________________
No. 17.]
TWO BHUVANESVAR INSCRIPTIONS.
199
other hand, see the rgg in durgg-alayő márggah, 1. 22, and the run of -drakirnna-, 1. 8, and compare with the latter the nnl of kshunna-, l. 8. For the rest, it may suffice to state that anusvára is often denoted by a circle with the sign of virama below it, placed after the akshara to which it belongs, as in nirvbharam, 1. 6, and palabhuján, 1. 7; and that the sign of avagraha is employed no less than 13 times, as in obhujá snêna, 1.9, and vriddho snujan and rájyés bhishiktams, 1. 11, etc.-The language of the inscription is Sanskrit, and with the exception of the introductory Om ôm namah Sivaya, 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 vañ.), 1.3, sasása, 1. 8, yasasá, 1. 12, sáévata-, l. 13, sasvans, 1. 22, and safvada, 1. 24, and the palatal for the dental in Srôtah-, 1. 1, and surasarit-, 1. 21; and instead of anusvára the guttural nasal has been employed in varsa-, 1. 6, and -sudhansa, 1. 25, and the dental nasal in vans-óttansa-, 1. 3. Besides, the rules of sandhi 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 malli in the compound mallikirttivalli (for kirttimallivallt) at the end of line 3 the Pråkpit 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 Sri-Svapnesvara-náma (for -nama) in line 5 is an offensive blunder that should not have been committed even chhando-bhanga-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 Om, om ! Adoration to Siva !,' verse 1 invokes the protection of the moon which is on Siva's head, and v. 2 glorifies the sage Gautama (Akshapåda). In that sage's family (gótra) was born the king's son (raja-putra) Dvaradeva (v. 3). From him Müladeva was born (v.4), and from him, Ahirama (v.5) who, besides other children, had a son named Svapnesvara, and a daughter named Suramadevi (v. 6). Verses 7-9 then eulogize a king of the lunar race, named Chôdaganga. When he was dead, his son king Rajaraja victoriously ruled the earth (vv. 10-12). He married Suramadevi, the lady already mentioned (v. 13), and in his old age installed in the government his younger brother Aniyankabhima, 'a moon of a Ganga prince,' 'a lord of Trikalinga' (vv. 14-17).- Verses 18-21 then praise (Rajaraja's brother-in-law) Svapnesvaradêva, in war'a divine weapon of the kings of the Ganga lineage,' a man more powerful than a complete army' (and apparently therefore a general of the Ganga kings); and verses 22-32 record the acts of piety performed by him which occasioned this prasasti. He founded a magnificent temple of the god (Siva) Méghésvara, 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 mandapa 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 Vedas, etc. (v. 30); and to the pious Brahmaņs he gave a brahmapura which was superintended by the Saiva teacher Vishņu (v. 31), who also consecrated the Méghésvara temple (v. 32).- By Vishnu's order this prasasti was composed by the poet Udayana (v. 33); it was written on the stone at the Meghêsvara temple by Chandradhavala, the son of Disidhavala (v. 35), and engraved by the satradhára Sivakara (v. 36).
IA comparison of the signs for and will shew that in the latter the superscript is really superfluous. Even without it, the sign used by the writer would have to be read as #, and is actually employed in other inscrip tions to denote that conjunct.
As pratishthita is occasionally used for pratishtha pita, 90 I would take pratyalishthat in verse 32 to have been employed in the sense of the causal pratyalishthipat.
