Epigraphia Indica Vol 12

Author(s): Sten Konow
Publisher: Archaeological Survey of India

Page 99

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XII.
his father and then, although no other king of the dynasty was extolled by name, yet the poet Kālidāsa in his Raghuvamia did not consider his hero glorified until he was honoured by the king of Kāmarüpa, and Raghu's son treated his com peer of Kāmarüpa as his "best man" while marrying the daughter of the king of Vidarbha. It has already been stated that a position of honour was given by the emperor of Aryāvarta (Harshavardhana) to Bhāskara himself in the state procession at Rājagriha. The reason was not so much that he was a powerful king, as the high lineage that made him at once the most respectable among the hosts of the crowned heads of Northern Iudia who came to attend Harsha's oeremonies.
The composer of the inscriptions was no doubt a learned man, but his poetry was not of a very high order. He selected a metre, Arya, for his verses which is not much rythmical, and the prose in the description of the royal donor's attributes is in the style of Bāņabhatta, who lived at the court of Harshavardhana. Even his use of the Argā would be found defective if tested by the rules of the various gañas given in the prosodical treatises. But the shortcoming of the poet that way was made up by his knowledge of grammatical specialities and rhetorical subtleties. His special forte seems to have been the flēsha, which he has sometimes carried to excess.
As to the mechanical execution of the copper plates, it may be said that although the letters are fairly distinct the inscription abounds in mistakes, which have been shown in the footnotes attached to the text. There was no distinction made between ba and va, and this confusion also occurs in other copper plates of Kāmarūpa discovered up to date. In the vernacular of modern Kamarupa (i.e. Assamese), there is at present a sort of distinction observed in writing and pronouncing those two letters, but in the vernacular of modern Karnasuvarpa (ie. Bengali) there is no distinction whatever between the two. There are frequent omissions of the Anusvāra and the Visarga; compare ll. 1, 7, 12, 13, 23, 24, 25, 30, etc., where the Anusvāra bas been left out, and 11. 5, 6, 8, 10, 11, etc., where the Visarga has been omitted.
There are also other instances of carelessness. Thus we find a for i in nahita.. I. 39 : =upakalpat., 1. 39; -rachata, 1. 40; a for u in frata-, 1. 42, and for a in -uduya-, l. 34. u for u in murttër., 1.22 ; sunus, 1. 23; j for jj in rujualan, 1. 2; t for tt in -abhava tasya. 1. 11; njojana tanayam, 1. 26; -sa tva, 1. 41; tt fort in zonnatti, l. 27; sp for ps in suchchikshispör-, 1.5; y has been omitted in mātsa-, 1. 10; r in-sthiti, 1. 5; a whole syllable in 1. 27, ato. The last plate abounds in mistakes and omissions, and contrins, moreover, several carious words. The cutting of the letters is sometimes unsatisfactory. More especially, the loop at the bottom of the akshara sa consists of two stroker, one going downwards and the other backwards. There are on the whole some features which would, in ordinary circumstances, throw doubt on the genuineness of the plates. As has already been mentioned, however, the Arya at the end of the last plate informs us that the original plates were burnt, and that the grant contained in the existing plates is a copy. It is also stated that the shape of the letters differs from the origiual, but that the contents are genuine. There is no reason to compel as to doubt this statement, which, if we admit its correctness, accounts for the peculiarities drawn attention to above. The alphabet used assigns the platre to about A.D. 600, and it is very likely that Professor Padmanatha is right in thinking that the renewal of the burnt plate- took place not much later.-S. K.]
"Kamarūpesvaras tasya hēmapithadhidēvatām!
ratnapush popahirana chhayam anarcha padayon || Raghue. IV, 84. 2 Tato 'vatiry=āfu Karēnickavah sa Kamarūpēfnaradattahastaḥ
Vaidarbhanirdishtam athā vidēla närimanáms=ida chatush kam antah Il Raghuo. VII. 17.