Epigraphia Indica Vol 03

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

Page 35

[VOL. III,
comparatively old in their formation. The vowels and i, o and 6, though distinguished in some cases by a partial and complete loop on the top respectively, are however. often confounded. To avoid constant corrections arising from close transcription, I have, in the case of and i, always adopted that form which the context proves to be correct. The vowels é, ai and au are the undeveloped forms of their modern modifications in Telugu. The é of prayêna in line 53, and the length of 8 of bhagô in line 146, are shown as in the modern Telugu character.
22
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
As regards orthography,-dhdha for ddha frequently occurs (11. 20, 101, 108, 157 and 163). The redundant use of an anusvára before a conjunct nasal is quite common (11. 10, 12, 48, 113, 131, 136, etc.). As in other inscriptions, a consonant which follows r, is sometimes doubled. In lines 15, 20, and 21 the pa of Kamppa, and in line 31 the ya of samyyuga are doubled after an anusvára. A curious mistake is committed in line 60, where kadáchiptriyam is written for kadáchit-priyam. There are a number of other graphical peculiarities which are due to the influence of the Telugu pronunciation of Sanskrit. Except in nireritim in line 59, ri is generally represented by ru. In lines 66 and 122, both ri and u, li and u are respectively affixed to the same consonant, and once (1. 181) ri is represented by ri. It is worth noticing that the word nátha, which occurs four times in the inscription (11. 50, 52, 161 and 189), is spelt in the first three cases with an anusvára before tha. This may be due to the tendency of the Telugu language to insert an anusvára in such cases (compare tammudu and tammumdu). The spelling bramhmassom (11. 178 and 179 f.) for brahmasvam, saijñi (1. 87) for samjii, saijña (1. 186) for samjna, the prefixing of a y before i and ê and vice versa (11. 21, 22, 23, 44, 65, 160, 168 and 180) are also due to the Telugu pronunciation of Sanskrit.
The inscription opens with an invocation to the Boar-incarnation of Vishnu (verse 1). Samgama I., the first historical ancestor of the first Vijayanagara dynasty, is then introduced without any reference to his mythical descent from the Moon, as is done in other Vijayanagara grants (verse 2). He had five sons,- Harihara, Kampa, Bukka, Marapa and Muddapa (verses 3 and 4). Of these, the first two ruled one after the other. Harihara is said to have defeated the Muḥammadans (verse 5). Kampa (verse 4) or Kampana (verse 6) had a son, called Samgama II. (verse 7), during whose time the subjoined inscription was written. Of this king we learn nothing but a number of birudas (verse 11). The inscription records the grant of the village of Bitragunța (verses 20, 21) or Biṭṭarakunta (verse 19) to twenty-eight Brahmanas, whose names and gôtras are specified in verses 27 to 33; and refers incidentally to the grant of another village, viz. Simkésari (verse 24). Both grants were made at the suggestion of the king's spiritual preceptor, the Saiva philosopher Srikanthanatha (verse 12 and line 189), after whose name the village of Bitragupta received the surname Srikanthapura (verses 21, 34, 35 and 42). The date of the first grant was the new-moon day of the third month of Saka-Samvat 1278 (in numerical words and figures), the cyclic year Durmukha. The inscription was written by Bhôganâtha, the court-jester of Samgama II. (verse 35). At the end of the document (1. 184), the king is stated to have affixed by his own hand the name of Sri-Virupaksha, the tutelar deity of the city of Vijayanagara (verse 42). This explains the origin of the colophons Sri-Virupaksha, Sri-Venkatesa or Sri-Ráma at the end of other Vijayanagara inscriptions.
The motive for making the grant under consideration is stated to have been twofold, -first, a request, or almost a compulsory demand, of the preceptor Srikanthanatha, and, secondly, the king's own desire to procure immortality to his father (verses 17 and 20). The second statement further suggests that the expression pratyabdakâlê in verse 20 means "at the anniversary (of his father's death)." The inscription does not inform us if the first or any following anniversary is meant. But the motive why the king made the grant, i.e. for procuring immortality to his father, gives us sufficient room for conjecture. It is a well-known Hindu notion that the spirit of a dead man will continue to be a Prêta, or an evil spirit, until the