North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

And giving the name of the Mahārāja-guru Vāsavachandra^[1] and recording the month and date at the end, the inscription comes to a close.

   To study the names of the gardens mentioned here, it is tentative to suggest that the first of these is obviously named after the door himself, i.e., Pāhilla ; Nos. 2 and 3, after the Chandrātrēya, i.e., Chandēlla house, and No. 7, after the name of king Dhaṅga. I am, however, unable to explain the origin of the fifth of these gardens, viz. Pañchāitala-vāṭikā. It may be that what was really intended is Pañchāmla-taru-vāṭikā and the third and the fifth letters of this name are wrongly engraved as some others in the inscription. If so, the five sour fruits (amlataru), as enumerated in the following verse of the Śabda-chandrikā,^[2] are really meant :

Kola-daḍima-vṛikshāmlair=amla-vētasa-saṁyutaiḥ |
Chaturāmlaṁ cha pañchāmlaṁ mātuliṅga-samanvitam ||

However, it is only a suggestion,

   The record is dated, at the end, on Monday, the seventh tithi of the bright half of Vaiśākha in the year which, due to the mason’s error, can be read either as 1011 or 1111, the second figure being compounded of zero and one. Noticing this error, Cunningham preferred to take the latter of these years as true, in view of his calculation of the tithi falling on Monday, the 18th April, 1054 A.C.^[3] But his calculation of the date has shown to be wrong by Kielhorn, according to whom the said tithi in reality fell on Sunday, a day before. Besides Kielhorn’s observation, we have also to note that the record was put up in the reign of Dhaṅga who was on the throne in the latter half of the tenth and not of the eleventh century A.C., unless we presume the existence of a successes of his who bore the same name. While editing the inscription, Kielhorn has also shown that taking the figure 1011 to denote the Southern Vikrama year 1011, expired, the corresponding day works out to be 2nd April, 955 A.C., which was a Monday, as actually mentioned, and thus the date works out satisfactorily for the year.^[4] But as the characters of the inscription are definitely not earlier than the thirteenth century A.C., I agree with him in observing that the inscription, as we now have it, appears to have been engraved from a more ancient copy.^[5]

^[1] For the description of the temple, see A.S.I.R., Vol. II. p. 433.
^[2] His. No. C-1949 of 1963-64.
^[3] The spellings of names have all been corrected here. It will also be seen that the plots of gardens presented in favour of the temple are seven and not six, as stated by Rajendralal Mitra in J.B.A.S., XXXII. p. 273.
^[4] Following the reading suśila, as corrected in the text.

TEXT^[6]
[ Metres : Verse 1, Mālinī; v. 2. Anushṭubh ].

^[1] Kielhorn translates this epithet as ‘high priest’. The purpose of the mention of this name is not evident; possibly what is meant is ‘in his presence’.
^[2] Quoted in Śabdakalpadruma, III, p. 16.
^[3] See A. S. I. R., Vol. XXI, p. 67.
^[4] Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX. p. 35, No. 59.
^[5] Ep. Ind., Vol. I, p. 135.
^[6] From an ink-impression supplied by the Chief Epigraphist.
^[7] Expressed by a symbol.
^[8] In the sense of dhavalayan, making whiter, i.e., prosperous. It is according to Pāṇini, III, i, 134.
^[9] The ā-mātrā of dhā appears to have been struck off subsequently.
^[10] Read Pāhillanāmā, as required by the metre. The last quarter offends against the metre. It contains a number of grammatical and other errors,
and Kielhorn proposes to read the whole verse thus:

^[11] Read Pahilla-.
^[12] This figure is damaged as already seem above.