________________
No. 37] EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES
201 19 dya-sămānya-Bharadvāja-sagöttra-Bahvri(vpi)cha-sabrahmachari-Dumdubhibhatta-puttra
Gamgāditya-sutāya pradattoda 20 k-ātisargga-nyāyēna [l*) yato=sy=ochitayā brahmadāya-sthityā bhumjataḥ(to) bhõjayato
vā kri(kļi)shataḥ karshayato 21 vā na kaiśchit-paripamthanā kāryyā [] "Jāgāmi-bhadra-nri(nți)patibhir=asmad-vamšajair
anyair=vvā sāmānyam bhūmi-dāna-phala22 m=avētya vidyul-lõlāny=anity-aišvaryyāņi tộiņāgra-jala-bindu-chamchala[ñ-cha) jivitam
åkalayya dāyā=yam=asm-ānu! 23 mamtavyaḥ pālayitavyasacha [*] yas-ch=ājñana-timira-patal-āvri(vpi)ta-matir=achchhi
dyad-achchhidyamānakam v-änumödēta 24 sa pañchabhir=mmahāpātakair=upapātakais=cha samyukta[h*) syād=ity=uktañ=cha bhaga
vatā Vēdavyāsēna | Shashțií varshsha25 sahasrāņi svarggē tishthati bhūmi-daḥ [] *) achchhētā(ttā) ch=ānuma[m]tā cha tāuy=eva
narakē vasēt || Vimdhy-āțavishv=atöyā26 su sushka-köțara-väsinaḥ[] *) kri(kți)shņ-āhayo hi jāyamtē bhūmi-dāyam haramti yē ||
Agnēr-apatyam prathamam suvarņņam bhū27 r=vvaishnavi sūryya-sutäs=cha gāvaḥ( *] lokattrayam tēna bhavēd=dhi dattam yah
kāñchanam gāñ=cha mahīñ=cha dadyāt || Bahubhir=vva28 sudha bhuktā rā jānē]' Sagar-ādibhiḥ [] *) yasya yasya yadā bhūmis-tasya tasya tada
phala || Māgha-buddha-Ratha-saptamyām ha29 stirathēna saha pradatta[h] [1 *] Sa[m*)vat 400 20 7 likhita[m] mahasandhivigrahādhi
patinā Durggabhata-sūnunā Sangullēn=ēti [1] 30 Sva-hasto mama sri-Daddasya 11
No. 37-EPIGRAPHICAL NOTES THE LATE RAO BAHADUR C. R. KRISHNAMACHARLU, MADRAS
KOROSHANDA PLATES OF VISAKHAVARMAN
Mr. G. Ramdas has published an article on the above plates. He does not notice the name of the executor of the grant in his introductory remarks. The published text (1.8) gives the name 48 follows: Ajnabhogikabödudevah. The index to the volume in question gives the article ājñābhögika in the sense of an official and his name as Bödudēva. There are one or two serious objections to this rendering of the original. If ajñābhogika is presumed to be an official, the oxpression as read in the text would carry no sense. It does not either form a sentence or signify a statement by itself. Moreover the official ajñābhogika is not known from any other record. But the official Bhogika figures in several documents like Amatya. It would, therefore, be more correct
* Read pradatta uda. Read asmad-dayo=yameanu. Read rajabhis.
[The ornamental treatment of the stroke indicating the vowellessness of the letter t is worthy of noto. In woset, 1. 25, and in dadyat, 1. 27, it seoms to be mixed up with the mark of punctuation.-E.1
. Above, Vol. XXI, p. 23. .D. R. Bhandarkar, List of Inscriptions of Northern India, Nou, 1104, 1198, 1196, 120%, oto, XVI-1-6
