Nūtimaḍugu plates of Vikramāditya II

⟨4⟩ svānujam ājā(v u)⟨5⟩[ccā]ṭya • The reading is plausible, but compare line 12 of the Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I, which have svānujam {adam} uccāṭya.

⟨7⟩ catvāriṁśata⟨7⟩[–⏑⏓] • NLR only observes that the text from aṣṭottara is half an anuṣṭubh stanza. I prefer to assume that we are dealing with a full stanza here, though it is possible that the first hemistich has indeed been converted into prose. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I, which contains a practically identical genealogy, has corrupt prose here: tat-suto vijayādityaḥ catvāriṁśat samaḥ. Other grants of the dynasty describe the length of Vijayāditya II’s reign in anuṣṭubh (though not juxtaposed to the extant hemistich here) as catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ or catvāriṁśat samās samaḥ. There is no way to determine whether a reign of forty or forty-eight years was assigned here. The last character in line 7 may perhaps be T or tsa rather than ta.

⟨8⟩ [-samāṁ| tat-suto] NLR • The meaning of the lost text was certainly as restored by NLR, but the words may have been different. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I have samaḥ tan-nandano here. — ⟨8⟩ vi⟨Page 2v⟩⟨9⟩[kramādityasya] NLR • I assume that NLR could read the text he prints as clear and could estimate the number of lost characters with some precision, in which case his restoration is perfectly plausible. But if he was guessing where he admits no doubt, then the text could have run somewhat differently. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I read tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ putro bhīmaḥ. The phrase tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya may also be the beginning of an anuṣṭubh stanza.

⟨9⟩ (triṁśad v)arṣ{v}ā⟦(ṣa?)ṇa⟧⟨⟨ṇi|⟩⟩ ⬦ triṁśad varṣāṇi⟦ṇa⟧⟨⟨|⟩⟩ NLR • The scope of correction may be somewhat larger; possibly, triṁśataṁ vvarṣāṇi was first engraved, then taṁ was overwritten with dva and the subsequent characters corrected accordingly. I am quite certain that the following ta is also the result of correction, but cannot establish the pre-correction character. — ⟨9⟩ ⟨⟨ta⟩⟩t-(su)to vijayādi⟨10⟩[tyaḥ] • I feel quite certain that an anuṣṭubh stanza must have begun here, since we subsequently have a partly extant half-stanza followed by a different metre. NLR shows this passage as prose.

⟨10⟩ [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓] ⬦ [ṣaṇ māsā]N NLR • NLR shows this passage as prose. I am far from sure that a full quarter stanza could have fit in the lacuna here, but compare the previous note. — ⟨10⟩ (-bhūbhu)⟨11⟩[ji] [⏑–] ⬦ -bhū(bhu)⟨11⟩[⏑⏑–] NLR • At the end of line 10 I see nothing recognisable beyond bhū, but I assume that NLR’s bhu is based on vestiges. He does not make the restoration I suggest, but surely had the same in mind. Unless the vestigial bhu is quite clear in the original, bhūbhr̥ti is also possible.

⟨11⟩ prāptābhiṣekas NLR • I would expect this word to be in the accusative but must accept NLR’s reading because nothing is legible in the visuals available to me. — ⟨11⟩ [–⏑] (vaśāt) NLR • Perhaps restore kāla-vaśāt or daiva-vaśāt. — ⟨11⟩ (tasya) ⬦ [–⏑] NLR • I do not understand why NLR did not read this word, which is quite visible even in the ASI photo.

⟨12⟩ [–––](ra?)◯-[gataṁ] ⬦ [–––]ru-gataṁ NLR • Very tentatively, I suggest restoring kārāgāra-gataṁ. — ⟨12⟩ [sma] [–⏑]la◯[⏑][taṁ] ⬦ [⏑–⏑⏑⏑]taṁ NLR.

⟨13⟩ (dru?)ta(m ā?)yato ⟨’⟩pratimukha ⬦ drutam āyata-pratimukha NLR • I hesitantly accept NLR’s reading for the first part of this segment, because I have nothing better to offer. I see no vowel marker in dru, and the character may also be pra, since its bottom seems to be joined to the vertical stroke NLR reads as the tail of the following ta. The body of mā is partly obliterated but it is certainly wider than expected, with an extra stroke that looks like a greater-than sign between the body and the vowel marker. At the end of this segment, to seems quite certain, so an avagraha probably needs to be supplied after it.

⟨14⟩ [-rudhirā][⏑]- NLR • Perhaps restore -rudhirākta-?

⟨15⟩ [śrīmad-] NLR • If NLR’s reading is correct, then the poet availed of licence whereby the syllable preceding śr is scanned as short. — ⟨15⟩ a(va)hac (ch)ū° ⬦ avahac cū° NLR.

⟨16⟩ [viśālāvakāśam] … ⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨17⟩ … (saro)ruhā(sanaḥ||) NLR • This was probably a stanza in the original. NLR suggests that its metre may have been āryā, but if his reading is largely correct, then this is prosodically impossible. Given the lengths of adjacent lines (29 characters each in lines 14 and 15; 31 in line 18), the total length of the stanza would have been about 40 characters, with about 2 in the first lacuna and about 13 in the second. It may perhaps have been in viyoginī (42 characters total), but this too is only possible if NLR’s reading (which I am unable to improve) is substantially incorrect.

⟨18⟩ (a)(mbu?)dh(er?) ⬦ ambugair NLR. — ⟨18⟩ ya⟨19⟩[⏑⏑]-(va?)(ni)(tā?)- NLR • If NLR’s reading (which he shows as clear) is correct, perhaps restore yad-ari-vanitā.

⟨20⟩ labdha⟨21⟩-[⏑–] NLR • Perhaps restore labdha-jayo?

⟨21⟩ -(k?)r̥(t)ā(bh)ibhūta ⬦ -kr̥tābhibhūtī NLR • In the character NLR reads as kr̥, the vowel marker is not attached to the body as it is in l19 asakr̥d and as subscript r is attached two characters earlier in this line. Reading the partly obliterated body as k is still plausible, but v, bh or dh may also be possible. The end of this word may require emendation to ā. The ī printed in NLR’s edition is not present and not interpretable to me. After this word, it is tempting to restore lakṣmī, in compound or with a nominative ending. — ⟨21⟩ -(v)r̥¿rti?⟨ttir⟩ ⬦ -vr̥¿rtī?⟨ttī⟩ NLR.

⟨22⟩ -rucā(v a)pīm(au?) (jā?)t(au?) [⏑–](kā?)(ka)-guhā ⬦ -rucāv apīmau jātau [⏑––⏑] guhā NLR.

⟨24⟩ samagraṁ NLR • I do not know whether the hypometrical prosody is a misprint in NLR’s edition or an omission in the original. The intended text may have been ca samagraṁ, susamagraṁ, etc. — ⟨24⟩ […] mādityā […] NLR • NLR prints eight dots for the first lacuna and two for the second. It is not clear to me whether he intends the number of dots to represent the length of lacunae; elsewhere in the text, some of his lacunae seem to correspond to my estimates of lacuna length at two dots per akṣara, but elsewhere at one dot per akṣara.