South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

other hand, see the rgg in durgg-âlayô mârggaḥ, l. 22, and the rṇṇ of -âvakîrṇṇa-, l. 8, and compare with the latter the ṇṇ^[1] of kshuṇṇa-, l. 8. For the rest, it may suffice to state that anusvâra is often denoted by a circle with the sign of virâma below it, placed after the akshara to which it belongs, as in nirvbharaṁ, l. 6, and palabhujâṁ, l. 7 ; and that the sign of avagraha is employed no less than 13 times, as in °bhujâ ςnêna, l. 9, and vṛiddhô ςnujaṁ and râjyê ς bhishiktam=, l. 11, etc.— The language of the inscription is Sanskṛit, and with the exception of the introductory Ôṁ ôṁ namaḥ Śivâya, the text is in verse. The orthography calls for few remarks. The sign for v denotes both v and b ; the dental sibilant is used for the palatal in rasmi- and vans- (for vaṁś-), l. 3, śasâsa, l. 8, yasasâ, l. 12, sâśvata-, l. 13, saśvan=, l. 22, and saśvad=, l. 24, and the palatal for the dental in śrôtaḥ-,l. 1, and suraśarit-, l. 21 ; and instead of anusvâra the guttural nasal has been employed in vaṅśa-, l. 6, and -sudhâṅśû, l. 25, and the dental nasal in vans-ôttansa-, l. 3. Besides, the rules of saṁdhi have now and then been neglected. The language is not always grammatically correct. The ablative cases in construction with adjectives in the positive (instead of the comparative) degree in verse 28 might of course be justified by analogous constructions in the epics ; for the wrong position of the word mallî in the compound mallîkîrttivallî (for kîrttimallîvallî) at the end of line 3 the Prâkṛit of the author might possibly be held responsible ; and to account for the employment of the Present participle hasat (instead of hasita) in the compound at the end of verse 22 one or two similar instances may be quoted from Jaina poetry ; but śrî-Svapnêśvara-nâma (for -nâmâ) in line 5 is an offensive blunder that should not have been committed even chhandô-bhaṅga-bhayât. The poetry of our author strikes me as being poor. His poetical conceptions as a rule are of the tritest, and more attention has been apparently paid by him to the sound of the words than to their exact meanings or effective employment. As a translation would be as tiresome to write as it might be tedious to read, I content myself with giving a short abstract of the contents.

After the words ‘ Ôṁ, ôṁ ! Adoration to Śiva !,’ verse 1 invokes the protection of the moon which is on Śiva’s head, and v. 2 glorifies the sage Gautama (Akshapâda). In that sage’s family (gôtra) was born the king’s son (râja-putra) Dvâradêva (v. 3). From him Mûladêva was born (v. 4), and from him, Ahirama (v. 5) who, besides other children, had a son named Svapnêśvara, and a daughter named Suramâdêvî (v. 6). Verse 7-9 then eulogize a king of the lunar race, named Chôḍagaṅga. When he was dead, his son king Râjarâja victoriously ruled the earth (vv. 10-12). He married Suramâdêvî, the lady already mentioned (v. 13), and in his old age installed in the government his younger brother Aniyaṅkabhîma, ‘ a moon of a Gaṅga prince,’ ‘a lord of Trikaliṅga’ (vv. 14-17).─ Verses 18-21 then praise (Râjarâja’s brother-in-law) Svapnêśvaradêva, in war ‘ a divine weapon of the kings of the Gaṅga lineage,’ a man ‘ more powerful than a complete army ’ (and apparently therefore a general of the Gaṅga kings) ; and verses 22-32 record the acts of piety performed by him which occasioned this praśasti. He founded a magnificent temple of the god (Śiva) Mêghêśvara, ‘ the lord of the clouds ’ (vv. 22-24), gave a number of female attendants to the god (v. 25), laid out a garden near the temple (vv. 26 and 27), built a tank near it (v. 28), and in connection with the tank erected a maṇḍapa or open hall (v. 29). He also provided wells and tanks on roads and in towns, lights in temples, cloisters for the study of the Vêdas, etc. (v. 30) ; and to the pious Brâhmaṇs he gave a brahmapura which was superintended by the Śaiva teacher Vishṇu (v. 31), who also consecrated^[2] the Mêghêśvara temple (v. 32).─ By Vishṇu’s order this praśasti was composed by the poet Udayana (v. 33) ; it was written on the stone at the Mêghêśvara temple by Chandradhavala, the son of Diśidhavala (v. 35), and engraved by the sûtradhâra Śivakara (v. 36).

__________________________________________________________________
^[1] A comparisons of the signs for ṇṇ and rṇṇ will shew that in the latter the superscript r is really superfluous. Even without it, sign used by the written would have to be read as rṇṇ, and is actually employed in other inscriptions to denote that conjunct.
^[2] As pratishṭhita is occasionally used for pratishṭhâpita, so I would take pratyatishṭhat in verse 32 to have been employed in the sense of the causal pratyatishṭhipat.