________________
40
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
(FEBRUARY, 1880.
which these observations were made. And considerable amount of further elucidation-for although the number of stanzas devoted to which the facts accessible to us at present are A par Ajita is relatively larger than the num. not at all adequate. ber devoted to any of the other princes except We come next to the King Arikesari, who, Chhittarâ j a and Ananta dê va; and al. we may say with certainty, is identical with the though, too, there is some little doubt as to the Kesidê va of Dr. Bühler's plate. It is not, meaning of a part of one of these stanzas; still however, easy to understand what transaction is there is nothing here to suggest the existence referred to here in connexion with Somêsvarn. of any prince in the series between the two That Somês vara means the famous Somanath Vajjad add vas, other than the one prince which gave occasion in this century toone of Lord described in the stanzas in question. It may, Macaulay's best orations, there can, I think, be perhaps, also be noted as a point leading to the little doubt. In & stone-slab inscription now same inference, that the second Vajjad add vain the possession of the Bombay Branch of the was, in all likelihood, the grandson of the first; 68 Royal Asiatic Society, and appertaining to and therefore, too, though it is, of course, quite the time of the Silara king A paraditya, possible, it is not probable, that between the who stands last in our list, the "God Somanath two Vajjadade vas, there was any other prince of Sarashtra" is distinctly referred to apparently than the one we have mentioned in our list. as a favourite deity of the Silara 8. The What was the true name of that prince, is grant in the Asiatic Researches, which is by Ariperhaps a question presenting somewhat greater kesari himself, might have been fairly expectdifficulty. Dr. Bühler doubts if Aparajita is ed to help us on this point. But the stanza there the true name. In another place, he says: "I feel appears to have been identical with the one in somewhat doubtfal about the name of this king, our plate, though the translation is very defecwhich alone among so many Desi forms is pure tive and erroneous. Sanskrit. But it seems to me impossible to refer On Chhitta raja nothing need be said, the two verses to Vajjadad & va II. mentioned further than that, if we may safely judge from in verse 10, and Aparajita is the only word the number of stanzas referring to him in our which can be taken for a name. Perhaps it is a plate, he appears to have had a living reputation birula." I own I do not feel much pressed by the even in Anantap âla's days. We next come reason here given by Dr. Bühler for his conclusion. to Nagarjuna. He appears to be probably In the list above set forth by us, we have tbe names identical with the prince of that name referred A paraditya, Anantap als or Ananto in inscription No. 17 among the Kolhapur ta dê va, N Agarjuna, and we may add A ri. Inscriptions in the volume by Major Graham kesari and Kapardi, which are Sanskrit on Kolhipur among the Government Selections. names undoubtedly belonging to princes of the It is difficult to speak on the point with any conSilará dynasty. At the same timo, I agree that fidence, because I am unable myself to read the Aparajita is, in all likelihood, only a biruda. text of the inscription, and a friend whom I Perhaps the name is Sri Rama. The com- consulted about it is also unable to afford me pound of which it forms part, viz. ffer any help. I have therefore only the statement Juf (the plate in the Asiatic Researches seams of the substance of the inscription in Major to read their) is not quite explicit. And Graham's volume. At the same time I ought I do not think, therefore, that we are get in a to mention, that Major Graham ranks N & gârposition to settle the question. Bat we may, I juna among the rulers of one portion of "the think, safely reject the translation in the Asiatic principality of Kolhapur"-and apparently Researches which renders it as the king Sri places him between the years 1218 and 1235 A.D. Birudanka'. The whole stanza requires a very Bat on this last point I am not quite certain. * Comp. Jour. R. A.S. (N. S.) vol. IV. p. 85.
Pandit Bhagvan11 says only "may be the same." * Ind. Ant. vol. V. p. 230a, note.
1 The actual grant there appears, however, to be by one 10 The word 4 which is clear in the plate there Sri Lakshmana NÅyak, son of Bhaskar Nayak." It is given is omitted in this translation. I may, parhapa, ba not quite easy to decipher fully. The grantor is described permitted to express my concurrence with Dr. Bahler in as Mahamatya, the great minister, and the grant speaks of his remarks on the paper in the Asiatic Researches (Ind. Ant. vol. V. p. 277). U aluckily tho origical platos cannot dow
Etreta AATT. It is dated "Samvat 1109. Višvabe procured though I had inquirios made for them in [hana. vasi samvatsar Chaitra Suddha, 6 Sunday."
.
