________________
100
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[MARCH, 1891.
10. - Vishnuvardhana IV. Thirty-six years; A. D. 764 to 799.
He was the son of No. 9, Vijayâditya I. In O. his name is given as Vishpuraja; in all the other instances, he is called Vishnuvardhana. The title of Maharaja is attached to his name in G., H., and I. The grants K. to X. all state that he reigned for thirty-six years.18
11. Vijayaditya II.; Narendramṛigaraja.
Forty-four years; A. D. 799 to 843.
He was the son of No. 10, Vishnuvardhana IV. He is called Vijayaditya in his own grants (G., line 16, and H., line 13-14), and in I. to L.; Narendramrigaraja, in G., lines 11-12, and 51, and in M., O., U., and W.; and Vijayaditya-Narendramṛigaraja, in N., P. to T., and V.; through a careless omission of the latter part of his biruda, X. speaks of him as simply Narendra. He had the epithet of samastabhuvanasraya, asylum of the universe; it is attached to his name in his own grants, and in J. and L. J. also gives him another biruda, Chaluky-Arjuna. The scals of his grants bear the legend bri-Tribhuvanankuba, literally the glorious elephant-goad of the three worlds;' and furnish the earliest instances, as yet obtained, of the use of this expression. A Pittapuram inscription of 'Saka-Samvat 1124 (Sir Walter Elliot's Telugu Sasanams, p. 501 ff.) states that his grandson had the "name" of Tribhuvanâ ukusa. But, from the occurrence of the word also on the seals of K. and all the subsequent grants, it appears to have been a family-motto, rather than a biruda of this king or of any other member of the family. In J. the title of Maharaja is attached to his name; but in his own grants he uses the fully developed paramount titles of Maharajadhiraja, Paramesvara, and Bhattaraka; and this is the earliest instance of the use of them in this dynasty. His own grant G. speaks of him as a paramamáhésvara, or 'most devout worshipper of the god Mahêévara (Siva).' As to the length of his reign, there are different statements; K. and O. say forty years;19 L., forty-four years; and M., N., with P. to X., forty-eight years. These discrepancies are rather curious. It would be easy enough to make a mistake between forty and forty-four years; thus, owing to the recurrence of the sch, a careless scribe might very readily reduce vijayadityas-chatuschatvariniatam (forty-four) to vijayadityas-chatvárishsatam (forty); or he might even amplify, though not so easily, the latter expression into the former. But it is difficult to see how a mere mistake in copying could well be made between vijayaditya-naréndramṛigarajas 8-áshta-chatvárishsatam (forty-eight; N., line 11-12), or vijayaditya-narendramṛigarajas-ch-ás}.{dchatvarimsatam (P., line 11-12), and such an expression as vijuyáditya-narendramṛigarója chatus-chatvárishsatam. L., however, does not use the formal expression at all; but states, in a verse, that he reigned for forty years increased by four (sa-chatvarimsatas-samán chatur-uttarasashkhyútán), and, therefore, in this passage at any rate, there is no possibility of a literal mistake by a careless writer. I am strongly inclined to think that, in spite of its standing alone for the present, the statement in L. is the correct one; the explanation being that, in addition to actually reigning for forty-four years, Vijayâditya II. had previously ruled for four years as Yuvaraja; that in M., N., and P. to X., the four years of Yuvaraja-ship were erroneously added to the forty-four years of his reign; and that in. K. and O. a mistake was made in the other direction, and, it being thought that the forty-four years included his four years of Yuvaraja-ship, four years were deducted, and his reign was thus reduced to forty years.
18 Dr. Burnell has shewn him as reigning for thirty years; adding, in a note, that two records (W. and X. in my series) give thirty-six years. But I do not know what authority there is for the statement of thirty years. He has also added that one record (the grant specified in the preceding note) gives twenty-six years; but there again the original has thirty-six years.
1 Dr. Burnell has also quoted the grant mentioned in the preceding two notes, as giving forty years but the original has forty-eight years.
