204 A Donative Inscription of the Tenth Century. [No. 3, 
III. Naravarman, son of U. A, D. 1104 — 1133.* 
IV. Yas'ovarman, son of N. A. D. 1133 — 1143. f 
V. Jayavarman, son of Y.J 
VI. Vindhyavarman, son of J. 
TJdaysiditya was, very likely, in power in A. D. 1059, however reluctantly we 
receive the word of such as Sagaravarman, or his historicaster. See a previous 
page. 
*See the Journal of the Bombay Branch of the Boyal Asiatic Society, No. 
VI., pp. 259—286 ; and Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, Yol. II., p. 303 
sixteenth foot-note. 
In the Madhukargarh inscription, Naravarman’s date answers to A. D. 1107. 
Naravarman had a younger brother Lakshmidhara. In one place he is awk- 
wardly called, from prosodial exigency, S'rilakshma Deva; the word Deva 
being an affix of respect. Professor Lassen puts S'rilakshmi. . But this breaks 
the measure. Besides, S'rilakshmi, with Deva after it, cannot denominate a 
man, unless the additional word be taken as component part of a compound 
with which it ends, in the sense of Vishnu. Then, to avoid tautology, the S'ri 
is to be regarded as honorific ; and we get, as the residu-um, Lakshmideva. See 
the Indische AltertJmmslcunde, Yol. Ill , p. 824, 858. 
What I wrote in the Preface to the V dsavadattd, p. 50, is here corrected. 
t Had Yas'ovarman not been living in A. D. 1143, his younger son, who was 
not king, would surely have named, in a formal instrument of grant, Jayavar- 
man, successor to their father. See Colebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essavs Vol 
II., pp. 299, &c. 
j Of Yas'ovarman’s two sons, Lakshmivarman and Jayavarman, we are 
not informed, in so many words, which was the elder. If Lakshmivar- 
man was so, his death may have taken place before his father’s, and must 
have taken place during the nonage of his son Haris'chandra. On this 
view, Jayavarman, whom Haris'chandra followed, acted as regent on behalf 
of his nephew, but using all the formulas of a king holding in his own right. 
Otherwise, let it be that Jayavarman was senior, and died ehidless, after adopt- 
ing Haris'chandra. Either opinion might seem to be assisted by Haris'chandva’s 
language about himself. Premising his ancestors, while he passes over his father 
he mentions his uncle, and adds, of himself : Yy5Jer*mT: V^ri^T^ITl- 
T»t5}Tflrcfcq:. In other words, he acknowledges that be bad “ obtained his 
supreme rank by favour of that most worshipful ruler.” But, despite of the 
phrase 1 supreme rank,’ he does not by any means unequivocally pretend to 
kingship. Botli at the end of the deed from which those words are taken, and 
in the body of it, he styles himself only mahalmmara, ‘ great prince :’ and so 
he styles his father as well Applied to the father, mahatcumara cannot imply 
that he was cmsar, but did not survive to enjoy actual possession of the throne. 
If eldest son of a king, he would, in any case, have been designated as yuvardja. 
It is to the younger sons of a sovereign, and to their sons, it should appear, that 
Ijlie title of mahalcumara , is restricted. 
Should this hypothesis be untenable, there may have been a third brother 
Ajayavarman, between Jayavarman and Lakshmivarman. Then, Haris'chandra’ 
if adopted by Jayavarman, must in time have become head of the state ; or if 
he did not, still the monarchy should have continued in the succession of Jaya- 
varman, through adoption, or otherwise : and so we find room for Vindhyavar- 
man. J 
Again: did Jayavarman— miscalled Ajayavarman— have a son in his old 
age, Vindhyavarman, who stepped into the place of the disappointed Haris'- 
clmndra; provided the latter was not dead ? 
Offspring of Jayavarman we hear nothing of; but Ajayavarman had a son 
Vindhyavarman. Provisorily, at least, it is maintainable that Ajayavarman 
which name we nowhere find but in some indifferent verses, is a mistake of 
