!> . ,v\ >

' ' •' • r"-- ".H, V \ > V \ V •

>'■ / ; ;■■■■■:'■ ’ *■'' : \ 1 \ .V ■.

■ • - ' ■ ' % \ )is'

; ¥ ;Ji. 1 • - > - ..." ■- - , ;■ - •• ■■ - 1 .• -

. : ■ . ' • ’ • . . ,

v • v /• /. - :■ v "■> i-, vv •»» •>. ■.% /, i .. . & -» ■ -.' * ■ • : - .V ■ i . ,, .-V: '• \_ - > -■ .' - - \ ... \ .. .

*! , V' *• >, . V -V ■ -i, » ' i, ■-» . ' ./'• ■ ' : f '• « • 'i> -■

. -- ■ • . - .

' . ■ "■ • .

■ • ’ 4? ‘ * s ‘

■ ■

: v ■ •• , v.

.. .

E fx, « 4, , k ft f

. .

■ I . r i

!

A

‘ ■' * G

% . ■ . . n

■■

f • •’ i s •: f . »" ~ .

Si f; ^ ji t * . •* v j L : % *• '* s' '. >' v 7 ;

■ ■ ■ ' I :

' ' 1

. I* ^ ■ f

■ ' ■ ' '

••• .• . ? « »”k\: i * fits*- . ■ ■

: \ ■ , '. V-1 ■ '

; • ■ : . J t ..■■.■■• ■ ■■

■ • •' >■ ' “ ■ ' - v. , ■ i ‘ , £ ■ i ,.** ). • 1 " ‘ •. . *! ’ •» ‘ V ■ J” " * V

•

■ ' '

Cf * >;

.. o ; ■' ■

:

, v

-•

' . . . • \ ...

’i . ■ ; ■ .

... ■ •• . r-

a i V'.’ i >, v ;• ■ - 1 , 5 V e, ■ ■, , ,, , •, /. •' ; •, , ’ .*■ > ■ . ■ ■

• f. v »•. m 4.' ; -* v v :. :: : . v. a v $ ‘ \ ' -Jr' i* vt.’f V; .i : 'V .'p ■*: .% ■ ■ . • • '■ •' • • ■" v .

FIELD MUSEUM LIBRARY

00038 7341

JUielfc JlBuarum af Natural ^iatarg

library

(Eli tray a

If runt

(Elaas

iSoflkJlX_Z2u\

.

■

.

- -

/

■

-

T

;

.

JOURNAL

OP THE

ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.

VOL. LXXII.

PART I. (History, Antiquities, &c.)

(Nos. I and II— 1903.)

EDITED BY THE

j’iONORARY I LO LOGICAL ^SECRETARY.

“ It will flourish, if naturalists, chemists, antiquaries, philologers, and men of science

in different parts of Asia, will commit their observations to writing, and send them to

the Asiatic Society of Calcutta. ,'ft hit'll languish, if such communications shall be long

l> O O 1 8} .9 ~) /

intermitted; and it will die away, if they shall entirely cease.” Sir Wm. Jones.

CALCUTTA :

PRINTED AT THE BAPTIST MISSION PRESS,

AND PUBLISHED BY THE

ASIATIC SOCIETY, 57, PARK STREET. .

1904.

>

I

%

f

\

Jr

t * *****

« *. t c *■

i i « * * *

. c c - « *

t C ( c * * * * c

j< i

C C

c <

c <■

< 1

t *

( c c

1 <■

C <- c

c *

c <■

c *

<. C

c c

: c

c c

c C

. c

c

t

c

f

c

*

/

LIST OF CONTENTS

•\

OP THE

JOURNAL OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL,

Vol. LXXII, Part I (Nos. 1 and 2),— 1903.

Page.

Bendall, Prof. Cecil, M.A. The History of Nepal and sur¬

rounding Kingdoms (1000 — 1600 A.D.) compiled chiefly from

MSS. lately discovered. Written as an Historical Introduction

to Pandit Haraprasad Sastri’s Catalogue of the Nepal Durbar

Library. With chronological Tables and a Plate (facsi¬

miles of MSS.). ...

Irvine, William, Bengal Civil Service , ((Retired). The Later

Mughals ( 1707-1803 ).

Monmohan Chakravarti, Babe, M.A., B.L., M.R.AS., Deputy

Magistrate , Bengal. Chronology of the Hastern Gayga Kings

of 0? issa ... iM ... ...

Nundolal Dey, Subordinate Judge of Jessore. Notes on

Cliir and in the District of Sar an

Walsh, E. H. C., I.C.S. The Tibetan Language and Recent

Dictionaries v ...

Yogesachandra S'astri, Pandit. The origin of the Kap section

of the Barendra Class of Brahmans of Bengal

Index.., . • . ... ... ...

One double plate (facsimiles of MSS).

97

87

65

91

148

/

LIST OF ERRATA.

•r

V.

I

*

r

*

Under orders of the Council the following system of transli¬

teration will be adopted for the future in all publications of the Society.

Authors of papers for the Journal , Pt. I, are particularly requested to

adhere to it in their contributions.

A. FOR THE DEVANAGARl ALPHABET, AND FOR ALL

ALPHABETS RELATED TO IT.

In the above the virdma has been omitted for the sake of clearness.

In Modern Vernaculars only; ^ may be represented by r, and

by fh.

Avagraha is to be represented by an apostrophe, thus so 'pi.

Visarga is represented by ft , Jihvamuliya by ft, and Upadhmaniya by ft.

Anusvdra is represented by m, thus *3^31 saihsarga , and anundsika by the

sign ~ over the letter nasalized, thus ^ a , a, and so on. The uddtta

accent is represented by the sign ' and the svarita by A. Thus,

agnih , janita, leva , 5^1 hanya. The anudatta accent may be

represented by \ Thus, % ^ avardhanta .

B. FOR PERSIAN (INCLUDING- ARABIC WORDS IN

PERSIAN) AND HINDUSTANI.

(The system is not applicable to Arabic ivhen pronounced as in Arabic *

2

Vowels.

O ^

ai

O'*

an

(• m

cj n

U when representing anunasiha in Deva

Nagari, by on the preceding vowel

j w (or rarely v)

a h

^ y

Hamzah f (where necessary) *

The J of the article J f in Arabic words should be assimilated

before the solar letters ; and the vowel u which often precedes the article

and absorbs its vowel should remain attached to the word to which it

belongs. Thus — JUS| Iqbalu-d-daulah.

Tanwln may be rendered by w-e. g., ittifaqan . Alif-i maqsurah should

be rendered by q.

Final' * need not be written in Persian and Hindustani words,

but should be written in Arabic words.

JOURNAL

OF THE

ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL.

/ , ’ f

Part I,— HISTORY, LITERATURE, &c.

No. 1.— 1903.

The History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms ( 1000-1600 A.D.)

compiled chiefly from MSS. lately discovered . — By Professor Cecil

Bendall, M.A. ( University College , London ). Written as an His¬

torical Introduction to Pandit Haraprasad S'astri’s Catalogue of the

Nepal Durbar Library. With, chronological Tables and a Plate

(facsimiles of MSS.)

The Catalogue to which the present Essay forms an introduction

is the result of a joint expedition to Nepal in the cold weather of

1898-99 originally suggested by me, and taken part in by myself and

Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasad S'astri, accompanied under the aus¬

pices of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, by his assistant, Pandit Binod a-

bihari Bhattacharyya. While co-operating with one another throughout,

we arranged to divide generally our work so that the archaeological 1

and historical part of the task should fall to myself, while the Pandits

dealt with the literary portion.

A great deal of our time was of course taken up by the examination

of the Maharaja’s collection of MSS., which, as regards the antiquity

of the documents, are surpassed by no Sanskrit Library known to exist.

My own necessarily very hurried examination of this remarkable col-

1 I hope to publish my inscriptions with my general Report.

J. I. 1.

2 C. Bendall — History oj Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms . [No. t,

lection in 1884 led to the first definite account published.1 Since then

Pandit Haraprasad visited the Library, and gave some notes on it in the

Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. LXYI, Pt. I (1897), pp.

310 sqq. Some further notes were made by Prof. S. Levi 2 of Paris in 1897,

giving attention “surtout aux colophons des manuscrits, si importants

pour rhistoire.” As, however, Monsieur Levi subsequently informed me

that his examination of the Library was far from complete, I felt all

the greater pleasure in seeing the more exhaustive examination taken

in hand of which the present Catalogue is the result. My own share

in it was chiefly in helping the Pandits to decipher the figures and

other chronological data with which acquaintance of nearly 25 years with

ancient Nepalese MSS. has given me some familiarity. When I was

at work in the Library, I requested the Pandits always to show me colo¬

phons of MSS. containing kings’ names and dates. A considerable

portion, however, of the present Catalogue had to be compiled by the

junior Pandit after my departure, and consequently I have been led

to adopt another method of verification, which, thanks to the kind co¬

operation of the Residents in Nepal, Lieutenant-Colonel W. Loch and

his successor, Lieutenant-Colonel J. C. Pears, has given excellent results.

This method was to send to the Resident a series of copies made on

tracing-paper of all the important colophons containing points, numerals

and the like, requiring verification. No clue was of course given to the

words or figures expected to be filled in on the blank spaces left; and the

fidelity of the tracing was vouohed for in each case by the correspondence

of paleeographic peculiarities with the date assigned.

In my previous attempts 8 to adjust Nepalese chronology by means

of MS. -colophons, I always endeavoured, as far as possible, to use

and harmonise the data furnished (1) by formal histories and chroni¬

cles, and (2) by the historical notices furnished by the scribes of

MSS. in their colophons (brief, but valuable as contemporary evidence),

and also incidental notices given in the body Of works like dramas.

Of the latter class a good example is the drama Mudita-Kuvalayasvana-

taka from which copious extracts are given by Dr. Pischel in his Cata¬

logue of the German Oriental Society’s MSS., pp. 7-8. The present

Catalogue f urnishes several more instances of this kind.

1 See the present writer’s “ Journey in Nepal and Northern India,” pp. 16 — 20,

where the previous notices by B. Lawrence and D. Wright are referred to.

* Rapport, p. 16 [84] (Acad, des Inscrr. Seance du 27 Janr. 1 899).

8 Transactions of Fifth Congress Orientalists (Berlin, 1881) Verhandlungen II.

Halfte ii, pp. 189 sqq. (1882) 5 Catalogue of the Buddhist Skt. MSS., Cambridge,

1883 (Historical Introd.) ; Journey in Nepal ” Ibid.,. ..1886 (Tables). To these last

two I hereinafter refer as ‘ Camb. Cat.’ (distinguished from ‘ Cat.’, which refers to

the new Catalogue) and ‘ Journey,’ respectively.

3

1903.] 0. Bendail — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms.

To the number of extant native chronicles the Maharaja’s library

contains an important accession 1 in the shape of a small palm-leaf

MS. of a Vaipsavali discovered by me shortly before I left Nepal.

Since my return to England owing to the kind negotiation of Col. Loch?

I have not only received an excellent copy of the MS., but also the favour

from H.H. the Maharaja of the loan for three months of the original, so

that I have been able to collate and photograph all important passages.

My use of the chronicles has been adversely criticized 2 * by some

scholars, though countenanced by others ; 8 but I venture to think that

the discovery of the present MS. puts matters in a somewhat new

light.

Though written continuously in a single handwriting correspond¬

ing with the time (reign of Jayasthiti-malla, A.D. 1380-1394)

at which the chronicle ends 4 (see the Plate annexed, figs. 3-10), the

new Vam^avali really contains three distinct chronicles, designated

accordingly in the present essay V1, V2 *, V8.

V1 is in the form of brief annals of the successive reigns not unlike

the other Varpsavalis, but giving a much greater number of dates, in

addition to the lengths of the reigns. The leading events of each reign

are also noticed in some cases with dates, at first in words and later on

in numerals.

The leaf-numbering begins at f. 17 and this portion ends with

30a. The language is no doubt intended for Sanskrit, but in obscurity

and a perfectly wild absence of syntax 6 it rivals the worst colophons of

Nepalese MSS. that I have seen. I thought at first of printing the

whole, but after studying my transcript aud taking the advice of friends

1 came to the conclusion that I should either have to print the whole

without spaces, which would be misleading and unsatisfactory, or to

publish facsimiles. For the division of words and even sentences,

1 As the present Catalogue gives no description of the MS. the following notes

may be of interest. No. 1231. Palm-leaf; 11 by 1^ inches, leaves 17-63, with an

extra leaf not numbered, thus 48 in all.

2 “ Journey,” p. 93.

8 eg., in M. S. Levi’s investigations as to the eras of Nepal.

4 The latest dates are N.S. 508, occurring at fol. 63b. and 509 at 68a. It

will be seen both from my Cambridge Cat. (c/. Intr. p. xxxi), and from the present

Catalogue that palm-leaf MSS. become rare (owing to the general use of paper)

within about a century from this time.

8 Scientific students of the vernaculars may probably find ‘method in its

madness.’ The frequent locution or for ^ or cer*

tainly suggests the familiar Hindi ^ Towards the end (ff. 29 b, 30)

*■ r

it drops into a form of langunge which is practically Newari with an unusually

large allowance of words borrowed from Aryan sources.

4

C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No. 1,

when one had no fixed rules of grammar to help in the interpre¬

tation, seemed in many places quite doubtful. I have been conse¬

quently permitted by the Council of the Society to take the latter

alternative, and have 'accordingly reproduced a selection of the most

important leaves, of which I made legible negatives while the MS. was

lent to me. It will be noted that the selected leaves begin with 3 A.

I only publish now a portion of this leaf, as I reserve for future

treatment the kings of Nepal before 879 A.D. in connection with my

recently-discovered inscriptions.

From the prominent way in which temple-donations are recorded,

it may be conjectured that this part of the MS. (V1) may be in some way

connected with the records of the great shrine of Pasupati.

V2 is a document of different origin ; it is a list of births of royal

and other distinguished personages. The language is unfortunately

old Newari ; but one can make out the names and dates clearly enough.

These extend, not always in strict chronological order, from N.S. 177

to 396. A specimen is given in the Plate, fig. 10. All the information

given in this section of the Chronicle, so far as it relates to the kings,

will be found condensed in the notes to the Table of kings below.

Towards the end of the section other information beside births, deaths,

and the like is introduced, but I have been able to make but little use

of this owing to the difficulties of the language, for which I can get no

adequate help either in Nepal or in Europe.

V3 is perhaps merely a continuation of V2. I have called it a

separate doonment, because a slight break with double dandas occurs

in the original MS. at the end of fol. 36a, and because at this point

there is a marked difference of style. The string of short paragraphs,

each recording little more than a birth, is abandoned, and the annals

become more expanded. The previous section had ended, as I said,

with N.S. 396. This, however, begins with N.S. 379 and the history

would not seem to be treated on a strictly chronological basis, as the

irregularity of order in the dates noticed in Vs is here more pro¬

nounced. The latest date, as already noted, is N.S. 508 (f. 635).

The events mentioned in Yl are sometimes described here in fuller

detail.1 On the other hand, the chronological details though full seem

not to be quite so trustworthy.2

1 For example, the famine in the reign of Abhayamalla in N.S. 352 (Y3, 395,

mentioned at p. 8, note 2, below.) *

2 Thus at 40a we get the birth of Javatuhgamalla, son of Jayarudramalla,

Sam vat 410 . margasira sukla trayodasi Annradha ghati 17 S'ula. 37 angaravare

(Tuesday). But Prof. Jacobi, who baa kindly worked out the date, reports that the

day in question was a Monday and points out that “ Margasira can never be

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. 5

Nevertheless I feel sure that this section must contain much

valuable information, and it is in the hope of drawing the attention

of the few scholars skilled in the Himalayan languages to the matter

that I reproduce a specimen-leaf (Plate, fig. 10). The passage refers

to the invasion of Harisiipha of Simraon about which I have more to

say below.

Having thus indicated the materials of the present investigation,

the divisions of the subject may be stated.

I. — The History of the Nepal Valley, A.D. 1000-1600 (f.e.,

Kathmandu, Patan, and Bhatgaon) :

Chronological notes on the dynasties of the surrounding

states :

II. — ' Western Nepal. III.— Tirhut (Eastern and Western).

To these notes I have added (as Table IV) a list of a dynasty, which

I have not been able to recognize.

The main results of the enquiry are summarized in the Tables at

the end of this article, which constitute of course its most important

feature, and will probably provide most students with all that they

require. The present notes are chiefly intended to elucidate the Tables

and especially to bring out the relations between the dated series of

kings obtained from MSS. and the dynasties detailed in the new

Vaipsavali.

I. The present collection of MSS. affords an example [See

Plate ; fig. 2, L 2] of a date1 earlier than any hitherto found referable

to the Nepal era, but unfortunately no dated MS. with a king’s name

occurs earlier thau those previously known.

It is interesting to note that the king Raghavadeva mentioned by

Cunningham8 as the traditional founder of the Nepal era of 879-80,

but passed over in the Vamsavali of D. Wright3 and by Kirkpatrick,4

is duly recorded in the new chronicle. Not only so, but the years of

reign assigned to him and his immediate successors quite accord with

Anuradha.” I have, moreover, noted quite a number of cases where months in cer¬

tain years are called dvi ( tiya ) where no such intercalation, according to Sewell and

Dlksit’s Tables, occurred ; compare Table of Kings, note 10, below.

1 See Catalogue, pp. 85 (^j) and 140 ( Lanka vatara). The reading 28 must be

altered to 29 ; nor can I concur in the description ‘ guptaksara-likhitam,.’ The form of

k is distinctly post- Gupta ; and the general appearance of the writing with its closely

placed aksaras seems to preclude the S'ri-Harsa era. The forms of n (guttural) and

the form of the a&sara-numeral 20 are archaisms that one would expect to find

in a document written early in the tenth century.

2 Indian Eras, p. 74.

8 ‘ History of Nepal,’ Cambridge, 1877.

* ‘ An account of the Kingdom of Nepaul,’ London, 1811,

6

C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No. 1,

the tradition of his having founded the era. Thus, if we add together

the duration of his reign and his five successors down to Lak§mikama-

deva we get about 135 years. This, again, added to 879-80 brings us

to the second decade of the eleventh century, when we know from a colo¬

phon that Laksmikama had commenced to rule at all events as joint-

sovereign, becoming sole king later on.

The earliest king of Nepal mentioned with a date in the Catalogue

is Bhaskaradeva ; and it is very satisfactory to find that this date already

noticed by Pandit Haraprasad (J.A.S.B. for 1897, Pfc. I, p. 312) is

verifiable. Prof. Kielhorn has kindly calculated it for me and it corre¬

sponds to 24th September, 1046. The new chronicle duly records this

king with a rather obscure note 1 * * as to his ‘ repairing his paternal

crown.’ The other chronicles make him the founder of a new dynasty.

Of the next king, Baladeva 8 (called in V1 Balavantadeva), we have

a dated MS.8

Of Harsadeva’s reign we have now two MSS.4 * A third date

has been added from the Chronicle, which says of this reign merely :

TT5TT II Interpreted in

the light of the two other dates this rather crudely expressed notice

gives good sense, if we take it to mean that Har§a died in N.S. 219

current. This fits also quite well with the duration of the next reigns6

as given in our Chronicle. The credibility of the dates in this part

of the chronicle is further enhanced by its mention of the completion

in 239 (date in words) of a tank by STvadeva, the next sovereign.

1 See Plate, fig. 3B, line 4, medio Tf ( ? : “ his father’s

diadem was broken np and he destroyed the golden image (to make a crown);” or

“ the crown was renewed.” Kirkpatriok (p. 263) records a similar

tradition for a king reigning some twenty years later.

8 Name wrongly restored in my previous lists as Baladeva. V* records him

as the founder of Haripur. Plate, fig. 3 B, last line.

8 As to Vanadeva the MS. (referred to in the table) of Vamadeva makes my

identification (Journey, p. 9) more difficult. But the existence of Vanadeva’s

father, the king ( bhunatha ) Yasodeva, seems to be confirmed by the Tib. notices in

J. Buddh. T.S, Ind., Vol. 1, p. 27, where we learn that a king Anantaklrti was

ruling in the middle of this century in another region of Nepal (Palpa). Babu

Sarat Chandra Das has favoured me with the original Tibetan of the passage and

it is just possible that the name grags-pa-mtlia-yas, which he

Sanskritizes as Anantaklrti, may be a form of Yasodeva the king of Bal-po, Nepal

in general (or the Palpa district in Western Nepal?) The chronology at least would

agree.

4 See the Table.

6 The supposition would not fit with the allowance of 21 years to [Sada.]

S'ivadeva, made by “ G ” in Tab. I, Col. 4, of my ‘ Journey.’ :i

7

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms.

This was called after the Yuvaraj ( sbYttst ) Tndra or Mahendra-deva,

Mahendra-saras. It was otherwise known as Madanasaras.1 It will be

seen that this date falls in the year before the writing of a MS. in

the same reign.

I have lingered over these somewhat minute details for two reasons :

(1) Because it forms a new feature of the present chronicle to find

so early as this2 dates expressed both in words and figures that accord

with the contemporary evidence of the scribes; (2) because doubt8 has

been expressed whether the Nepal Samvat (of 879-80) was actually

in use in the eleventh century A.D. It is satisfactory to note that our

chronicle, following the tradition already known from Kirkpatrick,

does mention4 the aforesaid Indradeva both as yuvardja and raja ,

as we have now a MS. of his reign. It will be seen, however, that the

number of years (12) assigned to his reign is probably excessive. The

dates of the next two reigns overlap one anther. If this is not a

case of subdivision of the kingdom of which there are so many instan¬

ces, it may be quite well explained by the tradition preserved in the

records of Wright and Bhagvanlal, that Mahadeva retired early in his

reign from active sovereignty and Narendra (or Narasimha)6 became

his regent. Of the reign of the next king, Ananda, MSS. are now

numerous. It is curious that the other chronicles either give his name

wrongly (Wright, Bh ) or omit his reign altogether (Kirkpatrick). It is

found, however, correctly spelt at f. 316. of our MS.6 chronicle. Of Rudra’s

reign no MSS. are extant. The years assigned by our MS. to his reign

(8) seem to show the origin of the curious error in the length of the

reign (80 years) assigned by Kirkpatrick. Equally correctly given is

the form Amj-ta, which is now verified by a MS.7 The ‘ great dearth ’ re-

1 The event is again chronicled with the same date in V2. See Plate, fig. 9,

1. 4.

8 Kirkpatrick’s dates begin later (thirteenth century). Those in Wright only

become correct somewhat later (invasion of Harisirpha).

8 A. Foncher, Iconographie Bouddhique, p. 28, n. 1

4 The records preserved by Wright and Bhagavanlal (Ind. A. XIY. 413) pass this

king over.

8 The actually discrepant date is that supplied by the colophon in the Cat., p.

62. Here there can be no doubt as to the interpretation of the chronogram, through

some of the-terminations of the other words must be corrected for the scansion. Bat

the date seems not to work out. The obscure phrase rajardjasadriye may quite

possibly refer to regency.

8 The common mistake * Nanda-’deva is found at f. 25 a (plate, fig. 5, 11.). Riijen-

dralal Mitra makes the same blunder in his text of Astas. Pr. pref., p. XXIV. note.

1 Cat. p. 65 (?r). 1 find from a tracing sent from Nepal by Col. Loch that the

Pandit’s reading of the year (296) is quite correct, and in that in the next line

Sri Amrtadevasya is quite clear-

8

C. Bendall— History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms . [No. 1,

corded by Kirkpatrick is duly chronicled in V1 ( Mahfimdri-durbhilcsam -

bhavati) 25. b.1 The next date from MSS. is obtained from a MS. in the

Maharaja’s library noted by myself, but omitted by the Pandit in his

Catalogue. It is from No. 1648, a MS. of Caraka, I have since sup¬

plemented my note by a tracing kindly sent by Colonel Pears. The full

date is given in the Table. But as the king Ratnadeva is mentioned

in none of the chronicles, I am inclined to think that he must have

been a local raja, or a king of Western Nepal. 1

After Amytadeva my previous lists left one of those gaps which it

is now most satisfactory to find filled in. The tradition reproduced by

Wright and Bhagavanlal quite fails here. Kirkpatrick alone gives

correct, though inadequate, details, which are now supplemented by the

new chronicle and, what is more important, verified by MSS.

As to Somesvara-deva, see the Table and note there (p. 25). Kirkpa¬

trick’s £ Buz Caum Deo’ of course represents Vijayakamadeva ; his ‘Any

Mull ’ is a less recognizable equivalent of Arimalla ; but in Nepalese

documents and ^ are easily confused. After the reign of 2 Abhayadeva,

which, though called by Kirkpatrick ‘ inauspicious,’ was anyhow fairly

long as a goodly array of MSS. now shows, the chronicles hitherto

available quite break down.

Eveu if Jayadeva and Anantadeva were brothers, ^ as Wright

(p. 162) and Bh. state, the latter certainly did not reign at the same

time. Two kings whose names, Jayabhima and Jayasahadeva, I have

taken from the chronicle, 4 intervened; and it is extremely satisfactory

l Supposing the era to be that of Nepal, which I think probable from the writing.

* ‘ The great dearth * recorded by Kirkpatrick for this and the previous reign

are duly registered in our chronicle (25 b; plate, fig. 6. 1. 3), where famine-prices for

grain are also mentioned. The prices are given in greater detail in (Newari

portion of chronicle) at fol. 39b for Sapavat 352.

s The birth-list of the chronicle (V2) makes Ananta not the son of Abhaya,

but of a certain S'ri-Rajadeva and of Rudramadevl.

4 Fol. 26a. The whole passage, following on that reproduced in 25b ; plate, fig. 6,

runs thus :

II gSJTfttqi ^ ^ *rr I formerly thought this date,

which, as Dr Kiel horn kindly informs me, corresponds to 7 th June 1255, referred to

the coronation of Jayabhima ; o spite of the punctuation, which seems not always

trustworthy in this MS. On re-reading the passage, however, I now consider that

it must refer to the first shock of the earthquake, which is accordingly stated to

have lasted at intervals over four months. This accords better with the subsequent

date, 377, of a MS., once the property of the late Pandit Bhagvanlal Indraji. I

may here mention that I have made enquiries by letter for this MS. in the Bhagvan¬

lal collection of the Bombay Asiatic Society, but without success. From Y3 (fob 36b)

we learn that in 378 Caitra Jayabhimadeva had become raja, with Jayasipiha (siha-

malladeva) as yuvaraja.

9

1903.] 0. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms .

to find that one of them (Jayabhima) is fully attested by a dated MS. ;

so that again the new chronicle and newly-discovered MS. 1 confirm

one another.

Of the next king, Anantamalla we have now a goodly array of

dates 2 from MSS. Besides these there is an interesting note in

Kirkpatrick (p. 264) stating that “ in this prince’s reign and in the

Newar year 408, or Sumbuth 1344, 8 many Khassias (a western tribe)

emigrated to Nepal, and settled there; and three years after in the,

Newar year 411 a considerable number of Tirhoot families also planted

themselves there.” What this really amounted to may be told in the

words of the chronicle (f. 266 ; PI. fig. 7) : “ 12 years 3 months after [i.e.,

after the beginning of Atlanta’s reign, or after* the last event mentioned, a

quarrel between his sons] the Khasiya king Jayatari first entered,

Sam vat four hundred and eight in the month Pausa. After a slaughter

of (eight ?) hundred Khasiyas the rest retired [to the jungles ?] and the

country resumed its ordinary state. On the 13th of Phalguna sudi

of the same year Jayatari again entered [the country, as if] for a

friendly purpose, [but] he burned with fire villages and other places.

He visited (?) the Syemgu-chait[ya], saw the image of Lokesvara

at Bug[a]ma 4 and visited (?) the Pasupati [shrine]. He got safe back

to his kingdom. [This happened in] Samvat four hundred and nine.

Again the [king] of Tirhut entered [Nepal]. This happened [in]

Samvat four hundred and eleven in the month Magha.” 5

Kirkpatrick’s “ emigrations ” were thus more or less predatory

incursions, which as we shall see, became increasingly common later on.

After the death of Ananta_ a troublous time ensued, and one that

has been hitherto extremely obscure. In my previous lists I had to

note at this time: “ Kings uncertain 6 for 60 years.” Though much

1 See MS. of the Mahalaksmivrata numbered 1320 and noticed at pp 47-8, 123-4

of the Catalogue. Mr. It. Sewell has kindly verified the date, which works out to

2nd April, A. D. 1260.

2 One of these is that given atp. 44 ( ) of the Cat., and there referred to

Anandamalla. In my tracing however the name Ananta is quite clear. Wright (pp.

162-65) makes a similar confusion. I have no verification of the date at p. 63 fin, of

the Cat., which makes Abhayamalla still reigning in N.o. 385.

8 The double date is interesting, though the Vikrama Samvat is not known

to have been in use in Nepal at this early time.

4 On this celebrated image see Foucher ‘ Iconographie ’ p. 100 and his pi. IV. 1

from a miniature in the Library of the As. Soc. of Bengal, where also the village-name

js spelt Bugaraa, not ‘ Bungmati ’ as now.

^ For the text see Plate, fig. 7, lines 1-5.

8 The main reason of this uncertainty, viz., the varying accounts of Jayasthiti.

mafia’s ancestors, who never ruled in Nepal proper at all, is suggested below.

J. i. 2

10 C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No. 1,

still remains uncertain, it is satisfactory to find that this long interval is

shortened on both sides by dated reigns that may be regarded as

fixed.

The first of these is the reign of Jayanandadeva which followed 1

that of Ananta and is certified by a date (N.S. 438) -in the Catalogue

(p. 73) which I had previously noted in the MS. The next king, accord¬

ing to the chronicle, was Jayarudramalla.3 His accession, the corona-,

tion of his co-regent, and his own death ( svargastha ) and “suttee”

of his four wives are recorded. It is probably significant that the date

given in two sections of the chronicle for the last event is only a few

months 8 after the invasion of Harisimhadeva of Simraon.

The history of the next twenty years cannot at present be satisfac¬

torily told, until the Newari of Y 8 has been interpreted. Besides the

well-attested invasion of Harisimhadeva, several other foreign powers

made themselves felt at this time. One of these was an invasion by,

Adit[y]amalla. After narrating the death of Jayarudra, V1 adds merely

Tlfag: II But V 8 narrates the same event more

fully. The Newari sentence begins aac *§fw Tl^TT

(46a; PI., fig. 10.2),' so that we learn the exact date (448

Phalguna sudi 7) and the interesting fact that Aditya was a king of

Western Nepal, thus foreshadowing the Gorkha conquest of more recent

times.

Returning to the semi-Sanskrit account of V1, which curiously

makes no mention of the invasion of Harisirpha, we find (27 b) that

an infant son of Jayarudra died a few days after his father’s death.

His daughter Satl-nayakadevI was placed under the guardianship of

her grandmother Padumalladevi.4 The young princess (after being

crowned Raul, according to Kirkpatrick), was married to Haricandra-

deva belonging to the royal family of Benares.6 He appears to have

1 fRlnTC AT*TI I says the chroni

cle (27 a fin.) after narrating the events of Ananta’s reign. This probably implies

an interval between the two latter reigns. Fleet, Gupta Inscrr. Introd. p. 186

contrasts the meanings of antare and anantaram, especially in the records of Nepal.

2 A co-regent of this king was Jayarimalla. The mention of this prince in V.

ff. 27 a fin. 27 6) is very obscure, but V2 distinctly describes him (45a.) as Samrdja

(with Jayarudra) between N.S. 440 at 443. He died in 464 ( ib . 506).

3 N.S. 446 (in figures and chronogram) Asadha parnami f. 276, Prathama

Asadha purnima 466 (but Asa. was not intercalated this year). Muhammadan

authorities cited in Miss Daff ’s Chronology of India.

4 5ft (276). The

* ' c

sentence forms a choice example of the grammar of VI referred to above.

6 {sic) 27b. ‘ Rajah of Benares,’ Kirkpatrick,

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. 11

lived in "Nepal some time, but was poisoned 1 after some years * 1 ( Jcati -

payavarsantare ). After this his brother Gropaladeva accompanied by

Jagatsimhadeva (called in VL Karnatava[m]saja and in V3 (496)

“ Tirhuti-ya Jagatsimhakumara ”) seized tbe person of Nayakadevi 2.

The allies then appear to have taken Bhatgaon and Patan. Gopala-

deva was subsequently beheaded by Jagatsimha’s followers. After

this the prince Jagatsimha enjoyed the sovereignty fora few days ;

but he was afterwards put into confinement, 3 ; by whom we are

not told. His daughter was Rajal[l]adevl 4 ; and her mother

Nayakadevi died 10 days after her birth ; so that (like her mother) she

was brought up by her paternal grandmother, whose name was Devala-

devl. I do not understand the reference to Pasupatimal[l]adeva 6 that

immediately follows (Plate ; fig. 8, 1. 1). Possibly he was the represen¬

tative of some rival line of kings, as we read directly after, that “ by the

consent of both royal families Jayarajadeva was made king on 467

S'ravana badi 4 ” which was subsequently 6 ratified by general consent.

About the reign of Jayaraja’s son and successor Jayarjuna some

uncertainty remains, though this could probably be removed by the full

interpretation of the present chronicle. Passed overby all the histories,

his existence and reign were first pointed out by the present writer

from the colophons of Cambridge MSS. Even in the present chronicle

his reign and its duration are not formally recorded, though he is

several times referred to as ‘ S'ri Jayarjuna raja’ and ‘ Jayarjuna-nrpa. ’

The reason of all this is not far to seek.

In 474 7, that is while Jayarajadeva was still reigning, took place

1 yS (47a) gives the exact date of his { violent death ’ (sic) N .S.

455 Jyestha sudi 5.

2 fffir

tiw wfer?r i i fiw 5ft

Wf: \ l etc., (see

Plate,, fig. 8). . r

4 We are told in YS (5 It) that this princess’s mother was Nayakadevi; so

that Jagatsirpha carried off the bride of his ally’s brother, liajalla was born N.S.

467 Pausa badi 10.

6 More is said of him and (possibly the same) ‘ bandhana ’ in YS (52 a) under

date 469 Margas, su. 12.

6 The punctuation of fig. 8 1.2 would lead one to suppose at first sight that

the general ratification preceded the particular one ( Yaisakha being 3 months earlier) ;

but the second date doubtless refers to the birth. In all birth-entries the date comes

first. 0

I I transcribe the Newari of Vs (536):^ 8S8 ^

12 C. Bend all — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No. 1,

the marriage of the prince Jayasthiti, a descendant of Harisimha of

Simraon, with Rajalladevi. Jayasthiti was reigning when the chro¬

nicle was concluded and the chronicler naturally magnifies 4 the powers

that be ’ and says little of the title of the lawful king whom Jayasthiti

had managed to defeat and depose. But we see from the colophons of

MSS. the real state of things. In 484 Karttika, October 1363 (a verified

date : see the Table) Jayarjuna was on the throne and the colophon

of the next MS. is fortunately very explicit. The MS. (see Cat. p. 88)

was written in a well-known vihar in Lalit-Patan and the colophon

adds in 491 ( A.D. 371) that Jayarjuna was victoriously reigning (not only

there but) ‘ N epala-mandale’’ which we may construe to mean the whole

of the valley. The scribes call Jayarjuna king down to February 1376. 1

His name is also mentioned in connexion with the initiation-cere¬

mony of Dharmamalla son of Jayasthiti and Raj alia in 497 Jyestha 2

(summer of 1377). On the other baud about 503 ( date of latest event

in V1) we find a reference to Jayarjuna as Vft3 4 which

can only mean his defeat, followed as it is by an acknowledgment of

Jayasthiti as king of Nepal.3 That Jayarjuna, however, did not submit

without a struggle may be seen from the interesting colophon at Cat.

p. 39, 1. 6 (unfortunately not dated) from which we learn that the MS.

was copied “ in the victorious reign of Jayasthiti,” and that “ at that

time the king named Jayarjuna was entering, with his ally, the Tripura-

raja4 in great commotion.” ;

Jayasthiti was evidently a patron of literature ; not only are MSS.

of his reign more numerous than in any preceding, but we find from

the chronicle that even before his accession he celebrated the birth-cere¬

mony of his son Dharmamalla by a performance of a ‘four-act Rama-

^ II Die princess’s name

is not mentioned ; but another marriage hardly would have been mentioned in the

chronicle.

1 Verified, see note to Table. I have re-examined the date in Cambridge Add.,

1488, which I formerly published as equivalent to 501 or 1384. The writing is very

faint. See now note 3 to table below, p. 27. ?

2 The passage is evidently an interesting cne, though unfortunately the end is

not clear to me : Sjfc WTC ^

3 The words following are ^nxjT( ? wr

i ii (sic) jnwfs^eft tuthwiCph:

WH KT5T vm ’iqffT .* : ii

; J l‘

4 A Tripura-raja is several times referred to in the chronicle.

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms.

13

yana,’ 1 which was repeated 2 * on the initiation-ceremony. A revival of

letters, too, is vouched for by the fact that lengthy Sanskrit inscrip¬

tions in prose and verse, which had disappeared for some five centuries

or more, now re-appear 8 and are continued in, the reign of Jayasthiti’s

Son.4 *

Unlike most Indian princes, Jayasthiti had, according to my con¬

jecture, some appreciation of the value of history. When he enters

on the scene there is a slight change in the style of the present chronicle.

Nevvari words become much more frequent. It seems to me as though

the chronicle V1 had been finished off by a partisan of the king. In

the case of the Vamsavali preserved by Wright, traces of manipulation

seem to me still clearer. After a rather jejune account of his (alleged)

predecessors this chronicle bursts into sudden eloquence of detail on

the doings of Jayasthiti. There seems no reason to doubt the accuracy

of these particulars, though as Dr. Wright points out in his note

(p. 183) there is a medley of inaccurate and accurate 6 dates (p. 187).

The king’s literary proclivities are even exemplified by a specimen

of his composition {ibid.)

So far so good. Where one seems to see the traces of deliberate

falsification is in the total omission of the real kings 6 of Nepal im¬

mediately preceding and following the invasion of Harisimhadeva, and

the insertion of a string of ancestors for Jayasthiti with impossible

reigns and dates. These are tabulated in the Historical Introduction

to my Cambridge Catalogue, p. xv. There is no agreement in the lists

of ancestors, except that all seem to show a tradition current at least in

the XVIIth century7 A.D. that the family of Jayasthiti was descended

from Harisimha by the male line, though it should be observed that

the inscription there cited ignores Jayasthiti and his immediate ances¬

tors and goes, by a considerable mandukapluti from Jayasthiti’s grand¬

son Yaksamalla back to ‘ Harayat ’-simha. Even more suggestive of

what I regard as the correct facts is the form of Inscription No. 16 of

1 A dramatized Pvamayana appears in the present collection, p. 246.

2 See note 2 to preceding page.

8 ‘Journey in Nepal’ pp. 12, 83. Bhagvanlal and Wright mention an inscrip¬

tion of the king himself ‘ on a stone near Lalitapattan.’

4 I nd. Ant. IX, 183.

6 This (N.S. 515), it should be observed, is the first date in that Vamsavali that

is reconcileable with the testimony of MS. -colophons and inscriptions save only

the memorable date of Harisimha’s invasion (p. 175).

® Wright’s ‘ Anandamalla’ (pp. 262-299) seems to be a mixture of Anantamalla

and Jayanandadeva. He totally omits Jayabhima, Jayaraja and Jayarjuna, all> men¬

tioned in the present chronicle and confirmed by MSS.

7 The inscription and the play cited fall within this century.

14 C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No. 1,

Bhagvanlal’s series which was issued by tlie son of Jayastbiti, Jyotir-

malla in N.S. 533. Here there is a short genealogy (tabulated by

Bhagvanlal), but no ‘fancy’ ancestry on his father’s side. On the

contrary, he mentions his father merely as ‘ belonging to the Surya-

vamsa ’ and then most significantly adds that lie (Jayasthiti) was the

‘husband Of Rajalladevl. 1 The reason is now clear. It was through

his mother and not through his father that Jyotirmalla had any

hereditary claim to the throne.

We may now turn back to a very important point in this part of

the history of Nepal, around which a good deal of misapprehension

has gathered, namely the invasion of Harisimha.

In spite of the boast of Candesvara, Harisimha’s minister that he was

“ victorious over all the kings of Nepal ”,1 2 * 4 there seems to be at present

no evidence beyond that of the Yarpsavali- tradition preserved by Wright

and Bhagvanlal to show that Harisimha established himself in the

valley of Nepal. Against this we may place the testimony of the new

Yamsavali which was composed within about half a century of the

event in question and (what is far more convincing) is confirmed by the

colophons of several MQS. The precise nature of Harisimha’s expedi¬

tion may be further explained by the Newari extract forming fig. 10 of

the Plate ; but meanwhile one can see that the effect of his expedition

could hardly have been permanent, as not many years after we find a

representative of the old royal family (Jayadeva)*5 on the throne. Until

more evidence is forthcoming, it seems safer to regard Harisimha and

his ancestors 4 who reigned in Tirhut, 6 * 8 Simraon and also possibly other

parts of the Nepal-Tarai as at most titular kings of Nepal, even if

they really claimed sovereignty over the valley of Nepal at all.

For Jayasthiti’s reign MSS. are, as I have said, numerous. The

earliest date (NS. 500) is taken from the Cat. p. 43, where, beside the

1 Jayasthiti has the very same epithet ( Rajalladevl -pati ) during his lifetime in

N.S. 500. See Cat. p. 43 1. 23.

2 Danaratnakara, stanza 3 ap. Eggeling, Cat. 1.0. p. 412.

8 As to Jayadeva, Pandit Haraprasad has very kindly furnished me with a

tracing of the colophon of the Society’s MS. first described by him in J. A. S. B.,

LXII. i., p. 250. From this it is now clear that Jayadeva (the reading °vijayadeva

cannot stand) reigned on till N.S. 476, Phalguna.

4 It should be noted that the Wright-Bhagvanlal tradition brings in a long

fine of ancestors for Harisimha and has to stretch out the true chronology of the

kingdom to work them in. Once regard them as merely kings of the Nepal-Tarni

and all becomes simple. As to Nanya-deva the reputed founder of the Simraon

dynasty, see Duff, Chronology, p. 134 and add a reference to Ep. Indica, I, 313.

8 Candesvara in the Ki-iyaratnakara, st. 4 merely says that his master ‘ ruled

over all Mithila ’ (Cat. Skt. MSS. I.O, p. 410).

1903.] 0. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms . l£

epithet 1 Rajalladevi-pati ’ already referred to, several additional details

of interest are supplied. Among them is the name of the minister

Jayata who figures also in the chronicle (V3) at f. 54 b, as SnupadhyS,

[ya] in connection with the names of the king and queen.

The next king was Jayasimharama who may well have been a

regent, as in the year mentioned (516) the eldest son was only 19 years

of age .l

I have elsewhere called attention to the curious triple regency of

the three sons of Jayasthiti, confirmed as it is by two contemporary

MSS. It is worth noting that the three princes did not divide the

kingdom, but all ruled together in the little town of Bhatgaon which

then was the capital. Three years later Jayadharmamalla is said in

an inscription at Patan to be reigning as yuvaraj, an expression which

would imply that Jayasthiti was still alive, in retirement. I give the

text of the documents below.2

*

Of Jayadharma as actual king we have no trace. The second son

Jyotirmalla is recorded in the inscription (Bhagvanlal No. 16) already

quoted to have been reigning in N.S. 533 apparently as sole king,

though his brothers are mentioned. As he restored the Hindu shrine

of Pasupati and the Buddhist shrines on the Svayambhu hill we may

perhaps conclude that he reigned over the whole valley. In the three

MSS. given in the Table Jyotirmalla is mentioned as reigning alone

- - * - - - - . . • ’ . , .A

t Born 487, Prathamasadha, V& 54 6. Jayasimhar is mentioned with Jayar-

juna (as being at Kathmandu;) 54 b : ^ afnffjetfr ^N*7T5T-

^ ^ 3T ^ ^ **0^ [ sic ]

II In N.S. 507 he joined Jayasthiti and his family at the yatra at

Bugama (63, &.). With mahath Dr. Grierson compares the forms mahathd, mahantha

‘ great person.- ! - ;

r . .i • , _

1 . • , , ,

2 Compare Cambridge Cat., p. ix., “ Journey ” pp., 15, 16, and Table.

The verse written in Camb. MS$. Add. 1664, 2197 runs thus : —

vungvt ^ %*T TT3IT [sic] I

2197 ) T &ic ] *n^f*TS% II

,■ * 1 - ” - r • . r

The opening of the inscription found by me in 1884, as described, but not pub¬

lished,— (for it is chiefly in Newari and much damaged in the lower part), runs thus

(I. print it with all its characteristic errors of spelling, etc.) : —

1 S VJ

The inscription records the repair of a well connected with Mauigaladhipa-STida-

ksinavihara ’ and setting up of images*

16 0. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No. 1,

(N. S. 540-547). 1 Early in the next year Yaksamalla, the eldest son of

Jayajyotih, as we find from the above-cited inscription, has succeeded to

the throne ; and dated MSS. are fairly plentiful for the long reign (43

years) assigned to him by the Vamsavali of Wright.

As to the history of this time some information is given by the

interesting MS. described at pp. 107-9 of the present Catalogue. The

author is king Jagajjyotimalla of Bhatgaon, sixth in succession after

Yaksa. -According to this work Yaksa ‘ went as far as Magadha, con¬

quering Mithila and set in order all Nepal, subduing the rajas of the

mountains.’ The triple division of the kingdom, already known to us,

is then mentioned, including the assignment to the eldest son Rayamalla

of the country east of the Yaumati (Bagmati) river with Bhatgaon

as capital.

In Table II. I summarize the chronology of the reigns then

ensuing.

.Dated MSS. are not at first numerous ; but for the Bhatgaon line

the MS. at Cat., p. 107, just referred to, is valuable, especially as royal

authorship is attributed to it. The joint-regency of Jita and Prana

given in the Table is stated in the Catalogue at p. 102 and confirmed

by an inscription copied by me at Thaiba ( olim Thasiba).2 That the

later king Trailokya should have been also known by the synonymous

name Tribhurana seems at first sight improbable ; but the inscription

on which I base the statement was found by me at Thimi, which is east

of the Bagmati and not far from Bhatgaon. After the beginning of the

XVII century dates from coins become fairly plentiful, see the Table II

in my “ Journey.”

For the line of Kathmandu, dated documents are at first still more

scarce ; but later on dates are quite numerous.

I have added in Table II appended to the present article a third

column for the Banepa dynasty, because the first king at least was a real

person and from the Cat. p. 115 seems to have been a literary man.

In any case the separate dynasty of Banepa did not last much more

than a century, as I find from copies of inscriptions recently received by

me3 from Panauti a place in the Banepa valley somewhat east of

1 Cam. Add. 1649 a work on astrology attributed to the king bimself and

copied N.S\ 532 makes a fourth if the retouched colophon (see my Cat. p. 155)

be correct, as there seems little reason to doubt.

2 In a part of the village called Antal tol and near a caitya. The village lies

E. from Patau towards Harsiddhi and Banregaon. The date runs thus : ft

SIfiW ft ft mTOtWfTCS [ f ft [ T ] I>'c]

8 Through the kindness of Colonel Pears, the present Resident.

903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. 17r

Banepa, that the kings of Bbatgaon, , Jagatprakasa and his success of

Jitamitra (1643-1689 !) were acknowledged there.

II. — WESTERN NEPAL.

The town of Noakofc or Nayakot (which I visited in my recent

tour) seems to have been a kind of frontier between the valley of

Nepal or Nepal proper and the Western districts. Wright’s History (pp*

223-5) mentions the seizure of the place by a Gorkha sovereign pre¬

vious to the general Gorkha Conquest.

The MS. in the W right-collection numbered 1108 seems to have

been written here. For is doubtless (though the identification

escaped me when I wrote my Cambridge Catalogue, p. 30) a Sanskri-

tized form of the town’s name. The date of the king (Ratnajyofcih )

has been verified by Dr. Kiel horn and corresponds to January llth^

1392.

During the following century no chronological data .are forthcoming.

I may note in passing that an educated Nepalese told me that inscribed

stones, which he thought resembled those published by Pandit Bhagvanlal

and myself, existed in the valleys of Western. Nepal. . ’ .. j .«

Dr. Wright published (History, -Chapter XII) an account of the

reigning (Gorkha) dynasty from Dravya Sail (A. D. 1559) to the pre¬

sent time.

It is interesting to find in the present collection (pp. 242-4) a

MS. giving confirmation of this record. It was composed by Rajen-

dravikrama Sah, who reigned 1816-1847. It might be worthwhile

to publish extracts from this MS., when further confirmatory material

(from old MSS. or inscriptions) comes to light. Meanwhile, it is worth

noting that Wright’s date, 1559, founded on a Yikrama-date, is curiously

corroborated by a chronogram (vidliu-vasu-nigama-glau 2), which gives

the corresponding S'aka year (1481). At p. 213 of the Catalogue we

find a MS. written during the reign of Varavira Salil, in 1614, at

Jatapattana. This looks like S'aka 1614 (A.D. 1692), when Vlrabhadra

Sahi was alive, though, according to Wright, he was only yuvardj and

never maharaja .s

1 For the latter date see Cat. p. 150. N.S, 810, Pausa. One of the new in¬

scriptions is dated some six years later : 816, Jyestha.

* Read thus p. 242 1. 25. I was much troubled by the reading ^ gnan. But

on referring to the MS., through the kind intermediary of the Resident, I found that

the tracing read glau. This rare word has hitherto been found, in lexicons only, in

the sense of ‘ moon * or ‘ earth ’ ( i= 1 ).

8 Bhagvanlal’s Inscr. No. 18 fixes the date of another Gorkha sovereign in

recording the defeat of Dambarasah by Pratapamafia, N.S. 769 (A.D. 1649).

J. I. 3

18 C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms . [No. 1,

III.— TIEHUT.

There are few regions of India possessing an ancient civilization

about which we have less definite historic information than the region

north of the Ganges variously known as Yideha, Tirabhukti, or (from

its capital) Mithila.

Neither the work of Prinsep, nor its excellent successor, that of

Miss C. M. Duff, attempts a ‘ Dynastic list ’ for this country. Chronolo¬

gical indications are thus peculiarly valuable. There would seem to

have been a certain degree of literary intercourse between Nepal and

Tirhut, the frontier state on the direct route to the plains. Accord¬

ingly a large number of the MSS. in the present Catalogue are writ¬

ten by Tirhuti scribes in their characteristic (Maithili) script and

dated mostly in the common era of the country, that of Laksmana

Sena.

On pp. 131-2 we find a case where a MS. is by a Tirhuti scribe

domiciled in Nepal. For it will be observed that not only are the

writing and the era those of Mithila, but the scribe goes out of his way

to describe Lalita-pattan (£ Patan where the MS. was copied, as

‘ situated in the kingdom of Nepal.’

A notice of far . greater interest and importance is preserved

through a case of intercourse in the opposite direction, where a Nepa¬

lese scribe was living in Tirhut. This is the case of the MS. of part

of the Ramayana, No. 1079, briefly noticed at p. 34 of the Catalogue.

The colophon in question occurs at the end of the Kiskindyakanda at

ff. 375-6. As it is not given in the Catalogue, I here transcribe

it from my own notes : Samvat 1076 dsadha badi 4 maharajadhi-

rdja punydvaloka-somavatnsodbhava-gaudadhvaja-srimad-Gangeyadeva-

bhujyamdna-Tirabhaktau kalydnavijardjye Nepdladeslya-Srl bhdncu sdlika -

srl A nandasy a pat akdvasthit a fkayastha) 1 panclita srl srl Kurasydtmaja-

sri. Gopatinalekhldam. Interpreting this according to the some¬

what ‘ free-and-easy ’ Sanskrit used by scribes, I understand it to

mean that in Samvat 1076 Gopati, son of S'rlkura, (Kayastha) pandit

belonging to the country of Nepal and living in A'nanda’s pataka 2

belonging to Bhancu sali ( ?), copied this during a victorious reign in

Tirhut, when it was ruled by Gahgeyadeva, the great king, beholder of

holiness, sprung from the lunar race and banner of Gauda. The writing

of the MS. is the archaic 1 Lantsa’ of Nepal, so that we may quite well

■ . • . . • e

1 Added in a different hand.

2 Cf. Ind. Ant. XVIII. 135, where pataka is interpreted to mean the subdivi¬

sion of a village ; hence bhdncu sdlika may well contain the name of the larger

village or district.

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. 19

refer the Samvat to the Vikrama era. If this be granted, it must surely

follow that we may identify the king with Gangeya-deva, Kalacuri of

Cedi, likewise of lunar lineage, 1 who was thus reigning in A.D.

1019, or some 11 years before Alberuni 2 mentions him as ruling in

Dahala, in 1030. Gangeyadeva’s influence has not been hitherto

traced so far east as Tirhut ; but it is noteworthy that his son also,

Karnadeva, claimed influence in Gauda,3 still further east.

Nothing appears to be known of the rulers of Tirhut from this time to

the 14th century, when theThakur dynasty appeared. A full genealogical

table of this family was given by Dr. Grierson in Ind. Antiquary XIV»

p. 196, and this was supplemented by him with further notes in the same

journal in March J899 (XXVIII, p. 57). Our Catalogue gives (p. 63)

a date, L.S. 392, 4 for one of the later kings, Kamsanarayana, also called

Laksminatha, which is the more acceptable as I have elsewhere shown,5

that the native chronology for this dynasty is incorrect. In the same

year, Laksmana Samvat 392, was copied the MS. described at Cat., p. 122>

which gives a further confirmation of the succession of this dynasty,

calling it the S'rotriya (brahmanical) vamsa. At p. 65 we meet with

an interesting confirmation of the correctness of the details given in

Dr. Grierson’s table, as we there find a MS. by order of a non-reign¬

ing prince, viz., Gadadharadeva6 ( maharajadhiraj avara kumara) in L.S.

372 (A.D. 1490), a date which fits very well with that last mentioned.

If Ramasimha, the king of Mithila mentioned at p. 23 med,, be

the same as Ramabhadra, then the composition of S'rikara’s commentary

on the Amarakosa there described falls at the end of the 15th century.

The prince Indusena, or Indrasena, the author of the work described

at p. 265, would seem from his biruda Rupanarayana to have belonged

to this family.

I subjoin a short table of this dynasty (Table III).

Gorakhpur-C(h)amparan. In this region, that is, in the country

south of Nepal on both sides of the Gandak, there reigned during the

15th century a dynasty, hitherto not noticed by European writers, but

1 Ep. Ind. II. 9,11.

2 India (tr.) I. 202 ; Gangeya is also known from coins, some of them found as

far north as Gorakhpur ; Rapson, Indian Coins ( Grundriss , II 3B), p. 33; Y. A.

Smith, J. A. S. B., LXVI. i. 306.

3 Ind. Ant. XVIII. 217, moreover Karna’s son made one expedition to Campara*

pya. Ep. Ind. loc.cit.

4 392 current. The date works out, as Dr. Kielhorn kindly informs me, to

Wednesday 18th December, 1510.

6 J. R.A. S. 1898, p. 233. Dr. Eggeling, Cat. I. O., p 875, seems to accept it

somewhat too readily.

® Kumara Gadadhara Sirpha in that table.

20 C. Bendall — history of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No. i

apparently connected with that last mentioned. Several of the rulers

are mentioned in colophons of the present catalogue, and one of

these must be in all probability identified with the issue of a series

r ‘ .

of coins, unpublished as yet and also undated, but apparently belong¬

ing to this century.

The first sovereign mentioned is Prthvlsimhadeva in whose reign

in [Yikrama] Samvat 1492 (A.D. 1434-5) at Campalcaranyanagara was

copied MS. No. 1508 (v) at p. 61.

His successor was probably, as we shall presently see, S'aktisimha.

Of the next king, Madana or Madanasimhadeva, we have three

mentions in these MSS. At p. Sl.j-gwe find him mentioned as reigning

in Yikrama-Samvat 1511 (A.D. 1453-4) at Campakaranyanagara. His

epithets are interesting. The first, vipraraja , seems to point to his

belonging to the same srotriya va?nsa which reigned in (Eastern) Tirhut

and so does the biruda ending in narayana which all the members of that

dynasty assumed. The pandit is uncertain about the reading daity-

anarciyana, but I find from my own notes on the same MS. that 1 read the

compound thus. I should propose to interpret it like daityanisudana and

daityari (both epithets of Yisnu) by reference to the Yaisnava faith of

the king. This would accord well with the legend of a set of coins

first identified by Dr. Hoey with this same region and at present in the

British Museum. This legend is STOW and on the re¬

verse ’qttranw h The lettering of the coins may well belong

to the 15t.h century and I am glad to have the authority of my friend

Mr. Rapson, to whom I am indebted for my knowledge of the coins, that

. their general style and workmanship is referable to the same period.

At p. 29 (MS. 1001 «l) we find another MS. of the same reign

written at Goraksapura in L.S. 339 (1457 A.D.) It is interesting to

note that the' era used is that of Laksmana Sena, as it confirms the

accuracy of the Yikrama date, and also forms the first instance hitherto

noted of the employment of the era west of the Gandak, i.e., beyond

the limits of Bengal. Lastly, Madana appears -as a royal author giving

his name to the Madana-ratnapradipa (p. 223). This work is said in the

colophon to have been composed ( viracita ) by the ‘king Madanasimha¬

deva, who was the son of king S'aktisimha [see above], adorned with

many birucjas.1 At the beginning of the text, however, the work is only

said to be ‘ promulgated ( prahas'yate ) by Madana ’ and at the end we are

, told that he got the work done ( karita : — doubtless a common case

with Indian royal authors !) by one Yisvanatha living at ‘ Kasi-tirtha,1

<■ probably Benares. t

1 Does the prefix S'ri imply the abovementionccl town of Catnpakarariya, rather*

than the mere region so-called ?

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. 2l

w

m

◄

S

o

Q

O

^3

t-H

M

B

W

H

B

O

$5

o

l—l

GQ

i— (

b

W

H

O

, H

B

<3

b

■ b

£

B

o

- Tt

» s

. _ I

B

M

H 05

r 1"

§ CO

25

B

S

B

O

25

B

*H

a

o

B

W

Eh

a

o

03

B

03

B

O

03

B

-a.

B

O

05

o

25

M

0

<

r o

05

03

CO

05

fl

B

M

05

® r ^

5^1

•w H

° " O

05 -rJ “

bD fl 05

^ M if

o

a

05

A3

43

O „

j§ M

fl

O

<D »

bO®2

f© a

•pH ^

-ta A3

*8 0

- o

•" 43

3 *«

o

fl

0 05

a

fl

CO

©

-a

. -+3

O r-n

*-S f©

fl B.

O >4

05

5 '

05

>

w

.sS

co

.2 cw

> id

•H

^

-*3 O

M o

j: -u o a

* .2 «8 -9

_ B ^ rj; J

i§ T3 rtd ©

•rH i© - CO

. C fl

3« fl

8!S 2

©

fl

a.

©

is

4-®

* >

»C<3

S,F5 so

cs © -

> O

■© G

S ° „

> >“> ©

§ S'"

m

r*

-tP

c3

o

, >

w

1 p

fl

d

©

e

Os

•

f©

ir-6

' fl S

fl

© Q

A3 „

43

4j ••*

G

©

f©

©

u

•. *fH

£ B

>-. ©

a*-

e+4 B

C H

i*

— 1 43

CO CO

05 .«)

B20

g Fd

5-1 toe

CO

P-

©

o

G

fl

co

"aj

CO

o3

©

B

©

ot

k

.0 ©

* 0

©

■5 >3

fcj © ^

8

c3

t-

■ffi -C*

^ o

-4 - S3

t> 43 © Q4

^ B O

vj ■> ^ m C3

p> fl ©

Z C3 fl >>

» h d

••>»©©

CO pO ® Q

S . 05 S

O K'i M ij

• h» ?h Ph

I ^ * § I

<** - ) ~> -r^ (j

S fl 04 ® r2

H g ^ % fl

^.pO }L| ^ O

fl 43 a "g

P «0 .q

fl

o

©

•|H

fl

O

fl

'o

©

rfl

43

0

o

a

t43

©

>

• i—

t-

©

c©

©

fl

«3

CO

©

fl

bC

fl3

fl

CO

©

43

fl

Q

©

'V

fl o

^bjC'43

‘©

Ph

CO 44

©

fl -

fl m

Ss

CO

W

H

K

O

a

w

H

tH

co

H

Q

43

fl

©

’fl Q

•5^

zr

H

fl

©

i-fl

fl

a

_ _ O

fl 44

B o

P'5

©

CB

•r-l •

^ H©

fl ©

Xl ,f"

H-1 O

©

Q.

CO

rfl

44

o

(M

fl

©

fl

B

©

O

fl

©

*©

fl

o

q-i

i— i

fl

o

■©

eS

fl

H

©5

t-

00

fl

©

J3

O

-43

©

o

F© O

05 43

o a5-rg

"§g

2 'fl ^2

►

‘rfl 43

r-4 rj O

05 U fl

1—1 rr,

N fl a

fc.S

©

G

©

bD

©

fl

<©

■©

<

fl

•r-s

O

5

.O

0

fl

o

|.S

o o

bf-3

fl

t4

o

A3

rH

a>

• H

M

05

co

o

rH

A3

©

fl

a

A3

43

O

CO

*N

fl

S-fl .0 P

£ H -

o

0

O

o o o o

0 0 0 0

05 CO to I©

CO O 00 f— i to to

Tfl »-H CO

F©

©

0

fl

o

43

o

Sz;

03

fl

a

bp

'fl

A3

B

OO

<M

fl

43

• pH

a

O

\a

co

fl

t>

F©

B

X

©

05

to

£

'o

tn

fl

©

F©

fl

>

fl

A3

bC

ifl

R

- fl

fl >

P* ©

rH ^

H© 03

|

fl

(4

M

>

©

F©

fl

©1

fl

©

fl

>

©

F©

fl

>F> ft

'S 'O

F© .G

fl

(>»

fl

.rfl

fl

©

F©

fl

o

fl A3

fl

F©

fl

>

©

F©

fl

0

»c3 _

I H I r— I fu

0 0 £

£££

a a

©

>

©

F©

fl

0

ifl

i Communicated by letter. Dr. Kielhorn’s previous working (I. Ant. XVII. 252) of the date as a current year rested on a misprint

in the Nagari Text (not, however, in the Arabic numerals) of my Cambridge Cat., p. 172.

Dates with months

C. Bendall — History of 'Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms [ho. I,

d

ft

33

d

B

o

ft

bD

d

• pH

ft

©

ft

33

ft

M

co

o

To

c

o

S3

*

33

©

*3 ^

a) d

ft d

S

-4-3

cu d

w -

£°d

tn

-+3

03

05

d

O

•p3

>

©

(-1

ft

M

-1-3

a

p , ^ ^ cd

> ft* Fh d

O • d ft

^1“

“Ills

~ £ £ d cq

- O

t>4

5

a

• pH

d

F»

©

ft

d

M

to

CD

O

a

d

1-9

US

M

ps

ft

©

£

>?,

ft

d

ft

O

u

ft

o

Q

CO

©

ft

33

«W

O

©

■43

o

d

Es

o

a

ft

©

a

f~i

«d

d

o

©

05

•ph

©

33

d © ~

^ ft H

_ d

• pH

Pfl

H

— ™ - w

Fp-d i>

X M

X

«4H

©

S3

ft

©

a

m

g

o

CO

a

o

S3

643

05

>3 d

O 33

• rH

-H

o

<x>

• w

C 0)

SO

ft g"3

ft®^ ®

ft . ^

ft ® ^ d

CT'® d

2ft ® "1 M

bcdft*^^

O >50

C or:

cd

oi co*"5

^ CO p

(M M p

d ft © ro

ft J> 33 sS

eg CO d >

33 CO ft P

?H . -i ->

g ft ® d

3 _ft O

r$ iH H

pO!

^ 00 . O

-2 rH -ft CO

«

• “ *

ft

o

(«• , .

<1 -

^ f-l

©

gf

£ o

a ft

® • o c

S^.g *

a d h ^

• p | — i

ftS °

o

m

r3P,r_!

ft icg

°d

* n

x

ft .

1 d

eg •

m-cq

©

-g CO

33

d

o

ft

§ ft o 1 ^ ft

©

43

- d

.2 ft T3

ft '

t-j F^ j?-

^ eg 3

^ d

«43

r-H

©

05

P.

a

S3

O ft

£.2

33 Pi

O O

d o

o

• pH _4 • r-i

-4^ rM

d ±e ft _d*

33 O © ’■“

ftj -+J ^

Q- ©

^ d a ft

-2ft o-c

d*C 05 ®

* pH r • H

ft

©

o

ft

eg

ft

©

33

O

d

cr*

©

33

eg

ft

643

o

bo

d

• pH

O

o

o>-'

• PH

O

ft

CO

(M

ft

©

ft

eg

«4H

©

a

eg

d •

■r3 Cd

US

A

co

05 — v

>3 00

eg 33 Q5

©do

P. o ft

ft _L

,,iS

^ o

A-

*7

CO

ci

p.

oT

>

o

ft

eg

©

CO

. ft

O <M

a-g^

ft W

. ~ eg

t> — -O

(M rH

ft

O

d

ft*

d*

leg

a oi

-d o

ft o

ft ^

1—

05

1-3

(M

•

ft

<1

ft

a

eg

O

eg

H’

(M

O

«43

33

P3

» 8

ft S

qS

f>4

eg

a

>

v/j

33

d

©

S3

d

©

eg

ft

be

leg

O

CO 00

: £

bo

t>a

ft co

00 oo

eg

ft

ft*

icg

03*

'<1

cT

oo

P4

X

©

bD

i— *

leg

ft

P3

05

>

leg

S3

KD

•N

33

d

©

S3

d

©

00

05

eg

ft

eg

S3

be :

ft I ^

©ft *2

d S3

PiC0«O

® o ^ •

d 5 d

'H O d

rft eo §

>sS o

0Q

CO o

33

eo

(M

CO

05

- Y -

eg

>4

eg

>>

eg

ft

eg

>

©

ft

d eg

*2 >

to o

M Prt

.s3

ft eg

PQ pq

eg

>

©

ft

eg

a

teg

ft

I

<£

d

a

d

>%

ft

eg

S3

q

eg

d

•r->

Sh

»o3

bD

&

eg

►

©

ft

eg

S3

eg

ft

•d

eg

CO

*

1903] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms, 23

id

• r—

ffl

o

d

> J d

hC-^ Hs

c8 .S'—

rd Vl „

« dOO

0,00

h

§ W

2^

htno

Vi

ffl

t>>ffl

~ o

43

o

V 2 o

£.2£

c °

* 6

©

-4J

-4-3

•rH

s

o

. d*

ffl rp

d'g

+3 „

ffl

43

v>

d

hO

d

•i-i

o

be

0)

V

o

=4-1

ffl

-+3

ffl

02

©

d

n3 C

02 d

I-

3 I

£C O,

VO

-P

d

ffl

d

43

n3

ffl

43

d

©

g

ffl

r-H

o, ffl

O, ffl

p CB

02

• m

d£

o ©

d q3

• rH

he |

c P •

•rl N.

H3 *+H

* be.£

•2 §

43 O

o d —

«s -*=» .

S d ©

ffl

v

Cl

rH

J>

-4-3 X>

_ a so

o o-

"35

d .

-■ o

o g

00

Cl

05

<d

ffl

o

no

d

co

CO

n3

no

<1

ffl

g

d

O

v

d :

O '

*“5 .

v« rH

p 00 Cl

O • d

*C >>43*

c J d

§ co

tP ce

o vo

iH >•

g ^

S «

d .

cc a-

• „ o

.03 tH

'v „

d --

Ah !>

O

00

co

oo

Cl

43

d

o

05

or ci

. no

v ro

O <1

d* d

a g

d d

O O

PQ

43

d

©

CO

m

a

no

H

£ffl*

.§ g

6b d

O

co

05

CD

n3

03

<1

d’

s

d

D

U1 '

p4 o?

d

_ p

d

o

*o

d

o

ffl

to

bC

n3

O

M

vo

CO

AU

43

d

O

CO

i>-

co

d

>

ffl

n3

d

v

np

d

>

ffl

n3

d

id

d

rd ^

d- id

•S rT

- 02 .

d d ffl

> VI Q3

ffl 03 ^

nr

g d

nr ^

d ro •

S ffl Vi

55

K 3

d

>

©

nO

d

no

d

'<

d d

>• ►

® ©

no no

d d

I a

Ah h

ffl

I— I 43

rd d

d no

ffl

o © .

d rd VI

PH43Q

ffl

- rH

W

©

J3

£

o

V«0

s

e

ns

'<3

•4

ns

43

d

X

43

-5 s

v d

V

03

ffl

V

be

ffl

43

d

•rH

ffl

fc

v

©

>

®

&

c

43

'd

03

ffl

V

ffl

m

d

v

d

co

d

no s

d -4

ffl CO

-5 .

d r-H

vh O

v-

-M

d

43

ffl

rd

43

05

g*

CO

03

rH “

g •"

O bO

r? <0

d rd

24 C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms . [No. 1,

O

o

‘V

utS

•i-*

©

O

43

©

-1-3

©

w

©

o

d r

«t- a

© «

co

as

C“

z

o

td

H

cfi

w

H

43

©

J? •

"5 P

■> j

’3^

cr1

P

3

o o

X _

tie

80

>

£

3

GO

Cd ®

'S P

• d -+a

bC

.y oo

©

ed

54

43

O.

5h

O 3

^ r

CO JD

3

U

43

rH

3

©

o

■+3

OQ

<5

P

-p £

_, 3 icd

g M

g 'g 43

£ _J§ 3

43 .

*S Cb

d 00

C Tj<

CO

be- 1

c

•s 73

® *5!

P (<3

©

43

cd

nO

3

P

DO .

© ©

h a

Cd -r4 .

bo^ ®

CO g-3

nO g 43

§ “ *

©

® hO

TO S*43

Si ico

g t>5 ®

j^a s

©

CO »d

o

os

be

a

co

3 .0

pj*

a

o

54

**4

bD

a

• r-»

o

cd

54

•43

*►»

P

TO

©

cd

• r*t

f-t

©

>

43

3

O

«*-i

o

be

3

• r^

TO

3

©

P

43

d

o

54

o

£

43

o

d

03

©

o

TO

43

TO

©

13

d

o

43

©

-43

©.

©

CO

• o

«g CO

<N

t>> .

9 co

£ GO

PS

-43

GO

£-p

r§ Cd

OQ

54

d

JO

e?tJ

di-,-

^ d

ED 5-i

3 O

H P

- r— H

©

M

GO

^P

o

a

P

,b d

|P •~

3 ©

O -43

o 2

S3 d

P

® CQ

43 ft

°B %~<6

►>3 2

Sx«

•SO ^

* £-

a = 'B

4 d ^

cc co —

OS d

05

TP

OS

3

P

©

e*-c

O

-13

54

3

P

d

©

p

43

o

<—»

O

c3

•l — 9

• eS

C 43

•£J o

• *»-4

w C« >

«.*3

ISg

'ti.i d

b !>>P 3

g © ^

0,-43 ©

O O J4

a >> O .

OgCO

©

J2

TO

©

43

O

d

0 o -

w >-.cd-r-

bC « TO > ffl

3 3 «2 X 04v

d o d j 2

3 -g -c Tl

® P H M ©

Ph - P

3

Jd

43

d

o

a

-4P

o

X

-4P

• i-i

* .

'“'4ft

43 00

p ^

3

o

O

43

•r4

TO

d

3

P

CO »CQ

P 3

44

DQ d

43

5h

O

a,

&4

3

P

• -y -

C

©

43

• r-i

u

*

-4P

o

d

• rH

-iP

m

^5

G'

•

-4P

c3

rd

©

a

o

OQ

©

43

3

P

' d •

g -5 -a

s w

d TO

©

b t?

43

d

o

— p o

O ^3 3 43

ft

O CO

a

CO

4?~

d

2 •

a **

'h ©

■ o

<N

: to

• ©

a

— . 3

-y cb d

a 43

2 <M O

^ 3 ^ ^

§|

«W 44-

CO

M .

^-2 §

•2 • d

^h3

H

O 0

W K0

JO

54

-O

CO

l>

44

3

o

d

©

DO

d

S

54

P

. 43

O' 3

!z;o

05

(M

a 5;

p

4ft

U5

o’

ft

IO

~T

CO

• • TO

: • : to

CO . ^

J 1-4 CO to

43 i-4 X 05

3 - - .

O p. d P-i

►“-1 i3 43 43 S

d 3 3 3 3

s O O Q O

00

CO

5-1

i-4

IO

£

P

43* a

- cd

0 P S’

1-^. 13

e, m

co

p

-4P

3

O

54

©

^ 3

CO P

X ®

^ ft

d

t>>

d

.• 3

bt'Hs

,«*4

3

54

43

• r 4

3

o

CO

o

CO

3

d

JSC

Kd

J5

P

!>.

O

CO

3

>

©

TO

3

d

43

3

P

3

>

©

TO

3

54

3

t>

«

TO

3

a

13

MM

© 3

a «•

c 3

.co O

3

t>

©

TO

3

a

13

rX

I rl

a

ai‘

p

3

. ►

©

TO

3

a

i3

c5

c3

ct

'w'

>

©

c5

75

a

• rX

{-I

o3

iG

V(/2

c5

£•

C3

Sh

O

p

X

CO

10

o

43

3

O

>»

a

d

3

t— 5

x

4fl

<M

©

P

■

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms , 25

hT ©

o CD > 4J

^ W no

rrj O u

- P ^2 _n0

^ ^ Q) ,

id s • rH

s ^ A

e gaw 8

CC v— ^

<1

©

P

m

©

no

CO

_, HO

-*e 2 "© co

O «H 00

C 03 1-1 CD

_ -S P rj ft

ip JS P ~

”• 73 CC fa ^

P H 05

g H P P £

O P -4-3

is Pn 3i> r

O bC^ CO

l^ifd

-—nO ft nO ft

. ^

“ft MCE g

« CO

fi s

s- te

o z

’■*■* &►>

P

•~n0

be ■

9 P

o ®

Sh ©

is

©

9

©

P

£

173 _C

.2 5

ft •+=

o P

O P

-to

S 02

00 I -t

53 o

„Q Pi

9 g

o

^p

no 8

p p

P l-S

cc -

GG . ,

o W

ft-— -

8.

• rH

„= 10

K 1C

£ CM

P

t«. .

p p

p t3

9 i>

nO ©

9 S

P P

be1-5

q ^

2 £

£ nO

-W P

9 °

© S

©

P

-to

©

01

P

Pi

-to

P

in-

P

© ^

P ©

-tO +3

o

©

-to

- C

S P

©

£

©

OQ

O

CO

<M

nO

p

CM

m

CB

£

P

0Q

P

t>

2

2 © rP

P *n* -to

3 9 ©

Ph p ©

m

CC ©

O S

P P

„ 02

©

u

p ©

<5^

„ p

fcn. -

P 03

nO .

w

©

P ©

rCJ ©

© «

£

P

P ^

6

. £

S .

P 43

its* g

M

P

©

>

©

eB

P

• rH

®P

Ah'S

-to- o

OQ

c3

CO

CM

O

«w

bo^

ce 50

,p go

m ^

r-H

o ce

P

fc3

>

. -P>

2 *

o •

a o

o

CM

?S

p

no

P

icB

O

-P

o®5

2SM

r

CO

-to

c8

O

bf

-to

cB

U

bC

0 'H rj!

• ■-I -to Ji,

ci © -

£ * *

CM

IP

CM

©

P

»C

*o

<M

t-

1P

CM

to

P

<1

©

CM

©

t'*

CM

©

CC

CM

P

c3

u

nO

icB

A

n

t-~

CO

cB

J-i

-to

• i-t

c8

o

©

p

©

oo

co

eS

P

be.

'ci

-P

Ah

03

©

CO

c3

>

©

no

"ci

a

CB

JP

I rH

03

<B

rP

icB

'Oi

83

>.

i<>3

n-t

-- v —

JB

a

etf

d

c « ©

t> OQ

^ cB

p

•1-1 rP

no A<

p be

p p

• rH

P o

o ct-t

©

rP

eo -to

a

p

>

©

nO

cS

-to

ft-

a

rH O

£ 13

P ^

©

io »

CM 05

ho e(-1

1 O •

-to

OQ «H

U »-l

P

©

^ P*

P 83

rr. «•

bc^

Sh P

W P

\y rP

» $

•f^ IC3

fa

• rH *H

Wg

OQ

P

©

«+o p

o 1-3 ■+3

— OQ

O rQ

© P

O

P

©

-to

P

no

nO

©

P

>>

P

©

no

Sh

O

©

Sh

P

nO

OQ

P

Sh

P

>

vn

©

CM

' P

• rH

P

Sh

O

P

nO

P

p

P

a£

- p

©

p

•*- eR

p^

p

o

OQ

«to

O

P

o

OQ

©

P

P ■**

be ®

O h*.

Sh P

-to

©

Sh

P

©

P

£

P

jap

’p

P

Ph

OQ 2

Sh

P

© -

t»» oB

HS ©

§ ^no

p ra .2

© P

& m

be 40

• r-» H

2 ft

r CO

CM

P

-to

Sh

©

P

-to

P

-to

•rH

£

P

+3

0 rH

* 2

43 ©

P rP

-o CC

O ^

p £

. p

H

• l-H

o1^

©

t>

co

+

nfl

CM

©

• rH

no

nO

P

p

^ §

p ”

•“S r - v

CtH 2

4H <X>

O HJ

_ P

P nO

o ,

OQ Sh

©

r P

J! -§

nO

©

P .. .

be SH

©

Sh

P ©

a p

i rH -P

^ rH

<1 ^

©

P

be

• r*

©

Sh

OQ

• r*

P

• rH

-P

P

40

no

CB

©

Sh

©

P

40

P

O

a

p'o

> nH

-to nO Sh

,pH P P

-H- ©

CO *"0 t>-.

03 P

CM S CM

^ _CO

CO

IO

P 40

o

fc -2

p

5-s

© t

no t>o

©

no

P

p

o

Sh

bo

ep

©

40

|P

ft

r©

CD

CM

40

P

Sh

O

ft

OQ

©

no

•rH

P

©

40

P

©

Sh

P

Ph

ft

P

OQ

P

©

M

p

p CM 40

43 ” ‘p

P P so

rd O j 3

O

02 -dr/

rt W GQ

S t> 8 QQ

-ftj 0

pp

•-.a,

— 1 ip

ft

£

Cto

O

P £

P t

ip bo

p

43

©

Sh 9

O

OQ

©

P

-to

O

P

©

Si

•c3

-rb

^P

P

•2 ft

ft 2

t-a A*

©

P -

o 00

OQ IO

•£ cc

ft rH

a g

•l-H &

P

> CO

© p

n3 ^

p

jlpno

5 c3

nO cb

ip

P4 §

1-3 g

I rH

^-hP

5-S

.2 £

p jg

O ^

^ O

0 p

o

©

p ©

40 ^

40

9

•rH a}

p

Sh „

O -

«4H r©

IO

r- CC

P

P eo

OQ

a

J. 1. 4

26 C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms

. [No. 1,

§

>

• r-H

6D

-43

O

e8

T3

i

44

©

£

©

>3

%

• «

05

©

G

Eh

o

l©

o

£

-43

Q «4H

Q o

DQ

c g

£

co

o

I«s

oo.

©

G

cc

©

r©

^ ©

m

44

s pH

o

£

©

-4J

'£ T3

c8 <5

13

*"“D

W

GO

rH

CO

o

eg

S4H

o

©

-43

eg

p

oS

flH3

eg

co

eg

.S

oo -©

w -43

- * CO

[>> © Gr-I

5 ^

.2 © ©

6 GO'©

o o , X

eg

£

--h

Eh

ICS

>3

eg

l“i

<4-1

O

©

o

•-«

-43

a

o

Eh

O

- 0 r©

" ~'Sg5

» 0>

-g 4©

a-0

£

o

P“*H

©

r©

©

O

fl

©

CO

o

43 V

© h

.5°-

t3

o

-43

©

m

©

© r

•g S

W

no

W

E-

O

s

■ ©

H

i— I

£

GO

E£

' H

P

-43

©

© .

'eg Q

> j.

©^

cr

H

©

r©

£

eg -s

Eh r©

-H o

Sr ©

® ©

Jz?

©

02

•pH •

fe <-©

£ ©

— 1 • rH

©

G

02

£'J

o

a

o

<N

CO

C9

l>

6

a

ID

CO

-43

§ :

o ©

11

oo

©

pv

CD

■ CO

.2

G

IT©

4$ w g

o H

>

©

Eh

„ -u

fcC ©

© O

05

CO

Hi

Eh

o

£4.

O H»

H CO

H (M

O •

£ ^

-w G

o.5s

m M

e rO

o

C4 t?

O -

*4h

r - 1 -■ J

t>!>

T3

<

Ol

Tf

CO

02

©

-+3

o

c

rQ

E

cS

O

CO

o

CO

co

>

• >>

g a

c3 ©

O ©

rO

!>.

CM

e

co

>

e3

ra-

»•

co"

o

tP

e3

r©

-54

ICS

v»

•rH

c3

t>

io"

O

H»

c8

Eh

-43

• rH

C3

o

co

O

TP

-43

c3

r©

a

Cg

CO

Eh

O

Qo"

<■©

G

X

©

ce

r©

jh3

ic<3

r tn-

^■<1

rn

eg

-54

icg

ya

•pH

c3

t>

(M

CM

Hi

eg

©•

eg

>

icg

Eh

-54

eg ©

p

Ml

r»©

icg

„ -C

P

bx oo

co

Hi H

03

eg

P2

eg

Eh

-43

‘5

o

f

-Cg

i— i

eg

a

eg

-43

c

eg

C

HJ

ns

<a

S

s

• CH

-43

s

o

w

eg

>

©

<T3

eg

T!

©

«S

©

leg

>3

eg

'eg

§ H3

2 a

-5 ©

©

Eh

eg

t*H

eg

-43

©

&c

©

Eh

■

O

<o

eg

rH

a

•rH

»ct5

>>

OQ

00

G43 ©

60 P

C4H a g

° eg 2

I — I p

o3o ®

5© ®

t* 02 o

1903.] C. Benda 11— History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. 27

©

© a

p 3

p a

13

co

CD

O

o

<

oo Ph

©

bJD'S'

cd ^

© ©

p O

s

o

(3

0^

P <M

r© .03

SjS

©

fH

0 .

03 .S

o

• ®

O p

ID P

<M C

„0

• rA 43

• C3

^.S

3 33

n>

co .2,

<•§

*"» W

© a

® .2

w

S5*

. pd

be §

■Ss

§ -

P

o

®

©

®

a

Si

p

a

©•

■*= i

03

O ®34

^ o ^

£ a a

S'

o

-*3

>>co

0 ®

a ,,H

© 0

nd ®

c6 «a

CO

p

-§*

IP Jl

p ©

1 a >

£» ®

CO -*3 w-

:e» a <m

i>Q

J_3 •

o tri

Ow

nd

P

eo

P

®

p

EX

pi

©

p

EX

a*

vn

©

nd

d

EX

o

-pi

• rH

w

cT

o

©

rH

©

p

©

Qi

oo

►2«

ci H

EX

© •

>5

C [5-h

o

68 N

3D -

►»

nd cS

© ^

p -p

a pi

nd Eh

CO.

GO

CD

• rH

P

a

PP

©

-p

cO

P

0P

©

(M

00 -

O

pi¬

ca

p

0

ica

33

m

ip

05

jbO

icS

33

Ph

x>T

05

(M

c3

3J

ca

So

e8

>

©

T3

c3

id)

P

c8

P-»

(S

l“»

CO

a

0

CS

(3

0

•r— »

?h

«c<5

<35

03

-fc

o

33

31

o

IX

tH

H

03

«!

Q

w

0

©

£

o

I— I

ca

©

>

ca

33

C

®

©

33

-P

c8

>

©

0

43

la

0

a

33

0-

5

ca

ca 0

-p to

ca

Hd

-p

ca

©

>

* rH

Id

02

fl

£

ca

-p

ca

33

lOO

14 »

0 co

©

|.s

EX

3*%

P

• p

nd

'ca

[p.

ca

Pa

P

•p

©

be

P

0 CO

CP |>

©

33 1

H'g

ca

S p

P c3

P-IX3-

ica

~ti ®9

0 rrT

D. ca $ *> M

ca

©

33

P

©

no

©

§

s.s3

m

ic^

u

m

o3

ce

0

J r- 1

33

32

ca

Ps

00

C

ca

tS

©

P o

cL

^.S

"■S

©

0

^ c8

p

. 0

>-> ca

p d

C> <1

2 &

©

00

p

o

=p

0

o

<0

DO c3

ea -p

p ©

5 Pi

5 &.

p

© ©

0 31

tJD &C

c 0 P

p ^ M

3<J

©

>

ca

33

nd

•3k ©

'q'hO

P *p

cs >■

I*

e3

©

C3 rg

C3

35

0

§ ©

p

O

0

00

ca

'sT

CO

(M

©

ep

O

rH

'd

0^

0 ©

2 W p

0

O eo

QQ

.0

c3

0

c3

p

3

ca

0

p

S3

33

p

co

ca

W CP

^3

ca

o

p

©

>

o

©

p

o

a

ep

©

^0

©

3d

* fH

r— H

3

ca

00

0

©

00

ca

o

>

S3

O

-r-i . p-,

•p

p ca

ica ca

^ §

0U

©

33

p

c3

O

P

ca

0 1

ca cc

bn ©

rO ca ^

. p Is

§*►..5

a 4 •«

p

hbco

.g Ji

©

3d

a

o

• rH

00

0Q

<D

Ph 31 -5

M ©

-4-3

fl

O

0

o

p

a

o

If

o C3

So

ca g

0 ~

rr p-i

P o

C

©

33

p

a>

P

©

33

o

ca

©

33

Eh

►o

lO

SI

eo”

'ca

?n

P

'*3

PS

3©

IrO

s*

cs

PS

ca

p

CT>

*g

ca

v>

. a

a h_

&&

2 g

bCH©

a ca

•rH rH

* a

bC

a

• rH

Td

p

o

<1

05

33

a

M

a

o

a

p „

ca 34

00 © § •

bp.'S e°9

B p g o

^ 0 -£ co

oS

c5

35

00

<M

ep

a

o

• rH

-4-3

S * 5

a ©

Jh

a 2

-'•2

C

0

T3

a

DO

v»

T3

p

o

£

©

‘3d

,p

o

p

oo

33

p

a

o

0

•p* a

©

!•» J> O

a

©

bfiTJ

0

Q

◄

p

o

lO

©

l>

•rH

'cS

OT

c3

£

a

§

►.to 2 “> ® •£?

ca p

~ ica

ep

O

©

a

p

D-

a

p

a

a :: oo

33

o

p

cx

a

©

0

©

a

o

p

•* a

a

g © ca

32 ^ M

02“ p a

i“W|«S °

| a rt p

Cl to 33

oo O * a .

- - J*S

^ ©l-'0^

•+3 O 1° ffi

CD

P

0 CO

©

ep

O O

ro

O

©

P

O

o

©

32

©

34

a w

S'0!

33 33

P

©

O.P

^ a

• *N

•p

co

d

O

©

p

o

Ih

p

a

©

0

©

p

a

p

©

15 3

1=1 -s

p a

a

Pl ©

P- ^

a a

p

a

o

©

33

p

©

a

ep

o

©

p

a

©

33

p

a

©

p

p- 0

cx _

p a

a .p

i33

©

_ «ra*

tw c '2 ? a uo

a a ^3

2 p a

0 its 32

a a

o P4

p

1 a

1 ©

©

r-H

"O

a

• rH

rM

CQ

cd

p -4^

88 a

©

0

a

ia

t>»

a

C-3

P

a

33

p

o

OT

•*>

a

'a

p

©

o

©

• rH

10

n

s

a>

CS

co.

In

P

nS

a

3d

p

a

©

Td

©

p

cs

©

(3 33 CS

©

33

p

P

O

ep

® N SS'

35 ' — - oo.

-P , ^ P.

►44 "

a

o

• p

1 p

© a

£p©

a p

a

©

a

a '-1

a ©

g 33

CjjP

a

33

bo

ia

a

bp a

>> ©

a 5

p o

a ©

O p

a

- O

a

p

o .

(*re*i s

O

SO H3

a

©

33

re

a

o

©

>

o

p

w

0

©

o

33

*

0 **8

e3 p

18 3

2 ^

0 "a

x* ®

©

p

a

p

©

35

Eh

©

0

«P

O

p

a

•rd

©

0

a

©

35

p

©

>

S ^ a .£, g .0

p 0h *

g

rO

0.0 1°

-p *> T3

P O CO

£ S

o

a

1©

r-H

o

a

o

K- 2

p 3-

bC ©

a a

^ 0

0 «

rfl

rO 05

*cd

CO

0 ^

CD ©

cd ^

o

ep33

a

33

p

©

o

a

O O

a g -2 ^

B co eo a ®

§ t> g 0

® ^ M p

p O oo S

p p .p a

28 C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No.

o

©

3 ^

be O

P3

a

©

-p

•rH

u

£

co

3

©

-P

32

a

3

O

a

02

©

02

3

*

3

.2 4

~p

ft

■a 'o

© ©

00 yd

n *rH

p

©

>•

O

02

re8

©

'i

eg

©

P r» • _

3 -p 4 ~ ci

bC 3 00 C'-irfl

«a - 2 w

S 25

t-3 Tp P

. gs

_ ftl-o

3 ci,^

a •« rnd

C5 bC-p c

£ -£ 3

be 2 o

Orfl"

PO

TO

3

©

p

©

-p

S3

• rH

3

41

'©•

|3

M-

'<

u

o

ep

-P

S

©

S3

O

p

4

O

2 -P

p ^

3 -

° ta

1-3

*4H

O

CO

CD

r-H

rQ

3

H

©

33

-p

>■>

32

-p

o

©

Pi

P

O

3

02

3

(D yj

o O ^ M

fllT „P3

tJ ®

H ©

3

GQ

bO

3

•rH

©

3

p

-p

a .

©

r—H

02 32

3 •rH.

bO

^ ©

•W ^

3d

-p

Td 3

3 O

2 a

o

„ 02

33 £

-P O

r3

3 no

kO

kD

GO

00

rH

P

.2

GO

H

P3

*-i

©

-p

O

3

*3

3

ci

k©'

©

'©

• rH

43

ci

©

33

-p

©

02

-p

ci

O

ci

O

©

02

3

o

r3

ft

ro

©

n3

©

3d

©

a 1

© ■

p

*-

rP

<N

>

M

3d

©

yd

• rH

P

©

>

CO

3

ci

H-3

Hjl

CC

00

-p

o

rQ

00

©

-p

o

3

£

O

>>

a

>>05

32 Oi

00

CD

05

00

3d

00

GQ

◄

P5

. 4

Pdk©

0 1

yd ro

p 3

® 3

>

©

CO

02 .

no ©

3

© 2

> ^

o .

-p o

® ©

© w

3 r

& GO

«p 5j

Ph

be

3

• p

02

CO

ci

o

1>

oo

sft

-p

3

o

3d

> — ’

p .

^ ^ <3

be ^ ^

•S 32

3 O »

P 3

EH O

CO CD

00 CD

<M pH

3

o

• rH

Pd

p

o

02

3

w

EH

S5

O

a

Eh

hH

02

H

Eh

H)

Q

-p

3

© .

3 P

> pH

■S^

cr

H

3

O rH

O) <M

^ Hf(

CO

fH

H

05

H

a

!*

P

K

-2

'ei

a

-3

-p

02

CO

K

3-

3

a

>3

P

3

Hd

a-

• rH

00

3

fr>

3

^ :

3

i-3 02

, 3

«4H O

O W

. ©

© 2

a ^

60 02

1h * r-H

4-3

•1-4

fl -g

•rH 09

o

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms.

29:

©

,p

p

o

m

©

-p

o

p

t>»

a

o

Vi

tj

Cu

PU

P

09

S a

, ©

3* m

©

&D Vi

S3 Ph

• rH

-P „

O ©

Vi 43

§ O

CL 00

Is

03 •«

r-l 0

• 3

P- cS

rH

-P

«3 fO

°§

v

43 ,

a v A

* ® „

■ U ** •-*

CO

co

©

CO

-p

o 43

CO

Cd

-p

cS

o

: o

©

03 ^

s S

3

-i ^

N N

©

3

cS

Eh

-p

M

©

P

©

09

a

o

<n

£Xi

p

• r-«

44

©

<r3

fc>

©

43

-P

Vi

o

f=)

v«

ctf

a?

•c3

©

to

CO

c3

44

oJ

to

00

©

-p

cS

TJ

Vi

rP ®

-P 03

O to

Vl^

p ^

o

to

CS

43

■P-

«3-

©

►*

F“-l Tfl

03 03

to to

<*

Vi

-P

’§

o

rO

to

co

t>

CO

03

CO

6

P

Vi

O

m

cS

a

oS

•j.

44

*3

4

I — 1

30 0. BeridaU^—H^'^ry of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms. [No, 1,

0

0^

ftCO

.

0 Cl

ft

£

‘A

H

55

£»

<1

II

«4H

Q

<D

3

M

3

«

Eh

» ce

w ®:

H ®

H- 1

*-H l-S

Cl

JO

& rt

. ° -5h

ct> to

55 9

55 ft

55 to

t_j • ra-s

O g

H

ft

cS

O r~*

* 'd-

co S

Cl c3

■ft 05*

rH X!

0

ra

ft

0

03

5H

©

0

nO

0

&

X

~0

M

ft

<

ft

H

525

ft

o

a

o

Q

O

55

t-H

M

o

w

ft

0

kH

01

0

OS

t

1>.

o

ft

*e

-ra

0

O

0

o

10

50

-ra

0

XI

CQ

a>

0

X ft

pq

nf Os’

^0

r— «

ctf

ITS

M

c8

0-

0

0 .

« •<! i2

«B . JS

0

>“s

t>

©

ra

03

<— H

a5

X

-ra

|0

525

©

era

^0

’cS

0

O

03

0

P3

0

S

<1

as

ra

i3

02

P

os

fl¬

ee

>

ice

ra

to

tr¬

io

02

5Z5

10

CO

S-.

o

X

3

0

O

0

5h

nO

0

©

ra

ee

»o

>0

p

<5

I

o

0

o

ra

X

o

CO

rH

CO

02

*

'eS

S$

- >>’“l

10

« Ph

‘T’S

^ 0

r“5 • rH

co S

• 0

«3 ra

OS 60

ft

0

fH

’eS

0

03

t>

0

X

CQ

CO

© •

0 P«

© .

60 -g

as ra

ra o

-ra -

0 0

• ra X

o rfl

• r — 3 -ra

'w^ -ra

ra u

0 104

02 M

0 W

0 ft

7 X

0 CO

0- .

>0 CQ

ra

0

c-

0

>

10

ra

to

co~

oo

CO

02

a

©

a

0

in

0

ra

0

©

X

a

0

l>»

0

•“9

CO

IO

©

0

i

©

l-S

©

X

0

EH

©

03

CD

OS

CO

03

55

0

• ra

Vfi

10

T3

0

02

CD

t

»©

no

co

50

0

• rH

X

©

'o

m

'

0

©

X

0

H

V,

©

S

0

o

T3

5

ra

o

TO

C

0

>

©

TJ

0

>

• ra

to

o

CO

ft Jz5 X x

no

0

a

0

-ra

CO

•

IN

l©

0

nO

10

ft

0

ra

nO

0

X,

ft

'F

CO

03

K

0

a

0

c-

10

ra

ft

0

6

0

>

V/l

ft

©

w

as

’0

a

0

>

0

X

•rH

Sh

E-t

ra

o

°0

>>

• r^

0

ra

H

CO

I

wi

00

no

t-

K3

0

ra

0

X

no

©

*

o

a

o

CO

5fl

0

m

• r-»

X

-ra

era

O

0

o

- 0 •£

M .ra

n-l rQ

X

0

03

55 o

S 10

c-1 VO

ft^

ft «8

X

r 0

0^0

o

©

03

CO

ra

o

DO

P3

c3

f—H

a

ra

• H

-IX

o

>9

• F— 5

•t — S

0

60

0

CO

co

CD

co

-ra

0

o

©

6fi

no

’ra.

X

a

0

o

no

0

,©

X

0

EH

a

ft

©

5«

©

0

ra

0-

£

©

00

<n

0'

•

o

a

o

ra

era

m

©

-ra

0

nO

-T •*

0

ft

©

S5

05

60

0

•rH

M

6D

0

a

©

ra

©

X

-ra

ra

o

ft

1903.] C. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms.

31

TABLE III.

Reigning Kings of Tirhut, Eastern and Western.

EASTERN TIRHUT.

Compiled from Vardhamana’s Gangdkrtyaviveka ( Br . Mus. ; Or. 3567a),

called ‘ G’ below , and Vacaspati’s Mahaddna-nirnaya (‘ M.’ ; Cat.,

p. 122.)

1 . Kamesa G.

[2. Bhogesvara elder son of 1. Mentioned in vernacular records

only.]

3. Bhavesa M, [younger] son of 1. G.

4. (l * 3 *) Harasimhadeva, son of 3, M.G.

5. Narasimha (M), Nrsimha (G) called Darpanarayana, son of 4

(M.G).

6. (8) Bbairavendra M. Bhairavasimha called Harinarayana G.

This reign commenced not later than A.D. 1496, when the MS. G»

was copied.

7. Ramabhadra G called Rupanarayana G.

8. Laksminatha called Kamsanarayana, reigning in December

1510. (Cat., p. 63, date verified by Dr. Kielhorn.)

Dynasty of Gorakhpur-Camparan (Western Tirhdt).

1. Prthvi-simhadeva, A.D. 1434-35.

2. S'aktisimha.

1453-54.

1457-58.

r ;

3. Madana (Simhadeva)-<

1 According to several works of Vidyapati, cited by Eggeling, Cat. J. O.,

p. 875-6 (see also Grierson, Tnd. Ant., Mar. 1899, p. 57.) Bhavesa was suc¬

ceeded by his elder son, Devasimha, and he by his son, S'ivasiipha. It is

significant that not only Vardhamana and Vacaspati pass over these kings

in silence, but Yidyapati himself does so in Narasirpha’s reign (Raj. Mitra

Notices vi. 68). They were perhaps not generally acknowledged.

3 Yidyapati (Eggeling 1. c.) and the Chronicle admit the previous reign of an

elder brother, Dhirasiipha, called Hrdayanarayana.

32

0. Bendall — History of Nepal and surrounding Kingdoms . [No. 1,

TABLE IV.

An unknown dynasty (Cat., pp. 153-54).

( From the Acaradlpaha of Gahgavisnu.)

Mukunda.

!

Bhrngi.

I

Hambira. King of Trisrfsgadesa.

I

Pratapa.

I

Damodara called Digvijaya.

I

Kamarajadatta.

I

Trivikrama (patron of the book).

3903.]

W. Irvine— The Later Mug&als.

33

o

The Later Mughals (1707-1803). — By William Irvine, Bengal Civil

' Service . (Retired). - , ;

* *" . r , ® *- .y - * r> T» !t

In continuation of the articles in Part I of the Journal, for 1896,

Vol. LXV, pp. 136-212, and 1898, Vol. LXVII, pp. 141-66. . , ,

• '• _ ' r- - ' — <- (T *

Table of Contents.

. Chapter IV. — Farrukhsiyar (continued). . »

Section 12. The state of parties at Court. f - f v

,, 13. Severities inflicted at the instigation of Mir Jumlah

' ' (March 1713— April 1714). ' { r \-

,, 14. ' First quarrel with the Sayyads (April 1713).°

„ 15. Campaign against, Rajah Ajib Singh, Rahtor (Nov.

1713— July 1714). ; ,

,, 16. Renewal of quarrel with the Sayyads (September-

December 1714). > ; ^ - . 5

„ 17. Fairukhsiyar’s marriage to Ajlt Singh’s daughter

(May-December 1715). - , i

„ 18. Fight between the retainers of Muhammad Amin

Khan and Khan Dauran (April 21st, 1716).

Section 12. The State op Parties at Court.

■ _ * , j

The names, Mughal, Turani, and Irani, appear so frequently in our

narrative, and so much turns upon the relation to each other of the

various groups into which the army and officials were divided, that a

few words of explanation will be necessary for a clear understanding

of what follows. Ever since the Mahomedan cohquest of India, adven¬

turers from the countries to the west and north-west flocked into it as to

a Promised Land, a land flowing with milk and honey. The establish -

ment of a dynasty, of which the founder, Babar, was a native of Trans-

Oxiana, gave a further stimulus to this exodus into India, where

fighting men from the fatherland of the imperial house were always

welcome. They formed the backbone of the army of occupation. Their

J. x. 5

34

[No. 1,

W. Irvine — The Later Muahals.

numbers were increased still further during the twenty-five years or

more, from 1680 to 1707, during which ‘Alamgir waged incessant war

in the Dakhin, first with the local Mahomedan states and then with the

Mahrattahs.

These foreigners, at least the greater number of them, were either

Afghans or Mughals ; if the latter, they were known as either Turani or

Irani Mughals. In using this term Mughal, I vouch in no way for its

accurate application, ethnographically or otherwise. It must be under¬

stood to be an unquestioning acceptance of the term as employed by

Indian Writers of the period. Every man from beyond the Oxus or

from any of the provinces of the Persian kingdom was to them a

Mughal. If his home was in Turan, north of the Oxus, he was a Turani ;

if south of it, in the region of Iran, he was an Irani Mughhal. The

Turanis were of the Sunni sect, the prevalent belief of Mahomedan

India, and came from the old home of the reigning dynasty. For these

reasons, they were highly favoured by the Indian emperors, and owing

to their great numbers and the ability, military and civil, of 'their

leaders, formed a very powerful body both in the army and the state

generally. The Iranis were Shi‘as and were not so numerous as the Tura¬

nis ; yet they included among them men of good birth and great ability ?

who attained to the highest positions, many of the chief posts in the

State having been filled by them. Shiraz, in the Persian province of

Fars, furnished much the largest- number of these Persians; most of

the best physicians, poets, and men learned in the law came from that

town. Owing to the difference of religion, principally, there was a

strong' feeling of animosity, ever ready to spring into active operation?

between the Turanis and the Iranis ; but as against the Hindustanis

the two sections were always ready to combine.

Men from the region between the Indus on the east, and Kabul and

Qandahar on the west, were called Afghans. Those from the nearer

hills, south-west of Peshawar, are sometimes distinguished by the epithet

Rohelah, or Hill-man. But Indian writers of the eighteenth century

never use the word Pathan, nor in their writings is there anything to

bear out the theory that the Afghan and the Pathan are two different

races.1 The part of the Afghan country lying nearest the Indus f ur-

nisheddhe majority of the Afghan soldiers who resorted to India; and,

as might be expected from their comparative nearness to India, they

probably outnumbered the Mughals. In any case, they seem to have

had a talent for forming permanent settlements in India, which neither

the Mughal nor the Persian has displayed. All over Northern India,

Pathan villages are numerous to this day. As instances, Qasur near

- - - l H. W. Bellew, Inquiry (1891), p. 206. ■>

1 903.]

35

[.W. Irvine — The Later Mughats •

Labor, numerous villages between Dihli and Ambalah, the town of

Jalalabad, the city of Farrukhabad, and other places in the Jamnah —

Ganges Duabah, also many villages and towns in Rohilkhand, come to

mind at once. But the Afghans, in spite of their numbers and their

hold on the land, hardly played any part in the political history of the day

until ’All Muhammad Khan. Daudzai, established himself as a ruler in

Bareli and Anwalah, and Muhammad Khan, Bangash did the same in

Farrukhabad. But, after the fifteen years’ rule of Sher Shah and his

successors (1540-1555), the Afghans were much prized as valiant soldiers.

Their weakness was too great love of money, and too great a readiness

to desert one employer for another, if he made a higher bid. They

were too rough and illiterate to obtain much distinction in civil life. It

is said that during Shahjahan’s reign (1627-1658), Afghans were dis¬

couraged and employed as seldom as possible. It was not until ‘Alamgir

began his campaign in the Dakhin (1681-1707) that they again found

favour, those nobles who had Afghan soldiers receiving the most con¬

sideration.1 ' b

S3

Other foreigners, serving in small numbers in the Mughal service,

were the Arabs, Habshis, Rumis, and Farangis. As soldiers these men

were found almost entirely in the artillery. Arabs were, of course,

from Arabia itself; Habshis2 came from Africa, mostly negroes; Rumis

were Mahomedans from Constantinople or elsewhere in the Turkish

empire; Farangi, that is Frank, was the name of any European.

Eunuchs were generally of Habshi race, and the chief police officer of

Dihli was frequently a Habshi. There were some Frank, or Farangi,

physicians ; one of the name of Martin, or Martin Khan, probably a

Frenchman, died at Dihli about the middle of the eighteenth century,

after living there for many years.

In opposition to the Mughal or foreign, was the home-bom or

Hindustani party. It was made up of Mahomedans born in India,

many of them descended in the second or third generation from foreign

immigrants. Men like the Sayyads of Barhah, for .instance, whose

ancestors had settled in India many generations before, came, of course,

under the description of Hindustani or Hindustan-za (Indian-born). To

this class also belonged all the Rajput and Jat chiefs, and other power¬

ful Hindu landowners. Naturally, too, the very numerous and in¬

dustrious body of Hindus, who filled all the . subordinate offices of a

civil nature, attached themselves to the same side. Panjab Khatris

were very numerous iu this official class ; nost of the rest were Agarwal

tf , • • „f . . _ . _ r * ... • - r .

1 Bhlm Sen, 173b.

2 Habsh is tlie name for Abyssinia, but the name Habshi was need in a more

general sense for all Africans. • .

SB .W. Irvine — The Later Mu ghats. [No. 1,

Baniyas oor Kayaths. It also comprised many Mahomedans from

Kashmir, who seem to have rivalled the Hindus as secretaries and men

of business.

Nor, in speaking of the Indian-born party, must we forget the

subdivision among them due to the repugnance, even to this day so

strongly shown, of Western Hindustanis or Panjabis to men from

Pastern Hindustan or Bengal. Crowds of men from Bengal had fol¬

lowed in Farrukhsivar’s train. Khushhal Cand, in an amusing outburst,

declares that “ God created the Purbiyali (man from the East) with-

u out shame, without faith, without kindness, without heart, malevolent,

“ niggardly, beggarly, cruel ; ready to sell his children in the bazar

“ on the smallest provocation ; but to spend a penny, he thinks that a

“ crime equal to matricide.” When they entered the imperial service,

they required a signet-ring, but many tried to talk over the seal-cutters

and get these for nothing. He admits that there were a few notable

exceptions, but then as the saying is, “Neither is every woman a

“ woman, nor every man, a man ; God has not made all five fingers the

M same.” 1

A cross-division, to which we must draw attention, as it is a most

important one, was that into Emperor’s friends and Wazir’s friends.

In the reign of Farrukhsiyar this was the most decisive of all distinc¬

tions. From almost the first day of the reign till the very last, we shall

find the whole situation to turn upon it. A small number of private

favourites, such as Mir Jumlah, Khan Dauran, and at a later stage,

Ftiqad Khan (Mfyd. Murad), formed a centre to which the other great

nobles, each in turn, rallied, only to retire in disgust after a short

experience of Farrukhsiyar’s shiftiness and want of resolution.

1 Khushbal Cand, 406.

Nah har zan, zan ast, o nah liar mard , mard ;

JDiudd har jpanj angusht yaksan na hard.

On the above incident someone composed the lines —

Shahh?e ba diikdn-i‘Saja> kan-i-dast talu

Miguft hih : “ Ae ! dalil na bud o nahi 1

* Khan ’ handah ba-dah , muft, ba ism-am. Guftd :

lJdn * handan bih, haz in k&ijdlat ba-rahi.”

A man at the shop of a needy motto-cutter,.

Said ; “ Here, neither argument nor denial,

■"Cut Khan to my name for nothing.” He replied $ " / _

“To cut Jan is better, and give up such shabby tricks.”

The play is upon “ Jan. kandan,,i To engrave the word Jan , instead of

gjian, also meaning “ to give up the ghost.” >

U)03.j W. Irvine— the Later MugfiaU. 37

Section 13. Severities Inflicted at the Instigation of M!r Jumlah

(March 1713-April 1714).

The opening of the reign was marked by many executions and other

severities to men belonging to the defeated party, and such terror of

strangulation spread among the nobles who had held office during the

reigns of ‘Alamgir and Bahadur Shah, that every time they started for

the audience, they took a formal farewell of their wives and children.

The whole of these severities are attributed, and apparently with truth,

to the influence of Mir Jumlah.1 Although it involves a slight break

in the chronological order, these events will be grouped together.

The first of these executions took place by Farrukhsivar’s orders

during the night of the 2nd Kabi‘ I. 1125 H. (28th March, 1713).

Sa’dullah Khan, son of ‘Inayat-ullah Khan, Kashmiri, Hidayat Kesh

Khan, a Hindu convert, who had been central newswriter (Waqa‘i-

nigar-z-hull) 8 and SidI Qasim, Habshi, late Kotwal or Police officer of

Dihll, were the victims. They were strangled by the Qalmaq Slaves

(Sa’dullah Khan struggling with them till he was overpowered), and

their bodies were exposed for three days on the sandy space below the

citadel. It is difficult to decide what Sa’dullah Khan’s crime had been.

In the last year of Bahadur Shah’s reign he was deputy wazir with

the title of Wazarat Khan, and his temporary adhesion to Jahaudar

Shah was no worse crime in him than in many others who were par¬

doned, At first. Farrukhsivar had received him with favour. But on

the 21st Muharram 1125 H. (16th February, 1713), immediately after the

Emperor had visited Padshah Begam, the sister of ‘Alamgir, Sa’dullah

Khan was sent to prison aud his property confiscated. As to the reason

for his disgrace, there are two versions, with both of which the name

of Padshah Begam is mixed up. As told by Khafi Khan, it would

- .•= •

appear that a forged letter had been sent to Farrukhslyar in the name

of Padshah Begam asking for the removal of Sa’dullah Khan. The

Begam is represented as having repudiated this letter, when Farrukh-

siyar visited her after the execution of Sa’dullah Khan. But the only

visit that is recorded took place a month before his execution.

The other version is that Farrukhslyar had consulted Padghah Begam

ns to his conduct towards Asad Khan and Zu’lfiqar Khan. She wrote a

reply counselling him not to deal severely with them, but to admit them

to favour and maintain them in office. She made over, the letter to

1 Khafi Khan. JI., 732. Yahya Khan. 12 lb, puts all these executions to the

account of the two Sayyads. The Ahwdl-i-Khawdqin , 62a, names one ’Ashur Khan

as head of the executioners.

8 His original name was Bhola Nath, and he succeeded to the office on hig

father, Chatar Mali’s, death in 1109 H., Mafyir-u'A, 396,

3$ W. Irvine- — The Later Mughals. [No. 1,

Sa’dullah Khan, who was her Mir-i-Saman, or steward. As he was

strongly opposed to Zu’lfiqar Khan, owing to the quarrel about tbe

appointment of a successor to Mun’im Khan, Bahadur Shah’s wazir, and

also hoped that a rival’s removal would increase his own, chance of

becoming wazir he extracted the real letter and substituted one of an

entirely contrary effect, or, as one version says, altered the words

“ should not kill ” (na bay ad kusht ) into “ should kill ” {bay ad kusht).

Padshah Begam reproached Farrukhslyar for having taken Zu,lfiqar

Khan’s life. The Emperor pulled her letter out of his pocket and the

substitution of the forged letter was thus discovered. Sa’dullah Khan

wTas immediately arrested. This second story certainly appears the

more probable of the two.1 -

Hidayat Kesh Khan’s crime was that he had denounced to Jahan-

dar Shah the hiding-place of Muhammad Karim, the new Emperor’s

brother, and thus indirectly led to that piunce’s life being taken. Some

say that, in addition, he behaved in a harsh and insolent manner to

him when he was made prisoner. No one knows what Sidi Qasim had

done to deserve death, unless it be attributed to private revenge- As

faujdar of some of the parganahs near Dihll he had executed the son of

a tradesman named Udhu. This man, thirsting for the kotwaVs blood,

levied a contribution of ten or twelve rupees on each shop in the quarters

of Shahganj and Shahdarah. Having collected a very large sum, he paid

it over to Mir Jumlah, and secured in exchange the arrest and execution

of Sidi Qasim.2

The next cruelty was done on Sabha Cand, the Hindu confidant of

the late Zu,lfiqar Khan. On the 11th Jaraadi II, 1125 H. (4th July

1713), he was made over to Mir Jumlah. The next day it was inti¬

mated to the Emperor that Sabha Cand’s tongue had been cut out, as

a punishment for the foul language that he had constantly used. The

strange thing was that after this deprivation he was still able to talk

and make himself understood.3

After Sabha Cand, came the turn of Shah Qudratullah of Allahabad.

His father, Shekh ‘Abd-ul-Jalil, was a man of learning of the $ufi

sect, who lived in Allahabad. On his death, Qudratullah succeeded

to his influence and position, being himself a man of learning and

considerable eloquence. Prince ‘Azim-ush-shan chanced to make Qudrat-

1 TdriJch-i-Muzaffarty p. 155, Khushhal Cand 3976. There is a separate biography-

in M-nl-TJ II., 504. Sa’dullah Khan was the second son of ‘Inlyatullah Khan.

Kashmiri. It is said in the MaJchzanii’l-ghardib that he wrote under the name of

Hidayat. (Ethe, Bodleian Catalogue, No. 395).

* Khushhal Cand, 398a, Kamwar Khan, 134, Khafi KhSn II., 735.

* Khafi Khan II., 735.

1903.]

W. Irvine— The Later Mu ah als ,

39-

ullah’s acquaintance, and took suck a fancy to him that he could not

hear him to be away from his side. Wherever the prince went, the

Shekh accompanied him; and in the end, the Shekh became -all-

powerful. In the last years of Bahadur Shah’s reign all business

passed through his second son’s hands, and Qudratullah was that

prince’s right hand. It was as if the whole empire had fallen under his

rule, even the wazir and his sons asking him to plead for them. The refusal

to appoint Zu,lfiqar Khan to succeed Mun’im Khan and the appointment

instead of a deputy, Hidayatullah Khan (Sa’dullah Khan), were due to

Shekh Qudratullah, although he had no official rank whatever. In the

struggle for the throne his advice prevailed over that of all others.

After ‘Azim-ush-shan’s death, the Shekh, fearing the resentment of

Zu,lfiqar Khan, hid himself and escaped secretly to his home at Al¬

lahabad. When Farrukhsiyar started for Agrah to confront Jahandar

Shah, the Shekh. believing success to be utterly impossible, stayed

quietly at home, not even coming to present his respects. After the

victory had been won, the Shekh still hesitated to return to Court, since

in his day of power he had conciliated no one, not even the sons of his

patron. Then one Mulla Shadman, a holy man of Patnah ‘Azimabad,

passed through on his way to Dihli. It is commonly asserted that this

man had prophesied that Farrukhsiyar would gain the throne, and from

this cause the Prince had acquired the greatest confidence in his powers.

Qudratullah, thinking the Mulla’s protection would be certain to secure

him a favourable reception, joined his party and they travelled to¬

gether to Dihli.a

On reaching Dihli, the Mulla was admitted to an audience and

received with great cordiality. Assured of his own favour with the

new Emperor, the Mulla arranged that at his second interview Qudrat¬

ullah should accompany him. The Mulla passed on into the Tasbih

Khdnah (chaplet-room or oratory), where the Emperor was, intending

to mention Qudratullah’s name and obtain leave to produce him. Mir

Jumlah, who was with Farrukhsiyar, heard what the Mulla said. He

had seen the extent of Qudratullah’s power and influence in ‘Azim-ush-

shan’s time, and he feared that this might be renewed in the case of

the son. His own position would thus be destroyed. Taking hurried

leave of the Emperor, he came to the door of the Privy Audience Hall,

1 B.M. Or, 1690, fol. 165a, gives the 13th as the date. He was released on the

17th J&madl II., 1126 H., at the request of Qutb-ul-Mulk, after paying a fine of

-Rs-* 100,000 (Kamwar Khan, 147). Rae Sabha (or Sambha) Cand, Khatri, died at

Dihli in the end of Jamadi I. 1137 H. (Jan. -Feb., 1725), aged nearly 70 years ( T-i -

MhdJ.)

2 Mirza Muhammad, 181-186, Kamwar Khan. 142. T-i-Mhdi Year 1125. H.

40

W. Trviue — The Later Mughals. [Ho. 1,

where the Shekh was seated, and gave him "a most effusive greeting.

He added that, just at that moment, His Majesty being deep, in some

very important business, a full audience, as such a friend was entitled

to, would be impossible ; it would be far better for the Shekh to accept

for that night the hospitality of his old friend. Next day or the day after,

a proper interview could be arranged. As Mir Jumlah at that time had

the entire power of the realm in his own hands, the Shekh thought

these blandishments of good augury, and fell in with his proposal. For¬

getting all about his companion, Mulla Shadman, he set off with Mir

Jumlah, who put him in one of his own palkis and carried him off to

his house. That night and the next day Mir Jumlah was profuse in his

attentions.

At the end of the day Mir Jumlah went to the Emperor. He said

to him that it wTould be wrong to pardon the Shekh. The gentleman

was a necromancer and by his incantations and jugglery had inveigled

‘Azlm-ush-shan into his net. By his rise all the nobles had been put

out of heart, hence when Zu,lfiqar Khan took the field, many would not

bear a part, and the rest although pressed made no proper efforts. If

Qudratullah gained the same acceptance here, he would cause mischief

in every business. Since Farrukhsiyar looked on Mir Jumlah as Wisdom

and Prudence personified, he gave a nod of assent. Mir Jumlah left the

darbar at the usual time ; and at midnight he gave orders to his men to

hang the Shekh. in his presence, to a maulsari tree growing in the court¬

yard of his mansion.1 Next morning, the 13th Zu’l qa’dah 1125 H.

(30th November 1713), the Shekh’s dead body was made over to his

servants for burial. It is said that Mulla Shadman remonstrated with

Farrukhsiyar, saying that the man had done nothing to deserve death.

Even if such acts were proved, Qudratullah and he having come to

Court together, the Shekh’s death would bring disgrace on him and throw

doubt on his character. Farrukhsiyar was ready to admit all this, but as

the deed was done, he made some excuses and tried to talk the Mul la-

over. But the Mulla declined to remain longer at Court, and returned

to his home.8

Shortly after this time, Farrukhsiyar having quarrelled with the

Sayyads, was afraid that they might bring forward some other prince of

1 Maulsari, a tree (Mimusops elengi), the flowers of which are highly fragrant.

(Sbakespear’s Dictionary).

8 Kamwar Khan, 142, entry of lith Zul qa'dah 1125 H. (2nd year) gives the

facts with a slight variation. He says that Qudratullah, a darvesh, son of * Abdul

Jalll Allahabad!, having reached court presented an offering of one musk bag

( bakhiirah ). An .order issued that he should be put up in the house of Mir Jumlah.

On the 12th it was reported that Mir Jumlah had hung the man.

J903.]

41

W. Irvine — The Later Mughais.

the house of Taimur to take his place. But a prince once deprived of

eyesight could not be raised to the throne. The Emperor resolved,

therefore, to deprive of their eyesight the more prominent and more

energetic of the many scions of the house of Taimur held in captivity

in the palace. On the 6th Mu^iarrara 1126 H. (21st January,

1714), three of the princes, A‘zzu-d-din, eldest son of Jahandar

Shah, ’Ala Tabar,1 son of A‘zam Shah, and Farrukhsiyar’s own younger

brother, Humayun Bakht (then only ten or twelve years old), were

removed from the palace to the prison at the Tirpoliyah or Triple gate.

It was the place where Jahandar Shah’s life had been taken, and where

in a few years’ time Farrukhsiyar himself was to suffer the same fate.

A needle was passed through the eyes of the three princes, and they

were thus rendered incapable of ever becoming rivals for the throne.

Mir Jumlah is credited with having been the man who urged Farrukh¬

siyar to carry out this harsh act.8

Finally, on the 2nd RabI’ II, 1126 H. (16th April, 1714), the

Qalmaq woman, Shadman, entitled Rae Man, a servant in the palace,

was made over to Sarbarah Khan, thekotwal or Chief of the Police, and

her head was cut off at the Chabutrah ,3 or central police-station. Her

crime was that, during the reign of Jahandar Shah, one of her relatives

had drawn his sword on Mir Jumlah. Rae Man is the woman who gave

the alarm when an attempt was made to assassinate Jahandar Shah ; 4

she bravely attacked the assailants and slew one of them with her own

hand. For this good service she had received the titles of Raza Baha¬

dur, Rustam-i-Hind, and the rank of 5,000 zat.h

Although not mentioned in the general histories, the humoristic

poet, Sayyad Muhammad Ja’far of Narnol, poetically Zatali, is said to

have been one of the victims. His crime is said to have been a satirical

1 Wald Tabar in Khafi Khan. 11., 740.

3 A chronogram was made for it :

§fjidh-i-ldlam, ba aghwde-i-shaydtin .

Kashldah mil dar cashm-i-salatln (1126 H).

“ The lord of the world, at the instigation of devils,

Passed a needle through the eyes of the pi'inces.”

Warid, 1506, Kamwar Khan, p, 144, ‘Kiafi Khan II, 740.

S Chabutrah means a platform of earth or masonry raised slightly above the

surface of the ground. This name was given to the office of the head police

officer of Dihll ; it was situated in the Chandni Cauk, the main street leading from

the Lahor gate of the city to the Lahor gate of the citadel.

4 See Journal, Vol. LXY (1896), p. 147.

* Kamwar Khan, 146, Mirza Muhammad, 187.

J. I. 6

W. Irvine — The Later MugAals.

[No. 1,

parody of the distich on Farrukhsiyar’s coinage. The details 'will be

given when we come to speak of the coinage of the reign.1

Section 14 First Quarrel with the Satyads (April 1713).

The story as told by Yaljya Khan, Farrukhsiyar’s Mir Munshi,

is that at the enthronement ‘Abdullah Khan demanded the post of

wazzr for himself. Farrukhsiyar made the objection that he had given

his word to Ghazi-ud-din Khan (^.e., Ahmad Beg, Ghalib Jang), a

promise which he could not break. ‘Abdullah Khan might retain all

power under the name of Wakil-i-Mutlaq or vicegerent. ‘Abdullah

Khan said there had been no Wahil-i-Mutlaq since Jahangir’s reign,

except when Bahadur Shah gave that office to Asad Khan. But the

two cases were not parallel ; he had won the crown for Farrukhsiyar by

his own sword and his own right hand, therefore his title to be wazir

was indisputable. Farrukhsiyar thought it best to give way, as be had

only newly succeeded and was not yet secure on the throne. In this

version of the facts, the only certain point is the supersession of Ghazi-

ud-din Khan, Ghalib Jang : but there is no sufficient reason to believe

that Farrukhsiyar was, in any way, a reluctant participator in the new

arrangement, although as soon as he had appointed ‘Abdullah Khan,

he appears to have repented of it.2

As we have seen, a few days after the victory at Agrah, Qutb-ul-

Mulk was detached to seize Dihli ; and, for the moment, the second

brother, Husain ’Ali Khan, was incapacitated by severe wounds from

taking any active part in affairs. The opportunity was too good to

be lost. Farrukhsiyar was never long of the same mind and fell

always under the influence of the last speaker. Mir Jumlah, Khan

Dauran, Taqarrub Khan, and other personal friends and favourites

found thus a splendid opening for intrigue, of which they at once

availed themselves. Between the departure of Qutb-ul-Mulk for

Dihli and Farrukhsiyar’s own arrival at the capital barely a month

elapsed ; but this short iuterval was sufficient to implant in Farrukh¬

siyar’s mind the seeds of suspicion, and he arrived at Dihli already

estranged from the two Sayyads. We have told how the Court party

interfered between the Sayyads and Zu,lfiqar Khan, beguiling the latter

1 Malahat-i-maqal , fol. 74a. Beale, p. 186, says Ezad Bakhsh,, Raza, was also

executed, but as he died in 1119 H. (Rieu, Index, p. 1157), this must be a mistake.

The Tarikh -i- Muhammadi , a very accurate work, gives Ezad Bakhsh’s death at

Akbarabad under 1119 H., and says he was son of Aqti Mulla, son of Zain-ul-,

'Abidain, son of Asaf Khan, Ja'far, the Sadiql, the Qazwini, alias the Akbarabadi.

An account of this Asaf Khan is in Ma.dsir-ul-umara I., 113,

8 Yabya |£han, 122a.

1903.]

W. Irvine — The Later Mug&als.

43

to his destruction. These intrigues had not remained altogether com-

cealed from Husain ‘All Khan, and in the most secret manner he com?-

municated his suspicions to his brother. He wrote, we are told, that

on his brother’s leaving the camp it was clear, from the Prince’s talk

and the nature of his acts, that he was a man who paid no regard to

claims for service performed, one void of faith, a breaker of his word,

and altogether without shame. Thus it was necessary for them to aet

in their own interests without regard to the plans of the new sovereign.

If Husain ’ Ali Khan really wrote these words, at such an early stage of

his acquaintance with Farrukhsiyar, it proves him to have possessed

wonderful penetration and great insight into character. The remainder

pf our story yields abundant evidence of the fact that the character of

Farrukhsiyar could hardly be delineated with greater accuracy than in

the above words. Acting on his brother’s hint, ‘Abdallah Khan, as a

precaution, assumed possession of the house lately occupied by Kokaltash

Khan. Jahandar Shah’s foster-brother, and with it all the cash and pro¬

perty contained therein.

For a couple of weeks after Farrukhsiyar’s entry into Dihli, the

appearance of amity was preserved. But the weapons of discord

lay in abundance ready to hand. The disputes that now began raged

round two things : The nominations to office, and the appropriation of

the confiscated wealth of the Jahandar Shahi nobles. A third lever

for persuading Farrukhsiyar to get rid of the two Sayyads was found

in his superstitious fears. ' '

When ‘Abdullah Khan reached Dillii in advance of the Emperor,

he took upon himself to promise the post of JDiwcln of the Khalisak , or

Exchequer Office, to Lutfullah Khan, Sadiq, and that of Sadr-us-gfuduYi

or Head of the Religious Endowments, to the former holder, Sayyad

Amjad Khan.1 On the march from Agrah, Farrukhsiyar gave these

offices to his own followers; Chhabilah Ram, Nagar, receiving the

Diwanl of the Khalisdh ,2 and Afzal Khan, who had taught Farrukhsiyar

to read the Quran, being made Sadr. Over these conflicting orders a

quarrel broke out directly the Emperor reached Dihli. ‘Abdullah

Khan. Qutb-ul-Mulk, fell into a passion, and said that if his very first

exercise of power was contested, what was the object of being wazir ?

Mir Jumlah and other favourites did their best to inflame the wound by

remarking that when a sovereign deputed power to a minister, it was for

1 Amjad Khan’s original name was Bu ’Ali; he was Bakhshi and Waqi’ah

Nigar of Dihli at the time of ‘Alamgir’s death and was made Sadr by Bahadur

Shah. — Khushha] Cand, 376a.

2 Chhabilah Ram’s appointment was made on the 17th Z&,1 Hijjah, Kainwar

Khan. 127.

u

[No. 1,

W. Irvine — The Later Mu ah ah.

the minister to recognise the limits of that power, and not make appoint¬

ments to high office without sanction. A compromise was at last arrived

at ; Lutfullah Khan retained the Diwanl and Afzal Khan, the gadarat

with the titles of Sadr Jahan. Chhahilah Ram was consoled with

the Government of Agrah .l *

Owing to the violent change of government, there were naturally

many confiscated mansions at the disposal of the crown. Two of these

with their contents were conferred on Qutb-ul-Mulk and his brother.

One known as Ja‘far Khan’s, which Kokaltash Khan, Khan Jahan, had

held, was given to Qutb-ul-Mulk; and another called Shaistah Khan’s,

recently in the possession of Zu’lfiqar Khan, was made over to Husaiu

’All Khan. As soon as the distribution had been made, Farrukhsivar’s

private circle of friends poured into his ear suggestions that these

two mansions contained untold treasures, the accumulated wealth of

many generations. In them was stored, they said, the property which

had belonged to the four sons of Bahadur Shah, and the whole revenues

of Hindustan for a year past. All this had now fallen into the pos¬

session of the two Sayyads. On the other hand, the imperial treasury

had been emptied and the palace denuded of everything to pay Jalian-

dar Shah’s soldiers.8

Superstition was even more powerfully brought into play. It was

a superstitious country and a superstitious age ; and Farrukhsiyar was

as much subject to these influences as any of his contemporaries. A

prophesy had been made, which met with the widest acceptance, that

after Bahadur Shah’s death his youngest descendant would reign. He

would, in his turn, be followed by a Sayyad. Talk about this became

so common that soon everyone had heard it. Of course, it was at once

urged on the Emperor that the Sayyad who was to reign could be no

other than one of the two brothers. Acting on the principle that

dropping water wears away a stone,3 they repeated this story over and

over again to Farrukhsiyar, till it had the effect of making him openly

show ill-feeling to the two Sayyad brothers.4

The quarrel had proceeded so far by the beginning of Rabi ‘I.

(27th March 1713), that Qutb-ul-Mulk ceased to attend the daily audi¬

ence, an infallible sign that a noble had a grievance or was out of

1 Mlid. QSsitn, 171. Afzal Khan died at Dihli in the end of Rabi ‘II. or early

in JamadI I, 1138 H. (January 1726), Rank 6000 — T-i-Mh,dt.} Khafi Khan II, 729,

731.

" 8 Kamwar Khan, 132, Warid, 149a.

i The Persian saying is Hezam kashdn, ’ alam soz, “ Go on gathering firewood,

and you oan burn the world.”

4 Warid, 149a.

1903.]

W. Irvine — The Later Mug]ials. 45

humour. Farrukhsiyar was always ready to take any step, however

humiliating, which might for the moment postpone decisive action and

give him time to plan some fresh treachery. Accordingly, on the 9th

Rabi ‘I. (4th April 1713), on his way back from Wazirabad, a place

on the banks of the Jamnah, where he had gone to hunt, he paid

a visit to Qutb-ul-Mulk’s house and embraced him affectionately. He

deigned to eat his breakfast and take his midday sleep there before

returning to the palace. Qutb-ul-Mulk, in return for so much con¬

descension, made many costly gifts to His Majesty, receiving others in

return. This is noted as the first public disclosure of the ill-feeling

between the Emperor and his minister, which went on increasing year

by year till it ended in catastrophe.1

Section 15. Campaign against RIjah AjIt Singh Rahtor

(Nov. 1713— July 1714).

As we have already explained, the Rajput states had been for fifty

years in veiled revolt from the Imperial authority. Bahadur Shah had

been unable, owing to more pressing affairs, to reduce the Rajahs effect¬

ually. During the confusion which arose on that monarch’s death,

A jit Singh, after forbidding cow-killing and the call for prayer from

the ’Alamgiri mosque, besides ejecting the imperial officers from Jodh¬

pur and destroying their houses, had entered the imperial territory and

taken possession of Ajmer. Early in Farrukhsiyar’s reign it was de¬

termined that this encroachment must be put an end to ; and as the

Rajah’s replies to the imperial orders were not satisfactory, it was

necessary to march against him.8

At first it was intended that the Emperor in person should take

the field, but he was dissuaded on the ground that his dignity would

suffer if the rebel fled into the desert, where there was nothing but

sand to feed upon. Nor does the Emperor appear to have been in

particularly good health.3 Husain ’All Khan was therefore appointed,

Samsam-ud-daulah receiving charge of his seal as his deputy at Court.

The plots against the Sayyads were still being carried on in Farrukhsiyar ’a

1 Kamwar Khan, 134, Warid, 149b.

2 Khafi Khan II, 738. Ahwal-i-Mawdqln, 69 b. According to Tod, II., 82, the

Kajah had been called on to send in his son, Abhai Singh, but had refused. Instead,

he sent men to Dihli to assassinate one Mukand, his enemy. This outrage pro¬

duced the invasion of Jodhpur. Probably this Mukand is the same as Mulkan of

Mairtha on p. 75 of the same volume.

3 Farrukhsiyar was ill from the 1st Zu,l Hijjah 1125 H. (18th December 1713),

but was better on the 9th (26th December), and to stop rumours, he appeared at the

Jama ’Masjid on the ‘Id i.e ., the 10th. His bathing after recovery took place on the

22nd (8th January 1714). — Kamwar fChan, 143.

46

W. Irvine — The Later Mug hals.

[No. 1,

entourage, and the plotters hoped that by separating the brothers the

task of overthrowing them would be rendered easier. There were also

.the chances and dangers of a campaign to be counted on in their favour.

On this occasion we hear for the first time of a plan which was adopted

very frequently in this reign and afterwards. Official orders were

given in one sense, and the opposing side received secret letters of a

different purport, assuring them of future favour if they made a

vigorous defence and defeated the imperial general sent against them.

Letters were despatched to Rajah Ajit Singh urging him to make away

with Husain 'All Khan in any way he could, whereupon the whole of

the Bakhshi’s property and treasure would become his ; and he would,

in addition, receive other rewards.1

Husain ’Ali Khan’s audience of leave-taking was granted on the

29th 2u, 1 Qa‘dah (16th December 1713), and his advance tents left

Dihli on the 20th Zu, 1 Hijjah 1125 H. (6th January 1714). The

generals under him were Sarbuland Khan. Afrasyah Khan, I’tiqad Khan

(grandson of Shaistah Khan, deceased), Dildaler Khan. Saif-ud-dln

‘All Khan, Najm-ud-dln ‘All Khan. Asadullali Khan, Sayyad Shuja'at-

ullah Khan, Sayyad Husain Khan, Sayyad Khan, Aziz Khan, Rohelah,

Caghta, Bahadur, Shakir Khan, Grhulam ’All Khan, Rajah Udwant

Singh, Bundelah, Rajah Gropal Singh, Bhadauriyah, Rajah Raj Bahadur

of Rupnagar and others. From the imperial magazines there were

delivered to him 500 mans of powder and lead, 200 rockets, 100 mahtcib ,

and five cannou. Although a letter had been received from the Rajah

on the 15th Zn, 1 Hijjah 1125 H. (1st January 1714), the contents not

being of a satisfactory nature, the preparations were not suspended and

the advance began. Then Raghunath, a munshi in the service of Ajit

Singh, came to Sarae Sahal, escorted by one thousand horsemen, with

a view to negotiation.2 Husain ’All Khan was then at Sarae Allahwirdi

Khan. He rejected the terms offered and sent on his tents from Sarae

Sahal.8

On the march thieves gave much trouble. The general caused a

ditch to be dug round the camp each time a halt was made, and Mewati

- watchman were placed outside it on guard. Once two Mina thieves

were caught, and next morning were blown from guns. This severity

scared the marauders away. In parganah Riwari and the villages on

the road there were splendid standing crops. At first these were des-

1 Kamwar Khan, 142, entry of 13th 2a, 1 Qa'dah 1125 H. (2nd December, 1713)

ATiwdl-i-khawdqm, 70 a, Shiu Das,'p. 36.

8 The TvJifat-ul-Hind of Lai Ram, B.M. Nos. 6583, 6584, folio 885, gives the date

14th Muharram (1126)= 29th January, 1714.

8 Kamwar Khan, 142, B.M. 1690, folio 166«.

1903.]

W. Irvine — The Later Mughals.

47

troyed by tbe camp followers. But to prevent this; plundering, petty

officers were placed on duty ; next day several men were caught red-

handed and brought in bound. They were paraded through the camp,

seated on donkeys with their faces to the tail and arrows in their ears

and noses. By this means the injury to the crops was put an end to.1

The Rahtor army was reported to be twelve kos south of Sambhar;2

rumour said they were hiding in ambush and intended to molest the

imperialists while on the march. Not a trace of them, however, was

seen between the capital and Ajmer; and as the imperial army passed

through parganah Sambhar it destroyed Sanamgarb, a place of worship

which had been erected at great cost. The march was conducted under

great difficulties, the army suffering much in those sandy deserts from

the want of water, in spite of the fact that they carried a provision of

it along with them.. On reaching Ajmer tbe camp was pitched for some

days on the banks of the lake Anasagar,8 whence messengers were sent

to the Rajah, on the principle that “Peace is better than War.” 4

After a time the Sayyad moved on to Puhkar,6 five miles north-west of

Ajmer and thence to Mairtha, about forty miles further on, in Jodhpur

territory ; but A jit Singh still fled before him further into the sandy

desert. An armed post ( thanah ) of two thousand men was placed in

the town of Mairtha.6

In the country round Ajmer and between that place and Mairtha,.

the villages of Rajah Ajit Singh and those of Jai Singh of Amber are

intermingled. The inhabitants of the Jodhpur villages were afraid and

took to flight. Thereupon orders were issued to plunder and burn down

all villages found uninhabited, but to leave all others unmolested. When

this became known, the Jodhpur villages interceded through their Jaipur

neighbours ; their plundered goods were then restored, the only loss being

of the houses that had been burned. The country was thus settled and.

brought under imperial rule, step by step, as the army moved forward.

4Abu-s-Samad Khan, who had been recalled from the Panjab, joined at

Puhkar, bnt at the very first interview he and the Sayyad disagreed.7

On the way to Mairtha, Husain ’Ali Khan called a council of war,

1 Kam Raj, 55a.

2 Thornton, 852, on the south bank of the Sambhar Lake, about 175 m. S.- W. of

Dihll ; Rajputanah Gazetteer, II, 159, 39 m. S.-W. of Jaipur.

8 Rajputanah Gazetteer, II, 4 and 61.

4 Kare kih bah sulah bar -nay ay ad,

Diwanagi dar u mi-bay ad.

6 Thornton, 771 (Pokur), and Rajputanah Gazetteer, II, 67 : Thornton, 618

(Mirta), 76 m. N.-E. of Jodhpur; (Mirta), Rajputanah Gazetteer, II, 261.

® Kam Raj., 55a, Mhd. Qasim, 197, Ahwal-i-khawdqin, 71.

7 Ma}dsiru-l-U I, 321. Ahwdl-i-Ishawdqin, 71b, 72a.

48

W. Irvine — The Later Mughals.

[No. 1,

and proposed that in spite of the approach of the hot weather, stores of

water should be collected and the advance continued. Ajit Singh, he

asserted, must either be taken and his head sent to Court, or his son

surrendered as a hostage and his daughter offered as a bride to the

Emperor. Others advised delay, and much apprehension prevailed. The

difficulties were many, the great heat of the sun, the deficiency of water,

the high prices, the want of grain and grass for the cattle. In spite of

all these, Husain ’All Khan resolved to leave most of his baggage

behind and make a forced march on Jodhpur.1

The conclusion of the campaign was soon announced at Court by a

report received ou the 14th Rabi ‘1, 1126 H. (29th March 1714). It

appeared that Ajit Singh had retreated in one night from his position

south of Sambhar and had fallen back on Mairtha, and without making

any stand there had gone on to Jodhpur, where he had hoped to be safe,

surrounded by the desert. Finding that the Sayyad was still pressing

onwards and seemed determined to strike a blow at him in spite of the

inaccessibility of his capital, he sent his women and children into

places of safety in the hill country, and himself sought refuge in the

deserts of Bikaner.2 Evidently he felt himself too weak to meet the

imperialists in the open field, and during the time that Sayyad Miyan,

the Bakhshi’s father, was governor of Ajmer, the Rajputs had learned

respect for Husain ‘All Khan’s qualities as a general. When Husain

‘All Khan was within 30 miles of Mairtha, an embassy arrived from

the Rajah, escorted by fifteen hundred horsemen.55 It was believed that

their arrival was a mere subterfuge, devised in order to gain time for

the Rajah to escape. In order to make sure of them, Husain ‘All

Khan told them that if they were in earnest, they must agree to be put

in fetters. After objecting to this proposal, as involving infamy and

disgrace, they consented. Four of the principal men were put in

chains. Directly they made their appearance from the Audience tent

in this condition, the loose characters of the imperial camp assumed

1 Kam Raj, 55 b, A’hwal-i-M.awaqln, 72 a.

2 Tod, II., 82, says Ajit Singh sent off the men of wealth to Sewanoh and his

eon and family to the desert of Razdarroh, west of the Loni river. This Razdarroh

may be the Raus or Rass of Thornton, 820, a town on the N.-W. declivity of the

Aravalli range, 38 m. W. of Nasirabad, Lat. 26° 17', Long. 74° 16#. Sewanoh is

possibly the Sewarra of Thornton, 876, 27 m. S.-W. by S. of Jodhpur, 42 m. N. of

Disah, Lat. 24° 50', Long. 72°.

fc Khushhal Cand, 401b, says that Ajit Singh asked Jai Singh of Amber for

advice, and was recommended to make terms. Is this at all likely ? According to

Tod, II, 82, the terms were asked for by the advice of Ajit Singh’s diwans, and

still more of KeSar, the bard, who adduced a precedent of the time when Daulat

Khan, Lodi, had invaded Marwar.

1903.]

W. Irvine — The Later Mughals.

49

that the envoys’ overtures had been rejected. A body of them rushed

at once to the Rajput tents, attacked their guards, and plundered all

their property. There was great difficulty in suppressing this disorder.

The envoys were sent for, their chains removed, and full apologies made.

The envoys themselves were satisfied and continued the negotiation,

but news of the outbreak having reached the Rajah, he fled. Husain

‘All Khan was thus forced to advance to Mairtha, where he halted

until the terms of peace had been arranged.1

The terms were that the Rajah should give one of his daughters

in marriage to the Emperor, in the mode which they styled Dolah , *

that the Rajah’s son, Abhai Singh, should accompany Husain ‘All Khan

to coart, and that the Rajah in person should attend when summoned.3

Zafar Khan ( Roshan-ud-daulah) arrived at Court on the 5th Jamadi I

1126 H. (18th May, 1714), with the news. Husain ‘Ali Khan sent the

greater part of his army back to Dihli, and remained for two months in

Ajmer, restoring the country to order. On the 26th Jamadi II 1126 H.

(8th June, 1714), it had been reported that he was at Puhkar, west of

Ajmer, on his way back from Mairtha. On the return march, owing to

the great heat, they moved at night and halted in the day. On the

2nd Rajab (13th July, 1714), he arrived at Sarae Allahwirdi Khan. On

the 5th he was presented to the Emperor, being received with great

outward cordiality, and the commanders who had served under him were

richly rewarded. Zafar Khan was honoured with the special title of

Fidwi-i’Farmanbardar , “ the loyal and order-obeying servant.” Kunwar

Abhai Singh’s audience took place three days afterwards (19th July,

1714), with all fitting ceremony,4

Section 16. — Renewal op open Quarrel with the Sayyads.

During Husain ‘All Khan’s absence, Mir Jumlah’s power had gone

on increasing. Farrukhsiyar had made over his seal to this favourite,

aud was often heard to say openly : “ the word and seal of Mir Jumlali

are the word and seal of Farrukhsiyar.” On his side, Qutb-ul-Mulk was

immersed in pleasure and found little or no leisure to devote to state

1 Kamwar Khan. 195, Khafi Khan. II, 738, Ma,asir-ul-U. I, 321, Muhammad

Qasirn, 190.

2 Dolah , a Hindi word for an informal marriage. Tawari]ch-i-Mdrwdr of Murari

Das, Vol. 2, fol. 805, states that the girl’s Hindu name was Bae Indar Kunwar.

8 Tod II, 82, Abhai Singh was recalled from Razdurroh and marched to Delhi

with Husain ‘Ali Khan at the end of Asarh 1770. The last day of that month

equals 28th June, 1713, or if the southern reckoning be followed, it then falls in

1714 (17th June, 1714).

4 Tod II, 82, says Abhai Singh was made a Panj Hazari (5,000) : Kamwar Khan

146, Warid, fol. 150b, Kam Raj., 56a,

J, i. 7

50

W. Irvine — The Later Muahals.

[No. 1,

affairs. Nor, being a soldier who had come into office without much

preparation for civil affairs, was he very competent to deal with tbe

details of administration, for which, moreover, he had no natural

taste. Everything was left to his man of business, Ratn Cand,

a Hindu of the Baniya caste, and a native of a village near the

Sayyads’ home at Jansath.1 2 He had been recently created a Rajah

with the rank of 2,000 zat. The chief dispute centred upon the

question of appointments to office, the fees paid by those receiving

appointments being a recognised and most substantial source of

emolument. Ratn Cand, in addition to these customary fees, exacted

large sums, which were practically bribes or payments for the grant

of the appointment. By Mir Jumlah’s independent action in bringing

forward candidates and affixing the seal to their warrants of appoint¬

ment, without following the usual routine of passing them through

the wazir’s office, the emoluments of both the chief minister

and of his head officer were considerably curtailed. It is a matter

of little wonder, therefore, that Qutb-ul-Mulk felt aggrieved at the

unusual powers placed in the hands of a rival such as Mir Jurnlah.

This noble was much more accessible than the wazir, and was not given

to the extortionate practices of Ratn Cand. Naturally, men in search

of employment or promotion sought his audience-hall rather than that

of Qutb-ul-Mulk. The wazir suffered, in this way, both in influence

and in income. Moreover, Mir Jurnlah allowed no opportunity to pass

without depreciating the Sayyad brothers, and brought forward argu¬

ments of every sort to prove that they were unfitted for the offices that

they held.8

The quarrel which had broken out in the first weeks of the reign

was patched up in the manner already recounted. But no thorough

reconciliation had been effected ; nor, considering the character of

Earrukhsiyar, was any such reconciliation to be expected. The Sayyad

brothers could never be certain from day to day that some new plot was

1 Mv old acquaintance, Rae Bahadur Nihal Chand, Agarwal, an Honorary

Magistrate of Muzaffarnagar, in a letter of the 1st Dec., 1893, informs me that Ratn

Cand was a native of Jansath town, where he had bnilt a handsome house, now in a

ruined state, but still in the hands of his impoverished descendants. He belonged to

a sub-caste of the Agarwals called Rajah-hi-barddari ( i.e ., the Rajah’s relations), the

reference being to Rajah Agar Sen, the reputed founder of the caste, their ancestor

having been that Rajah’s son by a concubine. The epithet of Baqqdl (shop-keeper)

attached to Ratn Cand’s name, is the Persion version of the vernacular caste name

Baniya or Mahajan (trader). None of these words necessarily implies that Ratn

Cand had ever kept a shop; they are the name of his caste. Many Baniyas by

caste may still be. found in the employ of the State, in all grades.

2 Khafi Khan Ila, 739, Khushhal Cand, 399a.

1903.]

W. Irvine — The Later Muahals.

51

not being hatched for their destruction. The Rajputanah campaign

was the means of unmasking one of these schemes. Secret letters had

been, as we have already mentioned, despatched to Rajah Ajit Singh,

urging him to strenuous resistance, and inviting him, if he could, to

make away with Husain ‘All Khan. These letters came into Husain

‘Ali Khan’s possession and through them he acquired proof of Farrukh-

siyar’s double-faced dealings. There are two stories of: the manner in

which this happened. One, told by Warid, is that when Rajah Ajit

Singh was hardpressed and saw no other way out of the danger, he

sent in the original letters for the perusal of the Sayyad. Husain

‘Al! Khan at once entered into negotiations for a peace, in order that

he might return to Court without delay to defend his own and his

brother’s interests. The other version is, that the Rajah made the

letters over to his daughter when she started for Court, and that either

on the journey or after her arrival at Dihli, when staying in the man¬

sion of the Sayyad, the documents were in some way got at and their

contents ascertained. In the interval of Husain ‘All Khan’s absence,

Qutb-ul-Mulk had found the greatest difficulty in maintaining his posi¬

tion at Court. All the power was in the hands of Mir Jumlah. Every

day messages came from Farrukhsivar. couched in various forms, but

all urging him to resign the office of wazir. Qutb-ul-Mulk now wrote

letters to his brother enjoining him to return to Dihli with all possible

speed. In response to these calls, Husain ‘All Khan, as we have seen,

reached the capital again on the 5tb Rajab 1126 H. (16th July, 1714). 1

For the next two or three months the breach between the Emperor

and the minister, although far from closed, was not sensibly widened.

The Sayyads, as was natural, looked on Farrukhslyar’s accession to the

throne as the work of their hands, and resented the grant of any share

of power to other persons. On the other hand, the small group of

Farrukhslyar’s intimates, men who had known him from his childhood

and stood on the most familiar terms with him, were aggrieved at their

exclusion from a share in the spoil. They felt that they themselves

were not strong enough to attack the Sayyads openly ; and recourse to

other nobles of wealth or experience would do no more than substitute

one set of masters for another. Their plan, therefore, was to work upon

the weak-minded Farrukhsiyar.” “ The Sayyads,” they said to him,

“ look upon you as their creation, and think nothing of you or your

“ power. They hold the two chief civil and military offices, their

“ relations and friends have the principal other offices, and the most

“ profitable land assignments ( jagirs ) . Their power will go on increasing,

“ until, should they enter on treasonable projects, there will be no one able

1 Warid, fol. 150a, 1506, Seir I, 80-81, Seir text, 23.

62

W. Irvine — The Later Mughals .

[Ho. 1,

“ to resist t hem. It would be better to reduce their strength in time. For

“ this purpose, two nobles of position should be brought to the front and

“ placed on an equality with them.” If the Sayyads gave way, all

would be well ; the object sought would have been accomplished. But

should they, with the rashness (jaheilat) for which the Barhah Sayyads

were famous, resist the undermining of their power, then the two

nobles could oppose force to force. But open fighting should be resorted

to only in the last extremity. The two brothers should be caught

when unattended and made prisoners, as had been done with 2u,ffiqar

Khan, and if necessary, despatched as he had been.1

Farrukhsiyar, a man of no wisdom, accepted this advice as the

perfection of right reasoning, the acme of loyalty to his person. The

two men selected to confront the Sayyads were Khan Dauran and Mir

Jumlah. They were both promoted to the rank of 7,000 horse : they

were placed, the former at the head of 5,000 Wala shahi , and the

latter of 5,000 Mughal troopers. Many of their relations were pushed

forward into high rank, and counting these men’s troops, each of the

two nobles had at his command over ten thousand men. Among the

signs of this favouritism was the order passed on the 12th Sha’ban (2nd

Sept., 1713), permitting Mir Jumlah to entertain 6,000 horsemen, who

were to be specially paid from the imperial treasury. These were

raised by Amanat Khan, his adopted son, from Mughals born in India,

and some seventy lakhs of rupees for their pay were disbursed from

the treasury, the rules as to descriptive rolls of the men and branding

of the horses being set aside. Ho order was issued by Farrukhsiyar

without the advice and approval of the above two men. In this exercise

of authority Mir Jumlah assumed the lead, till at length Qutb-ul-Mulk

was only the nominal, while he was the real wazir. The two Sayyads

bowed for the time to the Emperor’s will, and made no opposition to

these usurpations. At length, through the indiscretion of some palace

servants, the Sayyads learnt of the plots against their life.3 They

ceased to appear in darbar and shut themselves up in their houses,

1 Mirza Muhammad, 189.

2 Or as some say, they were informed by a message from Farrukhsiyar’s mother,

who considered herself bound by the promises made to the Sayyads at Patnah.

(Khafi IDian II, 740). One authority (Ahwal-i-khawdqtn, 77b) makes Lutfullah

Khan, Sadiq, the informant. He is described as “ unrivalled in deceit, professing

“ devotion to the sovereign, and yet as thick as could be with the Sayyads.” He

sent word to the latter privately that he had been present one night in Farrukhsiyar* a

audience-chamber, when, at the instigation of Mir Jumlah and Khan Dauran, the

Emperor had spoken harshly of them. There was no time for writing at length ; one

word was as good as a volume. Let them refrain from attending Court ; or if they

did attend, let them be very cautious.

W. Irvine — The Later Mnyhals .

53

1903.]

taking every possible precaution against a surprise. The Emperor’s

desire to ruin them became a matter of public rumour, although, when

appealed to, the nobles and confidants of the Emperor strenuously

denied its truth.1

At length, in Zu,l Qa’dah 1126 H. (7th Nov.-6th Dec., 1714), a son

having been born to Husain ‘All Khan, he resolved, as the custom was,

to present a gift to His Majesty and ask him to name the child. At

this time Farrukhslyar was out on a hunting expedition and his camp

was in a grove not far from the city.2 When the Nawab reached the

Privy Audience Hall, finding the Emperor still in the chapel tent, he

took a seat. While he was waiting, a number of his friends confided

to him the secret that on that day it was intended to lay violent hands

upon him. A number of men were hid in ambush. The Nawab felt

his last hour had come and prepared to meet his fate. When his

arrival was reported to Farrukhslyar, an order was sent out for him

to come to the oratory.3 The Nawab betrayed no fear, but walked

towards the tent. When the door-keeper, following the rules of the

palace, requested him to lay aside his arms, he became inwardly

apprehensive and said : “Very well, as it is not convenient to receive

“ me just now, I will make my bow another time.” Report of this

hesitation was taken to Farrukhslyar. who came out, staff in hand, and

stood outside the chapel tent, and received the Nawab’s obeisance there,

and replying with some silly, unmeaning compliments, dismissed him

to his home. But the countenance of Farrukhslyar betrayed the real

anger and vexation under which he was labouring from the non-success

of his plans to seize the Nawab.4

When he reached his house, Husain ‘All Khan wrote to the Emperor

to the following effect. It was quite clear that distrust of his brother

and himself had found entrance into the Emperor’s mind, and he was

rosolved on their overthrow. In that case, what could they do but

submit to orders ? But honour was a thing dearer than life ; they might

fall, but in so doing, they would take care not to sacrifice their honour.

Let them be removed from rank and office, with leave to return to their

homes and there offer their prayers for His Majesty’s welfare. On read¬

ing the letter Farrukhslyar took fright and returned to the city at once, in

the hope of procuring some reconciliation. It so happened that soon

after he reached the palace, a letter arrived from Qutb-ul-Mulk to the

same effect. Farrukhsiyar’s equanimity was still further upset. From

1 Mirza Muhammad, 190, Kamwar Khan, 139.

* The Bagh of Muhsin Khan is named in Khafi Khan IT, 739.

3 Tasblh Khanah, literally “ chaplet-room.”

4 Mirza Muhammad, 191, Warid, 1505, 15la.

54

W. Irvine — The Later Muff hah.

[No. 1,

this time, the two Sayyads gave np attendance at darbar, and persisted

in demanding the acceptance of their resignation of rank and office.

Meanwhile they fortified their houses, and after Farrukhsiyar’s return

to the palace, negotiations went on for nine days. Among the messages

they sent was one asking for a grant of several lakhs of dams , payable

from the country round their home, to which they would retire ; or they

offered to recover Balkh and Badakhshan, which might be given them

in jdglr if they were successful. On the other hand, if they failed

they would have earned a name which would survive until the Day of

Judgment. If this request, too, was refused, let the plotters against

them appear and fig-lit them on the sands of the Jamnah below the

palace windows ( jharokah ), the Emperor becoming spectator and umpire.

Power would belong to the survivors. To all these importunities the

Emperor’s answer was that no plot against them was in existence.1

The conspirators told the Emperor that as the Sayyads were strongly

supported by a large army and a numerous following of relations and

adherents, their only object in offering to resign was to secure an

unopposed withdrawal from the city, where they saw that it was im¬

possible to carry out a successful revolt. Once in their home country,

they would be certain to break out into rebellion. From this stage, the

quarrel having become public, concealment was no longer possible and

the principal nobles were called into consultation by Farrukhslyar.

Finally it was resolved not to interfere openly with the Sayyads, but

to appoint a new wazlr, in the hope that their adherents would fall

away from them. Most of these had resorted to them with the object

of obtaining assignments on the land revenue. Deserted, as they pro¬

bably would be, by these men, their party would be weakened and their

consequence would gradually diminish.

It is said that the leader in giving this advice was Mohammad

Amin Khan, 1‘timad-ud-daulah. His idea was that, since in length of

service, nobility of family, fertility of resource, and ability as a soldier,

there was in his opinion no one his equal or rival, the Emperor’s choice

must fall upon him. And it is quite likely that, if he had been sup¬

ported and given authority to act, he could have carried the affair to a

successful termination. But the Emperor’s advisers foresaw that if

the present danger were overcome through his aid, and their first

enemies removed out of their way, to get rid afterwards of the victor

would be a still more arduous enterprize than the one at present before

them. They preferred that Mir J umlah should receive the robes of Diwan

and assume the office of chief minister. Now, as a contemporary writer

remarks, Mir Jumlah and Khan Dauran “ were only carpet knights

1 Kam Raj, 536, Mirza Muhammad, 193.

1903.]

55

W. Irvine — The Later Mughals.

“ ( sher-i-qalln ) and not true fighters (mard-i-maidan) . They talked

“well, but evaded dealing with the kernel (rnagAz) of the matter.”

Mir Jumlah, having no real strength of character, knew that he was

not fitted to enter the lists as a champion to fight the Sayyads. He

therefore made excuses and drew on one side. Who, then, was “ to bell

the cat ” ? There remained Khan Dauran. He was in reality a mere

braggadacio, a big talker of the kind supposed to be the peculiar pro¬

duct of Hindustan ; 1 and he was frightened lest lie should ever be

called on to take the lead, and lose his life in the attempt to destroy

the Sayyads. Therefore he went secretly to Farrukhsiyar and suggest¬

ed as the best course that Muhammad Amin Khan should be propitiated

in every way, and the control of the affair confided to him. When it

had been concluded and the Sayyads destroyed, he could be removed

from office before he had time to consolidate his power. Overtures

ought to be made to him 2

Muhammad Amin Khan, who had learnt the inmost secrets of the

plot, and was also disheartened by the shifting moods of Farrukhsiyar,

was far from ready to accept the office. He said that he had no wish to

be wazir ; he was a plain soldier unaccustomed to such duties. If

fighting men were wanted and the Emperor would head the troops in

person, he would perform the obligations of a loyal servant and give

his life for his master. But in the absence of His Majesty, his own

troops and those of his relations were unequal to an attack on the

Sayyads. The imperial and Wald Shdhl troops had been warned for

service under him ; but he had no proof of their fighting quality. How

could he feel any confidence in them ? Besides,- they were all of them

near death’s door from poverty and hunger, having neither good

horses nor effective arms. In the Wdla Shdhi corps they had enlisted

many townsmen, who neither respected others nor were themselves

respected. Indeed, many lowcaste men and mere artisans held com¬

mands. He could not rely on such troops. Finding this lack of zeal

among his partisans, Farrukhsiyar began to lose heart. The men of the

Haft GauJci, or personal guard, were ordered into the palace ; and the

unity and firm resolve of the Sayyads having been fully ascertained, it

was decided to resume friendly relations with them.

While all these schemes were in progress, the Sayyads stopped at

home and were never seen at darbdr. Crowds of their dependents and

1 R. F. Burton “ Book of the Sword,” 108, note 4, applies to the Indians the

lines :

“for profound

“And solid lying much renowned.’

2 Mirza Muhammad, 194, ATiwal-i-khawdqin, 77h.

56

W. Irvine — The Later Mughals. [No. 1,

flatterers continued to attend their audiences. But soon it became

known that tbe Emperor had made up his mind to destroy them, and

bad transferred the office of wazh* to another. By slow degrees the

daily crowd of suppliants grew less and less. Nay, some of the very

Barhah Sayyads absented themselves, and the two brothers and their

adherents fell into great perplexity. If things had gone on like this

for three or four days longer, they would have been much reduced in

strength : in another week or ten days, the Emperor’s end would have

been gained. But it was not long before the truth leaked out, as to

the differences among his advisers, the want of heart in his troops, and

the state of alarm into which he had himself fallen. Once more the

Sayyads’ mart resumed its former briskness, and the throng at their

doors became greater than before.

The Emperor ordered Islam Khan, Mashhad!, formerly head of the

artillery, to point some cannon at Husain ‘All Khan’s mansion, and kill

him if possible. This order was not obeyed; and on Mir Jumlah’s

complaint, Islam Khan was sent for. That officer excused himself on

the plea of the risk to innocent neighbours, and asked what fault the

Sayyad had committed. Farrukhslyar began to complain of them. Islam

Khan then offered his services as intermediary. Having visited them

and expressed to them the Emperor’s grievances, Husain ‘Ali Khan

began with a denial of having thwarted the Emperor in the least. He

continued : “ The words of the truthful, though somewhat bitter, yield

“ pleasant fruit. As S‘adi of Shiraz says :

‘ Each good deed has its reward, each fault its penalty.1

“ If they were in fault, let the Emperor himself say so ; why should a

“ multitude suffer for the crimes of two men ; their heads were there,

“ready for His Majesty’s sword. By God Most High! since they

“ were real Sayyads, no word of reproach would escape their lips : —

We turn not our heads from the sword of the enemy,

Whatever falls on our head is our Destiny.”2

This talk frightened Islam Khan so much that he soon asked for

leave to go. He hurried back to Farrukhslyar. and worked on the

Emperor’s mind till his views were changed. Islam Khan then suggest¬

ed: “Why not send for them”? and he offered to bring them.

Farrukhslyar said : “ Good, I also wish it.” Islam Khan reported to the

Sayyads that the Emperor had turned round and would like to see

them. Husain ‘All Khan met this by the objection that though they

1 Har ’ ami ajr , o har gunah jazae darad,

* Sar na gardanem az tegh-i-janlb,

Har ccih dyad bar sar-i-man ba nasib.

1903.]

W. Irvine — The Later Mu ah als.

57

.1

were loyal, they could not go to Court while Mir Jumlah was there ;

but they were willing to go on active service. Why should they remaiq.

at Court when there was no real but only apparent friendship. “ Ser-

“ vice and submission are from the heart, not from the tongue.”1

Farrukhsiyar, who was much cast down at the refusal of his

friends to act, followed up this negotiation with further attempts to

conciliate the Sayyads and offers of doing their will, swearing many

oaths that he would never attempt to injure them again. Khwajah

Ja‘far, the holy man, an elder brother of Khan Dauran, Sayyad Husain

Khan, Barhah, Sayyad Shuja£at Khan and others, went to and fro re¬

peatedly. At these interviews the Sayyads expatiated, as usual, on their

good services and the devotion they had shown, diversified by loud

complaints of the Emperor’s ingratitude. At length they said that they

were convinced that the flames of illwill had been set alight by the

efforts of Mir Jumlah and Khan Dauran. So long as those two gentle¬

men were left at Court they did not feel justified in presenting them¬

selves there, for they would still be afraid of renewed attack. But

Khwajah Jaffar succeeded in overcoming their objection to Khan

D auran. He entered into a solemn covenant on his brother’s behalf,

that he would never again act towards the Sayyads contrary to the rules

of true friendship. Should the Emperor entertain any such project,

he would hinder its execution to the best of his ability. If unsuccess¬

ful, he would at once warn the Sayyads. On these terms Khan Dauran

was forgiven. Mir Jumlah was thus left to meet the brunt of their

displeasure, and they insisted on his dismissal from Court.8 It was

about this time that two of the Sayyads’ uncles, Sayyad Khan Jahan

and Asadullah Khan, counselled them to retire from Court. Qutb-ul-

Mulk objected that they were unfit for a saintly, recluse life. Khan

Jahan explained that he did not counsel retirement from the world, but

retirement from Court. “ Say to the Emperor that you do not wish

“ to remain at Court, that soldiers such as you are cannot manage the

“ duties of a wazlr or a hahhshl ; let him send one of you to Bengal, the

“ other to the Dakhin.” The brothers thought the proposal a good one,

but feared that it would be misrepresented by their enemies. Sayyad

Khan Jahan asked, How so ” P They replied that they would be

accused of meditating independence. Then another idea was brought

forward. Why should they not, in order to obtain the removal of Mir

Jumlah, propose that one of the two brothers leave Court at the same

time as Mir Jumlah. All present approved, and a request to this effect

was sent to the Emperor through I’tibar Khan, a eunuch. Strangely

1 Ahivdl’i.Tctiawdqin, 88a to 91&.

2 Mirza Muhammad, 198,

J, I. 8

58 W. Irvine — The Later Mu ghats. [Ho. 1,

enough Farrukhslyar had conceived a similar plan, and therefore the

offer was at once accepted.1

As Farrukhslyar was by this time in a great fright and held it of

the first importance to come to some settlement, he now consented glad¬

ly to all their demands. On the 22nd Zu,l Qa’dah 1126 H. (28th

November, 1714), the Emperor’s mother visited the house of Qutb-ul-

Mulk and on her son’s behalf renewed his promises, binding herself by

oaths in the most solemn form. On the next day Qutb-ul-Mulk with

all his retinue repaired to the palace. Mir Jumlah and Khlin Dauran

advanced as far as the door of the Public Audience Hall to receive him.

The Nawab reproached them to their faces in the severest language.

But the two cowards swallowed the bitter draught as if it had been

composed of sugar and honey. Nob a word of answer issued from their

lips. The Emperor was seated at the window in the Hall of Justice,

when Qutb-ul-Mulk came in, followed by forty to fifty of his most trusty

veterans. His Majesty embraced him affectionately and entered into

many excuses for his own doings, the tears standing in his eyes the

while. Qutb-ul-Mulk also wept, and recounted at length his own and

his brother’s many acts of loyalty and self-sacrifice, ending with as-

servations of their unalterable devotion. Then, in accordance with the

demands of the Sayyads, it was agreed that Mir Jumlah should be des¬

patched to §ubah Bahar ; while Lutfullah Khan. Sadiq, who furnished

all the brains that Mir Jumlah had, and was believed by the brothers

to be at the root of all the mischief, was deprived of his rank. His

mansion and gardens were confiscated, but on the request of Qutb-ul-

Mulk, the rest of his property was left to him. On the 5th Zu,l Hijjah

1126 H. (11th December, 1714), Mir Jumlah was conducted to Labor

in the charge of two mace-bearers.3

On the day appointed for their attendance, just before the Sayyads

were received in audience, Lutfullah Khan Sadiq, with effusive signs of

joy, had met them in the middle of the great court in front of the public

audience chamber, and began to sound their praises like a hired flat¬

terer. “ During their absence the Court, even at noomtide, had been

“ jffunged in the darkness of a long wiuter night, it seemed as if with

‘‘them the sun and moon had disappeared” and more in the same

strain. Qutb-ul-Mulk retorted roughly : “ What is the use of all this

“ fulsome talk ; if you meant it in your heart, why did you not show it

“ in acts and try to heal the breach ” P Lutfullah Khan then informed

them that he had noticed a change in the Emperor’s purpose, and be¬

lieved that mischief was intended, for this reason only had he now

1 Ahwal-i-khawaqjn , 93b.

2 Mirza Muhammad, 199, Kamwar Khan, 151, has 23rd — Warid, 151a.

1903.]

W. Irvine— The Later Muahals. 50

troubled them. Having planted the seeds of distrust in their hearts,

he hurried back to the Emperor and said that from what he had seen,

he expected the Sayyads would use force. Farrukhsiyar broke out

into anger: “The better I treat these men, the worse they oppose

me.” Additional guards were posted at the doors. After the usual

ceremonies, Qutb-ul-Mulk stepped forward and protested their loyalty,

and prayed that tale-bearers might no longer be listened to. For in¬

stance, a person trusted by His Majesty had just met them in the open

court of the Audience Hall, and professing to be their friend, had told them

that His Majesty meant to treat them harshly. If His Majesty thought

them worthy of punishment, let him execute them with his own hand ;

and they would be happy to become a sacrifice. Farrukhsiyar retorted

that a man had just told him the Sayyads intended to use force. The

Sayyads rejoined that till one of these men was punished, things would

never resume their proper course. The Emperor demanded the same.

Explanations followed ; this double treachery was brought home to the

culprit, and the incident was the principal cause of Lutfullah Khan’s

sudden disgrace.1

As Nawab Husain ‘All Khan would not come to court until Mir

Jumlah had left, the latter received his audience of dismissal on the

lId-uz-zuhci (16th December, 1714). Four days afterwards (20th De¬

cember, 1714), Husain ‘All Khan entered the palace with his men, ob¬

serving the same precautions as in the case of Qutb-ul-Mulk. The Em¬

peror and the Mir Bakhshl exchanged compliments, under which their

real sentiments were easily perceived. Some months before this time

(12th Ramazan, 1126 H. — 20th September, 1714) Husain ‘All Khan had

obtained in his own favour a grant of the Dakhin Subahs, in super-

1 Aliwdl-i-lchawdqin, 72a.

The following pungent chronogram is given by Khushhal Cand (404a), who

evidently disliked Lutfullah Khan very much : —

Ai ! la-bin ‘z ah-i-Tchalq Lutfullah

Az lulandi (ftddah dar tah-i-cah ;

Sal-i-tarikh az Khirad jxistam :

Ouft Hatif Tcih, “ Radd shud ladkhwah ” (1126).

“ Oh ! Behold, through the cries of the people, Lutfallah has fallen from a

lofty place into a deep well ; 1 sought the date from Wisdom. An angel spoke :

“ The wisher of evil was cast out.”

Lutfallah Khan went to his home at Panipat, where Mirza Muhammad paid

him a visit on the 9th Safar 1131 H, (28th Dec., 1718), when passing through on his

way from Dihlx to Rahun in the Jalandhar dudbah ( Mirza Muhammad, 420).

Dakhni Khanum, the Emperor’s maternal aunt, entered on possession of Lutfullah’ s

confiscated mansion.

60

[No. 1,

W. Irvine — The Later Mu ah ah.

session of Nizam-ul-Mulk. He had then no intention of proceeding

there in person, but meant to exercise the government through a deputy,

Daud Khan, as had been done by Zu.lfiqar Khan, after fixing the amount

of profit to be remitted to him every year. It was now proposed that

he should leave Court and take over charge of the Dakhin himself.

Owing to fears for his brother’s safety and other reasons, be had been

very reluctant to leave Dihli. At length, under pressure of circum¬

stances, he consented to take his departure to the South, Khan Dauran

Samsam-ud-daulah being appointed his deputy at Court. One writer1

ascribes this change of plan to Husain ‘All Khan’s disgust with recent

events. It should rather be looked on as part of the agreement under

which Mir Jumlah wTas sent away.2

On the 17th Zu,l Hijjah (3rd December, 1714), after his own troops

had taken charge of the palace gates, Husain ‘All Khan’s audience of

leave-taking took place; but his first march to Nizam-ud-din Auliya’s

tomb was postponed till the 29th Safar (5th March), and his actual

departure was not reported till the 30th Rabl‘ 1 1127 H. (4th April, 1715),

when he set out by way of Ajmer. At this last audience he had made

the significant remark that if in his absence, Mir Jumlah were recalled,

or his brother were subjected to annoyance, his return to Court might

be looked for within twenty days from the occurrence of either event.

He took with him power to appoint and remove all officials and exchange

the commanders of all forts in the Dakhin. Nay, a common story is

that, under compulsion, Farrukhsi var made over to him the great seal,

in order that the warrants of appointment to the forts should not re¬

quire imperial confirmation. The settlement of these various matters had

caused a delay of three or four months, which were spent by Husain ‘All

Khan at Barahpulah.8 Hardly was Husain ‘All Khan’s back turned before

new schemes were contrived, and on the 29th Jumadi I (3rd May, 1715),

Daud Khan, then Governor at Ahmadabad in Gujarat, was reappointed

to Burhanpur, one of the Siihahs under charge of Husain ‘All Khan.

Daud Khan received secret instructions from the Court to resist the Mir

Bakhshi to the best of his ability, and if possible to kill him. The

reward promised him was succession to the six Siihahs of the Dakhin.

"When we come to relate events in the various provinces during this

reign, we shall return to the subject. Suffice it to say here that, much

to the chagrin of the Court party, Daud Khan was killed in battle

near Burhanpur on the 8th Ramazan 1127 H. (6th September, 1715),

1 Mirza Mnharnmad, 202.

3 Khafi Khan, II, 741.

8 Mirza Muhammad, India Office Library, MS. No. 50, foil. 1286, Khafi

Khan, II, 742.

1903.]

61

W. Irvine — The Later Muahah.

and Husain ‘All Khan was victorious. In the same way, Mir Jumlah’s.

doings at Patnah will be told hereafter.1

Section 17. — Farru^hsIyar’s Marriage to AjIt Singh’s Daughter

(May-December 1715).

Owing to bis anxiety to return at once to Court, Husain ‘All Khan

had not been able to wait in Rajputanah, until Rajah Ajit Singh had

finished the necessary preparations for the despatch of his daughter to

Dihli. When the dispute with the Sayyads had been allayed and Husain

‘All Khan had taken his departure for the Dakhin, Shaistah Khan,

the Emperor’s maternal uncle, was sent on the 12th Jamadi I 1127 H.

(15th May, 1715) to bring the bride from her home at Jodhpur. He

arrived with her at Dihli on the 25th Ramazan 1127 H. (23rd September,

1715), and tents were erected within the palace for her reception.

She was then sent to the mansion of Amir-ul-Umara, and the prepara¬

tions for the wedding were made over to Qutb-ul-Mulk. Four days

afterwards the Emperor repaired to the mansion of Amir-ul-Umara, and

there on repetition of the creed, the lady was admitted into the Maho-

medan faith. The same night the marriage rite was performed by

Shari vat Khan, the chief Qazi, one lakh of gold coins 2 * being entered in

the deed as her dower. The nobles presented their congratulations, and

the Qazi received a present of Rs. 2, 000). 5

The bridegroom’s gifts to the bride4 were provided on a regal scale

by the Emperor’s mother, and sent to the bride’s quarters on the 15th Zu,l

Hijjah (11th December, 1715), accompanied by many nobles, who were

entertained by Qutb-ul-Mulk, On the 20th the ceremony of applying

henna to the bridegroom’s hands and feet carried out, and the persons

who brought it were entertained in the usual way.6 On the 21st (17th

December, 1715), the whole of the Diwan-i-‘Am and the courtyard ( Jilau

Khcinah ). both sides of the road within the palace, and the plain towards

the Jamnah were illuminated by lamps placed on bamboo screens.

About nine o’clock in the evening, Farrukhsiyar came out by the Dihli

1 Kamwar Khan, — Report of battle received 10th Shawwal, 1127 H. (8th Octo¬

ber, 1715).

8 Ashrafi , a gold coin worth 16 rupees.

8 Mirza Muhammad, 212, Kamwar Khan, 156, 158.

4 These were called the Sdchaq, a Tnrki word. Mirza Muhammad tried to get

into the palace of Qutb-ul-Mulk as a spectator, but the crowd was so great that he

was forced to come away. In the Orme Collections, p. 1697, Surman’s diary says :

“ December 1st. Great preparations made for the King’s marriage with the Rauny

that arrived some time ago.” December 1st, Old Style = December 12th, New Style.

6 Mirza Muhammad, I. O. Library, No. 50, fol. 132a. For Hinna landau , Mahndi

landau , see Herklot’s “ Qanoon e-Islam,” p. 68.

62

W. Irvine — The Later Mugjials. [No. 1,

gate of the palace, seated on a moveable throne and wearing, according to

usage, the clothes sent to him by the bride’s father, of which Khemsi,

Bhandari, had been the bearer. The Emperor was preceded by plat¬

forms, on which stood women singing and dancing as they were carried

along. Fireworks were let off.1 The Emperor entered the house of

Amir-ul-Umara and there completed the usual ceremonies. Those ob¬

served on this occasion were a mixture of Mahomedan and Hindu usages.

One which caused much remark was the offer to the guest of a drink

made of rose-water, sugar, and opium. This mixture was pressed on

them by the Rajputs on the plea that it was the custom of their country.

Many Mahomedans drank of it, but some objected. There was another

thing never seen before in an imperial wedding. A gold plate had been

made with five divisions, and each of these divisions was filled with pre¬

cious stones. In one, diamonds ; in another, rubies ; in the third, emeralds ;

in the fourth, topazes ; and in the fifth, which was in the centre of them

all, large and valuable pearls.2 F arrukhsiyar returned late at night,

bringing the bride with him to the palace, which he entered by the Labor

gate, it being unlucky to go and come by the same route. The festivities

continued to the end of the month.3

The consummation of the marriage had been delayed . for a month

or two by Farrukhsiyar’s illness. When he returned to Dihli on the

I9th Shacban (19th August, 1715), he was suffering from haemorrhoids.

It was on this occasion that the services of William Hamilton, the

English surgeon, were called into requisition. He had accompanied

an embassy sent to Dihli to complain of the conduct of Murshid Quli

Khan, Nazim of Bengal, in regard to the re-imposition of the custom

duties which had been remitted by ‘Alamgir.4 By the 16th October

1 Mirza Muhammad and his brother were present in tbe processian, on foot.

They went with it from the DIwan-i-'Am to the house of Amir-ul-Umara, M.M., 219.

2 Yahya, 122b, Khushhal Cand, 402a.

8 Taghaiyyar-i-rdh dadan ; not to return by the way or gate by which you

went, a practice observed by the Emperors of Hindustan ( Mirdtu-l-istildh). Mir

‘Abd-ul-Jalil, Bilgrami, wrote a long masnavi, or narrative poem, in honour of the

occasion. (Lithographed at Nawal Kishor Press, Lakhnau, 1299 H.) Mr. Beale

praises it for the skill with which the Hindu names of the planets are introduced

under the guise of Persian words. ( MiftaTi , 301). The chronogram of Mhd. Ahsan,

Ma’ni Khan (Ijad), was : —

From the garden of Maharajah Jaswant Singh

A flower came to the secret chambers of the palace.

Zi ldgh-i-Mahdrdjah Jaswant Singh

Ba mushlcbue daulat dardmad gule (1127). Miftah , 302, Mirza

Muhammad, 213-14, Kamwar Khan, and Wheeler, 178.

4 J. T. Wheeler, “ Early Records, ” 169-184.

1903.]

63

W. Irvine — The Later Mu ghats.

(N.S.), the Emperor had been for some time under treatment by Mr.

Hamilton. His ailments are said in the envoy’s letters to have been

first swellings in the groin and then a threatened fistula. This account

agrees closely with the contemporary writer, Kamwar Khan’s, state¬

ment.1 On the 3rd, Earrukhsivar bathed on his recovery, and on the

10th December the surgeon was publicly presented with valuable gifts.

As to this mission we shall give further details in a future section.

Section 18. — Fight between the Retainers of Muhammad Amin Kj^an

and of Khan Dauran (April 1st, 1716).

As an illustration of the disorder and want of discipline prevailing,

even when the Emperor was present, among the large bodies of troops

maintained by the chief nobles, we will here recount a fight which took

place between the men of Muhammad Amin Khan and those of Khan

Dauran. On the 6th Rabi‘ II 1128 H. (29th March, 1716), Farrukh-

siyar started for one of his numerous hunting expeditions to Siuli, a

preserve near Sonpat and about 20 miles north of Dihli. On the 26th

(18th April, 1716), he returned to Agharabad, just north of the city, and

pitched his camp near the garden of Shalihmar. Three days afterwards

(21st April, 1716), Mirza Muhammad rode out from the city in the

morning, and after paying some visits, alighted at the tents of Sa'dullah

Khan, where he ate his breakfast and took a sleep. Kear the time of

afternoon prayer ( zuhar ), at less than three hours to sunset, as he

was preparing to go home, he heard the sound of cannon and musketry

fire. The men of Muhammad Amin Khan and of Khan Dauran

had begun to fight. The contest went on for over an hour, and as

Mirza Muhammad was riding home, he met crowds of armed men,

who were hurrying from the city to take a part in the affray, the

majority being retainers of Muhammad Amin Khan, most of whose

men had gone into the city, whereas Elian Dauran’s were still with

him. Opposite the Surkh-sangi or red-stone Mosque, Qamr-ud-din

Khan, son of Muhammad Amin Elian, was encountered, galloping

at the head of some men to his father’s aid. During the night word was

brought into the city that by Farrukhsiyar’s orders, Amin-ud-din

Khan and others had parted the combatants and settled the dispute.

The origin of the affair was this. Muhammad Amin Khan’s retinue

was returning from the audience to their own tents at the time Elian

1 0 ciin dar In ayyam nasure dar otzae safall-i-Bddshdh-i-daurdn ariz shudah

bud . . . “ as in those days a gangrene had established itself in the ignoble

parts of the reigning Emperor ”... Kamwar Khan’s date for the gifts is

the 14th Zul, Qa’dah (10th Nov., 1715 ). The English Envoy (on July 7th, 1715),

calls the ailment bluntly “ buboes, ” Orme Coll., p. 1695.

64

[No. i.

W. Irvine — The Later Muahals.

Daman’s wife was on her road from the city. The two corteges met, and

in passing each other there was some confusion and hustling. As soon as

Khan Dauran’s men had escorted the Begam to her destination, they

returned in a body and attacked Muhammad Amin Khan’s baggage.

The few guards resisted, and a bow and arrow and matchlock fight con¬

tinued for about one and a half hours. One Namdar Khan and several

soldiers lost their lives ; many of the bazar followers also being killed

and wounded. The Emperor reduced both nobles 1,000 zdt in rank, and

the faujddri of Muradabad was taken from Muhammad Amin Khan

and conferred on Amin-ud-din Khan. For two or three days neither

noble would come to darbar. Then Farrukhsiyar wrote a note to Khan

Dauran and sent I’ timad Khan, a eunuch, to bring Muhammad Amin

Khan. A reconciliation was effected between the two men ; and after

their arrival in the city, they entertained each other in turn as a sign

of renewed friendship.* 1 2 3 4 5 6

Authorities quoted (in addition to those named in Yol. LXIII, pp.

112-114, Yol. LXY, pp. 210-212, and Yol. LXYI1, pp. 103-104).

Printed Books (European Languages.)

1. Thornton — Gazetteer, 1 Yol., 1857.

2. O . A. HerJclots — Qanoone Islam (Madras Reprint), 1863.

3. J. T. Wheeler — Early Records — 1878.

4. Rajputanah Gazetteer , 3 Yols., 1879-80.

5. R. F. Burton — Book of the Sword, 1884.

6. H. W. Bellew , Races of Afghanistan, 1891.

Lithographed Books (Persian).

1. Masnavi of ‘Abd-ul-jalil, Bilgrami (Lakhnau, Nawal Kishor

Press),- J299 H.

Persian and Hindi Manuscripts.

1. Blum Sen — Tari IRi-i-dilkushd, -^British Museum, Oriental MSS.,

No. 28 (1120 H.)

2. Tuhfat-ul-Hind — by Lai Ram, B. M. Addl. MSS. No 6583, 6581.

(1148 H.)

3. Malahat-i- Maqal — By Rao Dalpat Singh, B.M. Or., No. 1828

(1181 H.)

4. Tarikh-i-Muzaffart — By Muhammad ‘All Khan (my copy)

(1225 H.)

5. Tawankh-i-Mdrivdr (in Hindi) — By Murari Das, B.M. Or. 5839

(1879?)'

1 Kamwar Khan, p. 163, Mirza Muhammad, 260, Wheeler 182, Khnshhal Cand,

404a, 405b. ^

V

i

■ ■

ygjfe s

1

.? 5 »s>2k-

filSgg

nm

m 4s<

w^-

||sll

If iff

sfess

65

1903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language, Sf Recent Dictionaries

The Tibetan Language, and Recent Dictionaries. 1 — Bij E. H. 0. Walsh,

Esq., I.O.S.

[Read, November, 1903.]

Part I.

At the present time when matters connected with Tibet are occupy¬

ing an unwonted amount of public attention, the Tibetan language is a

matter of interest to more than the necessarily restricted circle of

scholars, missionaries, or officials who are themselves acquainted with it.

The Tibetan Dictionary, which after many years’ labour has at length

been completed, and has been published by the Government of Bengal,

may therefore be supposed to interest that wider circle as shewing the

latest that is known regarding the language of a people, with whom it

is to be hoped we may be brought into closer relations of friendship and

commerce in the future, than their strict exclusiveness has permitted

in the past.

The present Dictionary, as is stated in the preface, was commenced

in 1889, and Rai Sarat Chandra Das Bahadur was placed by Government

on special duty for its compilation. He completed his work in 1899

after ten years’ labour, and his proofs then underwent revision, which

occupied two years, by the Rev. Graham Sandberg, and the Rev. A. W.

Heyde, the former of whom brought to bear the knowledge of the

scholar; and the latter not only the knowledge of the scholar, but a prac¬

tical knowledge of the spoken language based on many years’ labours,

as a Missionary on the Western borders of Tibet. As regards Rai

Sarat Chandra Das’s qualifications as a compiler little need be said.

His name is sufficiently well known as a Tibetan scholar, and his

experiences in his second adventurous journey in Tibet in 1881-82

. ' r *. J ' • r '* .. ' - _

1 A Tibetan English Dictionary with Sanskrit synonyms, by Sarat Chandra Das,

Rai Bahadur, C.I.E. Revised and edited under the orders of the Government of

Bengal by Graham Sandberg, B.A., and A. William Heyde, Calcutta. Published by

the Bengal Secretariat Book Depot, 1902.

J. i. 9

66 E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , fy "Recent Dictionaries . [No. 2,

have been recently published in his “Journey to Lhasa and Central

Tibet.” i

The qualifications of the workmen are undoubted ; it remains there¬

fore to see to what extent and in what respects the present dictionary

is an advance on its predecessors.

The Tibetans themselves have possessed dictionaries of their own

language from very early times, from soon after the date of its first re¬

duction to writing.

These lexicons, or lists of words, so far as any of them have been

attainable, have been previously utilised by Jaschke in his Dictionary,1 2

but they are not “dictionaries” in the accepted use of the term, as

containing a complete list, of the recognised words of the language, but

rather lists of certain words, chiefly of Sanskrit importation, found in the

early religious works, and which from the very fact of their not being

generally known require explanation. Such lists are therefore of little

value as regards the current language.

The earliest European Dictionary of Tibetan was compiled by the

Capuchin Friars who were settled in Lhasa in the early half of the

eighteenth century, two of whom, Francisco Orazio della Penna and

Cassian di Macerata, sent home materials they had collected which were

Compiled by the Augustine Friar, Giorgi da Rimini, and published under

the title of “ Alphabetum Tibetanum ” at Rome in 1762. The Tibetan

characters for this work were drawn by Della Penna and were engraved.

This also is an incomplete list of words, and many of which subsequent

knowledge has shewn to be of doubtful accuracy. The next Dictionary

of Tibetan was published at Serampur in 1826 at the expense of the East

India Company, and Tibetan types were employed. This was edited by the

Rev. John Marshman, from the notes of an unknown Italian Missionary

whose manuscript came into the hands of Father Schroeter, a Mission¬

ary in Bengal, who merely transcribed the Italian into English. These

manuscripts consisted of all the sentences that the unknown Italian

Missionary could get transcribed by a native teacher, to which he had

added extracts from the Padma tangyig, a series of popular legends about

the Tibetan saint Padma Sambhava. The proofs had to be left unrevised

as there was no Tibetan scholar to revise them. “ Though richer in

words than later dictionaries, the work cannot therefore be accepted as

1 Journey to Lhasa and Central Tibet, by Sarat Chandra Das, C.I.E. Edited by

the Hon’ble Mr. Kockhill, London. John Murray, 1902.

2 “ A Tibetan English Dictionary, with special reference to the prevailing

dialects.” Prepared and published at the charge of the Secretary of State for

Jndia in Council. London, 1881.

67

1903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , fy Recent Dictionaries.

an authority on any doubtful point.” 1 The next Dictionary, and the

first one which answers to the modern description of a dictionary, was

that of Alexander Csoma de Koros, a Hungarian Missionary,3 who also

published a grammar of the language at the same time. This was also

published at the expense of the Indian Government. This Dictionary

of Csoma de Koros is the basis on which Jasclike founded his subsequent

dictionaries, and on which therefore all subsequent dictionaries may be

said to have been built.

Csoma de Koros, however, adopted an alphabetical arrangement of

the letters, which differed from that employed by the Tibetans them¬

selves, and from the scientific construction of the language, and which

has consequently been abandoned by Schmidt and Jaschke and subse¬

quent writers who have followed the natural order of the letters, namely?

that adopted by the Tibetans themselves. The manner in which Csoma

de Koros departed from the natural order was by arranging words com¬

mencing with a prefix or superscribed letter, according to the alphabetical

order of the prefix or superscribed letter. For those not acquainted with

Tibetan it is necessary to explain that there are in Tibetan five prefixes

P|’ 2^’ ga, da, ba, ma, a, which, though written, and in spelling

treated as a separate syllable, are never pronounced, except where the

word, which they commence, forms the second portion of a compound

word, of which the first portion ends in a vowel, when they are sounded,

bjr a process corresponding to the liaison in French, with the exception

that it is the first letter of the following word that is sounded instead of

the last letter of the preceding one, in the French liaison . As an example :

— Bzhi “ four,” is pronounced shi, and — Bchu “ ten,” is pro¬

nounced chu when occurring as a single word. When the two words

form a compound together it its pronounced not clm-shi “ fourteen ” or

shi-chu “forty,” but chubshi and shibchu. Similarly, there are three

superscribed letters — ^ Of r, l, and s, which, in Central Tibetan,

are also silent except in the case of r and Z, where the word they

commence forms the second factor in a compound word, when they are

sounded ; ^ with its own sound of r and (2J Z, with the sound of n.

Thus, in case of the two words taken for an example above, Csoma

1 Prof. Terrien de Lacouperie, in the Encyclopedia Brittanica,

2 Essay towards a dictionary, Tibetan and English. Alexander Csoma de Koros ,

Calcutta, Baptist Mission Press, 1834.

68 E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , 8f Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

de Koros classifies each as beginning with £]• b, but the Tibetans, re¬

garding the prefixes and the superscribed letters as merely adjuncts,

treat these words as beginning with (cj* zh and ch respectively,

which is the arrangement now universally followed.

Although Csoma de Koros had lived for years as a monk in a Tibetan

Monastery in order to fit himself for his work, and must have acquired

an intimate knowledge of the spoken language, his dictionary is con¬

fined to the literary language only, and founded on the Kangyur and

other classical books, the language of which, as will be presently noticed,

bears little resemblance to the language of the present day. The rea¬

son was that he was writing for philologists, and scholars of Buddhist

writings, but it is a great pity that his undoubted knowledge of the

Western Dialect, at any rate, of the modern language, has thus been

lost.

The next Tibetan Dictionary was published at St. Petersburg by

Professor J. J. Schmidt in 1841.1 This was practically an adaptation

of Csoma de Koros by translating it from English into German, though

With the addition of a number of Mongolian words derived from three

Mongolian Dictionaries; but in other respects it cannot be considered as

much of an advance on Csoma’s Dictionary except that, as already

noticed, the words were arranged in their natural order. Professor

Schmidt had also published a Tibetan Grammar2 in 1839. In 1858, Prof.

Ph. Foucaux, who had already translated several Tibetan works, the

Tibetan characters of which were lithographed, published a Tibetan

Grammar in Paris.3 In 1881, the Rev. H. A. Jaschke’s Dictionary

appeared, which up to the present time has been the standard work on

the Tibetan language. This work was a revised edition of a Tibetan-

German Dictionary which appeared in a lithographed form between the.

years 1871 and 1876, and which embodied the materials which he and

his colleagues in the Moravian Mission at Kyelang in British Lahoul

had been engaged in collecting since 1857.

As it is, therefore, by comparison with Jaschke’s Dictionary that

the advance made by the Dictionary now under review must be chiefly

judged, it is necessary to consider in what respect Jaschke’s Dictionary

was an advance on all its predecessors. In the first place it is much

fuller and more copious ; authorities and examples are quoted in sup¬

port of the literary words; the alphabetical arrangement of the words, as

1 Tibetisch-Deutsches Worterbuch. St. Petersburg, 1841.

8 Grammatik des Tibetischen Spraclie.

8 Grammaire Thibetaine.

J903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language, Sf Recent Dictionaries . 69

already noted, is in scientific order ; and most important of all,

it incorporates the colloquial and business language of the present day,

and also differentiates between the words and idioms in use in Central

Tibet and those peculiar to, or prevalent in the Western Dialects, with

which the Moravian Mission was chiefly concerned. To quote from the

preface, his studies were with the object of making a translation of the

Bible into Tibetan, and for this purpose to ascertain “ the exact range

of words in their ordinary and common usage ” for which purpose lie

traced them through their consecutive historical applications till he

“reached their last signification in their modern equivalents, as these

are embodied in the provincial dialects of our own time;” and he

further exemplified the usages of such words with copious illustrations

and examples.

Though, as has been already said, Jaschke represents the sum

total of our knowledge of the Tibetan language up to the compilation of the

present Dictionary, and was the ground-work on which the compiler and

revisers of the present Dictionary framed their work, there was being

written at the same time another Dictionary, from an entirely indepen¬

dent source, which the author and revisers had not seen, and were not

acquainted with. This was the Dictionary in Tibetan, Latin, and French

of Father Desgodins 1 published at Hongkong in 1899.

i-jj This Dictionary was commenced in 1852 by M. Renou, the founder

of the French Tibetan Mission, on the Chinese Frontier. When Csoma

de Koros’ Dictionary appeared, M. Fage, one of the Mission, united in one

manuscript the words of Csoma’s Dictionary, and also added the results

of their own independent investigations. At the same time he altered

the alphabetical arrangement of the words to that followed by the

Tibetans which, as has been already alluded to, was subsequently but

quite independently done by Jaschke in his Dictionary. In 1883

Father Desgodins left the Chinese Frontier of Tibet and founded the

Catholic Mission at Pedong, on the borders of Sikhim, in the Kalim-

pong Sub-Division of Darjeeling. He then obtained a copy of Jasclike’s

Dictionary which had been recently published, and noted all that he

found new in Jaschke on to M. Fage’s Dictionary, as noted up to date

by the Mission. The additional matter derived from this source is

marked in the dictionary by a letter (J.), and it is interesting to note

how few words or phrases bear this mark, which shews the similarity

of the results obtained by two entirely independent sets of scholars^

working the one at the extreme Eastern and the other at the extreme

Western frontiers of Tibet.

v - «• t r. '

1 Dictionaire Thibetain-Latin-Frainjais, par les Missionaires Cafcholiques du

Thibet-Honkong-Imprimerie de la Societe des Missions Etrangeres. 1899.

70 E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , 8f Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

Although this Dictionary was published at Hongkong in 1899,

copies did not reach this country till some time later. Towards

the end of J 901, I had the opportunity of comparing this Dictionary

of M. Desgodins with the proofs of certain portions of the Dictionary

now under review, and found that it contained a certain num¬

ber of words that did not occur in the present Dictionary. I there¬

fore suggested both to Rai Sarat Chandra Das, and to the Rev.

Mr. Heyde, that it would be useful if a comparison of the two dic¬

tionaries were made, and any words found in Desgodins’ Dictionary that

do not occur in the present one were added as an appendix at the end,

for reference ; as, even if not accepted as correct, they would serve as a

basis for further research and enquiry.

The compiler and reviser, however, both thought that this was not

desirable. It certainly appears to be a pity that this could not have

been done. Had these words been published as an appendix, stating the

source from which they were taken, the compiler and revisers would

have incurred no responsibility for their correctness, and those using the

Dictionary ’would have had the opportunity of checking them by the

test of usage. It is probable that so far as they are not known on this

side of Tibet, they are words in use in the dialects of the Eastern pro¬

vinces where, as already noted, the earlier materials for M. Fage’s

dictionaries were collected, and where Father Desgodins himself laboured

for more than thirty years.

The consideration of this question leads to two other questions of

importance, namely : (1) what authority is requisite for the acceptance

of words in colloquial use; and (2) to what extent are the variations

of dialect to be recognised in a Standard Tibetan Dictionary.

As regards the first of these questions it must be borne in mind

that the modern and colloquial language of Tibet differs so entirely?

except in the case of comparatively few words and expressions, from the

classical literary language, as to constitute almost two distinct languages ;

and also that there is practically no Tibetan literature in the current

colloquial of the day.

The authority for the meaning or usage of current words cannot

therefore be based, as in other languages, on their acceptance in the

writings of the country, and must be accepted on personal authority

until they can be checked by other observers.

It is, in fact, the chief defect of the present Dictionary that it does

not distinguish between words that are purely literary, those which while

literary are at the same time also in current use, and those which are

purely current and colloquial.

It is true that the author “ has marked such words as he considers

J 903.] E. H. Walsli — Tibetan Language , 8f Decent Dictionaries. 71

O ft o t \

archaic, or gone out of present use, with a Swastika > but the

total number of words so marked is only 188 words in large type and 65

words and expressions under small type ; a total of 263 words, in the

whole Dictionary of 1353 pages ; so that this indication is of little value,

and it is difficult to see on what ground these particular words have been

selected rather than others.

It is not implied, by the above remarks, that the present Dictionary

does not contain the colloquial language at all. It does so, and to a

larger extent than previous dictionaries, but what is colloquial is not

distinguished from what is literary.

- It may be argued that in a Tibetan-English Dictionary this is not so

necessary as it would be in an English-Tibetan Dictionary, inas¬

much as the person who looks for any word, himself knows the

source from which he has obtained it. This may be so, but at the same

time, the person who hears for the first time a colloquial word spoken

by a common Tibetan, if he succeeds in finding it in the Dictionary,

would like to know whether it were also an accepted word in literature,

and the person looking out a word found in a book would at the same

time like to know whether it is a word which would be understood if he

used it in ordinary conversation.

As shewing the complete divergence between the literary and

spoken languages, we cannot do better than translate the following

passage from M. Desgodins* preface to his Grammar of spoken Tibetan.1

Speaking of the early writers who formed the literary language

from the seventh century of our era onwards, he says: “They have

formed for Tibet a sacred language. This language has never been

understood except by those who have made a special study of it ; it has

not penetrated into the usage of the people, who have preserved their

own dialects and their own patois , leaving to rare scholars, lamas, or

laymen, the care of reading, understanding and explaining, if they are

able, the sacred books. These scholars themselves never speak as their

books are written, and if anyone were to speak this language to them,

either they would not understand him, or they would say, “ One writes

in that way, but speaks quite differently. * ”

As regards any but these rare scholars, one may confidently endorse

the first alternative and say that no one else if so addressed would under¬

stand the language at all.

In considering this divergence, it will be well to give a brief outline

of the growth of the Tibetan literary language from the time when

l Essai de Grammaire Thibetaine, ponr la language parlee, par A. Desgodins,

Hongkong. Imprimerie do Naweth. 1899.

72

E. H. Walsh— Tibetan Language Sf Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

Thonmi Sambhota, the minister of king Srongtsan Gampo, returned to

Tibet after studying the Sanskrit language at Magadlia, and introduced

the art of writing, in the early part of the seventh century. It must

always be borne in mind that the original object of introducing the

art of writing into Tibet was to propagate the Buddhist religion

which had been officially adopted by that country, by the transla¬

tion into Tibetan of the Buddhist writings which existed in India in

Sanskrit.

Jaschke divides the period of literary activity into two parts, and we

cannot do better than quote his reference to them in the Preface of his

Dictionary.

“ The first is the Period of Translations, which, however, might

also be entitled the Classical Period, for the sanctity of the religious

message conferred a corresponding reputation and tradition of excellence

upon the form in which it was conveyed. This period begins in the

first half of the seventh century when Thon-mi Sambhota, the minister

of king Srongtsan Gampo, was sent to India to learn Sanskrit. His

invention of the Tibetan alphabet gave a two-fold impulse : for several

centuries the wisdom of India and the ingenuity of Tibet laboured in

unison and with the greatest industry and enthusiasm at the work of

translation. The tribute due to real genius must be awarded to these

early pioneers of Tibetan Grammar. They had to grapple with the

infinite wealth and refinement of Sanskrit, they had to save the in¬

dependence of their own tongue, while they strove to subject it to the

rule of scientific principles ; and it is most remarkable how they managed

to produce translations at once literal and faithful to the spirit of the

original. The first masters had made for their later disciples a com¬

paratively easy road, for the style and contexts of the writings with

which the translators had to deal present very uniform features. When

once typical patterns had been furnished it was possible for the literary

manufacture to be extended by a sort of mechanical process.” “A

considerable time elapsed before natives of Tibet began to indulge in

compositions of their own. When they did so, the subject-matter chosen

by them to operate upon, was either of a historical or of a legendary

kind. In this second period the language shews much resemblance to

the modern tongue, approaching most closely the present idiom of

Central Tibet. We find a greater freedom in construction, a tendency

to use abbreviated forms (thus the mere verbal root is often inflected in

place of a complete infinitive) and a certain number of new grammatical

combinations.”

This second period commenced about the year 1025 A.D., and may

be said to have continued down to the end of the seventeenth century.

1903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , 8f Recent Dictionaries.

73

It contains the works of the Tibetan saints Milaraspa and Atisa and

various others who followed them.

To these two periods, Sarat Chandra Das adds a third, commencing

from the establishment of the Dalai Lama’s Sovereignty over the whole

of Tibet in the beginning of the eighteenth century. With regard to

this more recent period he remarks : “ Neither he (Jaschke) nor Csoma

de Koros had any means or opportunities of studyiug either the current

literature of every-day business, or the refined idiomatic literature of

Tibet itself, which is quite distinct from the Indian literature that was

imported into the language. They do not seem to have ever during the

course of their study of Tibetan come across works on drama, fiction,

correspondence, &c. It is, therefore, no wonder that the compiler of the

later Dictionary should assign only two periods to the history of the

literature of Tibet, entirely ignoring the third which is indeed not the

least important of the three.”

We do not know what books Rai Sarat Chandra Das may be refer¬

ring to as “the current literature of every-day business,” but think

that he must have employed a term which is unintentionally misleading,

as, so far as I am aware, no current books that would answer such a des¬

cription exist. Rai Sarat Chandra Das brought a large number of books

with him from Lhasa, a catalogue of which was published ; but there is

no book in that list that would answer to such a description.

As regards “ correspondence,” Rai Sarat Chandra Das has obtained

a large amount of entirely new matter, which has been published by

Government separately under the title of “Yig Kur Nam Shag”

J-&J' £Tj(ejZTj ) being a collection of letters, both official and pri-

vate, and illustrating the different forms of correspondence used in Tibet.

The first part of this book consists of copies of the original letters,

chiefly official, issued by the minister Sheda, also known as Pishipa, the

minister who favoured Abbes Hue and Gabet during their visit to

Lhasa in 1846. These letters are among the papers in the State offices

at Lhasa, but Rai Sarat Chandra Das was able to obtain copies of them

through the kindness of the two sons of another minister, Shape Phala,

whose guest he had been at Lhasa. The second part consists of letter-

forms, partly composed and partly compiled by the late Lama Sherab

Gyatsho, Head Lama of Ghoom Monastery ; and the third part is a popu¬

lar complete letter writer intended for business and ordinary corres¬

pondence, a copy of which was obtained by Mr. A. W. Paul, C.I.E.,

Political Officer of the Sikhim expedition of 1888, among the things which

the Tibetans left behind in their flight.

It must, however, be borne in mind that although a large number

J. t. 10

74 E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language, Sf Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

of current words and new colloquial phrases have been added in the

present Dictionary, this has been, so to speak, incidental ; the primary

object of the Dictionary and its scope being purely literary. This is

clearly stated in the Preface. The Dictionary owed its inception to the

recommendation of Csoma de Koros in the preface to his Dictionary, in

1834, that at a further date “ the Tibetan Dictionary may be much im¬

proved, enlarged, and illustrated by the addition of Sanskrit terms.” “ In

the year 1889,” says Sarat Chandra Das, “ I brought these opinions of that

original investigator to the notice of Sir Alfred Croft, K.C.I.E., the then

Director of Public Instruction in Bengal, and explained to him the

necessity of compiling a Tibetan- English Dictionary on the lines in¬

dicated by Csoma de Koros, and particularly to assist European scholars

in the thorough exploration of the vast literature of Tibet.” This new

matter was also based on four dictionaries of classical Tibetan which

Rai Sarat Chandra Das brought with him from Tibet.

The reason for the existence of these Sanskrit terms in the old

literary Tibetan, as has been already noticed, is that all the earlier

Tibetan literature consists of translations from Sanskrit works on the

Buddhist religion. These early books were written in a series of triplets

of lines.

The centre line being generally the Sanskrit, the upper line the

phonetic sound of the Sanskrit in Tibetan (a phonetic transliteration),

and the bottom line the translation of the Sanskrit into Tibetan. This

is the usual arrangement, though the Sanskrit is also sometimes the top

line of the three. The transliterated words of the upper line are what

form the “Sanskrit terms,” and the interest that attaches to these

Sanskrit terms in Tibetan is that the translation then given shews what

was held to be the meaning in the seventh century of various philoso¬

phical terms, whose exact meaning may have since become altered or

uncertain. This interest, however, is purely literary and philosophical.

In addition to these actually transliterated Sanskrit words, there

are a number of Sanskrit synonyms. These Sanskrit equivalents, as

is stated in the Reviser’s Preface, have been taken from one celebrated

Sanskrit-Tibetan Dictionary, and supplemented by Pandit Satish Chan¬

dra Acharya Vidyabhushan, who has also in numerous instances append¬

ed a literal English rendering of the Sanskrit terms.

It is difficult to estimate exactly the amount of new matter which

the present Dictionary contains as compared with its predecessor

Jaschke and its contemporary Desgodins.

It contains 1353 pages as compared with 608 in Jaschke’s (Tibetan-

English portion) and 1087 in Desgodins. Such comparison is however

misleading, as owing to different size of type and spacing the amount of

75

1903.] E. H. Walsh — ■ Tibetan Language , ty Recent Dictionaries .

printed matter on the page is different in each. Taking the average of a

certain number of similar pages in each of the three dictionaries, 1

find that Sarat Chandra Das’s contains 571 words to the page, Jaschke’s

696 and Desgodins’ 325 ; and correcting according to this standard)

Jaschke’s 608 pages are equivalent to 743 of the present Dictionary,

while Desgodin’s 1087 pages are only equivalent to 618, and Jaschke’s

608 pages contains more printed matter than Desgodiu’s 1087. Even

thus, however, this comparison by bulk would be somewhat misleading

owing to the fact that Desgodins’ Dictionary is written in Latin as well

as French ; so that for every word or example given there is first the

Latin equivalent and then tlie French, which would reduce the matter

by one- third if the dictionary were only bi -lingual as in the case of the

other two. But, against this, on the other hand, must be set the fact

that in Desgodins* the Tibetan words and examples are only printed

m the Tibetan character, while in Sarat Chandra Das’s besides being

printed in the Tibetan character they are followed by their trans¬

literation in the English character, which takes up a corresponding

space.

For a similar reason the comparison by bulk between the present

Dictionary and Jaschke’s would be misleading, as in Jaschke’s only the

original word is printed in the Tibetan character, all phrases and exam¬

ples given under it being given in their transliteration only ; so that the

real difference in the matter between Jaschke’s and the present Dictionary

is not nearly so great as a comparison by bulk would appear to imply.

However, putting aside the exact amount, there is no doubt that the

present Dictionary contains a vast amount of new matter. It remains

to see of what it consists.

Here I would remark that it is a great pity that new words not to

be found in Jaschke have not been distinguished by any mark, which

could very easily have been done, and would have involved no extra

labour at the time of compilation.

The extra matter therefore consists of —

(1) a large number of new literary words, and authorities, and ex¬

amples of their use, compiled by Rai Sarat Chandra Das.

(2) a collection of Sanskrit equivalents to the literary words made

by Dr. A. Schiefner. These are marked by an asterisk.

(3) Sanskrit Synonyms added by Pandit Satis Chandra Acharya

Vidyabhushan.

(4) a large number of fresh authorities for previously existing liter¬

ary words and ‘examples of their use.

(5) a number of current words collected by Rai Sarat Chandra Das,

with examples of their use.

76 E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , fy Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

(6) a certain number of additional current words added by the

Revisers. With regard to these last two, it is a still greater pity that

they were not marked by some distinguishing sign.

(7) Philosophical explanations of Buddhistic religious terms.

(8) Information of what may be termed an Encyclopedic character.

It is perhaps under this last head that the chief amount of addi¬

tional matter may be said to fall.

To take a couple of concrete examples of common words. Under

dus, “ time,” in Jaschke’s we find four columns equivalent to nearly

five columns of the present Dictionary. In Desgodins’ (including

and which in the other dictionaries fall under

) we find nearly three columns, equivalent to less than two columns

of the present Dictionary, whereas the present Dictionary gives seven-and-

a-half columns. Again, take the common word rta , “a horse,” in

Jaschke’s we find rather more than two columns, equivalent to two-and-

a-half columns of the present Dictionary; in Desgodins’ four-and-three-

quarter columns, equivalent to two-and-a-half columns of the present Dic¬

tionary; whereas in the present Dictionary we find nearly seven columns,

which contain ( inter alia ) besides various literary references, a list of

mythical medicinal properties which, various parts of a horse are supposed

CV

to possess, some zoological information about the horse-ibex ( ^m)

and where specimens of it have been found ; some geographical informa¬

tion about the source of the River Brahmaputra (^' p-^qq)

“ the horse-mouth river ; ” and the life of a Buddhist saint

Rta Dbangs. The first two are new, but the two latter occur in Jaschke

but with only a brief reference.

To go more into detail, under the heading of “ Horse ” in the present

Dictionary there are 80 separate words and phrases explained, besides

41 synonyms referred to. Of these synonyms 17 are for “ horse ” 8

for a mythical horse of Indra, 4 for “ rider, ” 5 for “foal, ” and 7 for

“ horse tail , ” the name of a medicinal plant. Of these 80 words and

phrases 41 occur in Jaschke, who also has 30 other words not included,

25 of which are names for the various colours of a horse; and 22 occur

in Desgodins, who also has 34 other words not included in the present

77

1903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , 8f Recent Dictionaries .

Dictionary, of which 23 are names of the various colours of a horse, and

also 8 synonyms for “ horse ” are given. I have noticed the entries under

this one word in detail, because being an ordinary word it serves as a

typical example of the difference between the three dictionaries. In

the case of words of a Religious or Philosophical meaning the articles

in the present Dictionary are in most cases not merely an explanation of

the word, but short essays on the subject. As typical examples of these

I would cite the words I- gang-zag , “ an animated being ,”

^I’«r II. theg-pa,u a method of doctrine, and rten hbrel ,

“ inter- dependence of causes .” In the case of names of places also, besides

the reference, some information with respect to them is almost invari-

ably given.

To sum up, as a Dictionary of the literary language, no praise is too

great both for the labour and research of the compiler ; and for the care

and sound judgment of the Revisers ; and the excellence of the result

obtained well rewards them for their labours. The assistance given by

Pandit Satis Chandra Acharya in the Revision of the Sanskrit syno-

nyms has already been referred to ; but a notice of the present Dictionary

would be incomplete without a word of praise to two other collaborators

whose names may be overlooked, as they do not appear in either the

Authors or Reviser’s Prefaces, but whose aid is fully acknowledged in the

Tibetan dedication on the Title pages— Lama Sherab Cyatsho, the late

head Lama of the Ghoom Monastery, a Mongolian of great erudition in

all Tibetan literature and lore ; and also Rai Lama Ugyen Gyatsho

Bahadur, originally a Lama of the Pemiongchi Monastery in Sikhim,

and whose services were subsequently obtained when the Bhutea

School in Darjeeling was founded, as its first Tibetan teacher, who was

the companion of Rai Sarat Chandra Das iu both his journeys in Tibet,

and who also materially assisted him in the compilation of the Dic¬

tionary.

Before closing this reference to the existing dictionaries, a further

tribute of appreciation and thanks is due from all students of Tibetan

to M. Desgodins and the French missionaries before him, who since 1852

have been steadily labouring to accumulate, test, and revise the material

which has now been published in his Dictionary, and which has

brought to light a great number of words and expressions not formerly

ascertained or recorded. The authority for these necessarily rests on

that of the compilers, but we may accept, their assurance in the Preface

that no word has been admitted except after severe and repeated tests

by independent persons, of its correctness and use. This Dictionary

78

E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , fy Recent Dictionaries . [No. 2,

will have a special value when the Standard Dictionary of Modern

Tibetan comes to he compiled.

Part II.

From what has been already said, it will he seen that although the

present Dictionary has fulfilled what it purposed to be, namely, a com¬

plete Dictionary of Literary Tibetan, so far as our present sources of

knowledge go, it does not fulfil the requirements of a Standard Diction¬

ary of the entire language, and the Standard Dictionary of the

Modern and Current Tibetan language has yet to be written. As

already noted, Literary Tibetan, of which probably three-fourths of the

present Dictionary consists, is not intelligible to the modern Tibetan.

One might as well address the Modern Londoner in the once literary

language of Norman French, or, for comparison with later Tibetan

literary works, in the later but still more or less unintelligible language

of Langland, Mandeville, or Chaucer.

It therefore remains to see what a Dictionary of Current and Modern

Tibetan should consist of. These requirements I propose now to

consider.

(1) All purely literary words and references should be excluded.

(2) The ivords and idioms taken as the Standard Tibetan should be

those of the language of Lhasa and Central Tibet , and all variants from

these in other dialects should bear a distinguishing mark shewing the

dialect to which they belong.

On this point it is perhaps necessary to notice briefly the question

of dialects. Even with our present knowledge of this subject, the

number of different dialects prevalent in different parts of Tibet is very

large, and a further acquaintance with the country would doubtless

disclose many more. Desgodins who had himself many years’ acquaint¬

ance both with the dialects of the Eastern Provinces, and also those of

Central Tibet, as spoken by the merchants who come over the Darjeeling

Frontier, has referred to this difficulty in the Preface to his Grammar of

Spoken Tibetan, to which I have already referred ; and I cannot do

better than translate the following extract carrying, as it does, the

weight of his authority. “ Even if there were, as in China, a sort of

Mandarine language known and spoken almost everywhere ! But no ;

every country has its dialect or its particular patois. All that one can

affirm is that the dialects of the two Eastern Provinces, Khams and D,

have sufficient affinity between themselves ; while they differ considerably

from those of the Western Provinces, Tsang and Ngari. These differences

are sufficiently great for an inhabitant of Tashilhunpo who arrives for

the first time at Bathang or Tachienlu to be obliged to take a Tibetan

1903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , &f Recent Dictionaries. 79

interpreter to be able to speak Tibetan with his hosts. However, after

some time Easterners and Westerners end by understanding one another.

If there are differences in the use of words in the turn and terminations

of phrases, in the pronunciation, etc., there are also resemblances,

general. usages, pronunciations which resemble more or less and indicate

a common origin, one same language ; but it is this which practice alone

can distinguish.”

The language of Lhasa and Central Tibet does, however, to a great

extent supply this common language, and it has been aptly termed

the lingua franca of Eastern and Northern Central Asia.

The reason for this lies mainly in the vast central university which

the three great monasteries of Sera, Depung, and Gaden, in the imme¬

diate neighbourhood of Lhasa, form for the priesthood from all parts of

Tibet, and even from Mongolia, Higher Asia, and China ; and to a less

degree, to the great number of pilgrims that visit Lhasa from all parts

of Tibet.

I have myself made certain enquiries as to the mutual intelligibi¬

lity of Central Tibetan, Sharpa, Sikhim, and Bhutanese languages.1 I

have consulted several Tibetans about the mutual differences between

them and their relative intelligibility to one another. The general

opinion is that, taking Central Tibetan as the Standard, the Bhutanese

is the least intelligible of these four to persons of the other langu¬

ages.

A Bhutanese will understand a Tibetan better than the Tibetan

will understand him, but they can make themselves mutually under¬

stood.

A Sharpa would at first hardly understand a Bhutanese at all ; as

in their case the variation from the Central Tibetan is in another

direction.

A Bhutanese will understand a Sikhimite more easily than the

Sikhimite will understand him ; as the Sikhim language is spoken more

slowly and distinctly, but they are mutually understood. Between the

Sikhim language and Central Tibetan there is great resemblance, and

they readily understand each other. The Sikhim language is spoken

more slowly and the consonants are more distinctly sounded.

A comparative list of a number of Tibetan, Sharpa, and Bhutanese

words have been given by Hodgson in his comparative Vocabulary of

the several languages or dialects of the Eastern Sub-Himalayas.8

•

1 On this subject see also pages 330-332, Census of India, 1901. Volume VI,

Bengal. Part I. Report. Calcutta, Bengal Secretariat Press, 1902.

2 J. A. S. B. 1844: ami “ The Languages, Literature, and Religion of Nepal and

Tibet,” by B. H. Hodgson. Triibner and Co., 1874.

80

E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , 8f Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

I have referred to these dialects to shew that the main difference is

one of pronunciation and idiom, and, as Desgodins says of the man from

Tashilhnnpo who arrives at Tachienlu, “ After some time the Easterner

and Westerner end by understanding one another.”

Another reason why Central Tibetan is the best language for the

foreigner to take as the colloquial standard is that the pronunciation is

far more difficult than in the other dialects, owing to the large number

of silent letters, which are sounded to a much greater extent in the

outlying dialects ; so that the foreigner who has learnt as his colloquial

the central language will have less difficulty in learning from it the more

easily pronounced dialects than he would by the reverse process.

Apart from the above reasons, Central Tibetan should be the stand¬

ard because it is the language of Government and of official and general

correspondence throughout the country.

(3) There should be a carefully prepared comparative table giving

the pronunciation of every letter and combination in each of the known

dialects .

Jaschke gives such a table in his Dictionary for certain of the dia¬

lects of Western Tibet, and also marks words and phrases peculiar to

those languages in his Dictionary with a (W.), but this is for a portion

only, and how different is the pronunciation in the eastern dialects will

be seen from the table of pronunciation which Desgodins prefixes to his

Dictionary, where many of the pronunciations given, though not special¬

ly stated, are clearly those of Eastern Tibet.

(4) There should be a recognised standard of spelling of colloquial

words, which , where the ivord is also found in literature , should be the liter¬

ary spelling (as given in Jaschke' s Dictionary ).

This condition may appear to a person not acquainted with the

Tibetan language to be self-evident and unnecessary, but as a matter of

fact it is not so.

In Tibetan “ things are not what they seem,” and the pronunciation

of a word gives, within certain limits, little clue as to its spelling.

When Skra (“hair”) is pronounced “ ta,” D-Bus is pronounced ii,

Grogs is “ do," spyod is “ cho” and A-Bras-Ljong is “ Denjong” and

where the mountain Kangchenjanga (“ Kinchenjunga” ) is spelt Gangs-

Chhen-Mzod-Lnga ; and where any one of these words as sounded could

have equally well, phonetically, have been correctly spelt in a variety of

different ways, it will be seen that spelling in Tibetan, especially in the

central dialect, presents a difficulty to the learner such as is not met

with in any other language. I will give an actual example. The word

CV

“ ready” pronounced “ tandi” is spelt Gral-Sgrig in Hen-

1903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , 8f Recent Dictionaries. 81

derson’s Vocabulary3; while in Jaschke, Desgodins and in the present

Dictionary this same word is spelt 5pr=fl Phral-Grig , and in either

case pronounced the same. The latter is, in this case, the correct

spelling.

Spelling and pronunciation are in fact the chief difficulties in

learning Tibetan. As regards the former, the two or three examples

already given to some extent shew this, and it is perhaps not too

much to say that the spelling of almost every word has to be indivi¬

dually known. As regards the latter, the difficulty is the number of

similarly sounded but differently spelt words with different meanings,

and also the system of tones by which the tone in which a word is

pronounced is according to its spelling high or low pitched. The

Tibetans divide all words into two broad classes, low toned which are

called pho “ male,” and high toned which are called 3\j mo

“female,” the one supposed to represent the deep toned voice of a man

and the other the higher pitched voice of a woman ; but between these

two there comes another, <3^ ma-ning , “ medium, ” and there are also

further modifications of these two broad classes. The right mastering

of tones, a system so entirely strange to the Europeans, is essential

to a knowledge of spoken Tibetan.

(5) The present system of translation of the Tibetan alphabet must be

modified .

The present Dictionary has followed the system adopted finally at

the Vienna Congress of Orientalists, for Sanskrit and allied alphabets.

This system, however, hns the drawback that in certain cases letters

are selected to represent oriental letters which do not themselves corres¬

pond in sound with them, and hence a conventional diacritical mark is

added to indicate that such letter is conventionally used to represent a

particular sound ; such letters are n for nga ; ha for nya ; sha

for (ej* zha ; ga for sha ; and lia for (^’ a. Every one of these should

be changed, and in each case the letter be transliterated so as to re¬

present its actual sound. As will be seen, there is no difficulty in doing

this.

One single objection is sufficient to condemn for practical purposes a

system so artificial, namely, that there is no finality about it. These may

S Tibetan Manual compiled by Yinoent C. Henderson. Chinese Imperial Maritime

Customs. Revised by Edward Amundsen. Calcutta, Baptist Mission Press, 1903.

J. I. 11

82 E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language, 8f Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

be the accepted symbols to-day, but the fashion may change, and in

fact has done so since Jaschke wrote his Dictionary in 1881, where it

will be found that five out of these six letters are represented by a

different symbol, and the only symbol in which they agree, namely

9, has itself been since abandoned by v orientalists, and s substituted.

The Asiatic Society of Bengal up to the present has adopted another

system of transliteration for these letters, which it has only within the

last few months altered to that approved by the International Oriental

Congress of 1894, which is the system followed by the Royal Asiatic

Society in England.

«. The confusion produced by this “ multitude of councillors ” will be

best gathered from the following comparative table in which I give the

transliteration I propose in the last column.

In the above tables and have been left blank under the

Asiatic Society of Bengal, and the Royal Asiatic Society, as no trans¬

literation appears to be prescribed, and the transliteration followed in

any case would therefore be that followed by the contributor.

Apart from the want of finality, there is also the great opportunity

for error due to the omission in copying or printing of the small

diacritical mark which alone distinguishes the one letter from the

other.

A word further in support of the system of transliteration which

I propose.

83

1903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , 8f Recent Dictionaries.

There is no possibility of ambiguity or error. The separate

letters n and ZTj g never follow each other ; ng £ can therefore

never be mistaken for them. Similarly dj n, is never followed by

y ; nor 3 2 by h; nor s by ^ h ; so that ny for ^ zh for

(ej, and sh for cannot present any ambiguity or be mistaken for

anything else, and they have the advantage of representing the actual

sound, which the present symbols do not.

As regards (oj zha, it is true that in Lhasa, as noted by Jaschke, the

difference in pronunciation between it and sha is one of tone rather

than pronunciation. But the Lhasa man, though he will himself pro

nounce sha in a low tone and not zha , is accustomed to hear those from

other parts pronounce it zha and understands it. But in all the outly¬

ing dialects it has the sound of zha. For the western dialects Jaschke

gives it as zha, and states that it has “the sound of s in leisure.” For

the Southern dialects Lewin 1 gives it as zha and says it is pronounced

like “ z in azure.” Desgodins, for the eastern dialects also gives it this

sound and, writing in French, says it is pronounced as uJa ” which is

exactly the same.

It also is distinctly zha in Sikhirn and the neighbouring southern

dialects.

With regard to using a for (3 ; this, again, represents its actual

sound, and the only letter with which it could be confused is a ; and

here the long mark over the latter is sufficient distinction aud one that

lias to be employed in all other Oriental languages to distinguish a long

vowel from its corresponding short one. By this do not let me be mis¬

understood to imply that a and a bear to each other the relation

of corresponding long and short vowels. They are separate letters and

bear no such relation, but the distinguishing long mark is one well

known and employed in all oriental languages, and may equally be

employed here, and it represents the difference between them actual

sound, which the letters h and a now used do not.

1 Manual of Tibetan, by Major T. H. Lewin, F.R.O.S. Calcutta, Baptist Mission

Press, 1879.

84

E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , &f Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

Also the use of h for renders it liable to he confused with

h with which it has no affinity in sound or otherwise.

Jaschke used a particular symbol for this letter when initial (a

circle placed below the line), and when following a consonant he did not

transliterate it separately at all.

(6). There must be a Recognised System of Transcription ( as distinct

from Transliteration ) of Tibetan names , and other words likely to be em¬

ployed in English.

From what has been already said regarding the Tibetan spelling,

it is quite clear that the transliteration of a word will in most cases give

no indication of its sound to a person not acquainted with the language.

CS

Who, for instance, in Bkra-Shis-Lhun-po wonid

recognise the well known City of “ Tashilhunpo,” or in Bka-Blon-Spung

the familiar “ Kalimpong ” ?

NO

It is therefore necessary to fix a standard system of transcription

which shall be phonetic and represent the actual sound of the word, and

at the same time be uniform. Such systems have been adopted by the

Rev. Graham Sandberg in his Handbook of Colloquial Tibetan,1 and

by Rev. Edward Amundsen in his Primer of Standard Tibetan.8 These

are not, however, quite suited to the purpose of transcribing names and

words that will require to be printed in newspapers, books of a general

nature, as they contain certain special marks, and here also there is not

uniformity. Thus the Rev. Graham Sandberg uses the comma above

the line to indicate the omission of a silent consonant, while the Rev.

Edward Amundsen employs this mark to indicate an aspirated letter.

All non-essential marks should be omitted. The only mark which

is essential is the diaeresis ( " ) in certain cases over the vowels o and u,

which is a mark known to all printers and in general use and therefore

presents no difficulties. It also exactly represents the pronunciation,

which, in the words where it would be employed, is that known in all

countries to be implied by this mark, namely, the b and u in German.

(7). All Honorific words should bear a distinguishing mark , and

against every common word the corresponding Honorific word should be

noted, and similarly against every Honorific word , the corresponding com-

«

mon word .

1 Haudbook of Colloquial Tibetan, by Graham Sandberg. Thacker Spink,

Calcuta. 1894.

8 Primer of Standard Tibetan, by Edward Amundsen. Printed at the Scandi¬

navian Alliance Mission Press. Ghoom, Darjeeling. 1903.

1903.] E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , Sf 'Recent Dictionaries.

85

It is perhaps necessary to note here that there are in Tibetan, wliat

are practically two distinct languages running side by side, and each

in current and regular use. The common, in which one addresses an in¬

ferior, and which the lower classes speak amongst themselves, and the

Honorific ^ ) zhe-sa, in which any one addresses a superior, and in

which the educated classes politely address one another. It is necessary

to know both these, as in speaking of himself the speaker always uses

the common form. It is not that the same word is employed but has a

different respectful form, such as occurs, for example, in the case of verbs

in Urdu. In Tibetan an entirely different word is used, and this equally

as regards nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Thus, if I say to an inferior, “ you

have a fine horse,” I would say khyod kyi rta

yag-po red, but to a superior or politely addressing an equal

Cs — X

*£• p]’ eBwq- qacr q-^- nyid rang gi chhibs-pa bzang-po red, from

which it will be seen that there is not a single word the same in two

sentences.

I give below one or two common words to shew how complete the

difference is.

86 E. H. Walsh — Tibetan Language , fy Recent Dictionaries. [No. 2,

From the examples given above it will be seen that, in respect of the

words used, the Common and Honorific are practically two languages.

(8) . The Dictionary should also contain an Dnglish-Tibetan Vocabulary

in which the Tibetan words may be written transliterated in the Roman

Character with the reference against each to the page on which it is to be

found in the Tibetan- English portion of the Dictionary , as in Jaschke’ s

English- Tibet an Vocabulary.

(9) . The Materials for such a Dictionary will be —

(1) all colloquial and current words in Jaschke, Desgodins, and the

present Dictionary.

(2) All words from recent Colloquial Primers or Grammars of the

various dialects, which have not been included in the present diction¬

aries. Such are Henderson’s Tibetan Manual ; Amundsen’s Primer of

Standard Tibetan ; Franke’s Ladaki1 Grammar.

(3) Printed lists in English of all the principal words in colloquial

and current use, copies of which might be sent to various natives,

missionaries, officials, and other local workers in Tibetan in various local¬

ities and dialects ; and they might be asked to enter against each the

words, if any, known to them or ascertained to be in general use.

These lists should for clearness provide two columns ; one for the

common, and the other for the Honorific word (where such exists).

With the above material there would be sufficient to compile a

Standard Dictionary of the Colloquial and Current Language. These

lists, on receipt, would be compared with the Central language which

would be first compiled. Whenever the word in the dialectic lists

agreed with the word in use in the Central language no separate entry

would be made. Where it differed it would be entered with a letter

indicating the dialect to which it belonged.

I have indicated the lines which such a Dictionary should take.

Its compilation would be a very fitting object for Government to under¬

take. The Dictionaries of Csoma de Koros, Jaschke, and the present one

of Rai Sarat Chandra Das, all owe their existence to Government aid,

and it may be expected that Government will shew in the future the

same enlightened and liberal spirit that it has done in the past.

With good arrangements for the collection of material, the compila¬

tion of such a Dictionary should not take much more than a year, and

any cost and labour bestowed on it would be well repaid by the practical

value of the results obtained.

1 J.A.S.B., Volume LXX, Part I, Extra No. 2.— 1901.

#

1903.] Nundolal Dey — Notes on Chirand in the District of Saran. 87

Notes on Chirand in the District of Saran. — By Nundolal Dey,

Subordinate Judge of Jessore.

[Read June, 1903.]

Chirand is six miles to the east of Cliupra. It is situated on the

bank of the river Saraju. The Ganges formerly flowed past the town.

Sir William Hunter in 1877 placed Chirand on the Ganges.1 2 The old

dry bed of the Ganges still exists immediately to the south of Chupra,

and beyond it runs the Saraju. The Sone and the Saraju now join the

Ganges at Singhi, two miles to the east of Chirand.

Chirand must at one time have been a celebrated place to have

lent its name to Chupra, which is often called Chiran-Chupra by the

people of other districts, Chiran being an abbreviation of the word

Chirand. Extensive mounds of earth, said to be the remains of an an¬

cient fort, still exist at this place, and the hermitage of Rishi Chyavana

and two very small tanks called Jiach Kundu and Brahma Kundu in

the Chirand- Mahatmy a , situated at different portions of the site of the

fort, are pointed out as vestiges of the ancient Hindu period. A fair

takes place every year on the last day of the month of Karttik at the

spot which is called Chyavana-asrama.

Chirand is popularly known as the capital of king Mayuradhvaja,

and the tradition still exists that he and his queen sawed down their

son in order to satisfy the craving for human flesh of Siva who came

to the king in the disguise of an old Brahman to test his generosity and

charitable feeling for which he wns celebrated, though he was afterwards

restored to life by the satisfied god. But the tradition differs from the

story given in the Jaimini-Bhdrata 2 which places the capital of Mayura¬

dhvaja at Ratnapura, near the Nerbuda, and relates that Krishna in the

disguise of an old Brahman came to the king and told him that his only

1 Statistical Account of Bengal, Vol. XI, p, 263,

2 Chapters 45 and 46.

88

Nundolal Dey — Notes on Ghirand in the District of Sar an. [No 2,

son while coming to the town to marry the daughter of Krishna Sarma,

the priest of the king, was carried away by a lion which promised to re¬

lease him in case he obtained the right half of Maynradhvaja’s body.

Mayuradhvaja promised to give the right side of his body, and his head

was cnt off by his wife and his son Tamradhvaja, by means of a saw ( ara)i

as preliminary to sever the right side of his body ; but the old Brahman

seeing that tears were trickling down the left eye of the severed head,

refused to accept the right side of the body as, he stated, it was not

given freely but in anguish, whereupon the severed head replied that

the left side cried because it would perish uselessly without being of any

service to a Brahman. Krishna became highly satisfied with the an¬

swer : he revealed himself and restored the body to its former condition.

Though the tradition may differ from the real story, yet the fact re¬

mains that in Chirand there is a tradition that someone’s body was cut

off at this place and that in connection with some religious notion.

Four temples have been built on the high mound of earth, which

was the site of the ancient fort, on account of the sanctity of the place,

containing the images of Ramachandra and Krishna.

Dr. Hoey has identified Chirand with the ancient Vaisali,1 and he

has given his reasons for such identification. There can be no doubt,

however, that Chirand was an ancient Buddhist town, for images of

Buddha and other figures of the Buddhistic period have been exhumed

from this place from time to time. I myself obtained there three figures

when I visited it in May, 1902. 1 found them all stowed away in a

corner of one of the temples called Aini Rdma-Kd-Mathid , and I was

told that they had been obtained while digging the earth. One was the

figure of Buddha in a meditative posture made of white marble; the

second, a small figure of a woman holding a lotus made of basaltic stone ;

and the third, also a small figure of a woman but much worn out, made

of red sandstone.

At the time of Buddha the river Granges was the boundary between

the two kingdoms of Yaisali and Magadha, Vaisali being situated on the

northern side of the river and Magadha on the southern. The capital

of the kingdom of Vaisali was also called Vaisali, and the capital of

Magadha was Pataliputra. It is related in Buddhist works that Ananda,

the favourite disciple and cousin of Buddha and the second patriarch

of the Buddhist hierarchy after Buddha’s death, entered into Nir¬

vana while he was crossing the river Ganges on his way from Magadha

to Vaisali. After his death his body was divided into two equal parts :

1 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. LXIX, — Identification of Kusi-

nara , Vaisali and other places.

89

1903.] Nundolal Dey — Notes on Chirand in the District of Seiran.

one part was taken by Ajatasatru, king of Magadha, and the other by

the Licchavis of Yaisali, and the latter built a tower over half the body

at a place called Kutagara, or, as it was called, Mahavana-Kutagara,1

the northern suburb of the town of Yaisali. This tower was visited by

Fa Hian in the fifth century,2 and by Hinen Tsiang in the seventh

century.8

The etymology of Chirand and the aforesaid tradition of Mayura-

dhvaja’s son being sawed down into two portions at this place, and the

fact that it was the site of an ancient Buddhist town, point out that it was

the place where the tower was built over half the body of Ananda. The

word Chirand is composed of two words : Ghir and And. Ghir means a

portion cut off, and And is a contraction or corruption of Ananda, and

hence the word Chirand means a portion cut off from Ananda? s body.

Chirand therefore may be identified with the ancient Kutagara or Maha¬

vana-Kutagara, the northern suburb of Yaisali. But the difficulty of

such identification is apparent. Yaisali has been identified by General

Cunningham with Basarh4 on the left bank of the Gandak in the dis¬

trict of Muzaffarpur (Tirhut), though it should be observed that the

river Gandak is not mentioned in connection with Yaisali either by Fa

Hian or Hiuen Tsiang : the latter says that he crossed the Ganges in

order to reach Yaisali from Drona-stupa which has been identified with

Degwara. If Yaisali be Basarh, then certainly Chirand cannot be the

northern suburb of Yaisali, as Chirand is situated about twenty-four

miles to the south-west of Basarh. Mr. Carlleyle identifies the mounds

of ancient ruins at Chirand with the Drona or Kumbha stupa which

was said to have been built by the Brahman Drona over the vessel or

humbha with which he divided the relics of Buddha into eight equal

portions, each of which was equal to one drona in measure, and he sup¬

poses that Ghir of the word Chiran refers to the division of the remains

of Buddha.6 But there is much that is reasonable, at least worthy of the

consideration of the archaeologist, in the argument advanced by Dr.

Hoey in identifying Chirand with Yaisali, though it goes against the

accepted identification of Yaisali with Basarh. There are big earthen

1 Beal’s Travels of Fah Hian and Sung-yun, Chap. XX Y, Bigandet’s Life of

Gantama, Chap. XI, and Chullavagga, ch. v, sec. 13 and ch. x, sec. 1. The Pilgrimage

of Fa Hian from the French edition of the Foe Eoue Ki [(1848) : “ Thence proceed¬

ing five yeou yan to the east, you come to the kingdom of Phi she li. Here are a

great forest [ [Mahdvana ] and a chapel of two stories [ [Kutagara ] ; it was one of the

stations of Foe, and here you see the Tower of half of the body of Ananda .”

2 Beal’s Fo-Kivo-Ki, Chapters XXV and XXYI.

s Beal’s Records of Western Countries, Book VII.

4 The Ancient Geography of India, page 443.

5 Archaeological Report, Vol. XXII, p. 7 9.

12

90 Nundolal Dey — Notes on Chirand in the District of Saran. [No. 2,

mounds in Telpa which is two miles to the south-east of Chupra, one of

which may he the remains of the toiver of the hows and deposited arms,

as Dr. Hoey supposes the village to have been the site of the ancient

Chapala. This part of the country therefore ought to be thoroughly

explored, and there can be no doubt that the exploration would yield

some results of great archaeological interest.

Whether Chirand was the ancient Mahavana-Kutagara or not, there

can be no doubt that even in its ruins it must have been a celebrated

place as to have attracted the attention of Sultan Abul Muzaffar Husain

Shah who built a beautiful mosque, now in ruins, upon a portion of the

remains of the ancient fort or mounds in 909 Hijri, corresponding to

1503 A.C. The inscription on the mosque was noticed by Dr. Bloch-

mann in 1874. 1 The Sultan would not certainly have constructed the

mosque at this place had it not been considered to be a sacred place by

the Hindus.

1 Bloclimann’s Geography and History of Bengal , No. II, in the Journal of the

Asiatic Society of Bengal of 1874, page 304.

1903.]

Y. S'astri — Kap section of Barendra Brahmans.

5 3 3 >

3 3 5 J 3 3

> .533

3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 3 3

The origin of the Kap section of the Barendra Glass of Brahmans of

Bengal. — By Pandit Yoge^achandra S'astri.

[Read May, 1903.]

In tlie 12th century A.D.1 during the reign of Ballala Sena the

number of the Brahmans who came to Bengal from Kanauj in the time

of Adisura became immensely increased. There were 350 Brahmans on

the east hank and 750 on the west bank of the river Ganges.2 The

former were designated as Barendras on account of their being the in¬

habitants of Barendrabhumi, the present Bajshahi division, and the

latter were called Rarliis owing to their being the inhabitants of Barha-

bhumi, the present Burdwan division and the western part of Murshida-

bad district.

During this period there were no Brahmans well versed in the

Vedas in the south-eastern provinces of India. The kings of these pro¬

vinces consequently asked Ballala Sena to send some Brahmans, who

were well versed in the Vedas, to their provinces. At this Ballala Sena

was very glad, and having kept 100 in Barendrabhumi sent 250 Brah¬

mans to those provinces. He distributed them in the following order :

C\

= + = SJ! I

N.B. — According to General Cunningham, Dr. R. L. Mitra and Mr. R. C. Dntta, Bal¬

lala reigned in the 11th century A.D., and according to he reigned in the

14th century A.D.

w-jjgwqift i

C (

t cfi tree

c c c (V

( etc c c

<. c c c

c ft c c r c c

S'astri — Kap section of Barendra Brahmans.

[No. 2,

fifty in Magadha, sixty in Bhota, sixty in Rabhang, forty in Utkal

(Orissa), and forty in Maurang.1

After a few years Ballala divided those one hundred Barendra Brah¬

mans into three sections according to their qualifications, namely : (1)

Kulins,2 (2) fuddha^otriyas,3 and (3) Kastaprotriyas. The Kulins

were the following eight houses : (1) Maitra, (2) Bhima, (3) Rudra

(Bagchi), (4) Sanyamini (Sanyal), (5) Lahiri, (6) Bhaduri, (7) Sadhu

(Bagchi), (8) Bhadara ; and the following eight houses were the

(Juddhaprotriyas : (1) Karan j a, (2) Nandanabashi, (3) Bhattashali, (4)

Lauri or Laruli, (5) Ohampati, (6) Jhampati, (7) Atirtha, (8) Kamadeva.4

Among those houses, Udayanacharya, the celebrated author of the Ku-

sumanjali,5 a treatise on the ethical branch of the Nyaya philosophy, was

1 ^RWetfWi I

^rEmTrcrann: e

•srfts* wffi i!

tat sfiiftsn T*f fl'ftwnT ii

i

2 fw yfcfw i

i

s si^i *Nntfr*r i

f^q*rr *nf?r f^ar-' u

* HtUt W 5T'3T I

KT^ft ||

#

6 sfirfh *IWT ^ ^ I

*SFWira Wt- 5TRT: H^pmtTarfWcl* ||

1 903.] Y. Sastri — Kap section of Barendra Brahmans. 93

born in the house of Bhaduri ; and Kulluka Bhatta, the reputed author

of the Manvarthamuktavali,1 a commentary on the Manusamhita, was

s#

^ ^mo[ n

*ft5l,srwaT*it TPI^qn^fi: ^Jcr: I

smf*w 59 II

fqfsratsiwfHci^ jipit hhtt =9 11

wrcnswHTOfa 1

^iicf »r*t *tot 11

fqsqisi sg cr«n fqsqTmqjj; 1

qlsi’ti 5fST 5|5*n*[ II

S) s»

tier: qn%*r f^^rai fsiwi fsrerot: I

^^tcTfqqqnWT^T ^TC ||

Hi^fWsn^ ii

1 sfa qi^q^T^T^twff^TTOwsr-

' *S

ngsTil’ l

ff i i»\ #|qtT i

—

sr^*tT9Tfti9Tf%

fH*: p|qm?t5*ra^ 1

^iT?5Itf T|5C9Tf?’M^a5nt'T9it^ *W qftst:

fqra% fwen^r fo^ri 11

Tftr 1

94

Y. S'astri — Kap section of Barendra Brahmans.

[No. 2,

born in the liouse of Nandanabashi. It is needless to mention tbe

names of 84 bouses of tbe Kastagrotriyas as they have no connection

with the present topic.

There are different accounts as to bow, after Ballala Sena, tbe Kap

section was originated from tbe Kulin mentioned before. Among them

tbe most popular is tbe following : —

Once upon a time many Brahmans of tbe Kulin and tbe Qrotriya sec¬

tions were invited to a dinner given by f ukadeva Acharya, an inhabi¬

tant of tbe village named Bralimanbala, on the occasion of bis father’s

annual (Jraddha ceremony. There was a prevailing custom in that time*

which still exists, that the dinner should not begin until all tbe Brah¬

mans were present, especially when a respectable man was absent. But

in that dinner this custom was not observed, as tbe dinner began with¬

out waiting for one Nrisinha Laurial,1 of f antipore, who was formerly an

inhabitant of tbe village named Laur, in Qrikatta (Sylbet), and who, it is

said, though a Brahman, used to live by selling betel-leaves. He did not

come in proper time. Afterwards when Nrisinha came he wanted to

know the cause of the violation of the custom. In reply he was told

that as he was not a respectable man so none could find any necessity

to wait for him. At this reply, Nrisinha felt himself much insulted and

determined to raise his status in the society. He accordingly came

home and started for Majgram, a village on the river Atrai in the dis¬

trict of Bajshahi, with a view to get his daughter married to Madhu

Kulluka Bhatta was an inhabitant of the village named Gucikhara, formerly in

the district of Bajshahi but now in the Pabna district. Sir W. Jones praised him

in the following words : “ At length appeared Kulluka Bhatta, a Brahman of Ben¬

gal, who after a painful course of study, and the collation of numerous manuscripts,

produced a work, of which it may, perhaps be said very truly, that it is the shortest

yet the most luminous, the least ostentatious yet the most learned, the deepest yet

the most agreeable commentary ever composed on any author, ancient or modern,

European or Asiatic.”

1 The well-known Advaita Acharya, a friend and disciple of G-auranga, was the

great great-grandson of this Nrisinha Laurial. Nrisinha’s son was Yidyadhara j his

son Chakari ; his son Kuvera Acharya ; his son Advaita Acharya.

fira i

and

1903.]

95

Y. S'astri — Kap section of Bcirendm Brahmans.

Maitra of that village, who was tlie most respectable Kulin among tlie

Kulins of the then existing society.

After two or three days Nrisinha reached Majgram and met Madhu.

Maitra while he was performing his evening ritual on the bank of the river

Atrai. He instantly made Madhu’s acquaintance and requested him to

marry bis daughter. Madhu at first refused to do it being afraid of

social degradation. But when Nrisinha expressed his firm determina¬

tion to kill himself in the presence of Madhu after killing his wife,

daughter, and cow, and throwing his palagrama (the family deit}7)

which he took with him, into water, Madhu was then obliged to consent

to marry his daughter. The marriage was, accordingly, performed then

and there. When Madhu came home with his new wife, she was not

accepted by his sons and former wife and was illtreated by them.

Madhu was bound to divide his house into two halves by means of a

fencing, in one of which he began to live with his new wife, being

practically excommunicated from the society.

After some time Madhu found himself in great difficulty when his

father’s annual Qraddha day drew near, because none of the Brahmans

of Majgram or its neighbourhood would dine in his house on that day.

Helpless as he was, he went to invite Dhain Bagchi who

was his brother-in-law (sister’s husband) and lived some miles off his

house ; but Madhu could not find him. Madhu, however, asked Dhain’s

wife (his sister) to tell her husband to go to his house on the day of

his father’s Qraddha and returned home.

When Dhain Bagchi came home he heard from his wife of Madhu’s

suddenly coming to his place and was very much astonished, because

Madhu never used to come to his house before. He asked his wife the

cause of Madhu’s coming, but she could not tell anything more than what

Madhu told her. He, however, started for Majgram and reached there

at midday. While entering into Madhu’s portion of the house he,

being obstructed by the fencing which Madhu had made, exclaimed,

“ Well, Sir, what a Kap have you created here ? ” “ Yes Sir,” Madhu re¬

plied, “ I have created a Kap there.” The word Kap is not a grammatical

one so it bears no etymological meaning. It was spontaneously uttered

by Dhain Bagchi in. the sense of something intervening. But this

word afterwards became the designation of the sons of Madhu Maitra

by his former wife, who became a section of Barendra Brahmans inter¬

mediate between the Kulins and the Qrotriyas.

Afterwards Dhain Bagchi met Madhu Maitra and heard every¬

thing from him that happened before. On the very day he summoned

all the Kulins and Qrotriyas of Majgram and its neighbourhood to

attend a meeting to be held at Madhu Maitra’s house to judge the con-

96 Y. S'astri — Kap section of Barendra Brahmans. [No. 2,

duct of Madhu’s sons. The meeting was held and the verdict of that

meeting was that the sons of Madhu Maitra by his first wife were guilty

of disregarding and illtreating their father.

Thereupon Dhain Bagchi, together with Madhu Maitra, as the

head of the society declared that henceforth the sons of Madhu Maitra

by his first wife would no longer be classed among the Kulins. They

would be Kap and their position in the society would be an intermediate

one between the Kulins and the protriyas. They also declared that

henceforth should any Kulin touch their water or even come in contact

whatsoever with them, he also would be a Kap. But this latter declara¬

tion was afterwards modified by Raja Kamsa Narayana Ray, of Tahir-

pore, who ruled that a Kulin should not lose his Kulinship unless he

married the daughter of a Kap or allow his daughter to marry a Kap.

This rule is still in existence.

1903.]

M. Ohakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa.

97

Chronology of the Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa. — By Babu Monmohan

Chakrayarti, M.A., B.L., M.R.A.S., Deputy Magistrate , Bengal.

[Read August, 1903,]

These kings belong to an important dynasty which ruled Orissa

Introductory ^or more than three centuries. Very little

authentic was known about them until my

article on “ The two Copperplate Inscriptions of the king Nrsimha

Deva IV ” was read in the meeting of this Society (February, 1891).

Since then much additional materials have been published ; and their

history now rests on surer grounds than the unreliable traditions em¬

bodied in the Madala Pahji , or the chronicles of the Jagannatha temple.

Nevertheless much confusion still exists specially about their times

Confusion about aild years of reign. In the note 1, page 133,

dates. of my aforesaid article, I pointed out that

the total of regnal years added to the abhiseka year of Kamarnava

Deva (the successor of Corngarjga) considerably exceeded the faka

years of the inscriptions, when it should have agreed with them. Then

again, while discussing the article of Babu Nagendra Nath V asu on “The

Copperplate Inscription of Nrsimha Deva II ” [see Proceedings of this

Society, November, 1897], 1 once more drew attention to this confusion

and hoped for some solution of it. As this confusion has been hamper¬

ing the discussion of all historical events of the Ga^ga-varh^a rule, I

have gathered together in this article all the facts known to me bearing

upon the subject, and have attempted to cut a way through the confused

tangles of inscriptional and other records.

The inscriptions which I edited in 1891 [published in the Journal

As. Soc. Ben., Vol. LXIV (1895), pp. 128-

154,] still give the most complete list of

the Gagga-vam^a kings, and have, therefore,- been made the basis of this

article. These copperplates will be briefly referred to as “ The Puri Cop¬

perplates.” The informations given by these copperplates have been

checked and supplemented —

(i) By three copperplate inscriptions of CSraga^ga Deva. They

J. I. 13

The materials.

98

M. Chakra varti — Eastern Gayga "kings of Orissa.

[No. 2.

were first noticed by Mr. Sewell in his “ List of Antiqua¬

rian Remains in the Madras Presidency, Yol. I ” ; but were

published in full by Dr. Fleet in the Indian Antiquary,

Yol. XYIII. They will be briefly referred to as “The

Yizagapatam Copperplates.”

(ii) By the copperplate inscriptions of the king NrsimhaDeva II,

briefly, “The Kendupatna Copperplates.” One of them was

edited by Babu Nagendra Nath Yasu in the Journal of the

Asiatic Society of Bengal, Yol. LXY (1896), pp. 229-271 ;

and another edited by him in his Bengali serial “ The Yi$-

vak5sa, article Ga^geya.”

(iii) By the numerous stone inscriptions at Mukhaliijgam, (Jri-

kurmam, and in their neighbourhood. These have been

briefly noticed in Dr. Hultzsch’s Epigraphical Report,

Madras, for 1895-6, pp. 14-24, and will be referred to by its

numbering. The frikurmam inscriptions were first men¬

tioned in Sewell’s List, Yol. I ; and seeing their importance

for Orissa history, I had most of them copied privately in

1891-2. Later on, in 1897, through the kindness of Dr.

Grierson I got a no. of date-extracts from Mr. H. Krishna

Sastri. Recently Mr. Gait, our Anthropological Secretary,

has kindly handed over to me for use a no. of date-

extracts of the inscriptions at Mukhaliijgam and elsewhere.

Many of these inscriptions are broken or incomplete or

occasionally wrong ; but taken together they are invalu¬

able for the history of this dynasty.

(iv) By several stone inscriptions in Orissa.

(v) By references to Orissa and its kings in the inscriptions of

other provinces.

(vi) By references in the Mahomedan histories.

(vii) By the Mddald Panji , where facts historically probable have

been mentioned.

I may briefly explain here the method adopted for calculating the

reigns of the kings. Firstly, the (Jaka

years, or the regnal years, if given with ti-

this and weekdays (or Saqkrantis or eclip¬

ses), are verified, and their equivalents in the English calendar arrived

at with the help of Professor H. Jacobi’s Tables in the Epigraphia In-

dica, Yol. I, pp. 403-460. Nextly, from these verified dates, those which

have regnal years are compared, and the initial years of the kings de¬

duced. As the first year of a king is the last year of his predecessor,

this enables us to ascertain the beginning and the end of a king’s reign.

The method of calcu¬

lation adopted.

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gafjga kings of Orissa. 99

Sometimes the verified dates give two or three different years for the ini¬

tial year ; in which case the initial year given by the majority is accepted

as being the most reliable. Of some kings no inscriptions with regnal

years have been found, and their periods of reign have been taken or

deduced from the figures given in the copperplates. Only one king has

got no inscriptions ; for him the copperplate year has been accepted as

it fits in with the deduced dates of the preceding and the succeeding

kings.

The years thus calculated are compared below with the regnal years

The comparison of the as given in the Puri and Kendupatna cop-

calculated dates with per-plates

the copperplate figures.

It will be seen that the figures in col. 4 generally vary from those

in col. 5. Primd facie, however, the years which have been deduced

from verified dates must be more reliable than the monthless tradi¬

tionary years given in the copperplates.

Reconcilement of their ^ is possible, however, to reconcile the

differences. discrepancies in most cases : —

i. The difference of one year or a little more may be due to the

omissions of months : e.g.t the differences in Nos. 11, 12, and 13 dis¬

appear when their total is made up, which (74) is the same both in

cols. 4 and 5 (in col. 4, faka 1227/8 to faka 1300/1 ; and in col. 5, 24 +

24+26).

ii. The difference in No. 1 may be due either to the tradition

ioo

M. Cbakravarti — "Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa. [No. 2.

sticking to a round figure, or to calculating the regnal year from tlie

abhiseka year instead of the accession year.

iii. But the principal difference is in Nos. 4 to 10, rising in some

cases to 6 years. They can be explained, if the regnal years of the cop¬

perplates are taken as arjka years, and not as ordinary years. I am the

more inclined to take this view, as I find in the Kendupatna copperplates

Bhanu Deva (No. 9) is distinctly credited with a rule of eighteen aykas

[Journ. As. Soc. Beng., Vol. LXV (1896), p. 252 ; plate Y. obverse, line

20]. Taken as arjka years, the copperplate figures come to these : 25

(No. 4) = 21 ; 10 (No. 5) =8 ; 17 (No. 6) =14; 84 (No. 7) = 28; 33 (Nos. 8

and 10) =27 ; 18 (No. 9) = 15. Thus, except in No. 5, all others agree

with the deduced years ; and in No. 5, ten may be a mistake for eleven

arjka.

The peculiarities of the arjka regnal years are not well-known. So

for the convenience of readers they are

The peculiarities

the aijka years.

of

noted here. The chief special characteristics

are

(1) 1, and all figures ending in 0 and 6 (except 10) should be

i omitted.

(2) The last arjka year of one king and the first arjka year of the

succeeding king (i.e., 2) fall in the same year.

(3) The year begins on the day of Suniya , simha (Bhadrapada)

fhkla dvada^.

With these general remarks I now proceed to examine the details

of each king. All information about dates have been thrown into a

tabular form ; and other details which are likely to throw light on the

subject have been given below the tables in brief.

The inscriptional dates fall under three classes. A large number,

i T . having weekdays, &c., could be verified

nscrip ions. with Professor Jacobi’s tables; another,

group could not be verified, though weekdays, &c., have been given

either on account of mistakes or of my own failure ; another group

cannot be verified at all for want of weekdays, &c. They have been

noted respectively in the remark column as “ verified, ” “ irregular, ”

or “ unverifiable.”

The inscriptions are either in Sanskrit, Telugu, or Oriya language,

and have been denoted in the number column as such by letters S., T.,

and O.

When an era year is given, it is always faka. Its numeral numbers

are generally in figures, occasionally in

Their general details. symbolical words, often in both. The f aka

% figures are generally in Telugu inscriptions

ioi

1903.] M. Chakravarti —Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa.

followed by the expression Ugunenti , or its variants, agunendi , gunenti ,

gunendi , gunendu , nenti , nencli and so on. The months are generally

zodiacal ; where solar, chiefly as the Uttarayana and Daksinayana

Saqkrantis. The Tithis are generally calculated according to the

Suryya-siddhanta ; and the Purnimdnta scheme is followed preferably

to the amanta.

The regnal years are always given in figures. They are followed

by the technical expression — yagu grdki or gu grdhi, or simply grain, gra-i

or grahini ; and preceded by the words Pravarddhammia-vijaya-rdjya

(increasingly victorious reign). The word “ year ” is generally denoted

in Oriya and sometimes in Sanskrit inscriptions by aylca) in the Telugu

inscriptions by the words Scimvatsara or its variants.

In the case of CSragapga, only a selection of his inscriptions lias

been given ; in the case of other kings, all the inscriptions known have

been quoted. Altogether dates of 101 inscriptions have been given

in the tables [see supra, p. 99], besides others referred to in the accounts

given below them. These date-extracts, being mostly new, have been

quoted in original for reference.

At the end of this article, a genealogical table of the entire

Gaqga family has been attached with years of reigns.

I. Coragagga.

[paka 998 — (Jaka 1069.]

Good many inscriptions of this king’s time have been found, and

reported in the Madras Epigraphical Report for 1895-96. More than

one hundred have been found at Mukhaliqgam, besides two at prikur-

mam, and five in their neighbourhood. Of these, the date extracts of

34 are given below ; but many of the inscriptions unfortunately cannot

be verified : —

Materials.

102

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga Icings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued.

[No. 2.

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

103

Materials. — Continued.

104

M. Chakra varti — Eastern Gang a kings of Orissa. [No. 2,

Materials. — Continued.

No.

Lan¬

guage.

20

T.

21

T.

22

T.

23

24

T.

Date-extracts.

References.

Remarks.

19

T.

si, or £aka 1049, year 53, maha-dva-

da^T.

Sakha(9aka)-varasambulu 1049 gunen-

du ^/ri-SoraLgalnigga-devara pravard-

dhamana- vijaya- rajya-samvatsa(*ra)

53 sfQ)ra(a)hi Makara-s(9)ukla 4 yu

nela-samkramtiyu Soma-varama, or

paka 1049, year 53, Makara saqkran-

ti, £u. (?Kr.) 4, Monday. [If Makara

Kr. 4, then it fell in Qaka 1049 on

Phalguna sarjkranti, a Monday, 23rd

January, A.D. 1128].

[Jaka-varusambulu 1050 agunendi

9 ri m a (#c) - C5ragamgga--de[v a r a]

prava[rddha]tnana-vijaya-rajya-sam-

vatsaramnlu 54 grahi [Maka]r-ama-

vasya[yu] Yyatipatana, or 5a^a

1050 year 54, Makara amavasya, Yya-

tipata yoga = 23rd December, A.D.

1128, Sunday, [on which day the

Yyatipata yoga fell, according to

Surya-siddhanta].

paka-yarusambulu 1051 ag[u]ne[nti]

£!rnnad-Anamtavarmma-devara pra-

vard(*dh)amana- vijaya - r a j y a -sam

+ + + bulu 55 ^rahi YrQcika-sam-

kraihttiv[u] Yiti[pa]ta, or 9 aka 1051,

year 55, Yrfjcika samkranti Yyatipata

yoga = 26th October, A.D. 1129 [but

the Yyatipata yoga had passed away

1 gh. 49 pals before the sunrise].

9ak-abdambu[lu] 1053 ne[ti] ^L’iniac-

C5ragamga-devara pravarddhamana-

vijaya-rajya-samva[tsa](*ra) 57 gu

s(9)rahi Yr^cika - 9 u k 1 a - m a h a

+ + + + or 5a^a 1053, yean 57,

Yr9cika 9Q. + .

9rimad-Anam[tta]varmma - de vara

pravarddhamana-vijaya-r a j y a-sam-

vatsa(#ra) 5 [8] 9rahiQaka-varusambu-

(lu) 1054 gunendi Kanya-samkrariitti,

or 5a^a 1054, year 58, Kanya sag-

kranti.

9aka-varasambulu 1055 agu Qrlmad-

Anamtavarma-devara pravard(*dh)-

amana - vijaya - rajya-sajhhvatsaram-

bulu 59 qrahi Mesa krsna tra 13 yoda-

9iyu Budha-varamuna, or 9a^a

1055, year 59, Me9a Kr. 13, Wednes¬

day = 5th April, A D. 1133, (Piirni-

manta).

Ep. Rep., No. 144, of

Mukhaliijgam.

Irregular.

Ep. Rep., No. 151, of

Mukhaliijgam.

Verified.

Ep. Rep., No. 156, of

Mukhaliijgam,

Ditto.

Ep. Rep., No. 220, of

Mukhaliqgam.

Ep Rep., No. 149, of

Mukhaliijgam.

My Ms. transcript of

(jrlkurmam (not

traceable in Ep.

Rep.).

Unverifiable.

Ditto.

Yerified.

1903.] M. Ch&kr&veivti— -Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued .-

^05

25

T.

26

T.

27

T.

28

T.

29

T.

30

T.

paka-abdambulu 1055 gunendu Qrimad-

Anamttayarmma-devara prayarddha-

mana-vijaya-rajya - samyatsa(#ra) 59

9rahi Kumbha-masamuna Suryya-gra-

hana, or Qaka 1055, year 59, Kumbba

month, sun-eclipse = 27tb January,

A.D. 1134, Saturday ; [according to

Schram’s Table A, in Sewell's Indian

Calendar , p. 122, the suu-eclipse was

annular, and the conjunction took

place at 2 hours 24 min. after mean

Laijka sunrise].

S(Q)aka-varusambulu 1055 nenti £!ri-

mad - Ana[mta]varmma-Qri - C5raga-

mgga • de var a vi j ay a- r a j ya • sa [#mya]

tsa(#ra) 6[0] crahi Kanya-krsna-

pamcamiyu Budha-varamuna Yyati¬

pata, or Qaka 1055(6), year 60, Kanya

Kr. 5, Wednesday, Yyatipata y5ga =

10th September, A.D. 1134, [but the

Yyatipata yoga did not fall on that

day].

Qaka-varusambTilu 10[55] gunedu S(£J) —

rimad -An aih[tava]rmma-devara

pravarddhamana-vijaya-rajya- s a m -

yatsarambulu 5[9] grabi edurenti

D h a n u[ r-m m a ]sa-(jukla-astamiyu

Mamggala-va[ra]-munadu - Y u 1 1 ar-

ayana-samkramti, or caka 1055(6),

year 59, Dhanu month, (]u. 8, uttar -

ayna-saqkranti, Tuesday = 25th De¬

cember, A.D. 1134.

Qak-abdamulu 1056 gune[nti] prlmad-

Anamttavarma-devara pravarddha-

mana-vijaya-rajya-samvatsa(*ra) 5 x

9ra[*hi] edure[nti] Dhanu[*r]-masa-

9ukla-astamiyu Mamggala-varamn-

nan-Uttarayana-sam[kra]nti, or [the

same date as in No. 153], £aka year

1056.

^aka-varusambulu 1056 gunendu 9ri-

mad- Anamttayarmma-de vara pra-

varddhamana-vijaya -rajya-samvatsa-

rambulu 59 yagu eduremtti-Yuttar-

ayana-samkrarnti], [same date as in

No. 153.]

^aka-yarusambulu 10[5]7 Lgnnejriti

^rimad-Cdragamgga-deyara prava-

[rddhama]na-vijaya-rajya-samva t s a

(#ra) 59 9rahi edur[enti] Mesa-masa-

Ep. Rep., No. 185, of

Mukhalirjgam.

Ep. Rep., No. 395, of

Mahendragiri.

Ep. Rep., No. 153, of

Mukhaliqgam.

Yerified.

Ditto.

Ep. Rep., No. 154, of

Mukhaliqgam.

Ep. Rep., No. 187, of

Mnkhaliijgam,

Ep. Rep., No. 219, of

Mukhaliqgam.

Ditto.

Unyeriflable

J. I. 14

106

M. Cliakravarti — Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued.

[No. 2.

No.

Lan¬

guage.

31

T.

32

S.

33

T.

34

T.

35

T.

36

T.

37

T.

38

T.

Date-extracts.

References.

Remarks

mnna Makarada . . or Qaka

10 5 T (?) , year 59, Mesa month.

Qrlmad-Anantavarmma-deYara prava-

[rddha]mana-vijaya-rajya-samYa[tsa]

(*ra)[6]l <j[#r]ahi sa((ja)[ka]-Yaru-

sambul[u] 105[8] kunemti Yisuma*

samkranti, or 9 aka 1058, year 61,

Yisuva samkranti.

9ak-av(b)desu mnni-sa((ja)ra-Yiyac-cba-

(ca)mdra-ganitesu Yrtjcika-masa, or

9aka 1059, month Yr^cika.

Caka-Yarnsambalu 1060 yagu[nendu]

^rim a[d-A n a]mttaYarmma-devara

praYarddbamana-Yijaya-r a j y a-sam-

vatsa(*ra) 63 [#<jra]hi Risabba[-'kr]s

[na]-9a(ca)turdasiyn S5ma-varamuna,

or 0aka 1060, year 63, Rsava Kr. 14,

Monday — 9tb May, A.D, 1138 (Pur-

nimanta).

(paka-Yarsambuln 1060 nendu 9ri*

[*ma]d-Anamtt&varmma-deYara pra-

varddbamana.Yijaya-rajya - samvatsa

(*ra)[6]4 ^rabi TTttara[#ya]na-sam-

kramtti, or Qaka 1060, year 64, Utta-

rayana samkranti.

Cakufaj-varusambula (u) 1061 agunedu

primad * Ana (*m)ttaYa(*r)mma-

devara praYarddham[a]na-vi j ay a -

raj(*y)a - saih(#Ya)cc(#h)aram(*b)nlu

64 <;rahi Yisuma-samkranti, or 9a^a

1061, year 64, YisuYa-sarjkranti.

paka-varsambnln 10[6]8 yaga Qrimad-

AnamtaYarmma-devara pravarddha-

ma[na]-v i j a y a-rajya-saiiiYatsarani-

bnla 72 <jrabi Kumbha-misamun-

amavasyayun-Adi-varamu Maha-

yyatipata, or 9a^a 1068, year 72,

Kumbha month amavasya, Sunday,

Mahavyatipata yoga = 2nd Febru¬

ary, A.D. 1147, [but the Yyatipata

yoga did not fall on that day].

9aka-varsaihbulu 1069 dagunenti

(Jrlmad-AnamtaYarmma-deYara pra*

Yarddhamana-vi(#ja)ya-rajya • sam -

Yatsarambulu 72 ^rabi Visubha-sam-

kramttiyu (jukla-tritiyayu Soma-Yara-

munandu, or 9a^a 1069, year 72,

Yisuva saijkranti, 9a» 3, Monday.

Qrimad-AnantaYarmma-devara pra-

Yarddhamana-vijaya-rajya-samYatsa

!p. Rep., No. 193, of

Mukbalirjgam.

Yizagapatam Plates,

Ind. Ant., XYIII, p.

173.

Ep. Rep., No. 201, of

Mukhaliijgam.

UnYerifiable.

Ditto#

Y erified.

Ep. Rep., No. 205, of

Mukbalirjgam,

Ep. Rep., No. 236, of

Mukbalirjgam.

Ep. Rep., No. 387, of

ArasaYilli.

Ep. Rep., No. 388, of

Arasavilli.

Ep. Rep., No. 182, of

Mukbalirjgam.

Unverifiable.

Ditto.

Yerified,

Irregular.

UnYerifiable.

107

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued.

N.B. — The letters within [ ] are more or less broken. The letters within ( ) are

corrections, and those within (#) are additions.

On examining the 34j inscriptions witli regnal years, they are found

.*. According to this group, f aka 997 = 1st year.

Group No. II. (10 inscriptions) : —

faka ... ... 1020

... ... 1045

... ... 1046

... 1056

... ... 1058

... ... 1060

» j

55

= 23rd year

— 48th ,,

= 49 th ,,

= 59th ,,

= 61st „

= 63rd „

lit

108 M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

paka ••

[No. 2-

Last year.

1061 = 64tb year

... ... 1069 • = 72nd ,,

According to this group, paka 998 = 1st year.

Besides these, there are three inscriptions according to which the

first year would fall in paka 999, and one inscription, probably a mis¬

take. according to which the first year would fall in paka 996.

The difference of one year between the regnal years of Group I and

Group IT, may be due to the fact that like agka years those in Group

No. 1 omitted number one. This omission of number one is found also in

the inscriptions of the next king Kamarnava. C5ragai)ga was crowned

in paka 999 ; and he is more likely to have come to the throne in paka

998, than Caka 997, as kings naturally would prefer £o be crowned on

the earliest auspicious day possible. Inscription No. 271 of Dirghasi

[Ep. Rep., p. 18 and Ep. Ind., IV, p. 316, v. 7] shows that in paka 997

Rajaraja was living. Calculations from the preceding kings corroborate

the conclusion of Group No. II. [see infra, p. 109]. For these reasons

Caka 998 would preferably appear to be the first year of Coragaijga.

The last year is given in No. 172 of Mukhaliqgam, 73rd year Caka

1069. In paka 1070, Kamarnava’s year 3

began. Consequently taking Qaka 998 as

the first year, CSragajgga actually ruled till his 72nd year. In Puri and

Kendupatna plates he is credited with a rule of seventy years. In these

plates Kamarnava is said to have been crowned in paka 1064, month

Pausa. This cannot literally be correct ; as several inscriptions exist with

Coragaijga’s regnal years from paka 1065 to 1069, while Kamarnava’s in¬

scriptions with regnal years begin with paka 1070 as his 3rd year. The

coronation of Kamarnava in paka 1064 might possibly have been as a

regent; for in that year Coragapga would have been very old, probably

more than eighty, and might have arranged to transfer the active duties

of a kingship to his the then eldest son Kamarnava.

Coragaijga’s father was Rajaraja II of the Eastern Gaijga family ;

and his mother was Rajasundari, the

daughter of the Cola king, “ Coda-mahi *

bhuj-atmajam ” ( Yizagapatam plates). This Cola king was Vira Rajen-

dra Deva I, surnamed Parak§9arivarman (A.D. 1052-1070) ; and thus

Coragaijga became related to the great Cola king Kulottugga Cola I,

as his sister’s son. The Coragaijga of the Gaijga family is apparently

a different person from the Coragaqgaof the Teki plates, described as the

son ( jpriy-atmjam ) of Kulottugga Cola I [verse 25, 1. 50, Ep. Ind., VI,

p. 340], who bore the surname Rajaraja and was deputed by his father

(in Qaka 1006) to rule the Veijgi territory.

His family.

109

1903.]

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa.

Puri and Kendupatna copperplates name only tliree ancestors of

Coragaqga ; but the three Vizagapatam plates trace out his genealogy to

the reputed founder of the family, including the above three. Conse¬

quently the account of the Gapga family will be incomplete if these

ancestors are omitted. A full genealogical table from the reputed

founder Virasimha to the last known Gaijga king Nrsimha Deva IV is

annexed at the end of this article. The list of COragapga’s ancestors

has been compiled from the Vizagapatam plates, and the Nadagam

plates of Vajrahasta edited with two tables by Mr. Gr. V. Ramamurti

in Ep. Ind., Vol. IV, p. 183 ff.

The calculation of dates from Vajrahasta seem to corroborate the

conclusion that paka 998 was the first year of CSragapga. Vajrahasta

was crowned in paka 960 [v. 8, 11. 34-7, Nadagam plates, pp. 190-1].

He is given 33 years in the Vizagapatam plate dated Qaka 1003, and 30

years in the V. plate dated paka 1040. The first figure may be the

regnal year, and the second one actual years of rule minus months.

Rajaraja is given eight years in all the V. plates, and this figure I take to

be the actual year. If in the regnal years, the number one used to be

omitted, as appears from the subsequent aqka years and from the regnal

years of Kamarnava VII, then —

paka ... ... 960 = 2nd regnal year.

Add ... ... 31 (30 years and odd months).

paka

Add

991 = the 33rd year of Vajrahasta,

or the 1st year of Rajaraja.

7

... 998 = the 8th year of Rajaraja.

Coragaijga could not have then succeeded to the throne before

Paka 998.

Several queens of Coragaqga are named in the inscriptions,—

Kasturikamodinl, Indira and Candralekha (Puri and Kendupatna

Plates); Somala Mahadevi (No. 146), Laksmi Devi (Nos. 210, 392, and

393), and Prithvi Mahadevi (No. 211), (in the stone inscriptions) ;

Nos. 203 and 215 of Mukhalipgam record grants of certain unnamed

queens of his.

He had several sous. The copperplates mention Kamarnava,

Raghava, Rajaraja and Aniyaijkabhima ; in No. 239, one Umavallabha

is said to have been his son.

He had apparently a brother (or brothers), for No. 153 records a

grant of his younger brother’s wife.

110

M. Chakra varti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa. [No. 2,

Coragaqga had the family surnames Ananta-Yarmman, ‘and

H's titles Calukya-gaqga, and the special surnames

Gai)ge9vara and probably Vikrama-Gaqga.

His virudas are given in nearly the same words in No. 149 of Mukliali^gam

and No. 392 of Ronagki. They run as follows in Ronaqki : —

“ Samara-inukh-aneka-ripu-darppa-niarddana-bhuja-bala-parcikrama

fiarama-mcihes (g)vara parama-bliattaraka maha-rdj-adhirdja parames(g)

vara nava-navati-sahasra‘kumjar-ddhis(c)vara tn-Kalimg-adhipati [these

two omitted in Mukhaliggam] Gatngg-cinvay-avalambana-stambha.

The inscriptions show him to be the most famous and powerful

king of this dynasty. According to all the

copperplates he conquered the king of

Historical facts.

Utkala. According to Yizagapatam plates, after conquering the

Utkala king he replaced him as a feudatory; and he conquered also

Yeqgi.

According to Puri and Kendupatna plates, Gaqge^vara first de¬

stroyed the fortified town of Aramya or Anamya and then defeating on

the banks of the Ganges the king of Mandara, pursued him in his flight.

Is the tract Mandara identifiable with Sirkar Mandaran of Ain-i Akbari

[Vol. II., p. 141], whose headquarters, Garh Mandaran (now known as

Bhitargarh, eight miles west of Aram-bagh) is about fifty miles from the

Ganges on the map, and which place was a well-known frontier town in

the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries P.

By these conquests, C5ragai]ga extended his kingdom from the

Ganges on the north to the river Gautami (Gddavari) on the south.

On the west the frontier was ill-defined. But from inscriptions of the

Cedi kings of Daksina-Kosala he appears to have fought with them, and

Ratnadevais said to have defeated him [Ep. Ind., Yol. I, p. 40, v. 4; Do.,

p. 47, v. 5]. Ratnadeva flourished about A.D, 1114-1145.

He was evidently in good terms with the Sena kings of Bengal ; in

p. of the vallala-caritam of Ananda Bhatta, edited by Pandit Hara-

prasad fastri, YijayaSena is specially described as Cdragarjga-sakhah , a

friend of Coragarjga.

He was a good patron of religious works and charities. Under his

orders was built the great temple of Jagaunatha at Puri. Numerous

grants of him, his relatives and his officers have been recorded in the

temple of Mukhaliijg^vara (Madhuke^vara ?) at Mukhaliijgam, Ganjam

District.

Science and letters were cultivated during his rule. No poem of

his time has yet come to hand ; but the inscriptions show a fair know¬

ledge of Sanskrit literature. Compositions in Telugu were also not

neglected.

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa. Ill

Science is represented by Bhasvati , a manual of rules for determin¬

ing the position of the heavenly bodies, according to Surya-siddhanta.

The work was composed in paka 1021 (A.D. 1099-1100) by Satananda,

son of paqkara and Sarasvati. He was of Purusottama (i.e. Puri), and

according to the commentators he based his calculations on the meridian

of this town.

The extremely long rule of Coragaijga (72nd year) is unprece¬

dented in the annals of Orissa, and, I suppose, stands unique in Indian

history too. Presumably he was over ninety at the time of his death.

Traces of his name may still be found in Churagga-sahi, a quarter

in Puri town; in Churnrjga pokhri, a tank about six miles S. W. of

Cuttack town ; in Saranga-garh, a fort, the remains of which are still

visible on the Madras Trunk Road close to Barang Railway Station ;

and in the temple of Gaggegyara, town J ajapura, District Cuttack.

II. Kamarnava VII,

[ 1069 paka — 1078 paka. ]

The following inscriptions of his time are known : — -

Materials.

112

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa. [No. 2.

Mate rials . — Continued.

First year. From tlie inscriptions we thus get —

.*. f aka 1068 = 1st year, or if like arjka year, then

,, 1069 = 2nd aqka, or 1st year.

This latter seems more probable, as Coragagga’s inscriptions exist

np to faka 1069, 73rd year (No. 182 of Mukhaliggam). The copper¬

plates give 1064 (Jaka as the year of his abkiseka. Does this mean that

in that year he was formally put in charge, Coragai)ga being too infirm

from age ?

As no inscriptions of the succeeding king have yet been found, the

113

1903,] M. Ohakravarti — Eastern Gajjga kings of Orissa .

last year of this king cannot be positively

as year. ascertained. Taking ten to be his total

year according to Puri and Kendupatna copperplates, and with 1069

paka as his first year, tbe last year would be 1078 Qaka. This agrees

with the calculations of the subsequent reigns.

The Puri and Kendupatna copperplates call him Kamarnava

His t’tl Deva ; while in one stone inscription of

prikurmam he is called Anantavarma-

Madhu-Kamarnava Deva (No. 383), and in the other stone inscription

he is called simply Anantavarmma Deva. In No. 178, Qaka 1070 is said

to be the 3rd regnal year of one Jate9vara Deva. Is this another name

of Kamarnava, or is it the name of another prince who had possibly

revolted P

Kamarnava was the son of Coragaqga by the queen Kasturika-

modini. Apparently he succeeded Cora-

His relationships. gaijga as his eldest son.

III. Raghava.

[ paka 1078 — P'aka 1092. ]

No inscriptions of this king is known. From calculations of the

succeeding king Rajaraja II, his last year

irst an last year. wouiq be 1092 paka. According to Puri

and Kendupatna copperplates he ruled fifteen years. Calculating back¬

wards from 1092, his first year falls in 1078, the last year of Kamar¬

nava. Hence these dates may he prima facie accepted.

He was son of Coragaqga by another queen, Indira, a princess of

the Ravi-Tcula. Apparently Kamarnava

His relationships. ~

Deva had died childless.

IV. Rajaraja II.

[ paka 1092 — paka 1112. ]

The following inscriptions of his time are known : —

Materials.

J. ii. 15

114

[No. 2,

M, Chakravarti — 'Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued.

First year.

Thus from the inscriptions, we get

From the succeeding king’s calculations Raja-raja’s last year would

be £aka 1112. In the Puri and Kendupatna

Last year. copperplates he is credited with a rule of 25

years ; which, if taken as aqka, would agree, 25th aqka being equal to

21st year. The inscriptions show that the regnal years had become full

ar)kas in his time.

In the stone inscriptions of Mukhaliggam only the title Ananta-

varnima Dev a is mentioned.

He was son of C5ragapga by another princess Candralekha (copper¬

plates, Puri and Kendupatna). This rela¬

tionship is corroborated by the Meghe9«

Belationsliips*

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa. 115

vara inscription at Bhuvanepvara. [Its latest readings are by Babn

N. N. Yasu, Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, Yol. LXYI, 1897, pp. 11-24; and

by Professor Kielliorn, Ep. Indica, Yol. YI, pp. 198-203]. According to

this inscription Rajaraja married Surama, a sister of Svapn§9vara Deva,

the erector of the Meghe^vara temple (line 10) ; and in his old age

installed in the government his younger brother Aniyagka Bhima

a-11).

In “ the copperplate inscription of Nrsimha Deva II, ” plate leaf III,

reverse, 1. 13, verse 56, the words “ 'pragaTbha-vayasi” have been read

(transl. “ in his early youth ”). But from the Meghecvara inscription,

Rajaraja appears to have come to the throne at least in his middle age.

I would therefore prefer to read “ pragalbha-vacasi” [See my reading,

J.A.S.B., 1895, p. 141, note (1)].

V. Aniyagka Bhima or Anagga Bhima Deva II.

[f aka 1112 — faka 1120.]

Only two inscriptions of this king’s time have been found up to

date : —

* I

Materials.

A.D. 1193 or faka 1114 = 4th agka or 3rd year.

First year. „ 1 112 = 2nd agka or 1st year.

From the calculated initial year of the next king, this king’s last

116

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garget kings of Orissa. [No. 2

Title.

year would appear to be paka 1120, making

- Last year. his reign nine years. But the copperplates

ascribe to him ten years, which, if aqkas, would give eight years. This

difference, if not due to mistake, is at present inexplicable,

Aniyapka Bhima Deva has been once mentioned in the copperplates

as Anaijga Bhima Deva, and is distinctly

mentioned as such in the stone inscription at

Catecjvara temple, District Cuttack. [See Jour. As. Soc. Bengal, Yol.

LXVII, 1898, Babu N. N. Yasu on “ The Cat§9vara Inscription,” p. 320,

1. 7 ; I have got a pencil rubbing of it on wax cloth].

He was the son of Coragapga, and brother of Rajaraja II. He

succeeded Rajaraja apparently peacefully

Relationship. [cf. iiDe ^ Cate£vara inscription, p. 320 ;

and Meghepvara inscription, 1. 11].

He had a Brahmin minister named Grovinda [Catepvara inscription

1. 8, p. 321]. During his reign, Rajaraja

IDs brother-in-law Svapne^vara Deva had

the temple of Meghe^rara built. The date of this temple would thus

be approximately between Qaka 1115 and 1120, or between A.D. 1193-4

and 1198-9.

Historical Tacts.

VI. Rajaraja III,

[paka 1120 — faka 1133.]

Only one inscription of this king’s time is known : —

Materials.

1903.]

117

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gctrjga kings of Orissa.

First year. faka 1128 = 11th a^ka or 9th year;

.\ „ 1120 = 2nd agka or 1st year.

No inscriptions with regnal years have yet been found of the next

_ , three kings, till one comes to Nrsimha Deva

Last year. f

II. balling back upon the years given m

the Puri and Kgndupatna copperplates, I find that if treated as agkas,

33

3 5

Relationship.

First Mahomedan in¬

vasion.

Nrsimha Deva II 1200/1 as deduced from his inscriptions.

These do not disagree with the inscripfcional or other dates attri¬

butable to the times of the respective kings.

Rajaraja III was son of Aniyaqka Bhima Deva by his chief

queen Baghalla Devi. He is spoken of as

“ Rajendra” in Cate^vara inscription, 1.9,

p. 321.

The first Mahomedan inroad into Orissa

took place in his reign.

“ Trustworthy persons have related after this manner, that

Muhammad-i-Sheran and Ahmad-i-Sheran were two brothers, two among

the Khalj Amirs in the service of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar ; and when

the latter led his troops towards the mountains of Kamrud and Tibbat,

he had despatched Muhammad-i-Sheran and his brother, with a portion

of his forces, towards Lakh an- or and Jaj-nagar. When the news of

these events ” [the retreat and death of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar]

“reached Muhammad-i-Sheran. he came back from that quarter and

returned again to Diw-kot” (pp. 573-4).

Orissa was known to Mahomedan historians under the name Jaj-

nagar. The inroad of Muhammad-i-Sheran took place shortly before

the assasination of Muhammad-i-Bakht-yar, in 602 A.H. (p. 513), and

just about the time of his departure for Kamrud, which according to

Major Raver ty, happened towards the close of 601 A.H. (note 4 to

p. 560). Hence the approximate time of this inroad, the first Maho¬

medan invasion of Orissa, would be the close of 601 A.H. or about June

or July of A.D. 1205.

ilS M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa. [No, 2,

VII. Anarjga Bhima Deva III.

[ Qaka 1133 — paka 1160. ]

The following inscriptions of the time of this king are known : —

Materials.

No regnal year of this king being available, his first and last years

have been calculated by treating the year

First and last years. assigned to him in Puri and Kendupatna

119

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa.

copperplates, as aijka year [see supra , the remarks under Rajaraja III,

p. 117].

He was son of

Relationship,

p. 321.

Rajaraja III by bis Queen Sadguna or Maijkuna

Devi of Galuhya race. He is styled “ Tri-

kaliyga-natha ” in Catecvara inscription, 1. 12,

He bad a Brabmin minister named Yisnu wbo fougbt for bim with

“ Tummana-prthvi-pateh ” (Cat. ins., 11. 14-5 ),

Historical Facts. , v t _ . ,

and with the lavanas, ‘ Yavan-avan-tnau-

samare ” (Do., 1. 15). Babu X. N. Yasu reads Tummana as Tumgbana,

and identifies this with Tughril-i-tughan Khan [J.A.S.B., XLV , 233-4;

XLYII, p. 319]. The identification is open to objections. Firstly,

the expression “ Tummcina-prtlivi-pateh ” means “ of the king of the

Tummana land,” and therefore Tummana cannot be applied to any

person. Secondly, the fight with Tughan Khan took place on 13th

Shawwal, A.H. 642, or in March 1245 A.D., i.e., six or seven years after

Anai]ga Bhima Deva had ceased to rule.

In fact, Tummana land was in the Central Provinces, and has been

repeatedly mentioned in the inscriptions of the Cedi kings [Ep. Ind., Yol.

I, pp. 34, 35, 40, 41, 47]. These Cedi kings being rulers of the adjoining

province, Daksinakosala, were from time to time at war with the kings

of Orissa. One of them, Ratna Deva, is said to have defeated even

CSragnqga. Their position is further indicated by the statement

that the fight took place in the groves on the banks of the Bhima river

at the foot of the Yindhya hills. They, too, apparently invaded Orissa,

as fighting on the bank of the sea is also mentioned.

The fight with the Yavanas, mentioned in verse 15, line 15, refers

probably to some inroads of Ghiyas-ud-din ’Iwaz, the fourth Bengal

ruler. Of him Tabakat-i-Nasiri says: —

“ In short, Ghiyas-ud-din ’Iwaz, the Khalj, was a monarch worth}-,

just, and benevolent. The parts around about the state of Lakhanawati,

such as Jaj-nagar, the countries of Bang, Kamrud, and Tirhut, all sent

tribute to him.” (pp. 587-8).

Sultan Ghiyas-ud-din ’Iwaz was raised to the throne in about 608

A.H. ; and the sending of tribute by Jaj-nagar is mentioned before the

invasion of Bengal by I-yal-timish in 622 A.H. The invasion of Jaj-

nagar to gather tributes thus apparently fell between 608 and 622 A.H.,

or between A.D. 1211 and 1224. The Mahomedans make inroads very

often when the ruler of the country had just ascended the throne, or the

defences of the country had been neglected by some civil war. Anagga

Bhima came to the throne in A.D. 1211-2, and the probability is that

shortly after this time the Mahomedan inroad was made. This fixes

120

M. Chakra varti — Eastern Gaygn kings of Orissa.

[No. 2,

the anterior limit of the Cate^vara inscription also. Several years would

have elapsed between the minister Visnu’s fight with the Yavanas and

the finishing of the temple. So, Circa 1120 A.D. may be taken as the

likely date of the composition of the temple inscription.

Dr. Hoernle published in Plate YI, one gold coin (No. 22), which

has got the letters “ Cri ana ” and “ sa ” below them (Sam vat), and two

figures which I would read “ 24.” Dr. Hultzsch took “ ana ” to mean

Anantavarmman ; but as I pointed out in my letter to Dr. Hoernle, dated

10th July, 1898, “ana” is more likely the abbreviation of a name,

as Anaijga Bhima, than an abbreviation of a common title like Ananta¬

varmman. If this view be correct, then No. 22 is applicable only to

Anaqga Bhima Deva III, whose regnal years exceeded 24.

The temples of Mukhaliggam or prikurmam do not unfortunately

contain any direct inscriptions of this king, but there are some which

contain references to him. In No. 307 of prikurmam, dated 1172 paka,

Pratapa-vira-Narasimha Deva, son of Anaijga Bhima Deva, was ruling.

In No. 349 of prikurmam, dated paka 1177, certain lands in Ippili

which had been previously granted by the king Anarjga Bhima, were

regranted; No. 298 of prikurmam, dated paka 1205, mentions a gift of

lamp by the wife of one Nrsirhha Bhattopadhyaya who was a contem¬

porary of the king Anaqga- Bhima; No. 296 of prikiirmam, dated paka

1205, mentions another grant of the same lady.

In the Madala Pdnji , this king is said to have been the most

powerful of the whole family, to have built (in one version finished) the

temple of Jagannatha, to have surveyed the whole kingdom, and to have

made numerous grants. None of these statements has as yet been

corroborated by inscriptions.

VIII. Nrsimha Deva I.

=-mc- 1

[paka 1160 ~ paka 1186.] . J

Only one inscription of his time has hitherto been found : —

Materials.

1903.]

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Ga/rjga kings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued.

121

No regnal years being available, tbe year of reign has been deduced

First and last vears fl’°m the figure given in Puri and K§n'

dupatna Plates, viz., 33, which as erjka is

equal to 24th year. See remarks under Rajaraja III [ supra p. 117].

The king was son of Anagga-Bhima Deva by his wife Kastura

Eelationship. U§vi' In Ep' ReP'’ No- 307’ he is a]so des*

cribed as born of tbe king Anaqga-Bhima.

The name is generally written as Narasimha.

Tbe copperplates speak of the king’s invasion of Rarha and Varen-

Historical Facts. dra andthe defeat of Havanas there. This

fight with Bengal Mahomedans is corrobo¬

rated by Tabakat-i-Nasiri. I quote the passages in full, as being

J, i* 16

122 M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa. [No. 2,

the statements of a contemporary, and, in one instance, of an eye¬

witness : —

“In the year 641 H., the Rae of Jaj-nagar commenced molesting

“the Lakhanawati territory; and in the month of Shawwal, 641 H.

“ Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan marched towards the Jaj-nagar coun-

“ try, and this servant of the State [Minhaj-i-Saraj, Jurjani] accom-

“ panied him on that holy expedition. On reaching Katasin, which was

“ the boundary of Jaj-nagar [on the side of Lakhanawati], on Saturday

“ the 6th of the month of Zi-ka’dah 641 H., Malik Tughril-i-Tughan

“ Khan made his troops mount, and an engagement commenced. The

“holy-warriors of Islam passed over two ditches, and the Hindu infidels

“took to flight. So far as they continued in the author’s sight, except

“ the fodder which was before their elephants, nothing fell into the

“ hands of the footmen of the army of the Islam, and moreover, Malik

“ Tughril-i-Tughan Khan’s commands were that no one should molest

“the elephants, and for this reason the fierce fire of battle subsided.”

“ When the engagement had been kept up until midday the foot-

“ men of the Musalman army — everyone of them — returned [to the

“ camp P] to eat their food, and the Hindus, in another direction stole

“through the cane Jangal, and took five elephants; and about two.

“ hundred foot and fifty horsemen came upon the rear of a portion of

“ the Musalman army. The Muhammadans sustained an overthrow,

“and a great number of these holy warriors attained martyrdom; and

“Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan retired from that place without having

“effected his object, and returned to Lakhanawati.” (p. 738).

“ In the same year likewise [642 H.], the Rae of Jaj-nagar, in order

to avenge the plundering of Katasin, which had taken place the preced¬

ing year, as has been already recorded, having turned his face towards

Lakhanawati territory, on Tuesday, the 13th of the month of Shawwal.

642 H., the army of infidels of Jaj-nagar, consisting of elephants, and

joayiks [foot-men] in great numbers, arrived opposite Lakhanawati.

Malik Tughril-i-Tughan Khan came out of the city to confront them.

The infidel host, on coming beyond the frontier of the Jaj-nagar terri¬

tory, first took Lakhan-or; and Fakhr-ul-Mulk, Karim-ud-din, Laghri,

who was the feudatory of Lakhan-or, with a body of Musalmans, they

made martyrs of, and after that, appeared before the gate of Lakhan¬

awati. The second day after that, swift messengers arrived from above

[the Do-abah and Awadh, &c.], and gave information respecting the

army of Islam that it was near at hand. Panic now took possession of

the infidels, and they decamped.” (pp. 739-40).

This inroad up to Lakhanawati is also indicated in the following: —

“The leader of the forces of Jaj-nagar was a person, by name,

123

903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga Icings of Orissa .

Saban-tar [Sawantara ?], the son-in-law of the Rae, who during the time

of Malik ’Izz-ud-din Tughuil-i-Tughan Khan, had advanced to the bank

of the river of Lakhanawati, and having shown the greatest audacity,

had driven the Musalman forces as far as the gate [of the city] of

Lakhanawati.” (pp. 762-3).

“ In the year 642 H., the infidels of Jaj-nagar appeared before the

gate of Lakhanawati.” (p. 665).

Other fights with a succeeding Bengal ruler also took place during

this king’s time.

“ After he ” [Malik Ikht.iyar-ud-din Yuz-bak-i-Tughril Khan] “ went

to that part, and brought that country ” [Lakhanawati] “ under his

jurisdiction, hostility arose between him and the Rae of Jaj-nagar. The

leader of the forces of Jaj-nagar was a person, by name, Saban-tar ”...

[see above]. In Malik Tughril Khan-i-Yuz-bak’s time, judging from

the past, he [the Jaj-nagar leader] manifested great boldness, and

fought, and was defeated. Again, another time, Malik Tughril Khan-i-

Yuz-bak fought an engagement with the Rae of Jaj-nagar, and again

came out victorious.

“ On a third occasion, Malik Yuz-bak sustained a slight reverse, and

a white elephant than which there was no other more valuable in that

part, and which was ruttish, got out of his hands in the field of battle,

and fell into the hands of the infidels of Jaj-nagar.

“ The following year, however, Malik Yuz-bak asked assistance

from the court of Delhi, and then marched an army from Lakhanawati

into the territory of Umurdan, and unexpectedly reached the Rae’s

capital, which city they style Umurdan. The Rae of that place retired

before Malik Yuz-bak, and the whole of the Rae’s family, dependants,

and followers, and his wealth, and elephants, fell into the hands of the

Musalman forces.” (p. 763).

Minhaj-i-Saraj gives the dates of the fights with Malik Tughril-i-

Tughan Khan (A.H. 641-2); but gives no dates of the fights with

Malik Tughril Khan-i- Yuz-bak. The latter could not have got Bengal

before Malik Tamur Khafi-i-ki-ran who died on “ Friday, the end of

the month of Shawwal. ” A.H. 644, or A.D. 1247, March (p. 741) ; and

he must have ceased to rule before the capture of Lakhanawati by Malik

Taj-ud-din Arsalan Khan Sanjar-i-chast, in 657 A.H. or A.D., 1259, when

Malik ’Izz-ud-din Balban-i-Yuz-baki is said to have been the feudatory

in charge of Lakhanawati (pp. 769-70).

In J.A.S.B., LXV, 1896, pp. 232-4, Babu N. N. Yasu has argued

that the “ Saban-tar ” who led the forces of Jaj-nagar was probably

Narasimha Deva I, and “that Minhaj, by mistake has described the

son to be the son-in-law. ” Now that the fights have been in this

124 M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa. [No. 2,

article shewn to have taken place in the time of Nj-simha Deva himself

he will not, I trust, he identified with his son-in-law, the sitra (lit.

Samanta-Raya) .

Nrsimha Deva I will be remembered, however, by posterity, as the

king under whose orders the great temple of Kanarka was built.

All the copperplates agree in ascribing to him the erection of the sun

Temple at Konakona.

In (Jrikurmam temple no inscription of the king himself has been

found. No. 307 records a grant by one Sahasa-malla during this king’s

reign. In No. 352 is recorded a grant by one Yijaj^aditya whose father

Raj araj a was a minister ( marntri ) of this king, Yira Nrsimha I; [see

Dr. Hultzsch, Ep. Ind., Yol. Y., p. 33].

Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar has discovered an Alaijkara work, Ekavali,

whose author Yidyadhara flourished in the court of a Narasimha

Deva, king of Utkala and Kalngga, (Narasimha II., according to Dr.

Bhandarkar), [Report on Sanskrit MSS., 1887-9 1, pp. LXY-LXIX]. This

king I am inclined to identify with Nrsimha Deva I, from the mention

in the poem of the poet Harihara and his patron king Arjuna of Malwa

(whose latest known date is 9th September, A.D. 1215), and from

Yidyadhara’s description of the Utkala king as having humbled the

pride of Hammlra, this being a title of the early Sultans of Delhi.

[See Thomas, Chron. Path, kings, pp. 15, 16, 20, 50, 70, 71, 75, 90, 91,

103, 108, 119, 123, 127, 137 ; Ind, Ant., Yol. XX., p. 208 et seq. ;

J.A.S.B., Yol. XLIII, p. 108].

[Since writing this, the Ekavali has been printed in the Bombay

Sanskrit Series under the editorship of Mr. K. P. Trivedi ; and thanks

to Dr. Bhandarkar I have just got a copy of it. In the introductory

note (pp. xxxiii — xxxvii), Dr. Bhandarkar is still inclined to

take the king to be Narasimha Deva II, chiefly from the fact that he

is described in the Puri copperplates as “ kavi-priyah ” (A. IY. 42),

and “ kavi-kumuda-candro ” (A. Y. 3). This identification, however,

does not explain the specific mention of the fights with “ Hammira, ”

“ Yavana” and “paka” kings in Bengal, ^cf. pp. 176, 177, 202, 203,

257, 260, 326). Nrsimha Deva II has nowhere been credited with

any invasion of Bengal or with any war against the Mahomedans. For

a fuller discussion, see Appendix II.]

Ekavali is fortunate enough to have got a commentary named

Tarala from the great commentator Mallinatha. It has been several

times quoted in the citra-mimamsa and kuvalaycmanda of Appaya

Diksita

1903.]

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa.

125

IX. Bhanu Deva I.

[faka 1186 — paka 1200-1].

The following two inscriptions of this king’s time are known : —

Materials.

Regnal years wanting, the year of the Kendupatna copperplates

First and Last vsar baS been accePted’ «»•> 18 a9bas- equal to

First and Last year. fifteenth year. The last year of this king

is ascertained from the initial year of his successor, as 1200-1 paka.

Bhanu. Deva was son of Nrsimha Deva I by Sita Deri, daughter of

Malacandra. He is also called Vira-Bbanu

Relationship. ^

Deva.

In the copperplates he is said to have given one hundred grants of

lands with houses and gardens to good protriya Brahmanas, written on

copperplates.

X. Nrsimha Deva II.

[paka 1200-1 — paka 1227-28].

A considerable number of inscriptions of this king’s time has been

brought to light : —

Materials.

126

M. Chakravarfci — 'Eastern Garjga Kings of Orissa. [No. 2,

Materials. — Continued.

J903.] M. Chakravavti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa. 127

Materials. — Continued.

128

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued.

[No. 2,

First year. From the above we get —

Seven of the inscriptions give the initial year = 1200-1 faka.

One copperplate inscription of Kendupatna gives the initial year

= 1201-2 faka, but it makes a mistake of one year in the faka year,

and therefore presumably also in the aqka year. One inscription (No.

297) apparently makes mistakes both in the faka and aijka year, if

the tithi and week-day given be correct.

The initial year given by the majority of the inscriptions thus falls

in faka 1200-1.

No regnal year of the succeeding king being known, we have to fall

back upon the year assigned by the Puri cop

Last year. perplates, viz., 34, which, as aqka, is equal

to 28th year. This agrees with the initial year of his grandson Nrsimha

Deva III, as seen below : —

Name of the king.

Initial year Last year

(£!aka). ((Jaka).

Year given in the copperplates

Nrsimha Deva II 1200-1 1227-28 37th agka, or 23th year.

Bhanu Deva II 1227-8 1249-50 24 years (i.e. 23 years and odd).

Nrsimha Deva III 1249-50, as deduced from his inscriptions.

The Kendupatna copperplates, 3 series, end in this king.

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

129

Nrsimha Deva II was son of Bhanu Deva I by Jakalla Devi of

Relationship and titles.

caluhga hula. He is called also Narasirbha

Historical facts.

Deva, Yira-NarasimhaDeva, Vira-Cri or pri-

Yira Narasimha Deva, Pratapa-Ylra-Qri-Narasimha Deva, Yira-^ri

or pri-Yira-Naranarasimha Deva, Anartayarmma-Pratapa-Yira-Nara.

narasimha Deva. In the Kendupatna copperplates lie is said to have

had virudas beginning with “ Gaturdaga-bhuvan-adhipati lord of the

fourteen worlds.

The inscription No. 323 of prikurmam records the grant of a minis¬

ter of his named Gfaruda-Narayana Deva,

son of Dosaditya Deva.

Inscription No. 290 mentions that Naraharitirtha, a governor of

Kalrgga, built a shrine of Yogananda Nrsimha in front of the Kurmec-

vara temple (at prikurmam). This officer’s name is also mentioned in Nos.

291, 367, and 369 of prikurmam, and in 305 and 311 of 1900 of Simha-

calam temple. All these inscriptions have been edited with an interest¬

ing introduction by Mr. H. Krishna Sastri in the Epigraphia Indica,

Yol. YI, pp. 260-8. The inscriptions range from Caka 1186 to 1215.

Naraharitirtha’ s father seems to have been a minister. Narahari

was a cela of Anandatirtba, the famous founder of the Dvaita school of

philosophy. According to Narahariya-stotra quoted by Mr. H. K. Sastri,

the G-uru ordered him to go to the Grajapati king and to be a ruler

under him ; Naraharitirtha went there and ruled the country for twelve

years, the king being an infant. In Raktdksi-samvatsara, or A.D. 1324,

he became mahant and died in the year primukha or A.D., 1333, His

inscriptions have 1186 paka as the earliest date ; and he apparently be¬

came ruler of Kalii)ga in the very first year of Bhanu Deva I, retiring

a few years before the death of Narasimha Deva II. His father was

probably a minister of Nrsimha Deva I. The long gap of 31 years be¬

tween A.D. 1293 and A.D. 1324 is not explained; and therefore the

traditional date of 1324 is to be received with caution.

XI. Bhanu Deva II.

[paka 1227-8 — paka 1249-50.]

Only two inscriptions of this king’s time are as yet known : —

Materials.

J. i. 17

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa .

Materials. — Continued.

[No. 2,

180

No verified regnal years of this king being available, his initial year is

taken from the last year of Nrsimha Deva II.

First and last year. Uife last year is the same as the first year of

Nrsimha Deva III, faka 1249-50, deduced from the latter’s inscrip¬

tions. The intervening period nearly agrees with the year 24 given in

the Puri copperplates.

He was son of Nrsimha Deva II by Cora Devi. He is given a fuller

_ , , . , . _ .... title in No. 302, of Cri-vira-di-vira Cri-

Relationship and title. ’ r r

Bhanu-deva.

The Puri copperplates describe a bloody war of his with one

“ Gayasadin.” He is apparently the same as

Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlak, whose son Ulugh

Khan having captured Arangal invaded Jaj-nagar. Ziya-ud-din Barni

says (p. 234) : —

“ The prince then marched towards Jaj-nagar, and there took forty

elephants, with which he returned to Tilang. These he sent on to his

father.”

Is it on the strength of this excursion that Jaj-nagar was included

as No. 22 in the list of the 23 provinces to which Ulugh Khan succeeded

according to Ibn Batutah ? [see his list in note 1 to p. 203, Thomas’

Path. Chron.]. Ziya-ud-din Barni, however, omits Jaj-nagar from his

list [Elliot, III, p. 236].

Historical facts.

1903.]

131

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

No. 332 of frikurmam shows that Jagannatha Deva of the Eastern

palukya family was a feudatory of this king. No. 302 mentions a grant

of one Gharadamaji f ri-rama-senapati, who is described as the military

chief of Kaligga (kalimga-raksapala), breaker of Kumeli (kumeli-bham-

jam), slayer of Kancala (Kamcala-cira9-ckedana) reducer of Ksuddu

(Komddu-marddana), a lion to Gandra-damu Korama (Gamdradamu-

korama simhya-maiua), and lastly the own servant and minister

(amaitya) of Bhanu Deva. Except Kaliqga, none of the other names I

am able to identify.

XII. Npsimha Ddva III.

[£aka 1249-50 — faka 1274-5.]

The undermentioned inscriptions of this king’s reign have come to

light : —

Materials.

No.

Lan¬

guage.

Date-extracts.

References.

Remarks.

1

T.

2

S.&O.

3

T.

4

S.&T.

(,Jri-Pratapa-vIra-di vira-N aranara-

simhya-devaru(ra) pravarddhamana-

vi j ay a»r a j ya- saiii v vats arambulu 7

9rahi Simhya-ijukla 7 Guruvara-

muna, or year 7, (?4) Siiiiha

Thursday =» 1st September, A.D. 1329.

(pak-abde <ja9i-netra-vana-[na]yane tv-

Asadha-kri(kr)?ne tithau s a p t a-

myam,

(or again below) Prata(a)pa-(pri-vira-

Naranarasimgga-devamkkara vijaya-

rajya-samvatsa 4 9rayiui Karkka-

taka-kri(r)sna 7 Kavi-vare, or (paka

1252, year 4, month Asarha, Karkata-

ka (?) Kr. 7, Friday = 8th June, A.D.

1330 (Purnimanta).

Pratapa-vira-^ri-Narana rasimhya-

de vasya pravarddhamana-v i j a y a -

rajya-samvvatsa7 Qra-i Eisava-ijukla-

paurnnami Sdma-varamuna, or year

7, Rsava purnima, Monday = 11th

May, A.D. 1332.

Qaka-varu(#sa)mbulu 1263 gunerhtti

Jy estha-^ukla-pamcami Gu ruvara-

munamdu (or in words) .

Qak-abde Rama-tarkka-^ravana-^a 9 i-

yute Jyestha-9ukle capakse pahca-

myam Jiva-vare-bhijiti 9ubha-dine, or

£Jaka 1263, Jyestha £Ju. 5, Thursday.

Ep. Rep., No. 337, of

^rikurmam.

Ep. Rep., No. 331, of

(prikurmam.

Ep. Rep., No. 314, of

(prikurmam .

Ep. Rep., No. 345, of

(prlkurmam.

Ditto.

Verified.

Ditto.

Irregular.

132 M, Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa. [No 2,

Materials. — Continued.

133

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued.

First year.

From the above we get—

Last year.

, f aka

1274-5. The copperplate year 24 does not

agree with the years of reign thus deduced,

26. But the total of years given in the copperplates to this king, his

predecessor and his successor comes out equal to the total of years as

deduced from their inscriptions.

He was son of Bhanu Deva II by the queen Laksmi Devi. The

Puri copperplates name only one queen of

his, Kamala Devi ; but in the frikurmam

inscriptions, Gaqga Devi alias Gaqgamba or Gaqgambika (Nos. 308,

309, 343, and 344), and probably Kommi-devamma (Nos. 310 and 345)

Belationships.

134

M. Chakra varti — Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

[No. 2,

are mentioned as his queens. Is Kommidevamma another name of

Kamala Devi ? He had a daughter through Kommidevamma named

Sita Devi (No. 345j, and No. 343 records a grant of this Sita Devi.

No. 324 records a remarkable grant of Vira-Bhanu-Deva III, by

which he gave to the temple of prikurmam images of Vira-Nara-

simha Deva and Gaggambiba holding lamps. From this is it to be

inferred that Gaggambiba was the mother of Bhanu Deva III and not

Kamala Devi as stated in the copperplates ?

XIII. Bhanu Deva III.

[paka 1274-5 — gaka 1300-1],

Only three inscriptions of this king’s rule have hitherto been

found: — ,,

Materials.

1903.]

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa.

135

Materials. — Continued.

First year. The above give us—

paka 1276 ^current), or 1274-5 = 3rd (? 2nd) aijka or 1st year.

,, 1275 (expired), or 1275-6 = 3rd ,, 2nd ,,

*. ,, 1274-5 ... = 1st year.

From the initial year of the succeeding king, we get Qaka 1300-1

Last year. as ttie last ?ear of this king. The inter¬

vening period comes to 27th year against

26 allotted in the copperplates. As noticed under ‘Nrsimha Deva III,

the total of years in the copperplates for these three kings, viz., 74, is

just equal to the number of years intervening between 1227-8 and

1300-1.

He was son of Nrsimha Deva III by Kamala Devi. He has

Relationship and Ti- been variously styled as pri-Tira or Trea¬

ties. pri-Bhanu Deva, and Pratapa-Tira-Bhann

Deva.

No. 324, of prikurmam records that the king gave images of Yira-

Narasimha-Deva and of Gaqgambika hold¬

ing lamps, on the 1st day of Pau^a cukla

pak sa¬

in A.D. 1353, Haji Ilyas, the Bengal ruler, apparently hearing of

the death of the king, raided into Jaj-nagar for capturing elephants.

Later on, Saggama, the nephew of Bukka I, of Vijayanagara, is credited

with having defeated the Gaja-pati, i.e., the Orissa king. Apparently

Historical Facts.

136

[No. 2,

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gayga kings of Orissa .

a tradition of this conquest was heard by the Portuguese Fernao

Nuniz who, in his chronicles written probably in A.D. 1535-7, thus

says : —

“ By bis death one called Bucarao inherited this kingdom, and he

conquered many lands which at the time of the destruction of that

kingdom remained rebellions, and by him they were taken and turned

to his power and lordship ; and he took the kingdom of Orya, which

is very great; it touches on Bemgalla.” [Sewell’s Vijayanagara,

p. 300].

The great event of Bhanu Deva’s reign was the invasion of Jaj-

nagar by the Delhi Sultan Firuz Shah. A lengthy description of this

invasion will be found in Tarikh-i-Firuz-Shahi, of Shams-i-Siraj-‘Ahf,

[Elliot, III, 312-5]. An abstract of it is given in Major Raverty’s trans¬

lation of Tabakat-i-Nasiri, note 4 to p. 587 (below pp. 591-2). This is

quoted here to economise space : —

“ On his reaching Jun-pur the rains again set in [760 H].”

(P 761 H.^), “and be stayed there during the rainy season, and in

Zi-Hijjah of that year set out by ivay of Bihar towards Jaj-nagar,

which was at the extremity of the territory of Gadhah-Katankah.

When the Sultan reached Karah, Malik Kutb-ud-dln, brother of Zaffir

Khan was left behind with the troops and the heavy equipage, and he

advanced with celerity through Bihar towards Jaj-nagar. ...Having pass¬

ed the river Maha-nadrl, Mahan-dari, or Mahan-adri [the river which

falls into the Son doubtless is meant] he reached the city or town of

Banarsi [Shams-i-Saraj and Alfi have Banaras and Buda’-uni Barani]

which is” \_sic was] “the capital and abode of the Rae of Jaj-nagar

[Shams-i-Saraj has Rae of Jaj nagar-udisah] . The Rae fled towards Taling

[Tulinganah], and the Sultan not pursuing him [Firishtah says pursu¬

ing!, proceeded to hunt elephants in the vicinity [Shams-i-Saraj says the

Sultan remained some time at Banaras, and the Rae took shelter in one

of the islands of the , or on a , river] ; during which time the Rae despatch¬

ed emissaries and sought for peace, sending at the same time three

elephants, besides rarities and precious things [Shams-i-Saraj says after

his return from Padmawatl]. Hunting as he went along, the Sultan

reached the territory of Rae Bhanu Diw [Shams-i-Saraj, Bir Bhan Hlw —

Alfi, Pir Mahi Diw — perhaps Bir Mahi] who sent him some elephants

He then returned from thence with the object of hunting, came to Pad-

mawati, South Bihar probably, which is a part abounding with elephants,

captured thirty-three and killed two which could not be secured.,..

From Padmawatl Sultan Firuz Shah returned to Karah in Rajab

762 U.”

1903.]

137

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa.

XIV. Nrsimha Deva IV.

[Qaka 1300-1 — Reigning in p. 1324.]

The following inscriptions of this king’s time are known : —

Materials.

1

S. &T

2

S.&T

3

S.

4

S.

5

S.

6

O.

7

S.

£!aka-varsabulu 1301 agune Narasm-

hya-deva-nrpate-stattiryy a k - aijke

Ghata-mase Brahma-dine . (Then

again) VIra,..si(#m)hya-devasya

pravarddhamana-vijaya-rajya-samva-

tsara....ke vihanya-mane Kumbha-

(jukla-tritiyayam Guru-vare, Qaka

1301, year 3, Kumbha pu. 3, Thursday

= 9th February, A.D. 1380.

Qaka-varasambulu 1302 aguneti vira-

Qri-Narasimha-devara pravar(*d)-

dhamana-vijaya-rajya - samh(v)atsa-

rambulu 4, grahi Kumbha krsna 9

Guru-varana, or £)aka 1302(? 3), year

4, Kumbha Kr. 9, Thursday.

£!aka-nrpate-ratitesu panc-adh ike s u

tx’ay5daQa-9ata-sam v a c h charesu

caturda9a-dh(bhuv)an-adhipat- ity-

adi-virud-abali-virajamanah £!rlman

Nrsimha-deva-nrpateh sva-rajyasya

ast-agke abhilikhyamane Caitre masi

9akle pakse traySda^yamtithauRavi-

vare, or ^aha 1305 (?), year 8, Caitra

Qu. 13, Sunday = 6th March, A.D.

1384.

^aka-nrpate-ratitesu sddag-adhikesu

traySdaga-^ata-saihvatsaresu caturd-

daga-bhuvan-adhipat-ity-adi-v i r u d-

avali-virajamanah (jlri-vIra-Nrasiihha-

deva-nrpatih(eh) sva-rajyasya dva-

vimgaty-aqke abhilikhyamane Vicha-

^ukla-ekadacyam Mamgala - v a r e,

Oaka 1316 (?), Vicha, Qu. Tues¬

day = A.D. 1395, 23rd November.

Asmin rajye tray5-vimgaty-a rjke Yicha-

dvitiya-krsna-saptami Pandita-va r e ,

or year 23, Yicha 2nd, Kr. 7, Tues¬

day =A.D. 1396, 22nd November.

E (jrahi Mina-snmkranti-krsna-ekadaQi

Sani-vare, or the same year, Mina

Sarjkranti, Kr. 11, Saturday = A.D.

139 7, 24th February.

VIra-£hI-Narasimhya - devamkara

vijaya-rajya-samvatsaraihbulu 1324

agomnnemti Pu^ya-^ukla-paurnnami

Ep. Rep., No. 326, of

£)rikurmam.

Verified.

Ep. Rep., No. 329, of

Qrikurmam ; My

MS. transcript

(copy not having

been received).

Puri copper plates

(A) ; J.A.S B.,

1895, p. 149.

Puri Copperplates

(B); J.A.S. B., 1895,

p. 151.

Irregular.

Yerified.

Puri Copperplates

(B); J.A.S.B.,1895,

pp. 151-2.

Ditto, p. 152.

Ep Rep., No. 299, of

^rikurmam.

Ditto.

J. 1 18

138

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

Materials. — Continued.

[No. 2

First year.

From the above inscriptions we get —

inscription, No. 279, is unfortunately broken ;

Last date known. but if of faka 134*6, then it would be the

latest known date of tliis dynasty and probably of this king. No regnal

years being given, this inscription may possibly belong to a successor.

139

1903.] M. Chakravarti — "Eastern Garjga Icings of Orissa.

He was son of Bhanu Deva III through his queen Hira Devi of

Galukya Kula. His name has been variously

Belationship and titles. Tr_ AT . . T ^r- n-

written as Vira-Nrsimha-deva, V lra-yn-

Narasimha Deva, vira-^ri -N rsimha Deva, and in the copperplates he has

been given virudas beginning with “ caturdafa-bhuvan-adhipati.”

If this is not an oriental hyperbole, the first king of the Shark!

. dynasty, Khwajah-i-J ah an, who ruled Jun pur

Historical facts. frQm 796 to 802 A .H., is said to have com¬

pelled Lakhanawati and Jaj-nagar to pay him tributes. In 815 A.H.

Sultan Firuz of the Bahmani dynasty entered Jaj-nagar and carried off

a number of elephants.

In 825 A.H., Husan-ud-din Hoshang, the second independent king

of Malwah, made an adventurous raid into Jaj-nagar, which is thus des¬

cribed in the Ain-i-Akbari : —

“ On one occasion cunningly disguised as a merchant, he set out

for Jaj-nagar. The ruler of that country accompanied by a small retinue

visited the caravan. Hoshang took him prisoner and hastened back.

While journeying together, Hoshang told him that he had been induced

to undertake this expedition in order to procure a supply of elephants,

and added that if his people attempted a rescue, the prince’s life should

pay the penalty. The prince, therefore, sending for a number of valuable

elephants, presented them to him and was set at liberty.”

XV. The Dark Period.

[P gaka 1346 — faka 1356-7.]

This period has no inscriptions and is .thus shrouded in darkness.

According to the Madala Panji or Chronicles

? Bhanu Deva IV. jagannatha temple, the last king of Garj-

ga-vamga was Bhanu I)eva (P IV) surnamed Akata-Abatd , and accord¬

ing to one version Matta. When he died, his minister Kapilendra

alias Kapile9vara Deva usurped the throne and founded the Suryya-

vamQa. His inscriptions show his reign to have begun in faka 1356-7

or A.D. 1434-5. [See my article on the Suryya-vamca kings, J.A.S.B.,

1900, p. 180 et seq ,]

Appendix I.

A Genealogical Table of the Eastern Goyja kings.

Kolahala

140

M. Cliakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa.

[No.!

m

bO

d

X

b

X

o

-IO

P

GO

x

rO

•a

m

X ■

P

X

p

03

X

«5

P

•I — 3

g a

X

>

X

d*

Pi _

103 ^

X

a

r a

nr*

or

■r X

©

d

X

rd

•a

m

CD

C3

OQ

' c«

Jh

ICT3

3

ft

— p X

x

>

X

d-

Pi

IX

rG

X

N

£

d

a

no

©

X

d*

d

Ct5

-p

• rH

a

o

X

>

X

d-

irt

d-

d

O

«

■ x

id ®

.ICO p ‘

d >'

ix o

PA

X

t>

X

d'

p

IX

' £ ©

IX S

M

03

P

X

©

>*

X

>

X

d-

p

■ IX

d>

x

PH P

m

p

X -

©

X

>

X

o-

p

IX

X

02

- 2

00 _

p X ©

x — d- >»

> X - X

X ©

©

i>»

IX

M

03

p

IX f"

d-iM

d - — -

0

d >*»-

d t}I

X

GO

X

-P

CO p

x h

rd

* ►»

x

©

p

’x £

> C.

CO

l©

co

d3

r©

IS

£Pp

c3 c3

• ri M-t

P

< Mi

2 d

V • rH

X

>

X

CQ

OQ

P ,

co 3

IKS 0> w

- >> £

X ”

J g-

X

iX us ***

^ N 3

-0*10

d CO

-CO

It • M

d >

- 1 £ £

no- X *3 _

d- ® “ ^

no

P3

£

GO

X

a^

X >

rfl. S

d f

O «

io

x

%' _

d«

p

IX

c.

03

no

©

a;;

IX j!

Ml

a

o

X

O

d

02

03

©

-P

X

dn

SO5 X

ix ©

X >*

tUDiM

X '

M

nd

©

-p

tC

12

it

>.p

S03

P

o x

' — - ©

X

G>

X

X M

p‘ d

ix ®

- -j

. d

-i<3 -

dP

iX

id

1^ ^

I® •'

no

iX

X

a

X I

X

d

K

V

*.]

M. Cbakravarfci — Eastern Garjga "kings of Orissa.

141

I r-

►

X.

■*3

£

>

«8

bO

a

-u

lO

3

M

Xtl

w

CD

O

c

IrH

H pH

P

'O rf$.

fl ID

■ £ o

00 . _ _

P

•r-3

103

P3

P

QD

X

o

u

X

p

©

be

p

o

>5

n3

2

S H

P «

IrH

a

CO-

■a

p

t*

• rH

o3

3

■ >

ip

a

£

c

p

>

o-

£ iQ

p bJO

P

■a

c3

IP

rP

KD

3

p

nO

P

O

P

a

IC3 '

P

3

00

-« o

<3 i tS

6,"6h

-j 1 r

1 t>

® -

rn

8

P> y

D-1rH

■d>Qi

®t -

o

CD

2 / - N

.2 05

rS CO

c o

rH

«3 I

bJD go

05

•M 05

c3 •

ho o

c3 ' —

Sh¬

oo

•

rH

05

P aT

•r-> P

IP o 3

H OD

P p>,

•I — 3 *

JS GO

Ph

oo*

■O

O

05

p c3

P

*rH

nO

p

nO

IO

a

Irt

44

• iH

Sh

l3

-g V*

GQ

C$

M

P

>

o

ICD

P

Ph

P

>

02

o 3

CH iqj

►H ^ Q

M 3 ^

d CT i

8^3

•5 3 J

P 0$

bo wPh

f=P

S “■

p

p-

p

X

P3

cs

a

p

o

ei

P-

D

be

T3

P

ill

IrH

>

i©

fi

P

u.

lO

O

IrH

t>

I©

c «•

■s

3 ig

|®'> .©

I© Q

P Q .rH

3 IP S

a

■* s io

W o M

•rH .rH "rH

— II

05

e

(M

<N

P O

a 53

c8

>

l(D

§2 ® o'

o

lO

Ip

a

p

• >H

P

02

«w

O

>■»

" _P

(M <J

I— I rH

rP

£ ©

£T5

2

P o

I

p

a

’ ' i | r-i .

P ^ rQ JO

SH

rO

105

1C?

Ph

P ,

br,

PP

0Sd

p i

.isr<N

P 05

P O

• r-j «h

•ct5

Ph oh

(M

eS °

rP V

. ,W)00

Ph O

co

iM

<M

P

<

\o

(M

=2 o

HH > 3

P?D

> 00 r- 1 rH

I© | _l >

no 5©

-2|S

.r.pH

lOceOi

00 ^ _ r

Sh. -P

. - -

an

v— I i

1 M

83 (M

2 p®

fi t> H b

S?5 g 1. 1© 2

3

>■

i©

!g>

3 i©

• OJ p

’2

• pH

w

o —

e©

CO

Oh

^ P

(M -rH

2 >»

rH r— 1

. rO

*>£

k fl o

F> .f-l ^H

Hbcft

P P TS

> ’d P

i© p c3

P .SP

P fH

J3

a

• rH

m

53

53 >

. P i e

*S p°9'-s

'0 H ^

(M n

' " g C>3

53

cs

p

•'a s-

•p la}

00 rt

»H. W

IO

I

.

P !>.

p imv.

•ST

*£ o

P io

I

-peg

C

p 2

H rH

P .

H 3

m o

o

CO

(M

CO

p

>

I©

P

I

IO

CO

<M

X>

<M

00

(M

05

<N

O

co

P tF

P in*

ic3 53

rP -*

CQ •

SH

I rH

CO

^h Oh

03 ' —

co

e

« p

M > ^

H cSO-

> g*®

p ip 2

2 S V

S’* 05

S W §

•p a 2

SP rH

rP -

Sus

a

o

CN

I

142

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gagga kings of Orissa.

[No. 2,

APPENDIX II.

The Date of EkavalI.

The EkavalI was first described at length in Dr. Bhandarkar’s

The "Work Deport on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in

the Bombay Presidency during the years

1887-1891, pages lxv.-lxxi. Last year (1903) it was printed in the Bom¬

bay Sanskrit series, as No. 63, under the editorship of Mr. Kamalacaq-

kara Prana9ai)kara Trivedi, with an introduction, Mallinatlia’s Tika

Tarald, lengthy notes in English, and several indices, making up a fair¬

ly big volume of 780 pages.

The EkavalI is divided into eight Unmesas or openings ( i.e ., chap¬

ters). The Text consists of harikus or the

rules of Poetic art (in verse), and Vrttis or

comments (in prose), with udaharanas or examples (in verse). Most

of these udaharanas are the author’s own, composed in praise of the

king Nrsimha Deva, as the author himself says in kariJcd 7 of the 1st

Chapter (p. 15). I say ‘ most ’ advisedly, and not £ all ’ as Mr. Trivedi

says (Introd. p., xii), as will appear from the following analysis of

the udaharanas :

Examples in praise of

Nrslnilia Deva

Its Contents.

Unmesas.

Total Examples.

T.

II.

III.

IV.

V.

YI.

VII.

VII I.

Total

3

18

59

19

3

54

11

197

364

1

12

34

19

0

50

8

190

314.

Ekavall’s date is discussed in Dr. Bhandarkar’s “ report,” p. lxvi.

Its date 6 ^ an<^ suPPlementaiT not® in IP0

Introduction to the EkavalI, pp. xxxiii-

xxxvii ; and this is practically followed by Mr. Trivedi in his own

Introduction, pp. xvi-xxiii.

Having been quoted in Singabhupala’s Rasarnavasudhakara and

commented upon by Mallinatha, both of the

latter half of the 14th century, EkavalI

cannot be put later than that century. The

verses in praise of Nrsimha Deva, king

Depends upon

identification of

panegyrised king.

the

143

1903.] M. Chakravarti— JE astern Garjga kings of Orissa.

The Reasons for iden¬

tifying him with Nrsim-

ha Deva II.

of Utkala and Kaliqga, can therefore reasonably apply only to Nrsimha

Deva I (paka 1160-1186), or to Nrsimha Deva II (Qaka 1200-1 — 1227-8).

Both Dr. Bhandarkar and Mr. Trivedl identify the panegyrised

king with Nrsimha Deva II, mainly on the

following grounds : —

Firstly, Ekavali refers to certain

“ Hammira,” in Hammira-ksitipdla-cetasi

(p. 176 ), viJcsya Hammuam (p. 177), Hammira-mdna-mardana (pp. 257,

260). This Hammira whose pride is humbled is identified with the

Cohana prince of Qakambharl (A.D. 1283-1301) [vide “ Report, ” pp.

lxvii-viii; Introd., p. xxiii].

Secondly, in kdriJcd 11 (p. 19), the poet Harihara is said to have got

amazing wealth from Arjuna (the king of Malwa). The latest known

date of this Paramara prince is 9th September A.D. 1215, and Harihara

thus “ flourished during the early decades of the 13th century ” [ “ Re¬

port, ” p. lxvi; Introd., p. xxi]. A sufficiently long time should be

allowed to pass the news on from Malwa to Orissa, and the later the

date the better.

Thirdly, in the copperplate Inscriptions of Nrsimlia Deva IY,

Nrsimha Deva II is described as kavi-priyah , and kavi-kumuda-candrah,

epithets given him probably for patronising poets like Vidyadhara. A

somewhat similar expression, I find, is applied to the Ekavali’s Nrsimha,

Kavi-kula-kumnda-vyuha-naksatra-ndthah (p. 160).

To these I would add one more ground, seemingly the strongest,

deduced from the date of Mahima Bhatta, whom Vidyadhara criticises in

p. 32, and apparently follows in pp., 173-177. Mahima Bhatta’s date is

not yet ascertained, and his Alaqkara work vyakti-viveka is not yet

published. But from certain passages in the Sahitya-darpana , he

would seem to be not earlier than Candra^khara, who composed a

stanza in praise of Bhanu Deva (presumably I). The passages in the

Sahitya-darpana run as follows: —

While criticising the opinion in the Vyakti-viveka that from infer¬

ence ( anumdna ) one is capable of perceiving the suggested meanings of

sentiments ( Kdrika 270), V^vanatha goes on to say in the last part of

his Vrtti —

“ Regarding the verse beginning with 4 by his forts impassable &c, *

the allegation of Mahima Bhatta that no second meaning exists in it, —

that is verily an elephantine wink to deny what is established by (ac¬

tual) perception. ”

This verse is of Chandra9ekliara, father of Vi^anatha, and is quo¬

ted in the latter’s Vrtti to kdrikas 25, and 257, with the following

comments . —

144

M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa. [No. 2,

“ By liis forts impassable in battle, excelling Cupid by bis splendour,

waited upon by prosperous kings, venerable, surrounded on all sides

by nobles, not (even) looking at tbe Ksattriya chiefs (so high be is),

witb deep devotion to him whose father-in-law is the Mountain (piva),

holding the earth in possession, with a form adorned with dignity, shines

(the king) the beloved of Uma. ” [The other meaning is in connection

with fiva].

Comments on this in the Vftti to Kar. 25 : —

“In this case (the words) “the beloved of Uma” being applied by

denotation to the queen named Uma and her beloved the king Bhanu-

deva, are to be understood as applicable bv suggestion to the beloved of

Gauri (Qiva) ”

Again in the Vrtti to Kar . 257 : —

“ Here in this case, lest the description of the king Blianudeva the

beloved of the queen named Uma, may not (apparently) be connected

with the description of (Qiva) the beloved of Parvati, as indicated in the

second meaning, what is hinted at is that -Bhanudeva and Ii^vara stand

to each other as the compared (upamana) with what it is compared to

( upameya ). Hence here (this) Uma-beloved (Blianudeva) is like (that)

Uma-beloved (Qiva), that is, the suggested sense is a figure of speech —

the figure of speech of simile.”

According to Yi^vanatha, therefore, the above stanza of his father

was made in praise of the king Bhanu Deva (presumably I), and there¬

fore Mahima Bhatta who criticised the same cannot be put earlier. As

Yidyadhara refers to Mahima Bhatta he cannot be earlier than this

Bhanu Deva, and the Nrsimha Deva he eulogises was presumably

Bhanu Deva’s son Nrsimha Deva II.

These arguments are, however, open to several objections which

may be mentioned here seratim.

The strongest objection is that in the

Ekavali the king Nrsimha Deva is described to have fought with the

Mahomedans, and to have fought in Bengal on the banks of the Ganges.

The battles with the Mahomedans are indicated in the examples having

the words, — Yavan-avani-vallabTia [p. 202], Cak-adhigvara [p. 326] and

Hammtra. The title Hammlra should preferably be taken as that of the

Mahomedans, having been in coins and inscriptions specially applied to

the early Mahomedan rulers of India and Ghazni [see references, supra

p. 124, and Cat., Ind. Mus. Coins, Parti, pp. 2-36]. This title had begun

to be used before A.D. 1187 [Ind. Ant. Yol. xv, p. ii] and continued to

be used by the Sultans of Delhi till the time of Balban [A.D. 1265-

1287]. Then again, the fight with the Bengalis, Barjga-sarjgara-slmani

[p. 203], and the reference to the waves of the Ganges, Gaygfx-tarayga-

Objections.

1903 ] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa. 145

dhavalani [p. 136] apparently speak of Nrsimha’s fight with the Bengal

Viceroys of the Delhi Sultans.

Not a single record has yet been found in which Nrsimha Deva II.

is credited with any war against the Mahomedans, or with any invasion

of Bengal ; on the other hand the most prominent historical fact re¬

garding Nrsimha Deva I. is that his army invaded Bengal up to Gfaura,

and fought several times successfully with the Bengal Mahomedans.

Secondly, Nrsimha Deva I. ruled from A.D. 1238-1264 ; so the

latter part of his rule is fairly well removed from the time of the poet

Harihara and the king Arjuna to permit the story of Arjuna’e liberal

gifts to pass on from Malwa to Orissa. Furthermore, the copper¬

plate epithets of Nrsimha Deva II. being vague and merely compli¬

mentary can hardly be relied upon ; the Sanskrit poets in their pragastis

generally without discrimination pile one epithet upon the other in

praise of their patrons.

Thirdly, the deduction from the date of Mahima Bhatta and his

vyakti-viveka would be almost unassailable if it can be shown beyond

doubt that the criticism on Candra9ekhara’s stanza was made in the

vyakti-viveka , that the stanza referred to Bhanu Deva I., and that

this work Vidyadhara criticised. Otherwise, it is possible to argue

that the criticism of Candra^khara’s verse was made in a later work,

or that Vidyadhara criticised some work of Mahima Bhatta other than

the vyakti-viveka , or that Umd-vallabha is some prince different from

Bhanu Deva I. Vidyadhara mentions only the name Mahima Bhatta

and not the work ; and so, too, in the para of the Sdhitya-darpana as

quoted above.

Fourthly, in Kdrikd 11 [p. 18] the poet priharsa is praised very

highly as one who “ gained world-wide fame by making the poem. ”

Evidently Vidyadhara knew friharsa’s poem well. If so, was the Tika

on Naisadha-Caritam, known as Sdliitya-vidyadhara, made by him ?

This Tika is certaiuly older than the Vikrama year 1353 (A.D. 1296) in

which year Pandit Candu completed his Tika, Naisadha-Dipika at

Ahmedabad ; cf. his verse beginning with —

Tikdm yady-api sopapatiracandm vidyadhara nirmame,

[see Nirnaya-sagara Press Edition, Introd, p. 7,]. From the ex¬

tracts given at the footnote of the N.P. edition, the comments in Sdhitya-

vidyddhara would appear to be more or less rhetorical, which would

be natural with such an Alarjkarist as the author of the Ekavali.

If this identification holds good, then between the Tika of Vidya¬

dhara in Orissa and a Tika at Ahmedabad, a sufficiently long time should

be allowed, a longer time ordinarily in the case of a Tika than in the

case of say, an original poem or Alaqkara work. If 30 or 35 years be

J. i. 19.

146 M. Chakravarti — Eastern Garjga kings of Orissa. [No. 2,

deemed reasonable, then Yidyadhara’s time falls during the rule of

Nrsimha Deva I., and not of Nrsimha Deva IT.

Before concluding this article I may point out that I am not satis¬

fied with the time at, and the locality in

d^^ar^pfac^1^3^ * which', the S'dhity a darpana is said to have

been composed. Dr. Weber following Pan¬

dit Jaganmohan Jarman in the preface to his edition of Ganda-kangika ,

said that “the Sdhitya- darpana was only composed towards the middle

of the 15th century in East Bengal on the banks of the Brahmaputra”

[Hist. Ind. Lit., p. 231, note 244]. Prof. Maedonell evidently adopts

this view [Sans. Lit., App. p. 434].

How far this conclusion is based on facts, and how far on mere

traditions I do not know. But the Sahitya-darpana itself does not sup¬

port it. From the verse and comments quoted above, it is clear that

Candrayekhara, father of Yi^vanatha, was a contemporary of a Bhanu

Deva; and. if of Bhanu Deva I., then, Yi^vanatha lived during

the rule of his son, Nrsimha Deva II. [A.D. 1279-1306], or at the latest

during the rule of his grandson Bhanu Deva II. [A.D. 1306-1328]. In

the vrtti to Kdrikd 266, a Mahomedan king, Alldpadina, is named, which

may refer to the Delhi Sultan, ‘Ala-ud-din Mas’ud Shah [A.D. 1241-

1246], or to the later and greater king, c Ala-ud-din Muhammad Shah

[A.D. 1295-1315]. One stanza in praise of a king Nrsimha is quoted

in the vrtti to kdr. 671 ; but it is not to be found in the Ekavali. The

other historical allusions are Suratrdna , or Sultan [vr. to kdr. 686.],

Gaud-endra [vr. to kdr. 17], and Tri-KaHyga-bhumi-tilaka [yr. to kdr.

258].

From the references above quoted with others to Kalirjga [yr. to kdr.

13, 15, and 17], to Eaghavananda [vr. to kdr. 3 and 120], and to Mahi-

ma Bhatta’s vyakti-viveka [vr. to kdr. 2 and 257], Yi§vanatha would

seem to be an author not of East Bengal, but of Orissa ; while his time

would be at least not later than the beginning of the 14th century A.D.

Yi^vanatlia evidently came of a learned family. His great-great-

grandfafcher, Narayana, [vr. to kar. 33], and his grandfather’s younger

brother Candidasa [vr. to kdr . 266, and 60], are described as leading

scholars. His father, Candra^khara, was a minister and a scholar,

and has been referred to in nine places, wThile his poem Puspa-mald and

Prakrta work Bhas-drnava have been specially mentioned. Yh^vanatha

quotes frequently from his own works (56 times as mama ), and men¬

tions or quotes from, as his own works, Kuvalayagva-caritam, a Prakrta

poem (2 times), Gandrakala, a ndtika (7 times), Prabhavati-parinayam ,

a drama (10 times), Pragasti-ratnavdlz , a work in 16 bhdsds (1 time),

and Raghavavilasa, a Mahakavycc (2 times).

1903.] M. Chakravarti — Eastern Gagga Icings of Orissa. 147

In the Sahityd-darpana I have been unable to find out any quota¬

tion from or any mention of the Ekavali, a fact which may somewhat

go in favour of Ekavali’s later date. Can Coragaqga’s son Uma¬

vallabha be connected in any way with the Umavallabha of Candra-

9ekhara’s stanza ? Mahima Bhatta is quoted in Alapkdrd-sarvasva as

vyakti-viveka-kara , and is there quoted as an authority ; while Alaykdra -

sarvasva-kara is quoted in the Ekavali as an authority. A fairly long

time should therefore be allowed between Mahima Bhatta and Vidya-

dhara, a fact which lends some support to the identification of Candra-

Index.

[No. 2,

MS

• - \

INDEX

TO THE

JOURNAL OF THE ASIATIC SOCIETY OF BENGAL,

Vol. LXXII., Part I. Nos. 1 and 2. — 1903.

[ As the transliteration of Sanskrit words in this Volume is not uniform, the

system of the Royal Asiatic Society, which has recently been adopted bv the Asia¬

tic Society of Bengal, has been followed in this Index. Thus words with ^ should

be looked for under S', not under Q.~\

.A.bdul-Jalil, Shaikh, 38.

Abdullah Khan, 42

Abhai Singh, prince, 49.

Abhayadeva, Icing, 8.

Adityamalla, king, 10.

Afghans, 34.

Afrasyab Khan, 46.

Afzal Khan, 43.

Agharabad, locality, 63.

Ahmadabad, 60.

Ahmad Beg, see Ghazi-ud-din Khan.

Ahmad Sheran, 117.

Ajatasatru, king, 89.

Ajit Singh Rahtor, campaign of, against

Farrukhsiyar, 45.

- , daughter of, married to Far¬

rukhsiyar, 61.

Ajmer, 47.

Alamgir ( i.e ., Anrangzeb), 35.

Ala Tabar, prince, 41.

Alauddin Ma‘sud Shah of Delhi, 146.

Alauddin Muhammad Shah of Delhi, 146.

All Muhammad Khan Daudzai, 35.

Amanat Kran, 52..

Aminuddin Khan, 63.

Amjad Khan, 43.

Amrtadeva, king, 7.

Anamya, see Aramya.

Ananda, body of, divided, 88.

Anandadeva, king, 7.

Anaudatirtha, philosopher, 129.

Ananga Bhima Deva II., king, 115.

Ananga Bhima Deva III., king, 118.

Anautadeva, king, 8.

Anantakirti, king, 6 n.

Anantamalla, king, 9.

Anantavarman, surname of Coraganga,

110.

Anasagar, lake, 47.

Aniyahka Bhima, see Ananga Bhima.

Anita, system of calculating regnal

years, 100.

Arabs, 35.

Aramya, town, 110.

Arimalla, king , 8.

Arjuna, king of Malwa, 124, 143.

Asad Khan, 37.

Asadnllah Khan, 46, 57.

Atirtha, class of Brahmins, 92.

Anrangzeb, see Alamgir,

‘Azim-ush-shan, prince, 38.

‘Aziz Khan Rohilah Caghta Bahadur, 46.

A‘zzu-d-din, prince, 41.

JJagchi, see Rudra and Sadhu.

Bahadur Shah, Moghul Emperor, 37.

Baladeva, king, 6.

Ballala Sena, king, 91.

Banarsi, town, 136.

Banepa, dynasty of, 16, 30.

Barahpulah, locality, 60.

Barhah, Sayyids of, 35.

Barendra Brahmans of Bengal, 91.

Basarh, identification of, 89.

Bendall, Prof. C., article by, on the

history of Nepal, 1.

Bengal, invasion 9f, by Orissa king, 121.

Bengalis, character of, 36.

Bhad.ira, class of Brahmans, 92.

Bhaduri, class of Brahmans, 92.

Bhanu Deva I., king, 125.

Bhanu Deva II., king, 129.

Bhanu Deva, III., king, 134.

Bhanu Deva, IV., king , 139.

Bhanu Deva, (I. ?), king, 144.

149

1903.]

bide.r.

Bhdsdrnava , Prakrit work, 146.

Bhaskaradeva, king, 6.

Bhasvati, astronomical work, 111.

Bhatgaon, kings of, 16, 30.

Bhattashali, class of Brahmans, 92.

Bhlma, n. pr., 92.

Bihar, Siibah of, 58.

- , country, 136.

Bukka I., king , 135.

Burhanpur, Siibah of, 60.

Oampakaranya-nagara, 40.

Candesvara, minister, 14.

Candidasa, n. pr., 146.

Gandrakald, drama, 146.

Caudralekha, gueen, 109, 114.

Candrasekhara, author, 143, 146.

Candu, author, 145.

Garaka, ms. of, 8.

Cedi Kings, 119.

Champaran, history of, 19.

- , kings of 31.

Champati, class of Brahmans, 92.

Chhabilah Ram, 43.

Chirand, locality, 87.

Cohana, prince of Sakambhari, 143.

Coins of Ananga Bhlma III., 120.

- , Champaran, 20.

Cora Devi, queen, 130.

Coraganga, king, 101.

J-lakhin, Siibah, 59.

Daud Khan, 60.

Desgodins, Father, Tibetan Dictionary

of, 69.

Devaladevi, princess, 11.

Dhain Bagchi, n. pr., 95.

Dharmamaila, king, 12.

Dildiler Khan, 46.

Dravya Shah, king, 17.

Drona Stupa, identification of, 89.

Dolah, form of marriage, 49.

Dosaditya Deva, n. pr., 129.

Eastern Ganga kings of Orissa, chro¬

nology of, 97.

Eastern Hindustanis, see Purbiyas.

Ekavali, alamkara work, 124.

- , date of, 142.

Fage, M., Tibetan scholar, 69.

Fakhrul-Mulk, 122.

Famine, in Nepal, 7, 8.

Fftrangis, 35.

Farrukhsiyar, history of, 33.

Firuz Shah'Tughlaq, Delhi Sultan, 136.

Firuz Sultan, Bahmani, 139.

Foucaux, Ph., Tibetan scholar , 68.

Cxabet, see Hue and Gabet.

Gadadhara deva, prince, 19.

Gad hah Katankah, territory of, 136.

Ganga Devi, queen, 133.

— - - , image of, 134, 135.

Gangambika, image of, 134, 135.

Gangesvara, surname of Coraganga, 110.

Gangeyadeva, king, 18.

Garadamaji Srirama, senapati, 131.

Garuda-Narayana Deva, minister, 129.

Ghazi-ud-din Khan Ghalib Jang, 42.

Ghiyas-ud-din ’Iwaz of Bengal, 119.

Ghiyas-ud-din Tughlaq, Delhi Sultan,

130."

Ghulam Ali Khan, 46.

Gopaladeva, prince, 11.

Gopal Singh Bhadauriyah, rdjd, 46.

Gorakhpur, history of, 19.

- - , kings of, 31.

Go vin da, ./minister, 116.

Habshis,'35.

Haft Cauki, personal guard, 55.

Haji Ilyas, .Bengal Sultan, 135.

Hamilton, William, English surgeon, 62.

Hammira, title, 144.

Haricandradeva, prince, 10.

Harihara, poet, 124.

Harisimhadeva, king, invasion of, into

Nepal, 10, 14.

Harsadeva, king, 6, 145.

Hidayatullah Khan, 39.

Hindustani party at Moghul Court, 35.

Hira Devi, queen, 139.

Hoshang see Husam-ud-din H.

Hue and Gabet, ^Abbes, 73.

Humayun Bakht, prince, 41.

Husain ‘Ali^Khan, 42, 43.

Husain Khan, Barhah Sayyid, 46, 57.

Husain Shah of Bengal, inscription

of, 90.

Husam-ud-din, Hoshang of Malwa, 139.

Ikhtiyar-ud-din Yuzbak-i-Tughril Khan,

123.

Inayat-ul-lah Khan, 37.

Indira, queen, 109, 113,

Indradeva, king, 7.

Irani, see Mughal.

Irwine, W., article by, on the later

Mughals, 33.

Islam Khan Mashhadi, 56.

150 Index. [No. 2,

I'tibar Khan, eunuch , 57.

1‘tiqad Khan, 46.

Jaschke, Tibetan dictionary of, 66, 68.

Ja'far Khan, 44.

Jagajjyotimalla, king, 16.

Jagannath, temple of, at Puri, 110.

Jagaunatha Deva, king, 131.

Jagatprakasa, king, 17.

Jagatsimhadeva, 'prince, 11.

Jahandar, Moghul Emperor, 37.

Jaimini Bliarata, quotation from, 87.

Jajuagar, meaning of, 117,

Jakalla Devi, queen, 129.

Jausath, locality, 50.

Jatesvara Deva, king, 113.

Jayabhima, king, 8.

Jayadeva, king, 8.

Jayadharmamalla, king, 15.

Jayanandadeva, king, 10.

Jayarajadeva, king, 11.

Jayarjuna, king , 11.

Jayarudramalla, king, 10.

Jayasahadeva, king, 8.

Jayasimharama, king, 15.

Jayasthiti, king, 12.

Jayata, minister, 15.

Jayatari, king, 9.

Jayatungamalla, king, 4 n.

Jitamalla, king, 16.

Jitamitra, king, 17.

Jhampati, class of Brahmans, 92.

Jyotirmalla, Jem*?, 15, 16.

IfLamadeva, class of Brahmans, 92.

Kamala Devi, queen, 133, 135.

Kamarnava YII., king, 111.

Kamsanarayana, king, 19.

Kapilendra, minister, 139.

Kap section of Barendra Brahmans, 91.

Karah, locality, 136.

Karanja, class of Brahmans, 92.

Kasthasrotriyas, class of Brahmans, 92,

94.

Kastura Devi, queen, 121.

Kasturikamodini, queen , 109, 113,

Katasin, locality, 122.

Kathmandu, kings of, 16, 30.

Khan Dauran, 55.

Khan Jahan Sayyid, 57.

Khassias, tribe, 9.

Khemsi, Bhandari, 62.

Khwajah-i-Jahan Sultan of Jaunpur,

139.

Khwajah Ja'far, 57.

Kokaltash Khan, 44.

Kommi-devamma, queen, 133, 134.

Konarak, Black Pagoda at, 124.

Koros, Alexander Czoma de, Tibetan dic¬

tionary of, 67.

Krishna Sarrna, n. pr., 88.

Kulin, class of Brahmans, 92.

Kulluka Bhatta, author, 93.

Kulottunga Cola 1., king, 108.

KuvalayaSvacarita, Prakrit poem, 146.

Lahiri, class of Brahmans, 92.

Lakhnauti, territory of, 122.

Lakhnor, locality, 122.

Laksmi Devi, queen, 109, 133.

Laksmiuatha, see Kamsanarayana.

Laruli, see Lauri.

Lauri, class of Brahmans, 92.

Licchavis, 89.

Lokesvara, image of, 9.

Lutfullak Khan, Sadiq, 43, 58.

IVEacerata, Cassian di, Tibetan diction¬

ary of, 66.

Madanaratnapradipa, author of, 20.

Madanasaras, see Mahendrasaras.

Madanasimhadeva, king, 20.

Madhu -Maitra, n. pr., 95.

' Mahadeva, king, 7.

Mahanadri, river, 136.

Mahavana-Kutagara, site of 89.

Mahendrasaras, tank, 7.

Mahima Bhatta, author, 143,

Mairtha, place, 47.

Maitra, class of Brahmans, 92.

Malacandra, n. pr., 125.

Malliuatha, commentator, 124.

Mandara, country , 110.

Mandaran, Sirkdr, 110.

Marshman, Rev. John, of Serampur, 66.

Martin Khan, 35.

Mayuradhvaja, king, 87.

Meghesvara, temple of, 116.

Minhaj-i-Siraj, author, 122.

Mir Jumlab, 37.

Mirza Muhammad, 63.

Monmohan Chakravarti, article

by, on the chronology of the Eastern,

Ganga Kings of Orissa, 97.

Muditakuvalaydsvandtaka, drama, 2,

Mughals, Later, history of, 33.

- , Turani and Irani sections of,

34.

Muhammad Amin Khan I‘timad-nd-dau-

lah, 54

Muhammad Ja'far, Sayyid, of Narnol,

poet, 41.

Muhammad Karim, 38,

Muhammad Khan Bangash, 35.

Muhammad Sheran, 117.

Mukhalingesvara, temple of, 110.

Index.

151

1903.]

Mun'im Khan, wazir , 38.

Muradabad, faujddri of, 64.

Murshid Quli Khan, Nawab of Bengal,

62.

Jy aisadlia-Dipikd, commentary, 145.

Naisadhacarita commentary on, 145.

Najmaddin ‘AlIfKhan, 46.

Namdar Khan, 64.

Nandanabashi, class of Brahmans, 92.

Naraharitirtha, governor, 129.

Naraynna, n. pr., 146.

Narendradeva, king, 7.

NayakadevI, princess, 10.

Nayakot, see Noakofc.

Nepal, era of, 5.

- — , history of, 1.

- , proper, kings of, 21.

. - , valley, history of, 5.

- , Western, history of, 17.

Nizam-nl-Mulk, 60.

Noakot, town, 17.

Nrsirpha Deva I., king, 120.

Nrsimha Deva II., king, 124, 125, 144.

Nrsimha Deva III., king, 131.

- , image of, 134, 135.

Nrsimha Deva IY, king, 137.

Nrsimha Laurial, n. pr., 94.

Nundolal Dey, article by, on Chi-

rand in the District of Saran, 87.

Nuniz, Fernao, Portuguese author, 136.

Orissa, Eastern Ganga Kings of, 97.

Padma Sambhava, Tibetan legends of,

66.

Padmawati, country, 136.

Padshah Begam, 37.

Padumalla devi, queen, 10.

Parakesarivarman see J Yira Rajendra-

deva I,

Pasupati, shrine of, 15.

Pasupatimalladeva, king,' 11.

Pathan, 34.

Penna, Francisco' Orazio della, Tibetan

dictionary by, 66.

Pishipa, see Sheda.

Prabhdvatiparinaya,^ drama, 146,

Pranaraalla, king, 16.

Pr as astir atnav all, title of work, 146.

Prtbvi Mahadevi, queen, 109.

Prthvisimhadeva, king, 20.

Puhkar, locality, 47.

Pnrbiyas, 36.

Puspamald, poem, 146.

C^amar-ud-din Khan, 63.

Qndratullah Shah of Allahabad, 38.

Qntbuddfn Malik, 136.

Qatbul-Mulk, 42.

S/ae Man, Qalmaq woman 41.

Baghava, king, H3k

Ptaghavadeva, king, 5.

Rdghavavildsa, poem, 146.

Raghnnath, munshi, 46

Rajalladevi, princess, 11, 12.

Rajaraja II , king, 108, 113.

Rajaraja III., king, 116.

Rajasundari, queen, 108.

Rajendravikrama Sah, king, 17.

Rdmayana, dramatized version of, 12,

13.

Ratn'adeva, Cedi King, 110.

- , Nepal king, 8.

Ratnajyoti, king, 17.

Ratnapura, city, 87.

Ratn Cand, Baniyd, 50.

Rayamalla, king, 16.

Renoa, M., Tibetan scholar, 69.

Rimini, Giorgida, Tibetan dictionary

by, 66.

Riwari, pargana, 47.

Rudra, n. pr., 92.

Rudradeva, king, 7.

Rumis, 35.

Sabantar, n. pr., 123.

Sabha Cand, 38.

Sadliu, class of Brahmans, 92.

Sa‘dullah Khan, 37.

Sahitt/adarpana, date and place of, 146.

- , quotations from, 143,

Sahityavidyadhara, commentary, 145.

Saif-ud-dm ‘All Khan, 46.

S'aktisimha, king, 20.

Samsam-ud-daulah, 45.

Sanamgarh, place of worship, 47.

Sangana, prince, 135.

Sanskrit terms in Tibetan, 74.

Sanyal, class of Brahmans, 92.

Sarae AllahwirdI Khan, locality, 46.

Sarae Sahal, locality, 46.

Sarat Chandra Das, Tibetan dictionary

of, 65.

Sarbuland Khan, 46.

Satananda, author, 111,

Sayyid Khan, 46.

Sayyids, quarrels of, with Farruklisiyar,

42, 49.

152

Index.

[No. 2,

Schmidt, Prof. J. J., . Tibetan dictionary

of, 68.

Schroeter, Father, Missionary in Ben¬

gal, 66.

Shadman, Mulla of Patna, 39.

Shadman, see Rae Man.

Shahjahan, 35.

Shaistah Khan, 44.

Shakir Khan, 46.

Shalihmar, garden, 63.

Shape Phola, Tibetan Minister , 73.

Sharp at Khan, Qazi, 61.

Sheda, Tibetan Minister, letters of, 73.

Sherab Gyatsho, head Lama of Ghoom,

73.

Sbuja'at Khan Sayyid 57.

Shuja‘at-ullah Khan Sayyid, 46.

Sidi Qasim, Habshi, 37.

Simraon, king of, 12.

S'ivadeva, king, 6.

SIta Devi, queen, 125, 134.

Somala-Mahadevi, queen , 109.

Somesvaradeva, king, 8.

S'uddhasrotriyas, class of Brahmans, 92.

S'ukadeva Acarya, n. pr., 94.

Surama, queen, 115.

Snrkh-sangl, mosque, 63.

Svayambhii, shrine of, 15.

Syeipgu-caitya, 9.

Tamradhvaja, prince, 88.

Thakur dynasty, 19.

Thonmi Sambhota, Tibetan Minister, 72.

Tibetan, dictionaries, 65.

- , collection of correspondence,

73.

- , language, 65.

- , literary language, growth of

72.

Tirhut, history of, 18.

- , Eastern, kings of, 31.

Trailokyamalla, king, 16.

Tribhuvana, see Trailokyamalla.

Tughril-i- Tughan Khan, 119, 122.

Tummana, country , 119.

Turani see Mughal.

XJdayanacarya, author, 92.

Udhu, tradesman, 38.

Udwant Singh, Raja, Bundela, 46,

Ulugh Khan, prince , 130.

Uma, queen, 144.

Umavallabha, prince, 109, 147.

Umurdan, territory of, 123.

"V aisali, identification of, 88.

Vajrahasta, king, 109.

VamsdvaU, Nepalese work, 3.

Yamadeva, king, 6 n.

Varavira Sahi, king, 17.

Vidyadhara, author, 124, 143.

Yijayakamadeva, king, 8.

Vijayasena, king, 110.

Vikrama-Ganga, surname of Coraganga,

110.

Virabhadra Sahi, king, 17.

Vira-Narasiipha-Deva, image of, 134,

135.

YIra Rajendradeva I., Cola king, 108.

Visvanatha, author, 20.

Wala Shahi troops, 55.

Walsh, E. H. C., article by, on the Ti¬

betan Language and Recent Dictiona¬

ries, 65.

"Yaksamalla, king, 13, 16.

Yogananda Nrsimha, shrine of, 129.

Yogesachandra Sastri, Pandit, arti¬

cle by, on the origin of the Kap section

of the Barendra Class of Brahmans in

Beogal, 91.

2jafar Khan, 49.

Zu-l-fiqar Khan, 37.

il

(■

T

.1

f

I

.

1

. i

I

t

.

**