200 A Donative Inscription of the Tenth Century. [No. 3, 
Of Nos. 1, 20, &c., I wrote, in October, 1S58, independently of the 
theory of Professor Lassen : 
61 I now redeem the promise which I once made,* to demonstrate, 
that a mistake has been committed in throwing back L dayaditya to 
A. D. 613. Two facsimile copies of the Udayapura inscription, 
which I was at much pains in getting executed, have been of material 
aid to me towards arriving at a determination on this point. 
“ I’he person for whom that wretched scrawl was indited, calls 
himself a descendant of Udayaditya of Malava : but it is clear, that, 
whether so or not, he knew nothing of Udayaditya s family. The 
word suravira — rightly, s'uravira — in the monument adverted to, is 
not the name of a king. Gondala is the first regal personage whom 
it notices. His son seems to be Gy at a, — for which Pata has been 
printed — the vernacular corruption, perhaps, of Jnatd, nominative of 
Jnatri. Aribalamathana, if such be the true reading, is an epithet of the 
doubtful Gyata, and, by no possibility, an appellation. Udayaditya is 
represented as son of the last ; and he is distinctly stated to have 
been ruling in Samvat 1116, or S'aka 981, i. e., A. D. 1059. Bor 
four hundred and forty-six years subsequently, it is alleged, the 
Yavanas had been in the ascendant : and this term brings us to 
Samvat 1562, S'aka 1447— which should be 1427— or the year 4607 
—not 4669, as printed — of the Kali-yuga, i. e., A. D. 1506 ; at 
which time the person at whose instance the inscription was 
written appears to have assumed some sort of authority. Seven years 
later, in S'rimulcha — an item wanting to Captain Burt s copy or 
A. D. 15 13, he engaged in a pious transaction in honour of S'iva. His 
name was Sagaravarman, — metamorphosed, as printed, into Yogara- 
dharmma, — commonly styled Chanddev, or Chandra Deva. Nor is 
S'alivaliana given as son of Udayaditya. 
“ More might be said on the present topic ; but it is enough, if 1 
have shown that we have here to do with a thing of no importance, 
abstracted from its liability to beget error. See the Journal of the 
Asiatic Society of Bengal, for 1840, pp. 545 etc.f 
“ Professor Lassen, I am told, has accepted the inscription thus 
* Journal of tlie American Oriental Society, Vol. VI., p. 517, note c. 
t In the Vol. for 1838, p. 105G, tlio inscription analyzed above is first 
spoken of. 
