Epigraphia Indica Vol 08

SR No.: 032562
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: E Hultzsch
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India
Publication Year: 1905
Total Pages: 398
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 18 MB

Page 281

242
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
[VOL. VIII.
looks exactly like thd as given by Bühler on Plate v. l. 26, No. 19 of his Indian Palcography; but since tha 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 Anusvåra and the secondary forms of e and o. Thus in B. 16 (Plate ii. 1. 6) we read padihantam, but in B. 20 (Plate i. 1. 8) padihantan. In A. 52, 54 (Plate i. 1. 21), e in pariyattante kále 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 Anunåsika in combination with v the inscription uses throughout the group mv, which is also found in manuscripts (see my Prakrit Grammar, $ 179). Thus we have jaehim vi in A. 58 (Plate i. 1. 23); hontehim vi, A. 84 (Plate ii, 1. 32); kaehim vi, A. 86 (Plate ii. 1. 33); annehim vi, A. 92 (Plate ii. 1. 35): jaehim vi, A. 100 (Plate ii. 1. 38), etc. In B. 98, 103 (Plate iii. ll. 37, 38 f.) valayam va is wrong for valayan va. Similar mistakes, as jam mdi instead of janh mai in A. 58 (Plate i. 1. 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 , with the single exception of nu, as remarked in the note on A. 5. Very often albo nha is written instead of pha. The ya-fruti shows the same inconsistency as in the manuscripts.
The language of the poems is Maharashtri. There occur, however, some forms which are Apabbramsa, such as laggavi, A. 92, milavi, B. 108, tha, B. 45, denan, B. 48, loa, B. 61, instead of loo. Blunders like tan ng instead of tan na and kayar garuana instead of kayan garudna 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 thiam instead of thiar in B. 36, kinh ttha instead of kin tha in A. 95, gauravam in B. 62, gauravian in B. 92, gauravid in B. 105, where au is written instead of o (compare Hemachandra, 1, 1), may go back to the author himself. On the whole, however, the latter mnst have mastered the language fairly well. There oocur several forms and Doss-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 withogt any alteration, as in A. 23 and 28, 32 and 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 jão nea jamnuihii occurs no less than five times (A. 10, 16, 48, 55, 85).
The poems consist of two odes, each of 109 stanzas in the Ary& metre, to the tortcise incarnation of Vishnu. They have no poetical value. In the first the author varies ad nauseam essentially two thoughts, vis, 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 Bhoja who now carries the earth. Though a very poor performance, the poems, owing probably to the flattering contents of the second ode, pleased king Bhoja so much that he allowed them to be ascribed to himself :__"Even to the tortoise rest has been granted by king Bhoja alone. By him this Karmafutaka 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 Bhoja has this Sataka been composed" (B. 109). The very fact that in the second ode king Bhoja 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 Bhoja was a great friend and admirer of scholars and poets, and it is well known that in legendary works like Merutunga's Prabandhachintamani and Ballâla's Bhojaprabandha many famous poets of qnite different
The most complete list of the works ascribed to Blója has been drawn up by Prof. Aufrecht, Catalogue Catalogorum, Vol. I. p. 418, and Yol. II. p. 95.