स एष नरनायकः सर्वाभ्युदयी सावइरिसोलेसम्बद्ध उत्तरायणीग्रामे उभुवोसह समस्तराजपुरुषान् ब्राह्मणोतरान् प्रति निवासिपटकिलजनपदादींश्च बोधयति । स्तु वः श्राषाढवदि १५ सोमे सोमवतीतीर्थे नावा श्रीमदर्जुनवर्मदेवेन सुपुरोधसे पण्डितगोविन्दाय महाकालपुरमध्ये दण्डाधिपतिवासविग्रहमुदकपूर्व प्रदत्तं प्रतोलीप्रागारसीमापर्यन्तम् । संविदितं यथा श्रीभृगुकच्छ्समावासितैरस्माभिः सप्तत्यधिकद्वादशशतसंवत्सरे वैशाखवदि श्रमावास्यायां सूर्यग्रहणपर्वणि स्नात्वा भगवन्तं भवानीपतिमभ्यर्च्य संसारस्याऽसारतां दृष्ट्वा । इति सर्व विमृश्यादृष्टफलमङ्गीकृत्य मुक्तावस्थूस्थानविनिर्गताय वाजसनेयशाखाध्यायिने काश्यपगोत्राय काश्यपावत्सारनैधुवेतित्रिप्रवराया वसथिकदेल्हप्रपौत्राय पण्डितसोमदेवपौत्राय पण्डितजैत्रसिंहपुत्राय पुरोहितगोविन्दशर्मणे ब्राह्मणाय समस्ती ऽपि ग्रामश्चतुःकविशुद्धः सवृक्षमालाकुलः सहिरण्यभागभोगः सोपरिकरः सर्वादायसमेतः सनिधिनिक्षेपो मातापित्रोरात्म नश्च पुण्ययशोभिवृये चन्द्राकीर्णवक्षितिसमकालं यावत् परया भक्त्या शासनेनोदकपूर्व प्रदत्तः । तन् मया तन्निवासिपटुकिलजनपदेर्यथादीयमानभागभोगकरहिरण्यादिकं देवत्राह्मणभुक्तिवर्तमाज्ञाविधेयेर्भूवा संवत् १२०० वैशाखवदि १५ सोमे || श्री ३ । रचितमिदं महासन्धि पं० श्रीबिल्हणसम्मतेन रात्रगुरुणा मदनेन । स्वहस्तो ज्यं महाराजश्रीमदर्जुनवर्मदेवस्य । उत्कीर्ण पण्डितबाप्यदेवेन । 54 This same sovereign, exalted over all, in respect of Ubhuvosaha,53 in the village of Uttarayano, appertaining to Sávaïrisole,5 advertises all royal officials, Brahmans-the eminent, the resident village head-man, his people generally, and others. Be it known to you as follows: After ablution at the holy station of Somavatí, on Monday, the fifteenth day of the moon's wane in A’shádha, the auspicious Arjunavarma Deva did grant, with prior presentation of water, to the excellent family priest, the learned Govinda, a ground-plot for a temple to Dandadhipati,56 extending as far as the boundary of the edifices57 on the main street, in the city of Mahákála.58 Likewise: by us; sojourning at the fortunate Bhrigukachchha, 59 after bathing at the sacred season of a solar eclipse, at the change of the moon, in the dark fortnight of Vais'ákha, in the year twelve hundred and seventy; and after worshipping the divine consort of Bhavání; considering the vanity of the world, etc.: * reflecting on all this, and electing spiritual reward ; has, from motives of the greatest piety, with initiatory gift of water, * * been granted, by patent; to augment the merit and good name of our mother, our father, and ourself; for duration coexistent with the moon, the sun, the seas, and the earth; to the domestic chaplain, the learned Govinda S'arman, Bráhman; settled at the place called Muktávasthú; reader of the Vajasaneya Vaidika subdivision; of the stock of Kas'yapa, and of the three branches, Kás'yapa, A'vatsára, and Naidhruva; son of the learned Jaitrasinha, grandson of the learned Somadeva, and great grandson of Delha, who maintained a perpetual fire; even the entire village aforesaid; of which the four boundaries are defined; filled with fields containing trees; together with money-rent and share of produce, with house-tax, including all dues, and with its hidden treasure and deposits. Mindful hereof, the local head-man of this village, and our subjects here abiding, observant of our injunction, will disburse to him, Govinda S'arman, all charges, as they fall to be paid; to-wit, share of produce, 61 taxes, rent in money, and the rest, the perquisites of the gods and of Bráhmans excepted. Done in the year 1270, on Monday, the fifteenth day of the dark semi-lunation of Vais'ákha. This was executed by Madana, the king's spiritual guide, with the acquiescence of the learned and fortunate Bilbaņa, chief minister of peace and war. This is the sign manual of the great king, the auspicious Arjunavarma Deva. Incised by Bápyadeva, clerk. NOTES. 1. In the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal for 1836, pp. 377 etc., is a land-grant of Arjunavarman, edited and translated by the late Mr. L. Wilkinson. In a subsequent volume, that for 1838, pp. 736 etc., this gentleman writes, pointing to that instrument: "I was about to add translations also of the other two inscriptions: but, finding that they both correspond, word for word, with that formerly sent to you, in all respects but the dates-which are later, the one only by three, and the other only by five years, than that of the former inscription-and that they both record grants by the same Rájá Arjuna, translations of them would be but an idle repetition." But the correspondence is not so close as is thus asserted. The two inscriptions referred to are those now published. 2. I now redeem the promise which I once made, to demonstrate that a mistake has been committed in throwing back Udayáditya to A.D. 618. Two facsimile copies of the Udaypur inscription, which I was at much pains in getting executed, have been of material aid to me towards arriving at a determination on this point. The person for whom that wretched scrawl was indited calls himself a descendant of Udayáditya of Málava: but it is clear that, whether so or not, he knew nothing of Udayáditya's family. The word rightly, —in the monument adverted to, is not the name of a king. Gondala is the first regal personage whom it notices. His son seems to be Gyátá; for which has been printed; the vernacular corruption, perhaps of ज्ञाता, nominative of ज्ञातृ. श्ररिबलमथन, if such be the true reading, is an epithet of the doubtful Gyátá, and, by no possibility, an appellation. Udayáditya is represented as son of the last; and he is distinctly stated to have been ruling in Samvat 1116, or S'aka 981, i. e., A. D. 1059. For four hundred and forty-six years subsequently, it is alleged, the Yavanas had been in the ascendant: and this term brings us to Samvat 1562, S'aka 1447-which should be 1427— or the year 1607-not 4669, as printed-of the Kali-yuga, i. e., A. D. 1506; at which time the person at whose instance the inscription was written appears to have assumed some sort of authority. Six years later, in Srimukha-an item wanting to Capt. Burt's copy-or A. D. 1513, he engaged in a pious transaction in honor of S'iva. His name was Ságaravarman-metamorphosed, as printed, into commonly styled Chánddeva, or Chandra Deva. Nor is S'áliváhana given as son of Udayáditya. More might be said on the present topic: but it is enough, if I have shown that we have here to do with a thing of no importance, abstracted from its liability to beget error. See the Journal of the Asiatic So ciety of Bengal for 1840, pp. 545 etc. Professor Lassen, I am told, has accepted the inscription thus disposed of, as sufficient voucher for antedating Udayáditya some four hundred and fifty years. It is scarcely credible. Udayáditya was, very likely, in power in A. D. 1059, however reluctantly we receive the word of such as Ságaravarman, or his historicaster. There is an inscription, still undeciphered, lying at Bhopal, in which occurs the name of Udayáditya. Its date is Samvat 1241, if I may rely on a blundering transcript of it.. In another inscription, in the Bijamandira, a temple at the same place with the record just spoken of, an Udayaditya is mentioned, in a Sanskrit couplet, as having been king over Bhúpála in the S'aka year 1108, or A. D. 1186. The words are these: भूपाले भूमिपालो यमुदयादित्यपार्थिवः đaż fafári znai ayguitar: 210h 11 3. Mr. Wilkinson quietly assumes Jayavarman and Ajayavarman to be identical; though, in the inscriptions, each is said to have had a different successor: the former, Haris'chandra; and the latter, Vindhyavarman. To reconcile the discrepancy resulting from this confusion, he resorts to the theory that Haris'chandra "was only a prince of the royal family, and, as such, became possessed of an appanage, and not of the whole kingdom." This view, he thinks, is countenanced by the title of being given to Haris'chandra. The same term, however, but dropped in the English version, is applied to his father, Lakshmívarman ; who, it should seem, if not himself a king, was the eldest son of one. Mr. Wilkinson was unaware of this fact; not having seen, apparently, the relative inscriptions translated by Colebrooke. Speaking of Yas'ovarman and Lakshmívarman, Colebrooke says, as touching the latter: "He did not become his successor: for Jayavarman is, in another inscription, named immediately after Yas'ovarman; and was reigning sovereign." Miscell. Essays, ii. 303. But Colebrooke was unacquainted with the after-history of the family to which they belonged. As Lakshmivarman sat on the throne with his sire, it is reasonable to suppose that he was the first-born. His brother, Jayavarman, also speaks of himself as if a sovereign ruler. Lakshmivarman may have died while Haris'chandra was still a child, and Jayavarman have acted as regent on behalf of his nephew, to whom the government eventually devolved from him; if they did not administer it conjointly. Yet it is noticeable that Jayavarman granted away land, at one period, precisely as if he were the sole and substantive head of the state. Possibly the extreme youth of his ward prevented his being named at that time. Lakshmivarman being mentioned, by his son, under the title of 44, and not as king, it may be that he deceased during the lifetime of Yas'ovarman. Haris'chandra designates himself in a similar manner, where he would certainly have called himself, without qualification, sovereign, had he laid claim to undivided power. His complete style, in fact, is that which his father used as prince regnant. Policy, or some other motive, may have dissuaded him from the style of full royalty, his hereditary right. It may, therefore, be conjectured that Jayavarman was still living in A.D. 1179. The words in which Haris'chandra takes notice of his own accession are worthy of remark. Premising his ancestors, while he passes over his father, he mentions his uncle, and adds, of himself: a gecit: प्रसादादवापनिज्ञाधिपत्यः. In other words, he acknowledges that he had obtained his supreme rank by the favor of this, the very last, ruler.' Yet, notwithstanding this assertion, it will be observed that he does not. unequivocally pretend to kingship. The delicacy of the distinction is truly Hindu. If the phrase be designed to indicate the succession of a son to like dignity with his father's, a strain is put on it as regards its application to Jayavarman, provided he was not a usurper. Haris'chandra, in the body of his patent, does not say whose son he himself was: and, if he had done so, perhaps he could not have employed this formula with any more propriety; as I conceive that its strict tenor, in its most usual acceptation, is to mark connection between monarchs successively in actual possession. Ajayavarman, being son of Yas'ovarman, must have been brotherpresumably, younger brother-of Lakshmivarman and Jayavarman. His son, or grandson, came to the chief power; but how, remains to be discovered. Of offspring of Haris'chandra and Jayavarman we hear nothing. Devadhara, entitled rája-putra, or king's son,' is found as a subscribing witness to a donative instrument of Yas'ovarian. This is all that |