन् मालवमण्डलाधि-

नाथोदयादित्यसुता सुरूपा।

श्रृङ्गारिणी श्यामलदेव्युदार-

चरित्रचिन्तामणिरर्चितश्रीः॥३१॥

मेनायामिव शङ्करप्रणयिनी क्षोणीभृतां नायकाद्

वीरिण्यामिव श्रुभ्रभानुवनिता दक्षात् प्रजानां सृजाः।

तस्मादल्हणदेव्यजायत जगद्रक्षाक्षमाद् भूपतेर्

एतस्यां निजदीर्घवंशविशदप्रेङ्खत्पताकाकृतिः॥२३॥

विवाहविधिमाधाय गयकर्णनरेश्वरः।

चक्रे प्रीतिं परामस्यां शिवायामिव शङ्करः॥ ३३॥

शृङ्गारशाला कलशी कलानां

लावण्यमाला गुणपण्यभूमिः।

असूत पुत्रं गयकर्णभूपाद्

असौ नरेशं नरसिंहदेवम्॥ २४ ॥

अस्य श्रीनरसिंहदेवनृपतेः प्रोद्यन् यशश्चन्द्रमा

दिग्भित्तीर्विदधातु बन्धुरसुधासम्भारगर्भाइव।

भूर्भर्तारमवाप्य चैनमुचितं प्रीतिं तथा प्राप्नुयात्

पूर्वेषां न यथामनागपि महाक्षोणीभृतां ध्यायति॥२५॥

अस्याऽनुजो विजयतां जयसिंहदेवः

सौमित्रिवत् प्रथमजे ऽद्भूतपसेवः।

यो मेघनादबहुमायमहातिकाय-

सैन्यं द्विषामभिभवन्नहहप्रहस्तः॥ २६ ॥

अकारयन् मन्दिरमिन्दुमौलेर्

इदं मठेनाऽद्भुतभूमिकेन।

सहाऽमुना श्रीनरसिंहदेव-

प्रसूरसावल्हणदेव्युदारा॥ २७ ॥

व्याखानशालामुद्यानमालामविकलाममूम्।

अकारयत् स्वयं शम्भुप्रासादालीद्वयं निजैः॥ ३८॥

देवायाऽस्मै वैद्यनाथाभिधाय

प्रादाद् देवी जाउलीपत्तलायाम्।

ग्रामं नाम्ना नाम उण्डीति सर्वा-❋⁶

दायैः सार्धं चारुचर्चाप्रसिद्ध्यै॥२३॥

नर्मदादक्षिणे कूले पर्वतोपत्यकाश्रये।

तथा ऽपरमदाद् ग्रामं नाम्ना मकरपाटकम्॥ ३० ॥

लाटान्वयः पाशुपतस्तपस्वी

श्रीरुद्रराशिर्विधिवद् व्यधत्ताम्।

स्थानस्य रक्षाविधिमस्य तावद्

यावन् मिमीत भुवनानि शम्भुः॥ ३१ ॥

मौन्यान्वये भार्गववैहव्य-

सावेतसेतिप्रवरत्रयाद्ये।

महेश्वराख्याद् धरणीधरो ऽभून्

नाम्ना गरिम्णा यशसा श्रिया च॥ ३३ ॥

कोमलकान्तिसटालेनोच्चैः स्नेहातिभारभरितेन।❋⁷

दीर्घमनोज्ञदशेन त्रिभुवनदीपायितं येन॥ ३३॥

पृथ्वीधरस्तस्य सुतः समस्त-

गभीरशास्त्रार्णवपारदृश्वा।

प्रशस्तिमेतामलिखद् यदीयैर्

दिङ्मण्डली शिष्यगणैर्विजिग्ये॥ ३४ ॥

एतस्या ऽवरजस्तर्कनिष्णाताद्भुतनैपुणः।

प्रशस्तिमकरोदेतां सूरिः शशिधराभिधः॥ ३५ ॥

आसूत्रयदिदं सर्वं विश्वकर्मविधानवित्।

पीथेसमभिधः सूत्रधारः पृथ्वीं पृथुर्यथा॥ ३६॥

सूत्रधाराग्रणीबालसिंहसूनुर्महीधरः

शिलां तथाऽकरोद् वर्णैर्नभस्तारकितं यथा॥ ३७॥

संवत् १०७ मार्गसुदि ११ रवौ।

TRANSLATION.

Om! Glory to Śiva!

May the lunar digit on the brow of the Moon-bedecked—which digit, though but one, and individual, yet, even in the absence of evening, constantly begets the conviction, as pertains to the opulent in attendants, that it is the second—augment your prosperity, and preserve it unimpaired.¹
May the ranges of sacred watering-booths—chafed by the creeping and leaping waves of the celestial river which meanders on the head of Śiva-protect you. Is it lines of white lotoses that present themselves? Or divisions of the moon? Or germs of virtuous deeds? Or, else, the sloughs of serpents? Or, again, eruptions of ashes? Thus are they made the subject of speculation by the immortals.²
That which is a pure pervading element; that by whose revolutions the earth is illuminated; that which imparts happiness to the eyes of the world; that which is the cause of diversity among savors and the like, whose inhesion is in the terrene; that which is a receptacle surcharged with odor; he that sacrifices; that which absolutely cold; and that which is tactile, but devoid of color: may Śiva, by virtue of these material forms,³
defend you.
May Nílakaṇtha^(4—)exciting, by the display of his javelin and battle-axe,⁵ affection in his votaries; the smeared with camphor; and exultant in his dance-confer on you all objects of desire.
May the Elephant-faced⁶—counterfeiting ivory whiter than the jessamin, in bearing a lunar fragment⁷ potent to dispel the darkness⁸ of multitudinous impediments, and free from the smallest stain—compassionately accord to you supreme felicity.
May Saraswatí—practicing, with manifold elocution,⁹ all her devices; and by employing though but the minutest rudiment of whose blandishments, men inspire, in assemblies, the highest reverence—support you.
In the lunar line¹⁰there was a sovereign, by name Arjuna: possessor of a thousand arms; a fire, by night and day, in subduing the hearts, one after another, of all dwellers in the three worlds; by his effulgence putting contempt on other monarchs; and, by the recollection of whom, things long ago lost, or taken by thieves, are, even to this day, recovered.¹¹
Among his descendants arose Kokalla Deva: a famous lord of earth; whose story, though most wonderful, is yet not mythical; wearing a majestic aspect; and whose name, invoked, was the sole resort that produced joy to the triple universe.
From him sprung King Gángeya Deva: who, by the discomfiture of hostile princes sustaining huge mountains of pride,acquired infinite distinction; and who, an all-bestowing tree to suppliants, as making Mount Meru unworthy of similitude, placed this earth, though lying below, above elysium, and rendered it a fit habitation for the gods:
The vine of whose renown—a vine sprinkled with the nectar of meritorious achievements, and promotive of pure excellence-expanded itself over the entire pavilion of the cosmic egg.
Of him—who replenished with gold the ocean of importunities of his crowd of petitioners; and of coveted celebrity-was born King Karna:
Which king, unprecedented in splendor, maintaining the full energy of heroism, the Pandya discontinued violence; the Murala renounced all inclination of arrogance; the Kanga negotiated an audience; the Vanga, with the Kalingas, was solicitous to do thereafter; the Kíra, like a parrot, staid in his house, as a cage;¹² and the Húṇa¹³ dismissed his elation:
Princes at variance with him; whose consorts severally thus protested: ‘This whole country, which he enjoys in consequence of the defeat of our lords, will we, as it were, diminish to view: for that, by the tears springing from our eyes, we have made great the seas; and we have, moreover, aggrandized them by the surpassing water¹⁴ of our jewels.’
From him the illustrious Yas’ahkarṇa derived his honorable origin: who lighted up the circuit of the quarters with the moon of the fame which accrued to him from devastating Champáranya;¹⁵ whose heart was free from crookedness; preëminent¹⁶among rulers; who, holding all learned men whomsoever in esteem, enriched them by his munificence.
From him, a treasure of the perfection¹⁷ of all virtues, inscrutable, sprung King Gayakarṇa Deva; the very sun of whose grandeur availed¹⁸ to bring about the uprising of a sea¹⁹ of desolation to the wives of his foes.
A monarch was he, who, in brightness of complexion, outrivalled orpiment;²⁰ who was a cornucopia²¹ of probity, a garland of diffusive merits, the one destroyer of the hordes of his enemies, of unsullied splendour in battle, restraining the wicked by his beaming glory, and whose sword was of the keenest.
The race²² of the sons of Gobhila is of note among the nations. Therein was born King Hansapála; by whose thronging armaments, equipped with gallantry, and irresistible, the marshalled squadrons of all combined antagonists were humiliated.
The issue of his body was the fortunate King Vairisinha; whose feet were tinged by the reflection of the head-gems in the frontlets of all tributary chieftains, ²³ prostrate in act of fealty;^(24)a repository of faultless wisdom, but not, indeed, an asylum²⁵ to imperious suitors.
He, Vairisinha, moreover, consigned the kinsmen of his adversaries to the recesses of deep caverns; and, entering in person, caused that their women²⁶ neglected their tresses altogether.
Of him was born King Vijayasinha; the good fortune of whose foes was overborne by the pressure of his comeliness and chivalry, deserving the congratulations of all the people; and the moon of whose glory was waxing in the world continually.
Śyámala Deví, the beauteous daughter of Udayáditya, supreme ruler of the realm²⁷ of Málava, was his consort; a talisman²⁸ of bountiful courses, and lauded for her elegance.
Of him, King Vijayasinha, equal to the custody of the world, was born, by her, Alhaṇa Deví; in presentment, the spotless fluttering pennon of her long-descended lineage:²⁹ as the wife³⁰ of Śankara had her origin from the Master of Mountains, by Mená,³¹ and as the spouse of Śubhrabhánu sprang from Daksha, creator of the human family, by Víriņí.³²
King Gayakarṇa, celebrating nuptial rites with her, bestowed on her the highest affection; even as Śankara on Śivá.³³
She, a mansion of erotic sentiment, the pinnacle-ball³⁴ of accomplishments, a wreath of loveliness, the emporium of excellencies, brought forth, by King Gayakarṇa, a son, King Narasinha Deva.
Of him, the prosperous King Narasinha Deva, may the refulgent moon of glory as it were imbue the walls of the directions with grateful store of refreshing nectar. And may the earth, obtaining in him a fitting protector, thus enjoy content, as that of foregone mighty monarchs it shall take no slightest thought.
May his younger brother, Jayasinha Deva—in wondrous wise doing honor to his brother, the first-born; like as for Ráma regard was had by Saumitri—be eminently victorious; who, strong-armed, defeated his enemies’ hosts, strepitant as thundering clouds, teeming with strategy, and comprising warriors of most stalworth frames. Bravo!³⁵
That lady, the open-handed Alhaṇa Deví, mother of the happy Narasinha Deva, occasioned this sanctuary of Indumauli³⁶to be erected, and this cloister, with its admirable pavement.
The same, by the agency of her commissioners, constructed this hall of learning and line of gardens, wanting for nothing, in two ranges, attached to the temple of Śambhu.
To this divinity, entitled Vaidyanátha,³⁷ the queen—to the end that her good deeds might be blazoned—set apart the village known by the name of Uṇḍí, in the canton³⁸ of Jáülí, with all the dues exigible therefrom.
In like manner she appropriated another village, called Makarapáṭaka,³⁹ situate at the base of the hills, on the south bank of the Narmadá.
Let the auspicious Rudraráśi, a Páśupata⁴⁰ ascetic, of the Láṭa⁴¹ race, and his heirs spiritual, fitly administer the duties of the charge of this establishment, till śambhu shall mete out the duration of the spheres.
In the family of Maunin—connected with three branches, those of Bhárgava, Vaitahavya, and Sávetasa⁴²—was born, of Maheśwara, so called, one Dharaṇídhara, by name; a person of worship, repute, and good presence:
By whom— adorned with seemly radiance as his frontlet, replete with exuberance of exalted tenderness, and whose gratifying condition long endured—the three worlds were, so to speak, irradiated.
His son, Pṛithwídhara— who has scanned the further shore of the profound main of all science, and whose concourse of disciples has conquered scholastically the round of the quarters—transcribed⁴³this encomium.
His — Prithwidhara’s—younger brother, of singular skill among such as are conversant in logic, the learned śaśidhara, as was his appellation, composed this memorial :
All this the artificer⁴⁴ called Píthe, proficient in the ordinances of Viśwakarman, ⁴⁵has regulated; as Pṛithu disposed the earth.⁴⁶
Mahídhara, son of the chief craftsman, Bálasinha, wrought this stone with characters; the firmament is bestrown with stars.

Sunday, the 11th day of the light fortnight of Márga, in the year 907.

INSCRIPTION No. II.

ज्ञानानन्दं परं ब्रह्म ब्रह्मादिसुरसेवितम्।

वन्देमहि महादेवं देवदेवं जगद्गुरुम्॥ १ ॥

श्रीमद्गयाकर्णनृपस्य सूनुर्नरेश्वरः श्रीनरसिंहदेवः।

जिग्ये धरित्रीमनुज्ञोऽस्य सम्राड्जीयाच् चिरं श्रीजयसिंदेवः

विप्रो यो ऽस्तकनामाऽभूदालदेवस्तदात्मजः।

केशवः कारयामास प्रासादममुमैश्वरम्॥३॥

संवत् १२८ श्रावणसुदि ६ रवौ हस्ते॥

नायककेशवस्य गोत्रं कात्यायनं स्थानं मालवके सीखा

ग्रामः ॥

TRANSLATION.

We render homage to the supreme Brahma, who is intellect and felicity;⁴⁷ adored by Brahmá and the other inferior deities; Mahádeva;⁴⁸ god of gods; parent of the world.⁴⁹
The son of the fortunate King Gayákarṇa, the auspicious King Narasinha Deva, has conquered the earth. May the fortunate Jayasinha Deva, the equitable prince,⁵⁰ his younger brother, long be triumphant!
Keśava, son of the late Áladeva Astaka, the Bráhman so called, procured this temple of Íśwara to be constructed.⁵¹

In the year 928; Sunday, the 6th day of the light fortnight of śrávana; the moon being in the asterism Hasta.

Family name ⁵² of Keśava, the collector⁵³-Kátyáyana; his residence—the village of Síkhá, in Málavaka.⁵⁴

PROSODIAL INDEX TO THE FORMER OF THE FOREGOING
INSCRIPTIONS.

 **    No. of stanza.                 Name of metre.**

    1, 5, 8, 15,

** Vasantatilaká.
17, 18, 20, 26.
Vasantatilaká*.*

   2, 3, 7, 9, 12,

śárdúlavikriḍita.
13,14, 22, 25.
śárdúlavikriḍita.

    4, 10, 11, 23,

Vaktra.
28, 30, 35, 36, 37.
Vaktra.
6.
śubhá.
16.
Máliní.
19, 27.
Upendravajrá.
21.
śri.
24.
Satí.
29.
śalini.
31.
Indravajrá.
32, 34.
Varidhará.
33.
Áryá.

None of these metres call for special remark, except those of stanzas 6, 21, 24, 32, and 34. In these we have quatrains composed of the Indravajrá and Upendravajrá measures intermixed. The modes in which they are combined were long ago alluded to,❋⁸ but have not yet been detailed; and the Ákhyának, which Colebrooke correctly limits,†⁹has erroneously been understood as embracing all these variations.‡¹⁰ The Ákhyánakí, as ordinarily described, is the same as the Smṛiti; some, on the other hand, holding it to be one with the Maṇiprabhá. The Viparitákhyánaki, again, is equivalent to the Śivá; or, perhaps, on a different view, it corresponds with the Śubhá. Very likely the comprehensive nomenclature about to be brought forward is of somewhat late origin. It does not, however, furnish appellations for mere factitious or new-fangled refinements; as will be seen—to go no further❋¹¹—by the annexed references to a few of the first fifty-nine stanzas of a single canto of the RaghuvanŚa.†¹²The pure Upendravajrá and the pure Indravajrá constitute, respectively, the beginning and the end of the series.


No.	Sanskrit name.	Prákrit name.	Composition.	Raghu., II.
2.	Maṇiprabhá, or Kirti.	Kitti.	I U U U.	39.
3.	Kántimati or Váṇí.	Váṇí.	U I U U.	1.
4.	Satí or Málá.	Málá.	I I U U.	15.
5.	Gati, or Śálá.	Sálá.	U U I U.	28.
6.	Smṛiti, or Hansi.	Hansí.	I U I U.	2.
7.	KriŚá, or Máyá.	Μάά.	U I I U.	59.
8.	Śri, or Jáyá.	Jáá.	I I I U.	22.
9.	Dhriti, or Bálá.	Bálá.	U U U I.	6.
10.	Unnatá, or Árdrá.	Addá.	I U U I.	13.
11.	Śivá, or Bhadrá.	Bhaddá.	U I U I.	9.
12.	Varidhará, or Premá.	Pemmá.	I I U I.	16.
13.	Prítimatí, or Rámá.	Rámá.	U U I I.	8.
14.	Priyá, or Ṛiddhi.	Riddhi.	I U I I.	31.
15	Śubhá, or Buddhi.	Buddhí.	U I I I.	12.

The metres of this table are disposed agreeably to a method which evidences some ingenuity. The ensuing couplet—which, like those that follow it, is from the Vṛitta-ratnákara-states the rule:

पादे सर्वगुरावाद्याल् लघुं न्यस्य गुरोधः।

यथोपरि तथा शेषं भूयः कुर्यादमुं विधिम्॥

```
            *         
```

not excepted. See Prof. Lassen’s Anthologia Sanscritica, p. 104; and his Gitagovinda, Prolegomena, p. xxiv. Dr. Tullberg is of the same opinion, and, in like manner, wrongly holds that the Indravajrá may commence with a palimbacchius, or with an amphibrach, at pleasure. See his Málaviká et Agnimitra, p. vii. It may be observed that the stanza which he there numbers as the fiftieth has twelve syllables to the verse, not eleven. It is, therefore, Vanśastha; a metre which may be elongated from the Upendravajrá, by simply exchanging its final syllable for an iambus.

ऊने द्द्याद् गुरूनेव यावत् सर्वलघुर्भवेत्।

प्रस्तारो ऽयं समाख्यातः छन्दोविचितिवेदिभिः॥

A more explicit explanation, and one specifically adapted to the combinations before us, may be given in these words. Write U four times in a horizontal line. Under the first to the left place an I; and, to complete the second line and variation, bring down the other three, to accompany it. The same process is again and again to be repeated. The U which stands furthest on the right is always the letter which governs the leading conversion next to be effected; all the letters to the right of that directly under it being exchanged for U’s. Thus continue to operate until a line is brought out made up of I’s.

Suppose, again, that only the number of a variation is known, and it is required to ascertain how that variation is constituted:

नष्टस्य यो भवेदङ्कस्तस्याऽर्धेऽर्धे समे च लः।

विषमे चैकमादाय तदर्धेऽर्धे गुरुर्भवेत्॥

In other words, halve the figure, if the result will be an integer. If not divisible by two without a remainder, first add unity to it. When four numbers are thus obtained, subscribe U’s to the odd, and I’s to the even.

E. g. 1 1 1 1 5 3 2 1 12 6 3 2 168 4 2
U U U U U U I U I I U I I I I I

Once more, the components of a variation are given, to find its number:

उद्दिष्टं द्विगुणानाद्यादुपर्यङ्कान् समालिखेत्।

लघुस्थाये च तत्राऽङ्कास्तैः सैकैर्मिश्रितैर्भवेत्॥

Write 1, 2, 4, and 8 beneath the four literal symbols, respectively; and increase by one the sum of the figures attached to the I’s.

E. g. U U U U U U I U I I U I
I I I I
1 2 4 8 1 2 4 8 1 2 4 8 1 2 4 8

0+1=1. 4+1=5.   1+2+8+1=12.    1+2+4+8+1=16.

The couplets which follow, in the original, however curious, are of little practical value. Two of them show how to determine the number of variations containing one I and three U’s, two I’s and two U’s, etc. Afterwards, the construction of the khaṇḍa-meru is described by implication.

NOTES ON THE INTRODUCTION.

** a**. Near this spot I saw a temple, in the circumjacent close of which were mutilated images, of large size, of the sixty-four Yoginís.

** b**. When at this place, on enquiring its ancient name, I was told, by the village oracle, that it was the Tripura of the Puráṇas.

** **In the eighth chapter of the Revá-máhátmya it is said that Tripuríkshetra, where Śiva flung down Tripura the Titan, lies to the north of the Narmadá.

** **The twenty-ninth chapter of the same work somewhat discordantly relates as follows. The demon Báṇa, in reward of his austerities as a votary of Śiva, received from him the gift of a city. Brahmá and Vishṇu each adding another, he obtained the epithet of Tripura, or Tgl-<MISSING_FIG href=”../../../books_images/U-IMG-1696068386Screenshot2023-09-30153604.png"/>. When slain by Śiva, as he was traversing the heavens, a part of his carcass fell near the well-known mountain Śríśaila, in Siddhakshetra; another fragment, not far from Amarakaṇṭaka; and the remainder, in the vicinity of Gangáságara. The weapon, Aghorástra, with which he was demolished, reached the earth at a point of the Nerbudda hard by Jaleśwaratírtha, and sunk to Rasátala, the nethermost of the infernal stages. Where this tale is briefly rehearsed in the *Gaṇeśopapuráṇa—*prior section, chapter seventy-one-Báṇa carries off Pradyumna; whose father, Kṛishṇa, attacks the giant, and, after propitiating Ganeśa, overcomes the monster and takes possession of his city Śonitapura. The Vishnu-purána tells a very different story. See Wilson’s translation, p. 596. Some ten chapters of the first half of the Gaṇeśopapuráṇa, beginning with the thirty-eighth, are taken up with Tripura or Bána.

** **Parenthetically, M. Troyer is wrong in speaking of the “trois villes,” named from Tripura, as being “du moderne pays de Tipparah” (RájatarangiṇÍ, iii. 610). It is stated, in the course of the legend above recounted from the Revá-máhátmya, that there is a Tripurapura in the neighborhood of Śríśaila. That the town vulgarly called Tipperah, which gives name to a district of Bengal, is more properly Tipura, by depravation of the Sanskrit Tripura, we have the high authority of Colebrooke. See his Remarks on the Husbandry and Internal Commerce of Bengal, London edition of 1806, pp. 28 and 30; and his Miscellaneous Essays, ii. 241. Some relevant but unverified assertions of Colonel Wilford will be found in the Asiatic Researches, xiv. 451. Of the situation of the third Tripura, or Tripurí, evidently the most noted of all, there can be little question. The Tripurí named in the Haima-kośa is explained by Professor Wilson, in his Sanskrit Dictionary, as being “the modern Tipperah.” But the Haima-kośa, in my manuscript copy of the text and commentary, gives, as another designation of Tripurí, चेदिनगरि; which, in the Calcutta impression, is corrupted to वेदिनगरि. I have not access to the English or other new reprint of this vocabulary. Professor Wilson also inadvertently gives त्रैपुर, the adjective of त्रिपुरी, as an equivalent substantive.

** **I suspect that the ablution, spoken of at p. 492 of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1839, took place at Tripurí, not at “Srí-mantipurí,” as according to the translation. That the original runs श्रीमत्रिपुर्यां, is not an unreasonable conjecture.

It is, thus, tolerably clear that Chedi, at one time, extended down the Nerbudda almost to the western extremity of the District of Jubulpoor, as now defined. I shall return to the consideration of Chedi a few pages forward.

Professor Lassen’s deductions from the legend of the slaughter of Tripura are scarcely such as to command unqualified assent. See his Indische Alterthumskunde, i. 71, 72, foot-note.

c. Under the reign of Lakshmídhara—son of Udayáditya, and grand-son of Bhoja—a grant of a village was issued by his younger brother, Naravarman. Its date is A. D. 1104. Naravarman lived till 1133. See the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, i (1843). 277-281; and Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, ii. 303. I will here simply mention that the speculations of the late Mr. Henry Torrens, which carry back the era of Udayáditya to the seventh century, are utterly without foundation. This I shall show at length, in a future communication. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1840, p. 545.

d. Their gentile denomination was, perhaps, Kulachuri. I am not prepared to say what relation, whether that of identity, or otherwise, may have subsisted between the Kulachuris, “Karachulis,” Kalachuris, and “Kalabhuris.” See the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1839, pp. 488 and 490; Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, ii. 359 (second edition); and Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, iii. 259, and iv. 19.

e. Vonthá Deví, daughter of a Lakshmaṇa who governed Chedi, became the wife of Vikramáditya—if the name be not Vijitáditya—a prince of the Chálukyas. See the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, iii. 261; iv. 7, 40; v. 345.

f. The term Yuvarája is much more like a title, ‘prince regent,’ than like an appellation. For an apparent example of it as the name of a king, see the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, iii. 96.

That our Yuvarája is an antonomasia for Lakshmaṇa Deva, is a revelation for which we are to thank a writer who has never yet been taxed with excess of critical scepticism. In the present instance, however, there is no reason why his word should not be taken without reserve. The fact here brought forward was immaterial to any of his theories. I mean Colonel Wilford. See the Asiatic Researches, ix. 108.

g. He founded the city of Karṇávatí. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1839, p. 489. Karṇávatí may have been misread for Karṇávalí. If so, perhaps we have it in Karanbel, now a heap of ruins, only a few miles from Bhera Ghat. But local tradition refers Karanbel to a chieftain of Gadhámandala.

“The famous Śríkarṇa Deva, in his grant, lately found at Benares, declares that he was of the Haihaya tribe, who lived originally on the banks of the Narmadá, in the district of the western Gauḍa, or Gaur, in the province of Málava. Their residence was at Chaulí Mahes’wara,a famous place of worship, to this day, on the Narmadá; and built by one of his ancestors.” Col. Wilford in the As. Res., ix. 103.

“The ancestors of Śríkarṇa Deva, mentioned in the grant, were, first, his father Gángeya Deva, with the title of Vijayakaṇṭaka: he died in a loathsome dungeon. He was the son of Kokalla Deva, whose father was Lakshmanarája Deva.” Id., ibid., ix. 108.

It is easy enough to imagine how Colonel Wilford would have speculated on a Kokalla’s having a son Śadruka, had he been aware of the circumstance.

h. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1839, p. 490: also note 13, further down this paper.

i. Yaśahkarma Deva is the form in which, doubtless by mistake, his name is elsewhere written. Ibid., p. 490.

j. Gayákarṇa, the more grammatical form, is found in my second inscription, and in the grant issued by Gásala Deví.

k. Her name has also appeared as Arhaṇa Deví. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1839, p. 490.

l. This prince, it should seem, left no offspring, male or female.

m. Ajayasinha is placed in the year 932 of an unspecified era. the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1839, p. 492. His consent to the grant of a village, made, at that time, by his mother, was considered to be necessary. As further evidence that he was only heir expectant to the government, and not actually in possession, we have the argument that he is styled महाकुमार.

n. This appellation is the same as that of one or more ancient sages who have written on Vaidika matters. The immediate successor of the founder of the Udeypoor dynasty is called Guhila, in the only other inscription yet found, one from Mount Aboo, where he is commemorated:

शाखोपशाखाकुलितः सुपर्वा
गुणोचितः पत्रविभूषिताशः।
कृतास्पदो मूर्धनि भूधराणां
जयत्युदारो गुहिलस्य वंशः॥५॥

‘Preëminent is the generous race of Guhila; abounding with branches and offsets; of good progeny; of laudable attributes; whose vehicles adorn the directions; resting on the heads of monarchs.’ In translating, I have neglected the puns.

वप्पकस्य तनयो नयनेता
सम्बभूव नृपतिर्गुहिलाख्यः।
यस्य नाम कलिनाऽङ्किलजातिं
भूभुजो दधति तत्कुलजाताः॥१२॥

The son of Vappaka was King Guhila, so called; a master of policy; and whose name the rulers sprung from his family invocate, for the purpose of obviating the collective defilements of the Iron Age.‘For the original of these passages, and of those shortly to be adduced, which has never before been published, I am indebted to the kindness of my noble friend the late Sir Henry Lawrence. copy of the Sanskrit was manifestly a careless one.See the As. Res., xvi. 292-298.

Concerning the Gahlots, as the Gobhilas are vernacularly entitled, Sir Henry M. Elliot writes: “Their neighbors, who for some unexplained reason are fond of imputing cowardice to them, say their name of Gahlot is derived from gahlá, a slave-girl; but the real origin is the following, which is universally believed in Mewar. When the ancestors of the Rana of Mewar were expelled from Guzerat, one of the queens, by name Pushpavatí, found refuge among the Bráhmans of the MalliaMountains. She was shortly afterwards delivered of a son, whom she called, from the cave—*guhá—*in which he was born, by the name of Gahlot; and from him are descended the present Ranas of Udeypur. Their claim to be descended from Noshirwán and a Grecian Princess, which has frequently been discussed, invests this clan with a peculiar interest.” Supplemental Glossary, i. 322, 323. Sir Henry should have seen that this etymology has far too much of the ordinary complexion of native romance to deserve the ready credence he has accorded it.

Had the name in discussion been derived from guhú, and so etymologically significant, it would scarcely have been changed into Gobhila. Very likely it was originally Guhila, and was subsequently Sanskritized into Gobhila, for the sake of seeming canonization.

** o**. The present mention of Hansapála is, as I have already intimated, the first that we have of him. He was also called Vairața, unless Vairata was his brother, or some other near relative. I again cite the inscription from Mount Aboo:

* * * * *

दोर्दण्डद्वयभग्नवैरिवसतिः क्षोणीश्वरो वैरटश्
चक्रे विक्रमतः स्वपीठविलुठन्मूर्धश्चिरं द्वेषिणाः॥२६॥
तस्मिन्नुपरते राज्ञिनिहताशेषविद्विषि।
वैरिसिंहस्ततश्चक्रे निजंनामाऽर्थवद् भुवि॥ २७ ॥
व्यूढोरस्कस्तनुर्मध्ये क्ष्वेडाकम्पितभूचरः।
विजयोपपदः सिंहस्ततो ऽरिकरिणो ऽवधीत्॥ २८॥

‘Vairaṭa, a lord of earth, who destroyed the abode of his antagonists with his two staff-like arms, caused, by his might, the heads of those inimical to him to toss long on their pillows.

‘That king, who had destroyed all his adversaries, having demised, in the next place Vairisinha [i. e., the lion of his foes] justified his designation the earth over.

‘Of broad chest and slender waist, making the dwellers of the earth to tremble at his battle-cry, Vijayasinha [i. e., the lion of conquest] then slew his enemies, as they had been elephants.’

Instead of the first of these three paragraphs, Professor Wilson has: “the king of the world, having slain the associates of his foes, compelledthem to bow their foreheads to his footstool.” On this he observes: “There is, however, something wrong in the verse; and it seems likely that we should have the proper name, in it, of another prince. KshoníŚwara may be a proper name, instead of an epithet: but it is not ordinarily so used.” As. Res., xvi. 295. It is difficult to form even a guess as to what the Professor had before him. At all events, his text was miserably corrupt.

** p**. Mangala, a Chálukya chieftain, is said to have repelled Buddharája, son of a Śankaragaṇa. See the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, iii. 203 etc.

** q**. The matter of this paragraph I have collected from these sources: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, iii. 94 etc.; and Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, i. 217 etc., iv. 111 etc. The last reference has Kokkala for Kokalla.

** I** have adopted, on examination, an obvious suggestion of the late Bálagangádhara Śástrin, as regards the topical acceptation of the term importing the relationship between Akálavarsha and Indra. It may be added that Major G. L. Jacob has altogether misunderstood his original, in espousing Mahádeví to Akálavarsha.

** r**. Professor Lassen, in 1827, wrote as follows, touching Chedi and its synonyme: “hisce nominibus nil de situ gentis definitur; nam omnia prorsus sunt ignota. Chedes a Wilsone (s. v.) ad eam regionem referuntur, quae hodie dicitur Chandail: verum hoc contra auctoritatem
Hamiltonis est, qui (Descrip. of Hind., II., p. 13) asserit, Chandail Sanscrite dictum fuisse Chandâla. Totam rem, ut incertam, in medio relinquam.” Commentatio etc. de Pentapotamia Indica, p. 89. And the question, it is believed, has awaited adjudication down to the publication of the present paper.

** **Mr. Wathen confounds Chedi with Ganjam. See the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, ii. 380. Afterwards he makes it to be “Chandail, in Berar.” Ibid., v. 345, 346. From Captain Blunt we know where Chandail begins, in one direction: but its extent has never been defined. Asiatic Researches, vii. 59 eto. Sir Henry M. Elliot, speaking of the Chandels, says that there is a large clan of them south of Burdee, giving name to a province called Chandelkhand." Supplemental Glossary, i. 180, 181. But the word Chandelkhand, though analogical in formation, is, I find, nothing but a coinage: like the late Colonel Dixon’s Merwárá—as it is written accurately—for what the natives call Magrá.

** **But, if Mr. Wathen’s views are more or less wide of the mark, neither can we rely on the dictum of Professor Wilson, who says that “the situation of the ancient kingdom of Śiśupála is always considered to be that of the modern Chandail; and in original Sanskrit writers Raṇastambha* * is well known to be Chandail and Boghelt, and lying south of the country termed Vindhyapárśwa, the skirts of the Vindhya mountains.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, ii. 394. Again he speaks, vaguely, of “Chedi, or Chandail, in central Hindustan.” Ibid., iii. 208. His earliest decision of this point is in the first edition of his Sanskrit Dictionary, where we read, in definition of Chedi: “The name of a country; perhaps the modern Chandail. Or. D.”

This abbreviation indicates “the original compilation, when the word contained appeared to be correct, and could not be found in any other authority.” The fact seems to be, that the apposition of Chandail to Chedi was the mere guess of some pandit, and a guess prompted by their remote similarity in sound. Yet it is written, in the Professor’s translation of the Vishṇu-puráṇa, p. 186: “Chedi is usually considered as Chandail, on the west of the Jungle Mehals, towards Nagpur. It is known, in times subsequent to the Puráṇas, as Raṇastambha.” This annotation is annexed to the impossible word “Chedyas.” The Sanskrit has Chedi; the people of which are Chaidyas or Chedayas, according to Hemachandra. The Jungle Mehals are to the east of Chhotá Nágpur, and conterminous with it; and the equivalence of Chandail to the doubtful Raṇastambha is altogether hypothetical. See the Quarterly Oriental Magazine for December, 1824, p. 192, foot-note. There is no such country as Raṇastambha named where Professor Wilson thought he had found one. See the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, iii. 262. Among the descendants of Jyámagha, says the Professor, “we have the Chaidyas, or princes of Baghelkhand, and Chandail, and Das’árha—more correctly, perhaps, Das’árṇa—Chattisgher” (sic). Translation of the Vishṇu-puruṇa. In passing, at p. 186 of the same work, Chhattisgaṛh only “seems to be in the site of Das’árṇa.” Das’árṇa was to the east of Chandeyree.

M. Troyer confidingly asserts of the “Tchêdas,” that “ils habitent le Behâr méridional;” and he speaks of Chedi as being “probablement le Tchandail actuel.” Rája-tarangiṇi, i. 567, note; ii. 629.

It may be concluded that Rewa and Mundla, in part, if not in all, at least as to the second, were anciently embraced in the land of Chedi. At that time, as in times when the old geographical nomenclature of Central India had fallen into disuse, it also took in something of the District of Jubulpoor. When Dhṛishṭaketu was lord of the Chaidyas, his residence was at Śuktimatí; and at one period, if not then as well, a stream of the same name flowed past the capital of Chedi. Hard by was Mount Koláhala. Mahábhárata, Vana-parvan, s’l. 898 and 2531; and Ádi-parvan, s’l. 2342-2368. We might expect to find that the S’uktimatí river took its rise in the Śuktimat mountains; but, on the contrary, its source is referred to the Riksha range, from which various Puránas derive the Nerbudda, the Taptee, and the Tonse. The site of the city o Śuktimatí is, therefore, not yet to be settled by the aid of its river. Colonel Wilford, with his usual eccentricity, relegates the Śuktimatí, “full of oysters,” to parts widely astray from its sober latitude and longitude. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1851, p. 254.

The town of Tewar, a few miles from the station of Jubulpoor, was, in distant ages, included in Chedi; as has been made out in a previous note (note b): and the first of the inscriptions in this paper shows that the jurisdiction of Narasinha was not bounded, in a southerly direction, by the Nerbudda.

Hiouen Thsang, the Buddhist traveller, according to his biographers, on leaving Ujjayiní, proceeded nine hundred lis N. E., to the kingdom of Mo-hi-chi-fa-lo-pou-lo, or Maheśwarapura. But it seems, from theSi-yu-ki, that, about a thousand lis to the N. E. of Ujjayiní, he found the kingdom of Tchi-ki-t’o. M. Stanislas Julien thinks Maheśwarapura to be Mysore. Proposing, with doubt, Chikdha as the Sanskrit for Tchi-ki-t’o, he adds: “aujourd’hui, Tchitor.” Voyages des Pèlerins Bouddhistes, i. 207, 424, 465, Mysore is, however, a long stretch from Chitor, instead of a hundred lis; neither of these places is N. E. from Ujjayiní; and the second is not known to be of any great antiquity. On this last point small faith is to be put in Col. Tod. That Tchi-ki-t’o stands for Chedi may not be altogether a random suggestion; especially as we are ignorant how far Chedi extended northerly. Again, taking certain mistakes in supposition, would Choli Mahes’wara satisfy the problem of the two places which Hiouen Thsang next visited after Ujjayini?

** s**. See note c, above.

** t**. It is singular that her progeny, not more than a quarter of a century after her death, should have consented to speak of her without mention of her distinguished extraction. Yet so it was. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1839, p. 490.

** u**. Ibid., p. 492. The editors of the Journal referred to were, as we now know, wrong in taking this year to be of the common Samvat, and corresponding to A. D. 875.

Though I do not see what use can be made of the following remark of Colonel Wilford on his patent of Karṇa Deva, yet I transcribe it: “The grant is dated the second year of his new era, and also of his reign; answering to the Christian year 192.” Asiatic Researches, ix. 108. The proposal to throw Karna Deva into the second century is characteristic. Of that chieftain’s setting on foot an epoch of his own we have here the only intimation.

** v**. It may not be superfluous to note that the eleventh day of the light fortnight of Márga, 907, and the sixth day of the light fortnight of Śrávana, 928, were not Sundays, in the era of Vikramáditya. Gásala Devi’s inscription, as printed, does not name the month, the semilunation, its day, or the day of the week. But I should like to examine the copperplate itself.

** w**. I may add that it seems to have been aimed, in the manuscription of this memorial, to make it as formidable in aspect as practicable. To this end, few occasions are left unimproved of doubling consonants where the grammar permits their duplication, and of yoking the final letters of words to the initials of those that succeed. For example, we have अर्ज्जुन, कीर्त्याand even निधिर्न्नand गर्ब्भ; as also किम्वा, which is an error. Equally unauthorized is सिन्ह, which is everywhere put for सिंह. The dental न is, in two instances, combined laterally with र ; and likewise, in several places, with the dental and palatal sibilants; for the sake of conjunction, the anuswára is changed to न, before a sibilant, in stanzas six and thirty-five. In the last verse of the twenty-ninth stanza, the स of सार्धंis repeated, although the visarga of the preceeding wordis retained. But, on the other hand, the sibilants are nowhere confounded. ब and वhave different symbols; and they are employed, generally, with just discrimination. The deviations, in this article, from accuracy, like several of the peculiarities above noticed, may have been the fault of the engraver. Thus, वुद्धि is once substituted for बुद्धि, वन्धुर for बन्धुर, वहुमाय for बहुमाय, वाल for बाल, andवष्प for बाष्प,

From the eleventh stanza we learn that the jihwámúlíya and its क were once written क; and, from the twelfth stanza, that the shape of the upadhmániya and its प (प्र) was ᳶ.

I take this opportunity of expressing the opinion that nearly all the inscriptions in the earlier volumes of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, which have not been republished, should be deciphered and translated anew. At least, a restatement of their facts of history and geography—based on a fresh examination, with all our present aids, of the originals—would be an enterprise neither unworthy nor infructuous. A reservation would, however, fall to be made in favor of those among them which were entrusted to Dr. Mill, Mr. Sutherland, and Captain Marshall.

Relics of the description here referred to deserve, indeed, all the care that scholarship can bestow upon them; and, occasionally, for a reason quite independent of their value as chronicles. The princes, at whose instance they were written, employed for them, it is reasonable to suppose, the best ability they could command. The teachings of the past must have admonished them that in these memorials, if at all, their names and deeds would survive to coming ages. The style of an inscription, especially if the inscription be in verse, may, accordingly, be taken as no unfair index of what was reputed to be literary excellence at the time of its composition.

NOTES ON THE TRANSLATIONS.

1. The divinity here invoked, under two epithets, is Mahádeva. The ‘attendantŚ referred to are the well known gaṇas. There are fifteen groups of them; named Gomukha, Hariṇa, Stírṇa, Tálajangha, Vṛikodara, etc.-Revá-máhátmya, 29th chapter.

ŚaŚi-śekhara I have rendered by ‘moon-bedecked,’ As for the Śekhara of Śiva, since he wears it on his forehead, it would be incongruous to speak of it as a crest; though it is usually so denominated, The ordinary Śekhara was a sort of mural crown. In the eighteenth stanza we have a Śekhara enchased with precious stones.

According to Hindu notions, the moon has sixteen digits; and the first of them never appears in the heavens. The new moon, the day of which they call the second of the light fortnight, is held to be a combination of the first two. But the writer of this inscription evidently conceits that the first digit is not seen, as having been transferred to Śiva.

By poetical license, इति is omitted after द्वितीया, in the third verse of this stanza.

2. In turning this quatrain into English, perspicuity was consulted by an entire departure from the structural sequence of the original.

Even after knowing that the stands in Śiva’s hair are stands, one can form but a slightly less indefinite idea of them than was entertained by the supernals in their state of ocular indecision. It is, therefore, difficult to divine the precise drift of some of these saintly conjectures. Virtue, agreeably to the chromatics of Indian morality, is white; and so, it may be inferred, would be the buddings of meritorious acts. Possibly, in place of ’eruptions of ashes,’ we should substitute ‘sources of majesty,’ which also is accounted colorless. Yet the interpretation in the text is strictly in keeping with S’iva’s notoriously untidy habits.

Terrestrial stalls, analogous to those here mentioned, or, at least, such as are seen in hundreds, every hot season, in Central India, are, generally, fragile structures of coarse grass, or of wattle and dab, open on one side, and just large enough to hold two or three persons in a crouching posture, and as many jars of water.

To all appearance, whether rightly or wrongly, the word प्रपाis sometimes used in the sense of a small affluent or feeder. See the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, for April, 1843, p. 222, foot-note.

There is a stanza, by the poetess Padmávatí, closely resembling, in style and construction, that to which this note is appended. Veṇídatta quotes it, in his Padya-veṇí. It depicts a lady’s folded arms:

किं शृङ्गारसमुद्रकल्पलतिके किंवा मृणालीलते
किं वक्षोजमहीध्रचन्दनलते किं मारयाशीलते।
किं लावण्यसुधाब्धिविद्रुमलते पत्राङ्गुलीसंयुते
भातः कङ्गटगुर्जरीसुललिते बाहू लते मन्मते॥

Further down I shall have occasion to recur to these verses.

3. These manifestations, as here intended, and in the order in which they are implied or described, are the ether, the sun, the moon, fire, earth, the chief priest in sacrifice, water, and air. See Colebrooke’s Miscell. Essays, ii. 248, foot-note; Wilson’s translation of the Vishṇupuráṇa, pp. 58 and 59, foot-note; the opening of the Śákuntala drama; the Kumára-sambhava, vii. 76; and Hemachandra’s scholia on his own vocabulary, ii. 110.

Yádava the lexicographer, as cited by Mallinátha on the Raghuvanśa, ii. 35, enumerates these forms in the following couplet:

पृथिवी सलिलं तेजो वायुराकाशमेव च।
सूर्याचन्द्रमसौ सोमयाजी चेत्यष्ट मूर्तयः॥

Mohanadása Miśra, in his Hanumán-náṭaka-dípiká, adduces the ensuing lines, of the same import, as from some ágama, or sacred authority:

भूर्जलं वह्निराकाशो वायुर्यज्वा शशी रविः।
इत्यष्टौ मूर्तयः शम्भोर्मपडलं जनयन्ति नः॥

M. Chézy, as he says in his edition of the Śákuntala, p. १७१, found the distich about to be quoted on one of the outer leaves of a MS. :

जलं सूर्यो मही वह्निर्वायुराकाशमेव च।
दीक्षितो ब्राह्मणः सोम इत्यष्टौ तनवः स्मृताः॥

Professor Wilson, where referred to above, alleges that this is from the Vishṇu-purána; in which, however, I read, on the concurrent authority of nine MSS. :

सूर्योजलं महीवायुर्वह्निराकाशमेव च।
दीक्षितो ब्राह्मणः सोम इत्येतास्तनवः क्रमात्॥

In hundreds of places, the discrepancies, for many consecutive verses, between passages in different Puránas, when one and the same subject is under treatment, are no grosser than these. The lines adduced by M. Chézy are still to be verified. Professor Boehtlingk has accepted Professor Wilson’s statement, and, it should seem, without thinking to test its accuracy. See his Śákuntala, p. 142.

Of the five elements, as the Hindus reckon them, the ether alone is propounded to be universally diffused. It is, further, maintained that the development, in earth, of color, taste, smell, and tangibility, is due to the influence of caloric. Stench and fragrance can be predicated of earth only: the characteristic of water is coldness: and the atmosphere can be touched, and has no hue.

Of the eight constituents of Kṛishṇa, only the five so-called elements are included in the catalogue above detailed; three, or mind, intellect, and consciousness, being the substitutes for the three objects omitted. See the Bhagavad-gitá, vii.4.

Professor Wilson, in the second edition of his Sanskrit Dictionary, similarly sets forth the constitution of the अष्टमूर्तिधरः; except that he puts “crude matter,” or prakriti, in lieu of consciousness.’ The exchange is certainly a mistake.

In the fourteenth chapter of the Narmadá-máhátmya, the octoform S’iva is thus represented:

शब्दः स्पर्शश्च गन्धश्च रसो रूपं च पञ्चमम्।
बुद्धिर्मनश्चाऽहङ्कारो ह्यष्टमूर्तेर्नमोऽस्तु ते॥

Here, instead of the five elemental substances, we strangely enough find the five qualities of which the senses take cognizance; or sound, tactility, odor, sapor, and color. The complement is made up as in the Bhagavad-gitá.

4. Or ‘he of the dark throat;’ that is to say, Śiva. The fable accounting for this designation will be familiar to every one that reaches this note. See the Mahabharata, Ádi-parvan, s’l. 1154.

5. The author of the Budha-manohara alleges that Kshíra Swámin defines हेति by परशु. If it be so, my copy of the Amarakośodghúṭana is defective. Hemachandra, annotating iii. 437 of his own vocabulary,says that the heti is a weapon of offense; as is, indeed, declared by its
assigned etymology.

** 6**. This is Gaṇeśa; who, however monstrous in what should be his divinest part, is figured with the body of a man.

** 7**. Gaṇeśa, no less than śiva, wears a digit of the moon on his forehead. How our poet, adhering to what he has said of the latter divinity’s ornament, would make good its place in the sky, it is hard to say.

** **The following piece of mythology is taken from the prior section of the Ganeśopapurúṇa, sixty-second chapter. Gaṇeśa, with intent to deter Brahmá from the work of creation, assumed a transformation devised to inspire terror: but the moon was so rash as to deride the hideous disguise. The divinity, incensed at this discourtesy, pronounced a malediction on the heedless luminary: in future its aspect was to be of evil omen. Commiserating the lunar distress, the minor gods went about to make interest, on behalf of the forlorn orb, with Gaṇeśa. By degrees he suffered his wrath to be somewhat mollified. Dissatisfied, however, with this partial result, the planet procured from Indra the monosyllabic prayer to his oppressor, and silently repeated it, for two and twenty years, on the south bank of the Ganges. Thus perseveringly importuned, Gaṇeśa appeared, cancelled his imprecation entirely, and associated the worship of himself with that of his suppliant, on the fourth day of every dark fortnight. Demanding one of its digits, he fixed it on his brow, and was thenceforward surnamed Bhálachandra.His grateful votary finally erected a fane in his honor, the site of which is celebrated as Siddhikshetra.

** 8**. For सन्तमस (-सं), ‘universal gloom,’ Professor Wilson, in his Sanskrit Dictionary, erroneously gives सन्तमस् (-मः); wrongly citing the Amara-kośa as his authority, and also infringing Páṇini, v. 4. 79. The Manorama and the Tattwa-bodhiní do not even hint at any variety of opinion touching the form of this word.

** 9**. Thus I translate रप, a substantive of very rare occurrence, I am told.❋¹³

** **Saraswatí is the patroness of letters and of eloquence. The inscriptionist is celebrating the seductiveness of artful rhetoric.

** 10**. On the word गोत्र, which is used here, and elsewhere in the record before us, I have remarked at length, as also on प्रवर, in a foot-note to p. 232 of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, for 1858.

** 11**. Allusion is here made to a superstition still very prevalent in India. The ensuing couplet, which is in the mouth of every learned Hindu, I found, after some search, in a colloquy between Agasti and Nárada, in an extract from the Brahmúṇḍa-purúṇa, of which I am unable to name the book and chapter :

कार्तवीर्यार्जुनो नाम राजा बाहुसहस्रवान्।
तस्य स्मरणमात्रेणा गतं नष्टं च लभ्यते॥

‘Arjuna, the son of Kṛitavírya, was a being who had a thousand arms. By simply calling him to memory, that which was lost or mislaid is found again.’

अनष्टद्रव्यता च तस्य राज्ये ऽभवत्। “In his reign nothing was lost or injured.” Translation of the Vishṇu-puráṇa, p. 417. The conceit expressed in the stanza transcribed above may have arisen from this saying. The commentary on the words from the Vishṇu-puráṇa runs thus: अनष्टद्रव्यता च तद्राज्येऽभवत्। इत्यत्राऽतीतकालता न विवक्षिता यत इदानीमपि श्रीकार्तवीर्यार्जुनस्य नामाख्यानेन नष्टद्रव्यप्राप्तेः।

अनष्टद्रव्यता चैव तव नामाभिकीर्तनात्।

इति कूर्मेक्तेः।

Here the Kúrma-puráṇa is cited to the same effect with the stanza from the Brahmáṇḍa-puráṇa.

** 12**. There is a pun here, in the original.

** 13**. In this stanza, denominations of peoples—tallying, for the most part, with names of countrie—are, by a noticeable idiom, put for their rulers.

The Paṇḍya kingdom is considered to have embraced the present District of Tinevelly, with something of Madura.

Murala is another name for Kerala, now Malabar. At least, the commentary on the Haima-kos’a, iv. 27, asserts their synonymy. M.Troyer, without adducing the slightest warrant for what he says, calls the Keralas “peuple du Pendjab.” Raja-tarangiṇí, ii. 605.Professor Wilson, having occasion to mention the Muralas and Mekalas, pronounces them to be “tribes along the Narmadá.” Select Specimens of the Theatre of the Hindus, ii. 361. This is an inference, it may be supposed, from the fact that the Nerbudda is called Muralá and Mekalá or Mekhalá. Hemachandra says that the Nerbudda has its source in mount Mekala. The Muralá, mentioned in the Raghuvans’a, iv. 55, was, alleges Mallinátha, a stream in the region of Kerala.

Waiving the chance of a misprint, Kanga was the same as Chera, now known as Salem. Chola lay to the east of it; Páṇḍya, to the south; and Kerala, to the west. Mackenzie Collection, Vol. i, Introduction, p. xciii. In the same work—i. 63, 198—Chera is called Konga. Can it be that this is a modern corruption of Kanga? Also see the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1838, pp. 105, 106, 129, 379, etc.; and Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, viii. 1 etc.

Apparently, Kanga is the country intended by the Chinese phonographs Kong-yu-t’o, for which M. Stanislas Julien proposes Kôṇyodha. Voyages des Pèlerins Bouddhistes, i. 184, 411, 469. The Kangaṭa of the couplet cited in the second note on this inscription may be a lengthened form of Kanga. Venka and Venkaṭa, for instance, are one; and we have not here to do with pure Sanskrit.

In the Bṛihat-sanhitú of Varáha Mihira, as cited by Dr. Albrecht Weber, a country called Kanka is mentioned. Die Handschriften-Verzeichnisse der Königlichen Bibliothek, u. s. w.; Berlin, 1853; p.240.

Professor Wilson remarks that the usual classification connects the Vangas and the Kalingas with the Angas. Translation of the Vishṇu-puráṇa, p. 188, foot-note. But it may be suspected that, out of compliance with the usual classification, Kanga, where found in company with Vanga and Kalinga, has sometimes been changed, through ignorance, to Anga. At the beginning of a line, as in the original of the passage on which Professor Wilson annotates, the substitution could be effected without prejudice to the metre.

Vanga is eastern Bengal, by universal acknowledgement. At a later date than that of this inscription, Bengal was known as Vankálá. See the Rája-tarangiṇi, Book III, s’l. 480 (in M. Troyer’s edition, i. 114).

It would, possibly, have been more accurate to write Kalinga than Kalingas. But there really seem to have been several peninsular principalities of this name, or rather, perhaps, subdivisions of an extensive country styled Kalinga. It comprised “the sea-coast west of the mouths of the Ganges, with the upper part of the Coromandel coast.” See, further, Professor Wilson’s Sanskrit Dictionary, under the word in question.

Kíra, agreeably to Professor Wilson’s citation of a native vocabulary, is Cashmere. Elsewhere it is mentioned in association with Cashmere, but as being distinct from it, unless we presume a redundancy. Asiatic Researches, viii. 340. Col. Wilford, to whom I here refer, eventually came to the conclusion, as appears from a posthumous essay of his, that the Kíra of the Puraṇas was “the country to the west of the Indus, as far west as Persia, and, to the north, as far as Candahar.” His speculations on the subject are ingenious. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1851, p. 262.

I copy the following from M. Troyer, but without endorsing his inference:"Kira signifie perroquet’ et ‘habitant de Kachmír,’ apparemment à cause de la grande aptitude de parole que possèdent les Kachmîriens.” Rája-tarangiṇi, iii. 614.

It has repeatedly been averred that the Húṇas were “the white Huns, or Indo-Scythians.” See Colonel Wilford, in the Asiatic Researches, passim; and the translation of the Vishṇu-puráṇa, p. 177, foot-note. Mr. Wathen is disposed to think that the Húṇas inhabited Tuluva, where there is a place called Hunawar or Anore. See the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, ii. 382; and iii. 103. But Mr. Wathen’s Sanskrit is immetrical and nonsensical. The line where the Húnas are named should undoubtedly begin हुणाविष्कारणेष्वं. I am not prepared to deny, positively, that the Indians gave the name of Húna to the Huns, if they knew them: but the term certainly denoted some tribe of Hindus. In the Raghuvans’a, iv. 68, the Húnas are spoken of as if they may have been a people of fair complexion; and the region assigned to them is in the north. The commentator Mallinátha, annotating this couplet, says that the Húnas were Kshatriyas. The wife of our Karṇa, a Kshatriya, was a Húna, as has been seen in the preface to this paper: and how could he have wedded a barbarian? As for the Sacæ, the Sanskrit S’akas, we know that they were Scythians of the Persian frontier. It would be very satisfactory to find that the northern Húnas were esteemed to be in any wise related to them. TheS’akas and the Hárahúṇas are mentioned together in the Mahabharata, Sabhá-parvan, s’l. 1843, 1844. In the Harsha-charita, Prabhákara-vardhana is made to send his son Rájyavardhana to the north, against the Húrahúṇas. Which is right, Hárahúṇa, or Húrahúṇa?

Professor Wilson says: “if we might trust to verbal resemblances, we might suspect that the Hayas and Haihayas of the Hindus had some connection with the Hia, Hoiei-ke, Hoiei-hu, and similarly denominated Hun or Turk tribes, who make a figure in Chinese history.” Translation of the Vishṇu-purána, p. 419, foot-note.

** 14**. The play on ऊर्मि, ‘current’ or ‘wave,’ and ’lustre,’ has been imitated.

In the S’árngadhara-paddhati is the following stanza, by an anonymous author, descriptive of the confusion of toilet wrought by our Karṇa, or some other:

मुखे हारावाप्तिर्नयनयुगले कङ्कनभरो

नितम्बेपत्राली सतिलकमभूतू पाणियुगलम्।

अरण्ये श्रीकर्ण त्वदरियुवतीनां विधिवशाद्

अपूर्वोऽयं भूषाविधिरहह जातः किमधुना॥

‘By force of destiny, auspicious Karṇa, the pearl-necklaces of the youthful wives—hiding in the wild—of thy foes are over their faces; their bracelets press against their twin eyes; their hips are tattooed; and frontal marks are on their two hands. Ha! how does an unprecedented style of embellishment now prevail!’

** 15**. Vernacularly corrupted, this word would assume the form of Champáran. But the only Champáran generally known is much too far distant from Chedi for even a foray. The subdivision of the Mundla District which now goes by the name of Lánjí was formerly called Champávatí, as I learn from a MS. Hindí chronicle in my possession.

** 16**. Literally, ’the frontlet-gem.’

** 17**. More exactly, if necessary, ’the jewels.’

** 18**. I have given the sentence this turn, in order to bring out the force of पदdistinctly.

** 19**. This allusion to a physical phenomenon is worthy of note.

** 20**. In place of this bathetic comparison I would much have preferred outvying the milky-way,’ but for the consequent incongruity : for the prince’s person is unequivocally the object proposed for description. By the way, Professor Wilson need have entertained no doubt as to हरिताल being defined by ‘galaxy’ in the Mediní-kos’a.

** 21**. So rendered, to vary the phrase, instead of ’tree of plenty.’ See the ninth stanza.
That this quatrain exhibits eight rhymes is deserving of indication.

** 22**. Here is the word गोत्र again, in the original.

** 23**. So I translate सामन्त, which apparently imports a feudatory.

** 24**. A vaunt even more hyperbolical than this occurs in an inscription published in one of the early volumes of the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal; that for 1838, p. 37. I repeat the first stanza of it for it is verse, the measure being sragdhará.

यस्योपस्थानभूमिर्नृपतिशतशिरः पातवातावधूता

गुप्तानां वंशजस्य प्रविसृतयशसस्तस्य सर्वोत्तमर्द्धेः।

राज्ये शक्रोपमस्य क्षितिपशतपतेः स्कन्दगुप्तस्य शान्ते

वर्षे त्रिंशद्दशैकोत्तरकशततमे ज्येष्ठमासि प्रपन्ने॥

‘The month of Jyeshṭha having arrived, in the one hundred and forty-first year; the empire of Skanda Gupta—the floor of whose hall of audience was swept by breezes from the bowing of the heads of hundreds of kings; sprung from the line of the Guptas; of wide-extended fame; opulent beyond all others; comparable with śakra; lord of hundreds of monarchs-being quiescent,’ etc.

The reading in modern characters, given by Mr. Prinsep, of the hemistich which contains the date, is neither in his facsimile of the original, nor is it grammatical. To bring out his “thirty-three,” he must have thought that he found त्रिंशद्दृगेक^(º), which is inadmissible Sanskrit. Nor is there, in the Sanskrit, शान्तेः, the fifth case of a substantive; but शान्ते, the seventh case of a past participle.

There is, then, nothing here recorded concerning the death of Skanda Gupta, as Mr. Prínsep supposes. Being neither the first ruler of the Gupta dynasty, nor the last, nor of special note, it would be extraordinary indeed if time had been computed from his decease. Moreover, if he and his kingdom had so long passed away, it seems preposterous that they should be mentioned, and in so eulogistic a strain; especially as there is not, on this hypothesis, even a subordinate allusion to the reigning monarch. Indubitably, Skanda was on the throne when this memorial was written. The term शान्त, which is applied to his government, has, with other meanings, those of ‘serene,’ ’tranquil,’ ‘unperturbed,’ ‘flourishing.’ In bearing these significations, in addition to that of discontinued’ or ’extinguished,’ it may be compared with निर्वाण. Whatever be the era here followed, it appears to have been too well understood, at the time, to call for explicit specification.

The numerical correction above noted was made several years ago, and was communicated to my friend Mr. Edward Thomas. But it had not then occurred to me to attach to शान्ते the import which I would now accord it. See the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1855, p. 385, foot-note. Major Cunningham, while tacitly amending one of Mr. Prinsep’s oversights, uncritically accepts another. See his Bhilsa Topes, pp. 141 and 144.

The inscription under comment, if the lithographed copy of it be correct, reads शतपतिः, in the third line, for शतपतेः. Mr. Prinsep gives the latter, and rightly; as the former is irreconcilable with the context.

** 25**. The original word, निधि, before rendered ‘repository,’ is here to be resumed, but in an altered acceptation.

** 26**. पुर, ‘abodeś; put, metonymically, for their inmates. The word is here used for अन्तःपुर, ’the female apartment."

** 27**. मण्डल, the term employed, was formerly taken in a sense of wider latitude, and in one of narrower. In the middle ages, राष्ट्र and विषय designated, respectively, realms of greater and of inferior power, when they were spoken of with reference to their relative importance.

** 28**. The original is चिन्तामणि, ’the gem of reflection,’ by the aid of which all wishes were attainable. We have already had the tree of abundance.’ The कामधेनु,or ‘all-bestowing milch cow,’ is fabulously endowed with the like marvellous quality.

** 29**. In the Sanskrit, by studied ambiguity, the expression rendered as above also implies ’tall bambu.’

** 30**. Professor Wilson inadvertently writes the original word with a cerebral in the final syllable.

** 31**. Mená is Párvatí, the daughter of Himalaya.

** 32**. This prolific dame—for she is celebrated as having been the mother of five thousand sons and sixty daughters-is also called Vairiní. See the Harivanśa, śl. 121, 142. Her father was Viraṇa.

** 33**. śivá is a name of Párvatí. Her husband was śiva, or śambhu.

** 34**. Possibly the inscriptionist, who is rather addicted to paltry figures of rhetoric, intended that his ‘pinnacle-ball’ should, retrospectively, likewise surmount the ‘mansion of erotic sentiment.’

** 35**. A moment’s pause is due to the elaborate amphibology with which the latter half of this quatrain is conceived. The vanquisher, on another construction than that of the text, is Saumitri, who . . . . hosts, embracing the many-wiled Meghanáda and the great Atikáya.’ In the third line there is an inaccuracy, however, in the postposition of बहुमाय to its substantive : for it scarcely agrees with श्रुतिकाय.

** **Saumitri is Lakshmaṇa, the half brother of Ráma. Meghanáda and Atikáya were sons, elder and younger, of Rávana.

** **It is only by a strain that प्रहस्त can be taken to signify ‘strong-armed.’ It is not usual as an adjective; its ordinary acceptation being that of ’the palm of the hand with the fingers extended." There is little doubt that its introduction here was induced by the fact that Prahasta was Rávana’s chief counsellor. Yet thus to suggest him in a panegyric on Jayasinha looks anything but complimentary.

** 36**. ’ He who has the moon on his head:’ śiva. See the note on the first stanza.

** 37**. ’ The lord of physicians:’ śiva, again.

** 38**. Perhaps ’ barony:’ पत्रला; a vocable not yet entered in our dictionaries.

** 39**. Neither has this place, nor have Uṇḍi and Jáülí, yet been verified.

** 40**. Śaiva, or of śiva,’ who is called Paśupati; a word variously
accounted for.

** 41**. The country of Láta, or Láṭika, Hellenised into Aagixń, was later called Gurjara, or Gúrjara; Gujerat. Ptolemy regarded it as part of Indo-Scythia.

** 42**. The गोत्र of these प्रवरwas that of Yáska. See the note on the seventh stanza.
** **Maunin is still a well-known family name.

** 43**. Before himself, the author of these verses commemorates their copyist, as happening to be his elder brother. A want of fraternal piety can rarely be urged against the Hindus.

** 44**. Professor Wilson defines सूत्रधार by “carpenter.” See the Haimakoś a, section of homonymes, iv. 284; to which the Professor vaguely refers. The word is there explained to mean ’ a kind of workman.‘It may have the restricted sense of architect, or even of mason. In the next couplet we again meet with it.

** 45**. The general mechanician of the gods; a Vulcan, and much besides.

** 46**. This comparison is not at all more felicitious in the Sanskrit than it is in the English. Prithu, who was a king, subdued the earth, which had assumed the figure of a cow. See the translation of the Vishṇu-puráṇa, p. 103.

```
                  *
```

** 47**. The Vedánta philosophy is here recognized.

** 48**. This, and the I’śwara of the third couplet, are here, no doubt, epithets of śiva.

** 49**. A synonymous title of the Destroyer, चराचरगुरु, ‘parent of things movable and fixed,’ is mistaken, by Colebrooke, for वरावरगुरु, “holy, beneficent." Miscellaneous Essays, ii. 304, 308, 309.

** 50**. See, for this and several cognate terms, my note in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1858, p. 227.

** 51**. Thus far this inscription is metrical. The measure of the first and third stanzas is the Vaktra; that of the second, the Priyá.

** 52**. In the original, gotra.

** 53**. Keśava’s functions not being particularly described, it is uncertain whether náyaka, a word of a dozen meanings, or of more, has any reference to revenue.

** 54**. Or Málava ; the pleonastic ka being adjected. Fort-Saugor, January 10th, 1858.

This paper, after being sent to the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and partially printed for its Journal, was withdrawn. I had hoped to obtain, in England, a solution of the chronological difficulty spoken of in the introductory remarks: but the hope was disappointed. Since reaching America, chiefly by reason of access to books as yet unpublished at the beginning of 1858, I have been enabled to add the few notes following.

When passing through the station of Jubulpoor, in February of last year, I found, in the Museum at that place, a somewhat weather-worn inscription, hitherto inedited, of the same class with those which precede. Unhappily, I had neither leisure nor health to take a copy of it. The date that it bears is 926: संवत् षड्विंशत्युत्तरनवशताब्देषि ९२६. Its poet was Śaśidhara, son of Dharanidhara; and it makes mention of Námadeva, son of Mahídhara, as a sútradhára. Three of these names we have met with in the record of 907. At the foot of the stone, the ensuing benediction, in the A’ryá measure, is legible without difficulty:

यावत् सूर्याचन्द्रौ यातायातं नभस्तले तपतः
तावत् कीर्तमेतत् कीर्त्यैकर्तुः स्थिरं भूयात्।

‘As long as the sun and the moon, going and returning, shall shine in the firmament, so long may this eulogy endure, conducing to the renown of the doer of the transaction herein memorialized.’

To noteg, p. 517. Hema Áchárya expressly qualifies Karṇa as Rájá of Chedi, and speaks of him as being of Ḍáhala. This, as we know from the Haima-kośa, is a synonyme of Tripurí. Karṇa is also mentioned as having been contemporary with Bhoja; and Bhíma Deva marched against him. This Bhíma reigned from A. D. 1022 to A. D. 1072. Rás-málá, i. 83, 90.

To note r, p. 520. I now find, on the faith of M. Stanislas Julien’s translation, that Hiouen Thsang, agreeably to the Si-yu-ki, travelled about
a thousand lis N. E., in going from Ujjayiní to Tchi-ki-t’o, and thence about nine hundred lis N., to Mahes’warapura. M. L. Vivien de Saint-Martin, in his “Mémoire Analytique,” puts N. E. for N., in designating the direction of Mo-hi-chi-fa-lo-pou-lo from Tchi-ki-t’o. M. Julien now silently surrenders his identification of Maheśwarapura with Mysore, to the suggestion of his collaborator, that the locality intended is “Matchéri, ou, selon la forme sanskrite, Matchivâra.” But it is scarcely probable that Mahes’warapura was transformed into “Matchivâra;” and there is no ground for holding that both names were ever applied to the same city. See Voyages des Pèlerins Bouddhistes, iii. 168, 169, 336, 408, 457, 458.

Professor Wilson writes: “A sudden return to the south-east brings Hiouen Thsang, after a journey of 2800 li (560 miles) to U-che-yen-na, which is clearly Ujjayini or Ougein, the king of which was a Brahman, and consequently Buddhism was at a low ebb. He then goes to Chí-ki-to, north-east 1000 li, considered to be the modern Khajuri, twenty-five leagues south-west of Gwalior: thence, in the same direction 900 li, to Mo-hi-chi-fa-lo-pu-lo, which M. de St. Martin identifies with Macheri, perhaps Matsyavara, in support of which conjecture it is to be remembered that this part of India is known, in Sanskrit geography, as the Matsyadesa. Little is said of these two principalities, as they were both ruled by Brahman princes, and did not follow the faith of Buddha.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, xvii. 133.

To note 13, p. 527. Hiouen Thsang, now that we have a translation of the Si-yu-ki, tells us but little of value, touching Kong-yu-t’o, over and above what was reproduced by his biographers. Kong-yu-t’o lay near a bay; and italso lay near the sea. Its position is as far from being fixed as ever. Voyages des Pèlerins Bouddhistes, iii. 91.

To note 42, p. 532. There are two works, treating of the Vaiśeshika philosophy, by writers bearing the name of Maunin. One is the Siddhanta-tattwa-sarvaswa, by Gopínátha Maunin; a commentary on the Padártha-viveka or Siddhanta-tattwa. It was prepared by command of Rájá Jayasinha of Báberí. This Gopínátha also composed scholia on the Kusumánjali, entitled Kusumánjali-vikáśa. The other work is the Śabdártha-tarkámṛita, whose author is Kṛishṇa Maunin. See my ‘Contribution towards an Index to the Bibliography of the Indian Philosophical Systems;’ Calcutta, 1859; pp. 77 and 79.

Troy, N. Y., U. S. A., February 27th, 1860.

ADDITIONAL NOTE BY THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLICATION.

The two monuments illustrated in the foregoing paper-together with a third of like character, already made public by the same author—have been presented by Mr. Hall to the American Oriental Society, and are deposited in its Cabinet, now at New Haven. We have accordingly taken occasion, while this article was going through the press, to make anew a careful examination of the inscriptions, and a verification of the text as published, and would offer here the following additional remarks and explanations.

The larger stone is 33 1/2inches broad, by 22 1/2inches high. It is a plain block of greenstone (aphanite, containing a little carbonate of lime), of a soft texture, and easily cut. The inscription upon it is of 29 lines—the last one of them indented about 4 inches-which cover its whole surface, excepting a narrow and unornamented margin. It is engraved with great care, and with no little skill and nicety of execution, and is in almost perfect preservation, so that its characters are, for the most part, as regular, elegant, and legible as the best manuscript. As remarked above by Mr. Hall (note w), no combination of consonants is so difficult or intricate as to compel a resort to any device for abbreviating it: thus the virâma never appears, save at the end of a half-verse; the anusvâra, whether in the middle or at the end of a word, is more oftenturned into a conjunct nasal; and a consonant, or the first consonant of a group, is doubled under a ‘—the only exceptions to this latter rule being र्घ, र्थ, र्य, र्श, र्स, in all cases of their occurrence; and also, in a single instance, र्भ. As regards the diphthongs e, ai, o, au, the inscription follows, with total indifference, the ordinary devanâgarî method of writing them, or that which is usual in the Bengâlî. The sign of omission (ऽ) is not employed on the stone, nor are the verses of its text numbered; but the marks of interpunction—। after a first half-verse, “after a verse—are introduced with entire regularity. At the end of a halfverse stands alway म्, and not anusvâra: in two cases, however, (10 d, 28 b) the virâma is omitted. Of other omissions, we have, verse 2 a,कुराः for किंकुराः—this is at a place where a few syllables (viz., धर्म्म्यकर्म्मा) have been erased and recut. Another like case of correction occurs just before in the same line (viz., कुमुदस्यकिंश), and a third near the end of the 9th line of the inscription, or at the end of 12 a, affecting the syllables which read, as printed,जगर्वस्पृ. The correctness of this reading, however, is not entirely certain. The ज, indeed, admits of no question; the ग is less clear, but yet is altogether probable; for the next syllable the stone gives only the double v (व्व), omitting the superposed r() which causes the reduplication; and the following character is entirely illegible, but cannot possibly, we think, be स्पृ : its lower part, which alone remains unobliterated, is clearly, (r), and not (ṛ): above it might stand almost any single letter, but not a double one; for that there is no room, nor could a स have been cut without leaving distinct traces on the unbroken part of the stone. We know not what to conjecture, if notग्र : ग्रह issometimes found used in the sense of ‘possession’ by a passion: the clause might then mean ‘Murala ceased to be possessed with arrogance.’ In the following pâda the stone reads distinctly चकपेfor चकमे**:** this is probably Mahîdhara’s error; but, if the metre did not forbid, we might regard it as a mis-reading for चकंपे, ’trembled’; perhaps this word was in the cutter’s mind. Of the first syllable in the same line and pâda only the upper and part of the righthand lines are left: the consonant must be क; but it might be combined with r, and with any vowel excepting these are the possibilities of the case; we presume the reading proposed by Mr. Hall to be the correct one. At the ginning of verse 6, Mr. Hall’s fac-similes failed to give him under the र a ू, which, though not deeply cut, is still unmistakably traceable: the true reading, then, is रूपैरनेकैर, with manifold forms.’ In verse 10, the last syllable of the first half-verse, which comes at the end of a line, is much broken: what is left seems to us to point out distinctly, as the original reading, instead of काःthis would change the meaning of the word from active to passive. In verse 17 b, finally, the stone has जनिषू(जनिषू?) for जनिष्ठ.

The stone on which the second inscription is cut is of like character with the other, but has a more amygdaloidal structure, being full of little cavities, which hold carbonate of lime. It is 12 inches broad and 7½ inches high, and contains eight lines. The characters are coarsely, irregularly, and inelegantly cut. It exhibits several orthographical errors, which are corrected in the text as printed : thus the proper name Keçava is both times written with the dental instead of the palatal sibilant, and a like substitution is made in 2 b and 3 d, in the name of Îçvara and its adjective; at the end of 2 b we have देवो, although the sign of interpunction is not omitted after it; and in 2 c the reading of the stone is सम्राट् (with the virâma; not conjoined with the following ज). A long passage in the fourth line (from यो to वस्त) has been erased and recut, and parts of it are obscure. Above the syllable मा of नामा ( 3 a) is a vowel-stroke, and under the म is either a, or the remains of one, not quite erased; so that either the former or the present reading is meant to be नम्नो. The syllable next following, though clearly and deeply cut, is of a somewhat nondescript character, but we do not see how it can be meant for anything but the भू by which it has been rendered. The last line, following the date, is apparently an afterthought,
and appended to the inscription as at first engraved. It is crowded in at the lower edge of the stone, and, from वके inclusive, runs up its right margin, in the manner which, in printing it, we have imitated.

The third monument, referred to above, is a stone measuring 13½ inches in height by 13 inches in breadth, besides a raised and rounded margin. It is thick and heavy, and shaped upon the back into some form of which the intent is not now recognizable. Its material is greenstone, like that of the others, but much harder and tougher in quality. The text of its inscription, with a translation and notes, was published by Mr. Hall in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. xxviii, for 1859. As appendix to that article, he desires to insert here the following additional note upon the inscription.

```
                   *
```

Among the three lapidary monuments given by me to the American Oriental Society, there is one of which I have already published the inscription, with an interpretation. My translation was made from a fac-simile tracing; the original never having, at that time, been before me. Now that I have seen the stone itself, it turns out, not unexpectedly, that my first conclusions admit of being rectified. The particulars are as follows:

In the first stanza I find, not what I took to be intended for प्रार्थ्यतेचिरम् ‘is supplicated persistently,’ but, distinctly enough, स्तूयते ऽनिशम्‘is lauded continually.’

The कुर्वन्ती of the second stanza is a misprint for कुर्वती.

For my former decipherment of the third stanza I substitute, with confidence :

केशाः कञ्जालिकाशाभाहुङ्कारारपिनाकिनः।
विविगोगतयो दद्युः शं वो जाम्बुनगौकसः॥

‘May Brahmá, Vishṇu, and Śiva—in color resembling, severally, the water-lily, the black bee, and káŚa grass; having, respectively, for weapons, menacing utterances, a discus, and the pináka; moving, in order as enumerated, with birds, a bird, and a bull; and whose abode is on the jámbu-bearing mountain—bestow upon you prosperity.’

After incising वेम्बुजाम्बु—which makes sense, but militates against the metre—the engraver half deleted the first म्ब. It could scarcely have been part of his original.

Limbáryá,❋¹⁴ not Liswáyá, is the name of the lady spoken of in the prose.

शिते, for सिते, in the fourth stanza, is an error of the press.

In the sixth stanza there is सर्वंwhere I have put पूर्वं. सर्वं I am compelled to reject. The person here commemorated is Dosin, not Dhosin.

तदा, in the eighth stanza, is my own, I find; and yet right, I suspect, as against the word exhibited,सदा. It will be seen that, to avoid something worse than a vain repetition, my conjecture was not ill advised.

The last verse of the inscription has प्रशस्तैयं. By deducting a stroke, so as to bring out प्रशस्तेयं, the text is healed; but only provided that प्रशस्ता is permissible in lieu प्रशस्ति; and this is exceedingly doubtful.To repeat what I have remarked elsewhere, the Sanskrit of this inscription is of very questionable purity.

Troy, N. Y., April 3rd, 1860.

                          F. E. H.

]

“The स्पृ is rather dim in my fac-similes. The word in which it occurs ends a line on the stone, which is here somewhat worn. There is no doubt about the हं ; स्पृहा is the only form given in the dictionaries; but स्पृह is equally grammatical.” ↩︎
“I may as well remark, concerning this unusual name, that its appearance on the stone is such as to preclude all uncertainty. No person who is familiar with Indian inscriptions need be told that अङ्गःwas here to be expected. Had this, however, been the intended reading, the method observed, without exception, in this inscription, would have converted the nasal point, at the end of the foregoing verse, into a म.” ↩︎
“In these words, at the termination of a line, the stone is slightly broken. The का is unmistakable: but the conjunct श्च has no authority but indisputable necessity. The verb चक्रिरे is completed, in the next line, with perfect distinctness.” ↩︎
“This division violates a law of prosody.” ↩︎
“Some letters are here missing, on the stone, directly beneath the °ाश्च- spoken of in the last note but one. The ध is plainly legible; and the following line commences with °चकार. My suggestion of °निकी - will hardly be challenged.” ↩︎
“Here is another prosodial defect, similar to that pointed out in the fourteenth stanza.” ↩︎
“The first half of this line faultily ends with the middle of a word, the syllable ले ; in contrariety to a metrical canon.” ↩︎
“Colebrooke s Miscell. Essays, ii. 100.” ↩︎
“Ibid., ii. 124, 164.” ↩︎
“Dr. Stenzler s Raghuvans a, p. 174; and Dr. Boehtlingk s S ákuntala, p. 290. Other editors have gone still further astray, in supposing the term Indravajrá to denote a tetrastich of any of the sixteen sorts named in the text, the Upendravajrá” ↩︎
“The eleven stanzas, blended of Upendravajrás and Indravajrás, which occur in the S ákuntala, exemplify no less than nine of these species.” ↩︎
“My authorities for the following particulars are the Chhando-mártanda, as cited in the Vrittaratnákarádars a of Divákara Bhatta, son of Mahádeva Bhaṭṭa; and a treatise on Prákrit prosody, my copy of which is defective at the commencement and at the conclusion, and of which I know neither the title nor the author. If the Sanskrit names in the first column here given have Prákrit representatives, I have not met with them.” ↩︎
" See our additional note, at the end of this article. COMM. OF PUBL." ↩︎
“Or Lítswáryá, as it also admits of being read; the characters of this inscription are cut in such fashion that, where no aid is to be derived from the sense, some readings must remain uncertain.-COMM. OF PUBL.” ↩︎