96 
THE ANTIQUITIES OE MUKHALINGAli. 
the latter. The benedictive and imprecatory verses are 
also the same in both the plates ; only one more sloJca is 
given in the ' Parlakimedi grant/ Both the documents 
are dated on the same model, and the same writer composed 
them, the anv,!ihtubh sloha which contains the writer's name 
being also the same. They were issued at an interval of 
only four years, in the 87th and the 91st years. The 
name of the prince in both of them is Indravarman. It is 
highly probable that the same king issued them. But there 
are two more inscriptions issued by an Indravarman (Nos. 
CXLII. and CXLIII., published in the Indian Antiquary, 
Volume XIII, pages 119 and 122) in the 128th and 146th 
years. Dr. Fleet is inclined to think that this Indravarraan is 
another king of a later period, perhaps a grandson of the 
first. His opinion is based on the following grounds : — 
1 . If all these plates are referred to the same Indravar- 
man, a reign of about sixty years has to be allowed to one 
king; and this is improbably long. 2. The Indravarman 
of the Parlakimedi grant has the hiruda of Rdjasirnha, which 
the Indravarman of the later plates has not. 3. One gene- 
ration of scribes passed away in the interval. 4. The king 
of the earlier plate is called the founder of the dynasty, 
Gdngdmala-kula-pratishthah, which the kings of the other 
plates are not. Now, the first and the third grounds may, 
to a degree, render Dr. Fleet's supposition probable, though 
one may as well he inclined to think that the same In- 
drvarman issued all the plates and his reign was exception- 
ally long. Dr. Fleet's second and fourth grounds are, 
in my opinion, frail. The word Bdjasiihha occurring in the 
anusht uhh sloka at the end of the inscription does not con- 
vey the idea of any hirjida. Sdsauaiii, rdjasimhasya simply 
means ' the order of a king, the best of the rajas.' If the 
idea of any title were implied in the word, the place for it 
would be the beginning of the inscription where his name 
