________________
AUGUST, 1890.)
REN GRANT OF GOVINDACHANDRADEVA.
251
Another suggestion is that the district might be the modern Asôthar, which is also an old site, not far off, originally called Asvatthamapura. A third suggestion is that it might possibly be Ghazipur itself, the head-quarters of the Tahsil in which the grant was found, or rather the old site in its immediate neighbourhood. On this Mr. Jackson writes : “There are also a mile north of Ghazipur, in lands now included in the village of Painâ, extensive ruing of an ancient fortified town. The original name of this is lost; but local tradition says that it was originally a stronghold of the Chandels, from whom it was taken by the Kichars. The present local name Fathgarh probably dates from the conquest. The outer line of walls and towers encloses a large area, and in the centre was a high citadel surrounded by a broad and deep moat. This is not more than 12 miles as the crow flies from Rôn (or 14 miles from Dagaals), and possibly the name in the grant may be the lost name of this place, which most certainly have dominated the neighbouring territory. This is, however, a mere conjecture." Perhaps of the three suggestions, the last conjecture has most probability; and in that case, it is all the more to be regretted that the name has been injured beyond recognition. The two first suggested names, Argal and Asotthar, appear to me to meet with no support from the existing traces of the name. But the present appearance of the letters of the name is altogether deceptive; and it is almost impossible to say what they may not have originally represented.
The language of the grant is Sanskrit, written in Devanagari characters, exactly of the same style as those to be seen in the grants of which facsimiles have been published in the Jour. As. Soc. Beng. Vol. LVI. p. 106 ff. The execution is rather bad; the letters are often very ill-shaped, and the composition is full of errors. A good deal of this imperfection is undoubtedly due to the barbarous process of polishing, by which the real shape of the letters has often been entirely altered, or assimilated to the shape of quite different letters, and this renders the reading of the letters very deceptive. The interlinear or top-marked signs (for i, 1, 2, 6, 1, &c.) have especially suffered ; in many cases they have entirely disappeared. All this has to be discounted; but enongh remains to prove that the grant was prepared by a person who was either very ignorant, or very negligent. Some illustrations of this will be found below in the portions of the text which I shall quote. The letters m and 8, y and s, y and p, y and ch, v and dh, even after making every allowance for injuries by the cleaning, are constantly confounded.
On the other hand, the new grant exhibits some curious new readings which do not occar in any of the previously published grants. In the present condition of the copper-plate, however, it would serve no useful purpose to publish either a facsimile or the full text of the grant. It will suffice to put together all that is either new or peculiar in it.
The grant takes up 24 lines. Up to Govindachandra-dévå vijayé, towards the end of the 12th line, it is substantially identical with the published grants (e. g. grant, No. I. in Jour. As. Soc. Beng. Vol. LVI. p. 108, down to middle of the 14th line). There occur, how. ever, the following variations : line 1, the salutation is Omi namo bhagavate Vasudéváya; for akunt h8° stands ákulio, píthao for opitha', and áréyasésha vaḥ for éréyaséstu vah.
L. 3 (verse 4), kránita-dvisha-chandraló (sic) ripusvádhata-dhira-yodha-timirah, for the usual krásita-dvishan-mandaló vidhvastóddhata-víra-yodha-timirah.
L. 4 (verse 4), pradgopapravam (sic) for prajópadravani.
L. 5 (verse 5), dijatá (or dvijatá ?) yajéb hyô for dadatá dvijebhyo; sataustuo for batasastao or satatantuo; (verse 6) tatyatsajo (sic) for tasyátmajo; ita kutindrao for iti Kshitindrao.
L. 7 (verse 7), kumam asau for kshanam asau.
L. 8 (verse 8), 'chadhdthakaddhanavarádyagajó for bandhávarudha-nava-rájya-gajo; sáidra-bhůtah dravao for sádrámita-drava or súmdrámţita-dravao; in itself the reading sásndra-bhútaḥ would give sense, but it is neither grammatically nor prosodically correct; prabhó for prabhavô.
