________________
No. 44.] FIRST AND THIRD SLABS OF KUMBHALGARH INSCRIPTION: V. S. 1517 313
from the Chaulukya Ajayapala, but had been unable to take back Aghaṭapura, which task was ultimately carried out by his younger brother Kumarasimha as mentioned here. He was succeeded by Mahanasimha (v. 151) who is mentioned in other inscriptions as Mathanasimha.
Mahanasimha (Mathanasimha) was succeeded by Padmasimha, a prince of great valour whom people even now remember for his manifold merits (v. 152).
Next we come to the description of Raula śrī-Jayasimha, also called Jaitrasimha. Though a fresh title is given to the portion dealing with this ruler it has to be regarded as a sub-division of the Raja-varnnana which is still continued. This prince is stated to have governed the four territorial divisions, viz., Chitrakūta, Aghața, Medapāṭa and Vagaḍa; and no prince on the surface of the earth is said to have ever thought of humbling his pride (v. 154). He held his court at the capital of Nagahrada, the modern Nagda near Eklingaji (v. 155).
Mēdapāța as mentioned here seems to have comprised the rest of Mewar excluding Chitor and Aghaṭapura, both of which are regarded as forming two different divisions. Vägada, which is described here as the fourth division, is the country to the south of Mewar, now forming two different states, viz., Dungarpur and Banswārā.
Raula śri-Tejasimha (vv. 158-159) is spoken of next. Nothing beyond his name and a poetical description of himself is given here. It may be noted that the portion dealing with this ruler has got a new title and a colophon, and has thus been made an independent description although apparently under Raja-varnnana. The poet has evidently not been able to maintain a strict uniformity in the classification of his varnnanas.
The account of Raula śrī-Samarasimha, the son of Tējasimha, which comes next extends over seventeen verses (vv. 160-176). It is worthy of note that the portion covered by these seventeen verses is nothing but a reproduction of the corresponding portion of the Princes' chapter of the Ekalinga-mahatmya, in the same order. It has already been stated by me that the latter had been compiled prior to the composition of the record under consideration, borrowing verses from many old inscriptions and arranging them sometimes without the least discrimination. This being so, the present description of our record (being nothing but a copy from the Ek. mht.) has naturally come to have certain verses (particularly v. 168), which, properly speaking, have no bearing on Samarasimha. Nothing of any historical importance is mentioned here of this prince. Simply his valour, munificence and such other virtues are poetically described. His erection of a small temple dedicated to Siva called Dhārēśvara at Eklingaji, however, finds mention in v. 167. The remaining verses of the sub-section, borrowed as they are from other inscriptions through the Ek. mht., are primarily found in connection with the other princes of this line. In v. 176 which is the last dealing with Samarasimha, he is stated to have gone to heaven having appointed Ratnasimha, his son, for protecting the fort of Chitor.
The last ruler recorded on this slab is Mahārāņā śri-Lash(kh)amasi whose account is continued on the fourth slab. The author here clearly distinguishes Lakhamasi by calling him Mahārānā from the foregoing princes who are styled Raula, and seems to have critically studied the Ek. mht., particularly the portion dealing with the division of the family. He has here deliberately omitted the description of all the Rāņas found just after that of Raval Samarasimha in the Ek. mht., and has taken into account only one of them, viz., Lakhamasi who, although not a crowned prince of Mewar just like others of his branch, was conspicuous by his presence with his seven sons, as a gallant defender of the fort when Chitor was sacked by Ala-ud-din Khalji in A. D. 1303. In v. 177 he is stated to have bravely defended the fort as well as the honour of the family which had been cast in a critical situation when Ratnasimha, the ruling prince, had fled (gate, v. 177) from the field of battle in a cowardly manner (kapurushair-rimuktām, v. 177).
