Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 26

22
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(FEBRUART, 1912.
Let us now examine the quality. In the first place as regards transliteration, an epigraphis is free to choose any system he likes, provided he uses it throughout. In this publication, props care does not appear to have been taken to correct the diacritical and printer's mistakes. I have been able to notice a number of instances where distinetion has not been made between and ! .
and rii, , , and . It may be thought that these are minor points which one need nur trouble oneself about. The importance of a correct system of transliteration has been recognisre by sch: lars, and it cannot be over-estimated. Epigraphical publications, to be of any real value, should, as far as possible, be free from errors of this kind. Else they mislead the readers instead of helpivg them.
A perusal of these publications will convince any one that their editor has criticised the views of others, very often without proper grounds. I propose to consider some of the argument with which he assails the opinions of others.
On page 180, Mr. Gopinatha Rao writes, "Mr. Venkayya bas separated the compound tiruvayiru váykkavudaiya pirátliyúr, found in several inscriptions which describe the mother of Uttamašoladeva into tiruvayiruvdylcka and Udaiyapiráttiyar. By itself the first part means practically nothing and the second has introduced a fietitions queen in South Indian history. The mistake is perpetuated in his Annual Report, year after year, by his suceessor, Mr. Krishnabastri who also believes that the name of the mother of Uttamaģēls was Udaiyapirâțtiyar. Such an expression payiruváykkavudaiya occurs in many places in Tamil literature, as for example, Rama is ealled Kousa!airan mani vayiru vdyttaruré by Kulasekhara-Perumal in his Perumal Tirumoli."
The charge here made against Mr. Venkayya is certainly clear enough, and no one can mistake it. It is, that he has by an unwarranted separation of the words tirurayirurdykkavudar ya pirátti, ir introducel into the history of the Cholas a fictitious queen. In so doing he did it even perueive that the first part had no sense whatsoever. I admit that the charge would be a grave one if it were trae and Mr. Venkayya deserves to be taken to task for it. Oa the other hand, if it could be satisfactorily proved that the charge is a false ove, I think it is the doty of Mr. Gopinatha Rao to acknowledge bis blunder.
The passage referred to by Mr. Gopinatha Rao occurs in the inscriptions of the 11th century AD., and it is impossible even for a beginner in South Indian Epigraphy to confound ka and ta in these records. . The passage which actually occurs in the inseriptions examined by Mr. Venkayya is Uttamasiladevarai-ttiruvayiru-raytta Udaiyapirättiyar Sembiyan mádéviyar. Unfortunately for Mr. Gopinatha Rao, the records that mention the mother of Uttamaśladêya ard not few. All these numerous records, without even a single exception, read as stated by the just now; and its meaning has been taken by Mr. Venkayya to be " Udaiyapirättigâr Sembiyan madêviyar, the mother of Uttamasdladêva." To be more literal, it only means “Udaiyapiraţtiyar Sembiyanmadêviyar who had obtained in her blessed womb Uttamaśladêva." It is this reading and this translation that are being "perpetuated" by Mr. Krishnasastri in bis Annual Repor/s. I doubt if any one would say that meaning other than what Mr. Venkayya has given to the passage is possible.
If we separate the phrase as suggested by Mr. Gopinatha Rao intc tiruvayiruvúylekarudarya and piráttiyâr, the first part must necessarily go with Uttamajóļadevarai which precedes it and the second with what follows. The meaning would then be " Piráttiyâr Sembiyanmadêviyâr wbo would have to obtain in her blessed womb Uttamasôladêra," a statement of what is to happen and not what has already occurred.
A fow of the mistakes in diaoritical marks and types are pointed out here. The ooouring in PavittirandTikka (p. 162), Ranakirtli (r. 159), Tannir pandal (p. 168), ought to be and then in Paraplu (p. 155), « d siangalao (pp. 169-170) onght to be , Thet of Jatila (p. 155) pirottiyar (p. 162) should be t. The length of Howels in Anaimalai (p. 153), Vijayabhishda (p. 157), and in several other words in pp. 162, 164 and 167 are not properly indicated; Ingaląsu in p. 167 must be tingal kafu.
The words in italics are transliterations of passages giren by Mr. Gopinatha Rao in Tamil.