|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI Vol. I (1888), pp. 330 ff. The record is edited here from a fresh and excellent impression which I owe to the kindness of the Chief Epigraphist, Archaeological Survey of India. The inscription consists of 16 lines of writing, and covers a space measuring 2∙8 metres broad by 64 cms. high. The average height of the letters is about 2∙5 cms, which, with the mātrās above, reaches up to 4 cms. The last of the lines, which is engraved close below the beginning of l. 15, in very small characters, is only about 30 cms. long and some of the letters in it are lost whereas some others are not clear in the impression, though, possibly, they can be read with certainty on the original stone.1 Besides this, the penultimate line, which shows a peeling on the surface of the stone, has completely destroyed eight aksharas at the commencement and the four that follow them are visible only in their lower parts. Leaving off these breaks, however, the record is in a tolerably good state of preservation. The letters are beautifully formed and neatly engraved, but we also note a number of mistakes when the original engraving is altered and also that sign of the visarga and of the vertical strokes are often omitted, as pointed out in the text, below.
The characters are Nāgarī. They closely resemble those of the immediately preceding inscription which too was discovered at the same place and was incised near about the same time. Thus they naturally share the same peculiarity in their formation, but to mention some other points, the akshara ṅ has developed its dot, e.g., in saṅgha, l. 2 ; p is frequently confounded with y ; see tulya written as tulpa in l. 7, and vice versa, satya as satpa in l. 10 ; the slightly differing forms of s may be noted in āsan, sarppa and śaśi-, all in l. 1, saha- in l. 5, and samara- in l. 6 ; and lastly, h is often devoid of its left-hand stroke, as in mōha- and kuhara-, both in l. 4. The language is Sanskrit ; and except for a short sentence showing adoration to Kēdāra (a form of Śiva), the whole record is in verse. In all there are thirty-two verses which are all numbered. The language is no doubt fluent, as also remarked by Kielhorn, but the composition is not of a very high order, as can be known from mistakes of grammar, prosody and rhetorics occurring therein. For example, shaṭ-triṁśatiḥ or -taḥ is used for shaṭ-triṁśat and samadhigamya for adhigamya, in ll. 1 and 2 respectively ; yuktaḥ for niyuktaḥ in l. 5 ; niśipati for niśāpati in l. 4, and krīyatām (or kāryatām) in l. 15, which cannot at all be grammatically defended. The expression nalinī-gaṇatā in v. 7 is less known and possibly wrong ; a redundant cha occurs in v. 28, tu in v. 10 ; saṁ is very often used ; and the word sadā has been put not less than ten times in vv. 6, 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 24, 25, 27 and 29. Verses 4, 19 and 20 do not admit of a proper construction, as to be shown below while giving the text ; and lastly, redundant words are often put up merely to fill up the verses, e.g., kalpā in v. 2, āśu in v. 7, lōka in v. 10 and mōksha-kārī in v. 11. As regards orthography, we note (1) the use of the sign of v for that of b as in vuddhi- l. 14, though the latter has its own sign, e.g., in prababhūva in l. 6 but not in babhūva in the same line ; (2) a confusion between the use of ś and s, e. g., in –praśūna-, and subha-, both in l. 6 ; (3) a class-consonant under a superscript r is generally doubled, as in kandarppa, l. 1 ; and (4) the pṛishṭha-mātrās are mostly used. Besides these, the sign of the jihvāmūlīya and that of the upadhmānīya occurs each once in l. 2 ; the avagraha has been used only twice in ll. 6 and 7 where its form slightly differs from each other ; the influence of the local element is to be seen in the use of sh for kh in –ākshyē, l. 8 and prakshāta, l. 14 ; and in vigaṇajya in ll. 8 and 10. And lastly, vāgmin is spelt as vāṅgmin in l. 13 and ujjvala as ujvala in l. 9. The kāka-pada sign is occasionally used. The proper object of the inscription is to record the construction of a temple by Subhaṭa,
the Superintendent of the treasury of the king Bhōja, or Bhōjavarman as it would appear from
vv. 28-31, and that this shrine was dedicated to the god Kēdāra, as we also know from vv. 28-31
and from the introductory salutation and v. 1. But this main object is only very briefly stated
in the inscription which gives a detailed account of the clan to which Subhaṭa belonged, i.e., Chandēlla kings. The record is not dated and moreover, it is abruptly closed ; and it may
rightly be presumed that the concluding portion thereof may have been continued on a separate
stone which is not forthcoming. It may have contained the description of the temple, wishing | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
