|
INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI
Cartellieri has already drawn attention to the ‘uncouth’ forms of some of the aksharas ; e.g.,
ēsha- with the following daṇḍa in ll. 6 and 73, is engraved as pakā ; k is occasionally engraved
as p, e.g., in Kuladhara, l. 93, and p as a perfect rectangle in pada-, l. 31. Instances of occasionally omitting limbs of letters are common, e.g., in Dāmōdara-, l. 110, m is cut as g ; in padārddham, l. 58, m is engraved as n, and in Vasishṭha, l. 57 and in some other instances below
(in ll. 115 and 116) the slanting stroke of sh distinguishing the letter from p is omitted, and in
l. 123, alikhat appears as ālakhat, without the curve of the mātrā on the second of these aksharas. The signs of anusvāras and of the superscript r are often omitted ; and all such flaws make it
difficult to ascertain the exact forms of the proper names which are numerous in the record and
in which the influence of local elements is also throughout noticeable. To give one example
only, in ll. 48 and 56 the consonants of the letters giving a name are so formed as to make it
read as Dhāvaṇa, Vāvaṇa, Vāchaṇa and Rāvaṇa, etc. ; and this sort of sloven engraving is also
responsible for the reading Vāsē-gōtra in place of vatsa- the letter t appearing as a -pṛishṭha
mātrā, as actually taken by Cartellieri without noticing the flaw.
The language is Sanskrit, which is occasionally incorrect, particularly in the long list of
names of the donees which are all in their local forms,1 and also in the names of the villages.
The record is in prose, except for the initial verse as to be found to commence the Chandēlla
grants, one verse eulogising the donor in ll. 4-6, and five verses towards the end in ll. 120-24.
The verses are not numbered. As regards orthographical peculiarities, we notice (1) the use of
the sign for v to denote b as well, e.g., in –vōdha-, l. 9 ; (2) a confusion between the dental and
the palatal sibilant as in vaśundharā-, l. 6, and sākhā, l. 15 ; (3) occasional reduplication of a
class-consonant following r ; see –Paramarddi-, l. 4, but also –chandrārka-, l. 16 : (4) The wrong
change of anusvāra to m, as in samvat, l. 13 ; and finally, (5) the use of a pṛishṭha-mātrā with a
few exceptions as in Kēśava and gōtra, both in l. 82. The pṛishṭha-mātrā is often confounded
with the vertical stroke, which is also used to show that the letter preceding it is a concise form
(of a surname), and also confounded with the sign for medial ā ; e.g., in l. 59, we cannot make
it certain whether the name is Jahēḍa or Jāhaḍa, (6) the daṇḍa is also often superfluous, e.g., after sē in vasēt, l. 13 ; sandhis are generally neglected in the formal portion of the record which
abounds in names ; and we have examples of wrong sandhis also, e.g., in chaturthānsa, ll. 36,
39, 40 and below ; and in maṅgalam-mahāśrīḥ in the end ; (7) The Prākrit word satka in the sense
of ‘belonging to’ is used more than once, e.g., in l. 7 and below, besides some other Prākrit
words as pañchēla in l. 8 and Laṭiā in l. 12, which are also occasionally to be seen ; and, last
of all to mention, (8) that the local element throughout prevails, not only in the names but also
in some other instances, e.g., in the spellings of names as in Dharmmāṇaṁda in l. 116, rishi for ṛishi in ll. 33 and below, sāmi for svāmi in l. 44, Yayurvvēda for Yajurvēda in l. 62, and krimi for kṛimi in l. 121. All these and such other errors have also been drawn attention to in the text
that follows, in addition to the cases of scratching or scoring off the original writings and also over-writing that we find occasionally.
The plates were issued by the Parama-bhaṭṭāraka, Mahārājādhirāja and Paramēśvara, the
illustrious Paramardidēva of the royal house of the Chandēllas. The object is to record the
confirmation of a grant, from his camp at Sōnasara, for the sake of the increase of his own and
his parent’s merit and fame, of the villages which had already been donated to certain Brāhmaṇas
by his grandfather, the illustrious Mahārājādhirāja Madanavarman, from his camp at Vāridurga on the fifteenth of the dark half of Māgha, Thursday, of the (Vikrama) era 1219. The day and
the date correspond to Thursday, the 15th of February, 1162 A.C., taking the month to be amānta ; but, as already aptly remarked by Cartellieri himself, the solar eclipse mentioned in
the inscription did not take place on that day but on the preceding new-moon day, the 17th
___________________________
1 Some of these names can be traced to their original Sanskrit forms, e.g., Pajūna, ll. 39 and 94, to
Pradyumna, Tīkama, l. 21 and Tikava, l. 25, to Trivikrama, and Vīṭhu, l. 96, to Viṭṭhala. But the
names like Asadhara, l. 63, create a difficulty to ascertain whether it is a corrupt form of Aśvadhara
or Āśādhara. It may be noted here that the suffix ka is often added to a name not ending in a, to
form the genetive, e.g. in l. 31 we read not only Pālhū-putra but also Pālhūkasya, clearly showing an
addition. The other examples of this type are Risūkasya, l. 22, Dēlhākasya, l. 25 and Rilhēkasya, l. 38.
|
