Epigraphia Indica Vol 18

Author(s): H Krishna Shastri, Hirananda Shastri
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 23

EPIGRAPALA INDICA
[VOL. XVIII
All these defective spellings are well known from many other Tamil inscriptions. They were not intended to imply actual differences of pronunciation, but are only due to the yet imperfect development of the old Tamil alphabet. In my transcript, I have, therefore, sub stituted the long vowels wherever they are required. In the Sanskrit portion, a final form. of m is frequently employed (11. 11, 12, 13, etc.). Viráma is expressed by a vertical dash after * (11. 10, 29 (P), 35 (P), 40, 41), but seems to be omitted generally after final t (11. 4, 5, 26, 29, 30, 45), where I have tacitly supplied it. Superscribed has the same shape as Virama, but is represented by a point in mirhabhau (1. 16) and -pürovaka[m] (1, 32). In the Tamil portion, Virāma is expressed only in two instances: by a vertical dash in tan (1. 48), and by a point (pulli) in im (1. 50). In the Sanskrit portion, the end of a verse is marked indiscriminately by various signs of punctuation, consisting of one or more of five different elements (1,1b, 0-), but which I have in every case replaced by the usual mark (l1). The end of the first half of a verse is marked by a horizontal line (--) only in five instances (11. 13, 15, 17, 26, 30). At the end of the two Tamil passages, two other signs of punctuation are employed, tis. : 110 (1. 74) and :In- (1. 79).
The orthography of the Sanskrit portion calls for a few remarks, Tamil pronunciation is responsible for the forms Tantivarmman (11. 14, 18) for Dantivarniman, and rēbha (1.33) for rēpha, and agātha (1. 37) is meant for agādha. The group ksh is replaced by tsh in raratsha (1.9 f.), tshmāpāla: (1.14 f.), -didritshaya (1. 17), and Latshmir- (1. 20). The Sandhi rules are disregarded in palanät-bhūmini (1. 15), ksitarān=śāstra- (1. 46), svarggam-vimänëna (1. 13), and labdham-vidya- (1. 35). Visarga is dropped, not only, as optionally permitted, in tēja sthiti- (1.3) and dasa 8thānasya (1. 44), but also in ta sriyam- (1.1) and rajñia frio (11. 21, 42), Consonants are doubled after , with four exceptions (Sri-bhartus-, 1.3, nirbabhau, 1. 16, and Dha[r*]jafir-jata, 1. 36). Double t is simplified before u in datva (1. 39) and tatva (1. 45). The Tamil of the grant portion is on the whole correct. The only mistakes in it are pakamum (1.49) for opakkamum, naffi and vidutka (1.53) for nāti and vidukka, vidunda (1. 56) for vidutta, t mam (1. 67) for úrum, vyavasteyum (1.72 f.) for vyavasthaiyum, and a few other slipa in the two last lines of the inscription. The genitive aftiz in is joined to ellai, a boundary,' without Sandhi in ellavin (11. 58, 63, 64 f., 65, 66), and its final, is doubled before the conjunctive affix um in ellaünnum (11. 58, 59, 60, 61). Similarly, the past relative participle ayina is spelt aina (1. 62). For the past gerund ay we have āyi (1, 72, and twice in l. 73), which is an archaie form; mêyi (1.68) for mēy, 'to graze) and Neltāyiprākkam (1. 59 f.) for Nelayppäkkam.
The metres of the Sanskrit portion are: Drutavilambita (verses 1, 7), Vasantatilaks (15, 31), Arya (32), and Anushtubh (3-6, 8-14, 16-30). The metre of verse 2 is Praharshini; but its fourth Päda is Anushtubh, and in each of the two first Pädas the tenth and eleventh syllables of the Praharshipi metre are missing. I am unable to correct and translate this verse in a satisfactory manner.
The Tami) portion of the inscription records a grant of three villages, and the Sanskrit portion preceding it professes to be a eulogy (Prasasti, 1. 45) celebrating the donor. The Tamil and the Sanskrit versions supplement and corroborate each other, and have both to be considered together. The grant was made in the eighth year (11. 46, 51) of the reign, of king (ko) Vijaya-Nfipatungavarman (1. 45 f.), or simply Nripetungavarman (1.74 f.), Nripatunga (11. 24, 25, 32), or Tangavarman (1. 42), who boasted of the title lord of the three worlds (11. 22 f., 41 f.). Verses 2-16 contain the following genealogical account of this king. From the lotus-flower arising from Vishnu's navel was produced Brahma; from him, Abgiras; from him, Brihaspati; from him, Samya; from him, Bharadvāja ; from him, Dropa; from him, Asvatthaman; and from him, king Pallava (verse 6). The same mythical pedigree in fonnd at the begin.
*Cf. 8. I. I., VOL I, Preface, p. v. to
In varshayad (1.16 1.) the doubling of the abilant is prohibited by Pipin, VIN, 4, 49