North Indian Inscriptions

INSCRIPTIONS OF THE CHANDELLAS OF JEJAKABHUKTI

AJAYGAḌH STONE INSCRIPTION OF THE TIME OF BHŌJAVARMAN

The characters are Nāgarī, resembling those of the other inscriptions from Ajaygaḍh or Kālañjar.¹ As regards the individual letters, attention may be drawn to the form of the initial a which somewhat resembles sr ; see avētya, l. 16; to the vowel i which has assumed its modern Nāgarī form but with the loop and the tail detached from the main body, see iti, l. 6; to kh which begins the loop, cf. maukhya-, l. 8 ; to the similarity between ch and v, either of which occasionally also resembles the left limb of g; see, e.g., bibhrat- and chakita, both in l. 1 ; to ṇṇ which is marked by a single letter with a slanting bar across it ; see pūrṇṇa-, l. 1 ; to dh, the left limb of which shows a cornered horn joined not to the lower limb but to the top of the vertical ; e.g., in vadhū, l. 3 ; to the palatal and the dental sibilants which are sometimes so formed as to show a combination of both these letters and thus cannot be easily distinguished ; e.g., sa in l. 18, and the first of which also shows two forms as in śruta and prakāśa-, both in l. 15. The letter b has a sign of its own, as in bibhartu, l. 1 and babhāra, l. 8, but it is often confounded with that of v, the loop of which is sometimes marked circular but more often rectangular.

The language is Sanskrit; and except for Oṁ namō bhagavatē Vāsudēvāya in the beginning, which is partly lost, the date in figures in ll. 19-20 and the names of the writer and the engraver at the end, the inscription is metrically composed. In all there are thirty-eight verses, which are all numbered.² The number of the last verse is wrongly entered as 24 for 38. The verses are composed in an artistic style and the poet is fully justified in comparing the composition to ‘an invaluable fabric which he has woven by fibres of letters of manifold complexion and has highly decorated it (with alaṁkāras)’. But with all this, the inscription is not altogether free from literary foibles. Though written in a fluent style, it has some grammatical errors, e.g., in the use of vidadhan for vidadhat in l. 2 (probably a scribe’s mistake) and in bhavanō for bhavanaṁ in l. 6. To note some other points, the use of the word jantu (creature) for a person is not happy; the expression kshālita-kāya-sundaraḥ in v. 19 is inappropriate, for it is not the body but the mind that is purified by good deeds; and the long expression munibhyō mudam=ādadhāti in v. 29 is used only for the sake of alliteration. Verse 22 does not admit of a proper construction. But despite this, the poem is of a high order.

As regards orthography, (1) b in some cases is denoted by the sign for v, e.g., in vibhartu, but not in bibhrat, both in l. 1 ; (2) when r is a superscript the following class-consonant is frequently doubled, as in mārgga-, l. 8 and ruchir = mmurāriḥ, l. 2, but not in mūrtir=diti, l. 1; (3) s is occasionally put for ś, e.g., in visuddha, l. 10, and vice versa frequently, as in nivāśa-, l. 9. Besides these general points, the final m at the end of a verse or a stich is sometimes wrongly changed to an anusvāra though we find its correct use also; the anusvāra is wrongly replaced by m as in samvat, l. 19; the use of the dental nasal and anusvāra is seen side by side, as in amaṁḍayanmaṇḍanam, l. 14; medial dipthongs are more often expressed by the ūrdhva-mātrās; the sign of avagraha occurs only twice in ll. 12 and 17 ; and the kāka-pāda only once at the end of l. 5. Local element is responsible for writing śēmukhī- for śēmushī- in l. 8 and also in the forms of the names in l. 11; and finally, the sign for the medial ā is sometimes engraved closer to the following letter so as to appear its pṛishṭha-mātrā, e.g., in kamalē, l. 10, which was read as kamāla by Prinsep himself.

The inscription refers itself to the reign of the king Bhōjavarman of the Chandrātrēya (Chandēlla) Dynasty (v. 25). The immediate object of it is to record that his minister Nāna constructed a temple of Hari, or Kēśava at Jayadurga, or the fort of Ajaygaḍh, for the increase of (his own) fame (vv. 33-34). But reality the inscription furnishes an account of the clan known as that of the Vāstavya race of Kāyasthas to which Nāna belonged, and also that of his ancestors. The inscription was composed by the poet Amara;³ and was written by Paṇḍita Suhaï, the son of the illustrious Ṭhakura Ayan, who was in charge of the fort at Jayapura (Ajaygaḍh)
__________________________
¹ For example, Nos. 145-148, above.
² The number of verses wrongly appears as 39 instead of 38 since a portion in prose showing the date in l. 20 is also numbered, as 38, and this number is continued. It is not known whether a name was given in verse 38 which is now lost. In fact, there is no sufficient space for it. But at the same time it appears curious that the father’s name in v, 38 is lost (?).
³ And not Amarapati as read by Cunningham in his A. S. I. R., Vol. XXI, p. 52. Similarly, chitravarṇām in v. 36 is an adjective of the composition (vākpaṭīm) and does not mean that it was written (on the stone) in ornamental letters, as Cunningham wrote and commented upon.