गुप्त अभिलेख संग्रह (जे. एफ. फ्लीट - गुप्त सम्राटों एवं परवर्ती नरेशों के ऐतिहासिक पाषाण व ताम्रलेख)

my disposal, for present purposes, by Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, the discoverer of it. The
inscription is on the pedestal of an old image, which is now built into the wall of the
modern temple of the goddess Harsaṭadêvî at Verâwal. The date, with some important
words in the context, (from Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji’s cloth-rubbing) runs — (l. 1) śrîmad-
Valabhî-sa[ṁ*]vat 927 varshê Phâlguṇa śu di 2 Saumê || Ady=êha śrî-Dêvapattanê
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (l. 4) śrî-Gôvarddhana-mûrtti[ḥ*] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(l. 5) kârâpitâ ;—in which, unfortunately, there is some doubt as to the proper rendering
of the first syllable of the word that gives the name of the week-day. The vowel au was
undoubtedly formed ; though, in the rubbing, the top-stroke is partially filled up, in con-
sequence either of want of depth in the engraving, or of want of care in making the
rubbing. And, the consonant presenting the appearance in the rubbing of being bh,
the natural inclination is to read Bhaumê, “on Tuesday.” Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji, how-
ever, tells me that, in the original, the consonant is certainly s; and the appearance of bh,
therefore, is due to an imperfection in the rubbing. The reading of the original, accord-
ingly, is to be taken as Saumê. But this is not a real word ; and it requires to be corrected
into either Sômê, “on Monday ;” Bhaumê, “on Tuesday ;” or Saumyê, “on Wednesday.”
It is unfortunate that we should have to make any correction at all, in a point of such
importance ; especially when so very free a choice is open. But it has to be done. And
the calculated results favour the supposition that the reading intended was Sômê,
“on Monday.” Dr. Bhagwanlal Indraji was of opinion that the intended reading
was Bhaumê, “on Tuesday ;” which, of course, might be supported by assuming
carelessness on the part of the engraver, in letting his tool slip in such a way as
to give the bh a more or less complete appearance of s. But, from the appearance of the
rubbing, the reading Sômê is equally justifiable, on the assumption that the partial appear-
ance of bh in the rubbing, instead of s, is due only to a fault in the rubbing, and that the
mistake in forming au instead of ô was discovered before the stroke which turns ô into au was
completed ; this would account for this stroke being so shallow as to cause the blur which
almost entirely conceals it in the rubbing. Adopting the reading or correction of Sômê, the
translation will be — “the year 927 of the famous (city of) Valabhî ; in (this) year ; (the
month) Phâlguna ; the bright fortnight ; the (solar) day 2 ; on Monday ; to-day ; here
in the famous (city of) Dêvapattana . . . . . . . . . . (this) image of the holy Gôvardhana
. . . . . . . . . . has been caused to be made.”
This gives us, for calculation, Valabhî-Saṁvat 927, current ; the month Phâlguna
(February-March) ; the bright fortnight ; the second solar day of the fortnight, and pre-
sumably the second tithi ; and Sômavâra, or Monday. And, on the analogy of the
Verâwal inscription of Valabhî-Saṁvat 945, the given tithi should belong to Valabhî-
Saṁvat 927 + 242 = Śaka-Saṁvat 1169 current (A.D. 1246-47) ; and the calculation
should be made with the basis of Śaka-Saṁvat 1168 expired.
m 24