Epigraphia Indica Vol 01

Author(s): Jas Burgess
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 17

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
substantive mahardja-Bappasamihi, which stands in the instrumental plural. Again, the names of the officials in l. 3-6, visayesa-adhikatádike and so forth, stand in the accusative plural, but the last noun of the series, which must have been governed by the same omitted verb as the pthers, bhadamanusána (1.7), shows the genitive plural. The explanation of these two anomalies seems to be that two constructions, either of which would be permissible in itself, have been mixed up. In the first case the word which governs the three nouns is puvvadattam (1.12), and this might in Prakrit be construed either with the genitive or with the instrumental. Moreover, as the substantive is the name of a royal personage, the use of the plural instead of the singular is also permissible. The construction, which the passage shows, has, I think, been caused thereby, that the writer first intended to use the genitive singular throughout and then changed his mind, preferring the construction with the instrumental and the plural. Want of care, or the idea that constructions, differing in form but identical in sense, may be used indiscriminately, made a correction appear unnecessary. The same remarks apply to the second case, where either the accusative or the genitive used throughout would be correct. More difficult is the explanation of the construction of the masculine gampadatto (1. 30) with the neuter puvvadatain, which latter agrees with the omitted substantive vata. kann. If the anomaly has not been caused by a mere lapsus styli, it seems to point to an utter loss of feeling for the differences of gender. The fact that the neuter chattar is used as a masculine, speaks in favour of the second alternative.
6. Finally, the spelling of the inscription calls also for a few remarks. It shows throughout a mingling of two different methods, the abbreviated of the official and com. mercial classes and the etymological of the Pandits. According to the former, which is used nearly throughout, as might be expected, in the edicts of Asoka and mostly in the cave-inscriptions, and which was until a short time ago universally prevalent in government and merchants' offices, each single consonant may also be read double. Hence we find Sivakhandavamo (l. 2). for 'ammo, gumike (1. 5) for gummike, dhama (1.9) for dhamma, Agisumajasa for Aggisammajjass), and numerous similar instances, while the spelling of aggitthoma' and dhamma (1. 1), and of a great many other words, follows the etymological principle. In some cases the latter is adopted, though it violates the phonetic laws of the Prakrit. Thus Atteya (1. 13) is a close transliteration of dreva. but the Prakrit dialects admit only the forms Ateya and Atteya. A word in which both principles of spelling seem to be blended, is Vatsasagotasa (1. 22), which corresponds to Sanskrit Vatsyasagotrasya. The correct Prakrit spelling would be Vachohhasagottassa. It may, however, be that the writer put tsa because he was ac. customed to pronounce it like chha.
The historical information, which the grant conveys, is scanty, and in the present state of our knowledge of the history of Southern India not particularly useful. The Pallava king Sivas kandavarman of Kanchi, who was affiliated to the Brahmani. cal gotra of the Bharadvajas, confirmed and enlarged, in the eighth year of his reign, a donation, made formerly by the great king, the lord Bappa (i.e., probably by his father), to certain Brahmans, who resided at Apitti or Apitti, and were bhojakas, i.e., probably freeholders of the village Chillarekakodumka or Chillereka kodumka. The latter village was included in the Satahani district (rattha). The gift consisted of
See also my remarks on similarly lux construction in the Sanskrit Satras, in the Zeitschrift der Deutsch-Morgen. ländischen Gesellschaft, volume XL, page 532f.