|
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI
FRAGMENTARY MAHŌBĀ STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF PARAMARDIDĒVA
________________________
1 Mirashi suggests to read the following two letters as –rmāna-, but following his suggestion, we miss here
the finite verb. The lacunae may conjecturally be restored as  .
2 This word has to be construed with the first word in the second quarter of the verse. Mirashi reads prāsāda-sphaṭika-, which cannot be construed.
3 The slanting stroke of the mātrā above this letter is wrongly cut on the preceding one.
4 The bracketed and the preceding akshara are mutilated.
5 These three letters may have been -rapāhṛi-.
6 A redundant stroke makes this letter appear as bha, for which cf. bhavana in l. 15.
7 Suggesting correction of nē to nai, Mirashi translates this expression as “the only son of Nōnē” ; but it
also appears possible that the name was Nōnē and the suffix ka may have been added to it for metrical
exigencies, or, what appears to be more probable, to give a form of the shashṭhī of the word Nōnē, as we
find in some other grants of the house, e.g., in No. 126. This suffix is added to the name to form its case
even today by those who have only some smattering of Sanskrit.
8 The akshara in the brackets has disappeared, leaving only traces. The letter kshma that follows is
engraved as kdma.
9 The bracketed akshara is totally lost and I have adopted the reading as suggested by Mirashi. But it
may also have been bha.
10 This lacunae may conjecturally be restored by the reading 
11 The unit figure is ornamental with four nandipādas around it and only one of them is complete. The
vowel that follows is formed differently from others in the inscription.
12 This akshara is deformed by a redundant chisel stroke.
13 Only the vertical of the mātrā and the first half of this letter are visible.
14 After I finished my article on this inscription. I had an opportunity to see what N. P. Chakravarti wrote
on it in the section on Epigraphy in ASI., AR., 1936-37. He remarked that in the fourth line of the
extant portion of the epigraph the name of Madanava [rman*] is found partly preserved. But in my
examination of the original I found that through the first of the bracketed letters ending the line may
be doubtfully takes as ma, the second and the fourth the them are conjuncts and thus not fitting in
the name. Again, in l. 22, he took the name as Ahallaṇa, which, of course, may be possible, as shown
by the padachhēda. In 14, he read the name as Nolaka and not Nonēka, as taken by me and also by
Dr. Mirashi. The consonant of the second akshara appears also as l. but the sign of the pṛishṭha-mātrā before it is absolutely certain and cannot be overlooked.
|
