________________
AUGUST, 1888.)
FOUR REWAH COPPER-PLATE INSCRIPTIONS.
227
A
15 dattah (11] Om svasti || Yê bhavamti kal&=smakaṁ surâ virag=cha samgaré
tê pâlayamta mê dânam yâvat chandr-arkka-mi dini il Va(ba)hubhiḥ". 16 rubhukta Vasudhârâjabhiḥ Sagar-adibhil.[i*] yasya yasya yada bhumis-tasya
tasya tada phalam | Kuso-pagraha-hastâbhyam (ch'tetan) Rama17 Lakshmaņau[11]Sa-datt[a] mi vå" para-dattam và yê haret(ta) vasundharam [1]sa
vishthayam krimim(mir=)bhůtvå pistři]"bhiḥ saha majjati | Tadaganam saha18 srêņa asvamê[dha*]-satena cha g avå køți-pradânêna bhůmi-hartt na
su(su)dhyati | Tha" śri-Rajêsva (sva )ra-prapautriņa! haDhärêsvara-pautrêņa 19 tha Malhe-putrêņa | tha Ratnapalasya samatya tha Vidyadharên=alêkhi
Lôhakara-K0k8-KikakAbhyamentkirņņitam=iti [11] Sarvat 926 [11] B.-Copper-Plate Grant of the or dvau sutau ;" and in line 14, matripitron Maharanaka Salakhanavarmadeva. for the very common mátápitroh.-In respect The (Vikrama) year 1253.
of orthography, I may note that ba is written This inscription, again, is on a single plate, by the sign for va, except in babhúva," line 5, measuring about 15%' by 9, and inscribed on and that the palatal and dental sibilants are one side only. The plate is quite smooth; the often confounded, even in ordinary and welledges of it being not fashioned thicker, nor known words. Thus, we have -sarman, for turned up, nor protected in any way. As the -sarman, several times in lines 10-12, yas and result, the preservation of the inscription is sásanatve in line 14, vasagaih in line 15; and only fairly good'; for, the surface of the plate on the other hand, we have frikshmá, for is a good deal worn, especially in the proper súkshmd, in line 2, suta in line 6, suvarnnam in left half, down to about line 14, and, in the line 19; and the same wrong use of sa for sa has right half, from about line 8 to 14, so that caused the employment, in line 6, of Srimachsome aksharas here are only faintly visible, and Chhalakshana- for órimat-Salakshana-. Caree few others are altogether illegible. At the lessness on the part of the writer or engraver same time, all that is historically important, is is responsible also for the wrong verse in clear and distinct; and, so far as the actual honour of Bharati in lines 1 and 2, for the decipherment is concerned, not in the least mutilated verse in line 16, and for the occadoubtful.-In the upper part of the plate, there
sional employment of the dental for the lingual is a ring hole; but the ring, with any seal nasal, of va for cha, of na for ra, and for other that may have been attached to it, is not now mistakes which will be pointed out in the text. forthcoming.--The weight of the plate is 1921 Opening with the words ", may it be tolas.-The average size of the letters is well!" and two verses in honour of the god about 4" The characters are Devanagari of Brahman and of Bhârati, of which the first about the 12th century A.D., and very similar occurs also at the beginning of the inscriptions to those of the grant A.-The language is C and D, our inscription refers itself, in lines Sanskrit, employed by a person of little 2-4, to "the auspicious reign of victory of knowledge, and therefore disfigured by serious the paramabhattáraka mahárájádhiraja paramégrammatical blunders. Thus we find, in lines svara, the devout worshipper of Maheśvara 7 and 8, the construction sô-ham.... sama- (Siva), the illustrious Vijayadeva, the lord Fápayati vôdhayati cha 'I... command and over Trikalinga, who by his own arm had inform'; in line 9 and elsewhere, a number of acquired the title of) lord over the three crude forms used instead of Nominative cases; Rajas, (viz.) the lord of horses, the lord of in line 15, the construction yatupradattasi ... elephants, and the lord of men,--and who palaniyd rakshaniyds-cha; in line 6, the com- meditated on the feet of the paramabhaftáraku pound futa-dvart two sons' for suta-dvayam mahárájádhiraja paramésvara, the devout wor
* Metre, Bloks (Anushtabh), here and in the following * Originally tri.
i.e. Thakuro. уетвев.
30 Originally bhyatim. * This sign for vinirga is superfluous.
3. See ante, page 8, note 3. - This appears to be the beginning of verse which In this particular word, the proper sign for la han I have not met with elsewhere. I am somewhat doubtful | been preserved also in other inscriptions, in which ha in about the words put in brackets.
otherwise denoted by the sign for va. See Hultzach, in * This vd is put in by mistake.
Zeitschrift D. M. Gesellschaft, Vol. XL. p. 50.
