|
The Indian Analyst
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA The inscribed surface measures 31″X18″. It contains 25 lines of writing. The engraving is beautifully executed, and is fairly well preserved throughout, except a few scratches about the middle of lines 17 and 18. These, however, do not cause any difficulty in the reading of the aksharas affected. The alphabet of the inscription is the eastern variety, proto-Bengali, of the thirteenth century A.C. Some scholars prefer to give this script the name Gauḍī.[1] Forms of kh, j, t, ś, etc., which resemble the modern Oriya and Bengali forms of these letters, are noteworthy. The forms of initial vowels ā, ī, u and ē may be seen in lines 6, 8, 22 and 8 respectively. The sign of visarga is remarkable inasmuch as it consists of two small circles, one above the other, with a horizontal top stroke on the upper circle. The form of p looks somewhat like that of y. The forms of some of the conjunct consonants are worthy of note, such as ttra and ñja in line 1, rtti in line 3,vyū in line 7, mbrū in line 12, and shṭa in line 7. This last shows that the subscript ṭ resembles t. The form of ṭ otherwise may be seen in mukuṭē in line 2. The language is Sanskrit, and the composition is in verse throughout, except the obeisance in the beginning. There are altogether twenty-five verses in various metres. The verses are not numbered ; but the end of the first half of every stanza is marked off, as a rule, by a single daṇḍa, and the completion of every stanza likewise by a double daṇḍa. The style is highly ornate.
As for orthography, no distinction is made between the signs for b and v. Properly speaking, the sign for v stands also for b. In giving the text, I have read it correctly as b wherever b is required.[2] A consonant after r is generally doubled, cases like rthi in line 6 being exceptions. In those like amarsha in line 5 the rule of reduplication does not apply at all. In such cases the consonant after r is correctly left single. Grammatically, the pronominal use of the word dvaya in verse 13 is interesting. Such a usage is rare, but we have instances of it in Sanskrit literature. As in Māgha’s Śiśupālavadha, III, 57 : janair=ajāta-skhalanair=na jātu dvayē=py=amuchyanta vinīta-mārgāḥ. In verse 9, the verbal form ajani, in the causative sense, is a solecism, which is repeated in jajñē in verse 10. Similar solecisms are not uncommon in Sanskrit inscriptions. On the seals of Bhāskaravarman of Prāgjyōtisha, for instance, we have tēna jātō dēvyāṁ śrī-Ratnavatyāṁ….. Kalyāṇavarmā.[3] To quote an earlier instance, we have vasundharēśas=tanayaṁ prajajñē in the Mandasor inscription of Mālava Saṁvat 524, referring to the Gupta king Gōvindagupta.[4] The word śuddhāṁ in verse 7 has possibly to be taken as synonymous with kēvalāṁ, which would be of lexical interest. The construction, however, seems to be faulty inasmuch as a tāṁ was essential in the subordinate clause and that is absent. Instead of śuddhāṁ, something like tām=ēva would thus have been better. These observations, it may be admitted, hold good only in case the interpretation of the verse in question as given below be acceptable. The verse no doubt is a hard nut to crack. The main object of the inscription is to record the erection of a temple of Kāmāntaka, i.e., Śiva, evidently identical with the preset Chāṭēśvara temple. There is, however, a difference of opinion as to who exactly was responsible for raising this edifice. Vasu ascribes it to Anaṅga- _________________________________________________
[1] Dr. D.C. Sircar, for instance, justifies this designation (above, Vol. XXVIII, p. 236 ; IHQ, XXVIII, pp.
130-1). The script of the present inscription compares well with that of Svapnēśvara’s inscription of the time of
Anaṅgabhīma II ; above, Vol. VI, plate facing page 202. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|