Indian Antiquary Vol 18

SR No.: 032510
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: John Faithfull Fleet, Richard Carnac Temple
Publisher: Swati Publications
Publication Year: 1984
Total Pages: 454
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 19 MB

Page 395

DECEMBER, 1889.)
KOMARALINGAM GRANT OF RAVIDATTA.
365
seems to mean that Skandavarman's son was named Pannâţaraja, and that Ravidatta was a descendant of the latter person, in some unspecified degree. In the second place, it is impossible to agree with Mr. Rice in taking Nagadatta's son to be Singavarman, i.e. Simhavarman. The text, line 7, distinctly gives the name of Någadatta's son in the word bhujagamvarágah, which, judged by the metre, seems to stand for bhujangadhirdjah. And it proceeds to mention, not a son, but a danghter of Singavarman; and she is plainly intended to be introduced as the wife of Nagadatta's son, though the exact words are missing. And in the third place, I do not feel quite sure that we have the whole of the inscription before us. I do not find any record as to whether the ring was still uncut when the grant first came to notice, and even if it were so, it is possible that an original ring, with a seal attached to it, was abstracted; that the present plain ring was substituted; and that, in the course of this, part of the original charter was lost. The doubt arises in connection with the context of lines 7 and 8. The last two letters of the first plate, in line 7, have been broken away. And it is impossible to supply for them anything that can satisfactorily connect the last extant word on this plate with the first word on the second plate, in such a way as to give what is required here, vix, the name of Singavarman's daughter, and the distinct mention of her as the wife of Bhujamgadhiraja (?). Either her name and the other words were carelessly smitted altogether; or else .they came on another plate which, possibly with others also, is now missing between lines 7 and 8. In the face, however, of the worthlessness of the whole inscription, this is not a point of any special importance. And, assuming, as Mr. Rice plainly did, that the entire record is practically before us, I find that it gives the following succession of names :-(1) Rashgravarman, who seems to be described as belonging to the Kasyapa gôtra; (2) his son, Nagadatta; (3) his son, Bhujangadhiraja (P), who married a daughter of Singavarman, i.e. Simhavarman, but the name of whose wife either was omitted or has been wrapped up in some unrecognisable shape in the syllables vidyd .... nayano, line 7-8; (4) his son, Skandavarman ; (5) his son, Punnátarája; and (6) his descendant in some unspecified degree, Ravidatta. In the description of these persons, there is nothing to indicate anything higher than feudal rank. And, on the other hand, the statement that Ravidatta made the grant with the permission of Cheramma, seems not only to shew plainly that he was merely a subordinate chieftain, but also to give the name of his master. His authority was probably confined to the Pannada vishaya, which is the first and chief territorial division mentioned in specifying the position of Pungisoge.
I also differ entirely from Mr. Rice in my appreciation of the value of this insoription. Amongst its peculiarities, the first point that attracts attention is the abrupt manner in which, after the words Om Svasti, it opens with a verse that commences with tad-anu jayatt,'after that, victorious is......... Ravidatta." This abrupt opening shews that the record is not complete even at the beginning of it, and that at any rate some invocatory verse or verses, which ought to have been included, must have been omitted here; compare, for instance, the Junagadh inscription of Skandagupta (Gupta Inscriptions, p. 58), and the Aiboļe inscription of Polikeáin II. (ante, Vol. VIII. p. 241), which open with an invocation of respectively Vishnu and Jinêndre, and then introduce the reigning kings with verses of which one, that in the Junagadh inscription, commences with tad=anu jayati, and the other, that in the Aihoļe inscription, commences with tad-amı, having jayati at the end of the second páda. The next point, of course, is the extraordinary corruptness of the Sanskrit portion. With the exception of the opening verse, which very curiously contains only one real mistake, viz. sampadánti for sampatanti, the errors, both of idiom and of orthography, are of a more marked kind even than in the ordinary spurious inscriptions. I cannot call to mind any other instance in which the idiom and construction are faulty to the same extent. But the orthographical mistakes are of the kind which occur more or less in all the spurious grants, except in the British Museam plates of Pulikesin I., dated Saka-Samvat 411 expired (ante, Vol. VII. p. 209 f.), and in the Pimpalnêr plates of Pulikësin I. or II., dated Saka-Samvat 310 (ante, Vol. IX, p. 293); and in no genuine grants, except