North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

KĀLAÑJAR STONE INSCRIPTION OF VĪRAVARMAN

No. 148 ; PLATE CXXXV

KĀLANJAR STONE INSCRIPTION OF VĪRAVARMAN

(Fragmentary)

THIS inscription was first transcribed and translated into English by Lieut. F. Maisey, in the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal, Vol. XVIII (1848), pp. 317 ff., and some thirtyfive years subsequently, it was again noticed by General Cunningham in his Archaeological Survey of India Reports, Vol. XXI (1883-85), pp. 38-40. Neither of these writings is accompanied by a lithograph, and the record too has not been critically edited so far. At my request, the Chief Epigraphist of the Archaeological Survey of India favoured me with a fresh impression of the inscription which showed that the record is highly weather-worn and several aksharas have become illegible or are completely lost owing to the flaking off of the surface of the stone, here and there, whereas some others, being damaged obliterated, have become altogether illegible. Under the circumstances, I prefer to give below the transcript of it made by Maisey, together with my notes and occasionally talking help of the afore-mentioned impression.¹

Maisey found the record inscribed on a soft sand-stone leaning to the left of a pillar, opposite the entrance of the cave in the fort of Kālañjar in the Narainī tehsīl of the Bāndā District of Uttar Pradesh.² It is at present kept in the sculpture shed in the temple of Nīlakaṇṭha which is near by, as reported by the technical assistant who prepared the fresh impression for my use. And it is possible that during the process of shifting it from place to place, the stone, which was already a fragment of an apparently very large inscription, has furthermore suffered. It contains 31 imperfect lines. The total height of the writing is 90.5 cms.; and the length of the lines is about 38 cms. in the beginning and the end, some of the lines in the middle being one or two cms. longer. An idea of the original length of the lines can be had from the writing which is now preserved; thus for example, the first line which now has 37 letters, appears to have lost the latter half of a verse in Mālinī (i.e., 30 letters) and the whole of a verse in the Śārdūlavikrīḍita metre, except 6 letters which begin the second line. And thus calculating the number of the letters which are lost, to be 30 of Mālinī plus 70 of the Śārdūlavikrīḍita, along with the signs for punctuations etc., it can fairly be conjectured that the lost portion was only slightly less than the double of that which is now available. The inscription, moreover, appears to have lost some lines at the bottom also, of which no correct estimate can be made. The height of the individual letters is about 2 cms.³

The script in which the record is written is Nāgarī; and the language is Sanskrit. Except for a small sentence saluting Śiva, as usual, the extant portion of the record is all metrical. The last number of the verse is 72; some of the verses are totally and some others are partially lost. Nothing can definitely be said as to the orthographical peculiarities, as Maisey’s transcript of it suffers from inaccuracies, as already stated above. In the extant portion there is no definite mention of what was intended to record; it appears, however, to have been the setting of some images as can be judged from the last lines of it. The date and the other features, for example, the names of the composer and the engraver, if at all recorded in the end, are also lost.

____________________________
¹ It may be noted here that Maisey’s transcript is not only inaccurate but is occasionally wrong also. For example, in l. 19 he writes pratyakshamudvīkshya and joins the following tē with the next word, whereas udvīkshyatē is the verb used here; and again in l. 28 he does not take sphuranti separately, as it vividly appears. Nor does he mark the double-daṇḍas on either of the sides of the numbers of the verses, the existence of which can be seen in the impression. Moreover, sometimes he continues writing, without showing the breaks, what could be ligible to him in later portion of the line. All these things have made confusions in his transcript. I have, however, made some minor amendments in the text below, e.g., changing the place of a letter here and there, marking the double daṇḍas, as required, and putting question-marks wherever the sense is not clear.
² J. A. S. B., Vol. XVIII, p. 193. For another record found by the side of it, see above, No 140. For the description of the place, see above, No 110
³ For all these observations the impression was very helpful. It also shows some later scribbling at the top and on the proper right side of the stone. This seems to have no connection with the present inscription.