|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Udayagiri and ambara-chūḍāmaṇi in verse 1 suggests that the stanza speaks of the Sun-god. About the beginning of line 4 we have the word jayati while about the end of line 6 we can read mōhahara-dīpaka namas=tē. As the latter passage undoubtedly refers to the Sun-god and occurs in a stanza far removed from the beginning of the inscription, it seems that the whole record was a praśasti of the deity in question. The other inscription is more interesting. In the Quinquennial Administration Report of the Archeaological Department of the old Gwalior State, referred to above, it has been described as follows : “ …. a loose fragment picked up in ruins is written in old Nāgarī script assignable to the 12th century A.D. on palaeographical grounds. This is broken at the top and left side. It seems to have been a praśasti recording the merits of a distinguished personage, perhaps a king or a minister, who is compared to the Sun but whom, unlike the Sun, Rāhu could not hold in his grips. As the inscription is badly mutilated, its object cannot be made out. The praśasti was composed by Mahākavi-chakravartī-Śrī-Dvittapa (?) at the instance of Daṇḍanāyaka Śrī-Chandra.”[1] Elsewhere in the same work, while repeating the same views, it is said that the record ‘ does not convey any sense nor any purport can be extracted from it’.[2] Unfortunately most of these statements are wrong. In the first place, the major part of the writing on the stone, mutilated though it is, can be satisfactorily deciphered. Secondly, the theme of the record is not the praśasti of a king or minister but the stuti of the Sun-god. Thirdly, the name of the author of the eulogy is not Dvittapa but Chhittapa who is fortunately well-known from several sources. It may be pointed out in this connection that Dvivedi’s Gwalior Rājyake Abhilekh (also a publication of the Archaeological Department of the Gwalior State or Madhya Bhārat), referred to above, contains a similar misleading note on the same inscription.[3] Dvivedi quotes the poet’s name quite confidently as Dvitraya which is, however, even more erroneous. While the Report reads one of the three aksharas of the name wrongly, Dvivedi’s reading of all of them is wrong.
The piece of stone bearing the inscription is fairly big in size. The writhing occupies only its upper part and covers an area about 38″ in length and about 11·5″ height. The top and left sides of the inscribed stone have broken away. The number of aksharas lost at the beginning of the lines is about four in some cases but slightly more in other. Thus line 4 of the extant part of the record originally contained seventy aksharas (without counting the five cases of the use of the single or double daṇḍa) of which only four are now lost. There are traces altogether of twelve lines of writing in the inscription ; but the last line is less than half the other lines in length. Of the first line only traces of the lower part of a few aksharas at the end can be seen. It is impossible to determine whether one or more lines of writing are lost above this although for the sake of convenience it may be regarded as line 1 of the original record. Many of the aksharas in line 2 are also either completely or partially broken away. Even in the extant part of the epigraph some letters here and there are more or less rubbed out. The reading of many of the effaced passages could be ascertained only on repeated examination while that of a few of them still remains undetermined or doubtful. The characters of the inscription are Nāgarī and may be assigned to a date about the eleventh century. Two floral designs in line 11 and the ornamental lengthening of the head of medial ē and that of the tail of medial i or ē in some cases are interesting to note. Medial ē has been written both as a pṛishṭha-mātrā as in Gauḍī and as a śirō-mātrā as in modern Nāgarī. In some cases, the form of ś resembles that of s ; cf. kauśalaṁ n line 3, śray=āº in line 6, etc. The language of the record is Sanskrit. With the exception of a few passages at the end in lines 11-12, the whole record is written in verse. The metre of all the stanzas is Anushṭubh. In regard to orthography, the _____________________________________________
[1] See op. cit., p. 25.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
