South Indian Inscriptions

INCRIPTIONS OF THE KALACHURIS OF TRIPURI

only points that call for notice here are that the left limb of kh is drawn below the apex of its triangle in some cases, see, e.g., sukha-viśēshād=, 1.30 ; tha of matha has ornamental additions below the circle in 11.22 and 32 ; the loop of n is open at the top, see = atalina-, 1.4; and ph has everywhere the later form, see -phana-phalaka-, 1.7.

The language is Sanskrit. Except for the customary ōm namah Śivāya in the beginning, api cha and kiñ=cha in 11. 1 and 19 respectively, and some short sentences in ll. 32 and 33, the record is in verse throughout. It falls into three parts.¹ Verses 1-45 were composed by Śrīnivāsa, the son of Sthirānanda, verses 46-78 by Sajjana, the son of Thīra and the rest by the Kāyastha Sīruka. The record, especially the portion composed by Śrīnivāsa, is written in an artistic kāvya style. The composition of Sajjana is inferior; it does not contain any flights of imagination and suffers also from the use of wrong forms like akrita for akāri in verse 54 and ambiguous compounds like ahita-janita-bhītir=in verse 59. As regards orthography, we may note that the sign for v is used to denote b almost throughout, and the dental for the palatal sibilant in –saurya-, l.14 and –Saiv-āgama-, l.20; the consonant following or preceding r has been doubled in many cases, see e.g., - Śarvva-parvvata-, l.5, ttri-bhuvana-, 1.6 etc.; the visarga before s is generally changed to the sibilant and in one case dropped in accordance with the vārttika on Pānini, VIII., 3., 36, see bandhō styān-ākriti-, l.17; the anusvāra before ś and s has been wrongly changed to the dental nasal in many places, see e.g., vanśa, l.21, and -vidhvansa, l.4; final m has wrongly remained unchanged in such cases as –damvaram=vah, l.3, yam=vīkshya, l.14; so also n in bhagavān= jyōtsnān;=, l.16, vairāgyēna, l.21 and gunān=śakshyati, l.26, while it has been wrongly changed to n in dhēnur=nnanu, 1.15. Other instances of wrong sandhi are the elision of visarga in –Nāgabalā Khaila-, l.18, and the addition of ch in marud-ganānām chchhāy-, l.16. Ri is used for the vowel ri in –dripta, l.12 and =saty ādrita-, 1.14. Finally, one of the two similar consonants forming a conjunct is dropped by syncopation in several places, see -lasadyu-, l.1, -ujvalim-, I.3, āsī=dvishad-, 1.4, kōpa-valyāh, 1.8, datvā, 1.24, satva, 1.26, etc.

As stated above, the inscription falls into three parts. The first part, which was composed by Śrīnivāsa, opens with four verses invoking the blessings of Śiva and the moon. The poet then proceeds to state the genealogy of Kēyūravarsha, whose queen Nōhalā erected the temple, at which the inscription was originally put up. From the moon sprang the family of the Haihayas. In this family was born the king Arjuna (i.e., Kārtavīrya Sahasrārjuna) who defeated the lord of Laņkā and was favoured by the god Dattātrēya with the promise of a son. Among his descendants was Kōkalladēva (I) who, having conquered the whole earth, set up two pillars of victory, the well-known Krishnarāja in the south and Bhōjadēva, the store of royal fortune, in the north. This statement evidently means that by his help Kōkalla established these princes firmly on their thrones. A statement to the same effect is made in Banaras plates ^² of Karna also.

Kōkalla (I) was followed by his son Mugdhatunga who conquered the lines of countries along the sea-shore and took away the country of Pāli from the lord of Kōsala. This statement also is corroborated by a Prakrit gāthā about Prasiddhadhavala (who is identical with Mugdhatunga) which occurs in the Banaras plates.³
____________________

¹ Kielhorn thought that the inscription was composed by only two poets, -verses 1-45, which originally formed an independent praśasti, by Śrīnivāsa and the remaining verses by Sajjana. Further, he took the Kāyastha Sīruka to be the scribe of the first praśasti, Ep, ind., Vol. II, p. 251 and p.270, n. 50. It would, however, appear that Sīruka was the author of verses 79-85. Had he been the scribe of the first praśasti, his name would have been either mentioned immediately after v. 45 or omitted altogether.
² See verse 7 of No. 48, below.
³ Ibid., verse 12.