South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

looks exactly like thâ as given by Bühler on Plate v. l. 26, No. 19 of his Indian Palæography ; but since thâ in all other instances (B. 2, 78, 87) has quite a different form, the reading remains uncertain. Unfortunately there is a gap just in this place.

There is much inconsistency in writing the Anusvâra and the secondary forms of e and o. Thus in B. 16 (Plate ii. l. 6) we read paḍihaṁtaṁ, but in B. 20 (Plate ii. l. 8) paḍihantaṁ. In A.52, 54 (Plate i. l. 21), e in pariyattaṁte kâle ke ke and o in jo vi hu so vi hu are partly written in the ancient, partly in the modern fashion. Instead of the Anunâsika in combination with v the inscription uses throughout the group mv, which is also found in manuscripts (see my Prâkṛit Grammar, § 179). Thus we have jâehim vi in A. 58 (Plate i. l. 23) ; hǒntehim vi, A. 84 (Plate ii. l. 32) ; kaehim vi, A. 86 (Plate ii. l. 33) ; annehim vi, A. 92 (Plate ii. l. 35) ; jâehim vi, A. 100 (Plate ii. l. 38), etc. In B. 98, 103 (Plate iii. ll. 37, 38 f.) valayam va is wrong for valayaṁ va. Similar mistakes, as jam mâi instead of jaṁ mâi in A. 58 (Plate i. l. 23), have been noticed in the foot-notes on the text.

The orthography is that of the Jainas. Hence in the beginning of words, and generally when doubled, dental n is written instead of cerebral ṇ, with the single exception of ṇu, as remarked in the note on A. 5. Very often also nha is written instead of ṇha. The ya-śruti shows the same inconsistency as in the manuscripts.

The language of the poems is Mâhârâshṭrî. There occur, however, some forms which are Apabhraṁśa, such as laggavi, A. 92, milavi, B. 108 ěha, B. 45, âeṇaṁ, B. 48, loa, B. 61, instead of loo. Blunders like tan na instead of taṁ na and kayaṅ garuâṇa instead of kayaṁ garuâṇa in A. 43, which occur very frequently, I am inclined to attribute to the author himself, considering the numerous cases where hu is written instead of khu, as in A. 54, B. 8, 28, 36, etc. Even faults like ṭhiam instead of ṭhiaṁ in B. 36, kiṁ ttha instead of kiṁ tha in A. 95, gauravam in B. 62, gauraviaṁ in B. 92, gauraviâ in B. 105, where au is written instead of o (compare Hêmachandra, l. 1), may go back to the author himself. On the whole, however, the latter must have mastered the language fairly well. There occur several forms and Dêśî-words which have not yet been met elsewhere. At the same time there is a great uniformity both of the language and of the contents, so much so that the author sometimes repeats a whole verse without any alteration, as in A. 23 and 28, 32 an 33, 98 and 101, or with very slight modifications, as in A. 10 and 55, 14 and 101, 93 and 94. The half-verse na ya jâo nea jammihii occurs no less than five times (A. 10, 16, 48, 55, 85).

The poems consist of two odes, each of 109 stanzas in the Âryâ metre, to the tortoise incarnation of Vishṇu. They have no poetical value. In the first the author varies ad nauseam essentially two thoughts, viz. that nobody has carried the earth so well as the tortoise, and that no mother is so happy and worthy of praise as the mother of this tortoise. In the second it is said that even the tortoise has been surpassed by king Bhôja who now carries the earth. Though a very poor performance, the poems, owing probably to the flattering contents of the second ode, pleased king Bhôja so much that he allowed them to be ascribed to himself :^[1]─ “ Even to the tortoise rest has been granted by king Bhôja alone. By him this Kûrmaśataka has been composed after he had taken away all hope to the enemies ” (A. 107), and :─ “ By whom the chief mountains, (nay) all the mountains here (on earth), have been reduced in weight, by this king Bhôja has this Śataka been composed ” (B. 109). The very fact that in the second ode king Bhôja is several times directly addressed (B. 5, 6, 7, 11, etc.) would alone suffice to prove that he himself is not the real author. Tradition has it that Bhôja was a great friend and admirer of scholars and poets, and it is well known that in legendary works like Mêrutuṅga’s Prabandhachintâmaṇi and Ballâla’s Bhôjaprabandha many famous poets of quite different
__________________________________________________________

^[1] The most complete list of the works ascribed to Bhôja has been drawn up by Prof. Aufrecht, Catalogue Catalogorum, Vol. I. p. 418, and Vol. II. p. 95.