Notes.

L.1 Above the inscription the expression Щrи-Piндisvarа[ya] is engraved in bolder and slightly later characters. This corrupt expression may not have formed part of the original record, written in an ornate language. Often the inscriptions of Mahеndravarman I do not commence with the auspicious word like, siddham or svasti See e.g., CTP, pp. 47, 63, 66, 76, 79, 86-88, 91 etc. Cf. JAHRS. XI, p. 47. K[o]lissarasaх : originally engraved -sarasyах seems to have been subsequently corrected into sarasaх to be in tune wнth prathitаt in line 3 (SN).
L.3 prathitаt=Pрthivи-yuvarаjaх to read here prathithаnpрthиvi etc. a reading not supported by the original and to correct it into prathit-Аndhraprithivиyuvarаjaх is to ignore the fact that the language of the record is totally free from such errors. See EHAC, p. 188, n. 18, p. 198. The Ablative prathitat indicates that the words Kоlissarasaх etc. are also of the same case; -yuvarаjaх -it is only Nominative Case and not Possessive Case as taken by some (ibid., p. 188 and n. 17). It is to be construed with saгjаtaх (line 12) and not with Kandararа-jasya (line 11) as belleved by some writers (CA, p. 203). True, just as rаjan becomes rаjaх at the end of the compound in the Nominative, so also rаj becomes rаjaх in the Genitive singular. But such Genitive forms, though employed in verses to meet the exigency of metre, are not generally met with in prose passages, especially in epigraphical literature. For, to avoid confusion the writers would naturally prefer the form -rаjasya. It may be observed thal even the composer of the text of the Chezerla record uses Kandarаjasya (line 11) in preference to Kandararаjaх, though the latter is also grammatically correct Genitive form (SN).
L.5 Cf. mada-vighуrнita-mаnasa-mаninи-kucha-mukhоdghаta-kuмkuma-gandhаyа Vеga-vatyах paith a description of Udayachandra, a feudatory of the Pallava, in the Udayendiram plales of Nandivarman (SII, 11, p. 367, text lines 40-42). Cf. also majjan-Mаlava-vilаsinи-kucha-taт-аsphаlana-jarjarit-оrmimаlayа + + Vеtravatyа parigatа Vidiщ-аbhidhаnа nagarи and yauvana-mada-matta-Mаlavи-kucha-kalaщa-lulita-salilayа + + + Siprayа parikшiptа+++Ujjayinи nаma nagarи (Kаda. pp. 11, 112-14) (SN).
L.12 Avanitalаntavatyаm= : the later Chолa queens often bore the names Ulagamuluduдaiyал and Avanimuлudu-дaiyаl, the Tamil renderings of this present name (SN).
L.14 Note the pleasing anuprаsas or alliterations here and in the following lines (SN).
L.19 ... Kusumakеtur - here the context suggests an expression like a-Kusuma (SN).
L.24 Sima-samaya 'all the time' (SN).
L.29 -viщаrada sat-sabhа-mallaх - this has been correctly read in SII, VI, No. 594, and in EHAC, p. 188. But the reading -viщаradas=satsabhаmallaх
(JAHRS, XI, p. 50), not supported by the original, has led to some misgivings (SN).
L.33 The reading does not seem to be Raнamahаmallaх. Cf. EHAC, p. 188, n. 18 and p. 199 (SN).
L.36-37 Probably something like sthirанi kрtvа might have been the intended expression lost here (SN).
L.50-52 Below this, the original most probably contained no writing (SN).
Second Face - in SII. Vol. VI, ihe following text has been treated as a separate inscription. However, the description of god Щiva with adjectives in Nominative singular with which the first face ends and with which the second face begins indicates beyond reasonable doubt that the text on the second face is in continuation of that of on the first face. The palaeography of the inscription on the first face does not differ from that on the second face. To point out a small difference in a pa and in a few ha's is to ignore totally the general striking similarity of the palaeography and the language of the text on both the sides (EHAC, p. 186). The only difference is this: while the letters on the first face are engraved in bold characters, those on the second face are written in small characters for want of space (SN).
L.66 =bhihita-nаmadhеyaм : this expression denotes that Abhihita was the name of thc temple (bhavana). Cf. Mahеndra-Viшнugрha-nаma Murаri-gрham (CTP, p. 66). Abhihita is recognised as a name of a chief (see, SED, s.v.). Cf. also Abhimukha, a surname of Mahendravarman I found in his records from different places. See SII, XII, Nos. 8, 13, 14. Abhihita may also literally denote what is auspicious or beneficial all around. Cf. Sarvatоbhadra. The expression abhihita-nаmadhеyam may also mean 'having for its name, name of the said person himself (viz., Kapоta)', the vigraha being abhihi-tasya pуrvаbhihitasya nаmadhеyam-еva nаmadhеyam yasya tat (SN).
L.69 Restore something like pratipаditaх (SN).
L.70 Kapоtещvarе, an easy restoration, does not suit well with preceding Genitive. If this word is to go with Mahеndravikrama-mahаrаjе (line 81) one may tentatively restore it is Mahеndrapоteщvarе. See CTP, pp. 63, 173 (SN).
L.73 Possibly a passage like nata-sakala-sа-manta-makuтa-maнi-kiraн-аvalи-piгjarita-charaнa-nakh-аlaкkрtаnаm=ащvamеdha-yаjinаm is mutilated here (SN).
L.74 One may expect here Pallavаnам kul-nabhо. Cf. Щrиvallabhаnам Pallavаnаm in IA, V, p. 155 line 16, restore -kiraнa-sиtaraщmau (SN).
L.75 Restore something like щatru-tamо-nikarе (SN).
L.83 The mutilated passage here might have been something like prиta-vidagdha-vilаsinи-kucha-kalaщa-kuкkuma raгjita-salila-Vеga-vatи etc. As the Vеgavatи river passes Kагchиpuram and falls into the Pаlаru river near Villivalam, the name Kагchи might have followed the above passage (SN).
L.86 Evidently here the original had the details of date in samvatsara., mаsa etc., now unfortunately lost. Jarajjaladhara 'aged clouds' may denote a month of the щarad or autumnal season. For some beautiful description of the season with the aged clouds, see the Sуktimuktаvalи of Bhagadatta Jalhaнa (GOS, 1938, p. 226) and the Subhашitaratnakощa of Vidyаkara (Harvard Ori. Series, 1957, p. 49) (SN).
L.91 These lines, on two sides of a big, щуla on the top are now very much damaged and could not be copied properly. For an early inscription engraved on the four faces of a pillar, bearing the figures of a Щiva-liкga, a bull and a cow on the fourth face, see EI, XXXVI, pp. 57 ff., p. 67, n. (SN).
L.94 Perhaps the original had here the name of the composer of the praщasti (SN).