Pulivaṟṟu (spurious?) grant of Amma I

Seal

Plates

⟨4⟩ bhaga◯⟦(pādā?)⟧⟨⟨van-nā⟩⟩rāyaṇa- ⬦ bhagav¿ā?⟨a⟩n-nārāyaṇa- PS • The two characters after the hole have defintely been corrected. The second pre-correction character was probably dā, possibly pa, less likely something else. I believe that the superfluous ā on the first character is not a scribal mistake but a remnant of the pre-correction text.

⟨6⟩ alaṁ(ka)ri(ṣṇoḥ) ⬦ alaṁkāriṣ(ṇoḥ) PS • Although ka is damaged, it does not seem to have an ā. PS does not emend, so this is probably a typo in his edition.

⟨17⟩ -(a)nu⟨18⟩ja- ⬦ -anu⟨18⟩j¿a?⟨o⟩ PS • PS’s emendation is incorrect.

⟨18⟩ v{r}ikramāditya- • The first character may perhaps be vi inscribed as a correction over kra, rather than an erroneously inscribed vri.

⟨21⟩ paṭiṣṭho ⬦ pratiṣṭho PS • In spite of some noise, the reading is entirely clear and provides the solution to this problematic locus, found in two other grants that I am aware of, the Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. For some slight additional support in favour of this reading, compare mahāhava-raṁga-paṭutara-naipuṇya in line 8 of the Tāṇḍivāḍa grant of Vijayāditya II. — ⟨21⟩ bāḍha(m a)⟨tu⟩l(o) • There is much noise around and to the right of the character ma. There may have been correction here, or perhaps the missing tu was inserted inline, though it is not recognisable now. — ⟨21⟩ dhātrī-tale ⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨22⟩ ⟨kṣatriyair mitrābhaḥ parira⟩(kṣa)ti ⬦ dhātrī-tale ⟨kṣatriye mitrābhaḥ parira⟩⟨Page 3r⟩⟨22⟩kṣati PS • PS notes that he restores the omission from the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. I am confident of my own restoration and prefer to place it at the beginning of the next line. It is clear that a major eyeskip happened as the scribe moved to the next place and picked up at kṣa, but as it happens, at the next kṣa.

⟨22⟩ sa(mā)rddhaṁ ⬦ samārddhāṁ PS.

⟨23⟩ -mahāde(vyā)(ḥ?) ⬦ -mahādevyāṁ PS • The end of the line is entirely indiscernible in the published facsimile. Two faint dots at the edge may be a visarga or just spots near the rim, but all variants of this stanza that I am aware of have mahādevyāḥ here.

⟨25⟩ °ās¿t?⟨th⟩āne° ⬦ °ā-sthāne° PS. — ⟨25⟩ bhūdharā(N?) ⬦ bhūdharāṁ PS.

⟨26⟩ ¿A?⟨Ā⟩¿(s)?⟨ś⟩ānt(ā?)(n) ⬦ ¿A?⟨Ā⟩¿s?⟨śr⟩ānt¿a?⟨ā⟩n PS.

⟨27⟩ a¿s?⟨ś⟩ruta⟨ta⟩ra-(dvī?)(p)āntarānt(ā)vadhī⟨N⟩ ⬦ a¿s?⟨ś⟩ruta-ra-pāntarāntā vadhī PS • PS notes that he does not understand this quarter of the stanza, and simply ignores both the illegible character after ra and the fact that the metre requires one more syllable. I restore tentatively. The illegible character may be a consonant with ai, but I think a badly effaced dvī is also plausible (compare dvi in the next line) and would fit the context very well. The string asrutara, requiring one more syllable, is open to alternative restorations, perhaps involving āśrita or āsruta (though these would be somewhat redundant with prayātā in the next line).

⟨28⟩ -pate⟨r⟩ ⬦ -pate PS. — ⟨28⟩ bh(ī)tā⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ bhītā PS.

⟨30⟩ -dahanen⟦dr⟧a⟦ṁ⟧ ⬦ -dahanendraṁ PS • I am quite certain that dr has been deleted to obtain the correct text. I am not sure an anusvāra was present. — ⟨30⟩ nyak⟨k⟩urvvan ⬦ nyakkurvvan PS.

⟨33⟩ (kuṭuṁbinaḥ) ⬦ kuṭuṁbina⟨ḥ⟩ PS • This entire stretch is badly damaged, but I am quite certain a visarga is present.

⟨34⟩ indapa- • This passage is definitely a stanza in a metre of the āryā family, but the first hemistich is much longer than it ought to be. Splitting it at this point and assuming that the bit before was meant to be introductory prose, we obtain a correct 32-mora line. However, if this was also the composer’s idea, I would expect a more noticeable break at this point.

⟨37⟩ vr̥t⟨t⟩ā(yata)- ⬦ vr̥tāyata- PS • I find vr̥ta inappropriate to the context, while vr̥tta is often associated with āyata. With PS’s nr̥paḥ (see below), the hemistich has 30 morae as in the first half of an āryā, but the pattern of the sixth foot is not permissible. With my emendation, we obtain a correct 32-mora line as suggested for the previous stanza. — ⟨37⟩ ⟨nara⟩paḥ ⬦ ⟨nr̥⟩paḥ PS • See the previous note about the metre of the hemistich. Further support for my emendation may be found in the fact that this way, the omission can be explained by eyeskip. — ⟨37⟩ raṭṭiya • I am unable to propose an emendation that would result in correct metre in the second hemistich. Reading śatru-gaṇaḥ at the end (instead of śatruḥ) would bring the mora count up to 27, so I classify the stanza as a sugīti, but the pattern of the fifth foot is not permissible. Emending nr̥pati to nr̥patir would yield a cleaner caesura after the third foot, but break the metre further on. If PS is correct to read gaṇor (see the next entry), then the original composition may have involved guṇa-gaṇair jjitorjjita-śatruḥ, which is prone to eyeskip, but does not yield correct metre on its own. More than one locus probably needs emendation here, but I am not able to obtain correct metre in any way. Combining the above suggestions nr̥patir and guṇa-gaṇair jjitorjjita-śatruḥ yields a 29-mora hemistich with a correct pattern in every foot, but as far as I know, 29-mora hemistichs (i.e. ones with a monomoraic sixth foot and a tetramoraic eighth) are not actually attested anywhere.

⟨38⟩ gaṇ¿(e)?⟨ai⟩r ⬦ gaṇ¿o?⟨ai⟩r PS. — ⟨38⟩ go⟨39⟩Indakā◯(ṁ)beti • The metre is again problematic, but since there is a correct anuṣṭubh further on, I assume that the poet has switched to that metre and used another prose introduction before the switch. The present quarter is still hypermetrical, which may be remedied by emending to goIndāṁbeti or goIndaketi. PS appears to have thought along similar lines, but his solution to the hypermetry is that the sequence go I was treated by the composer as a single syllable for the sake of the metre.

⟨39⟩ putra [ca. 5×] • The lacuna does not seem to accommodate more than five characters, but six are needed to complete an anuṣṭubh quarter. Scribal omission or a metrical irregularity may have been involved here too. — ⟨39⟩ (pa?)(t)i-(vra?)ta- • PS prints this stretch as clear.

⟨41⟩ ¿s?⟨ś⟩ac¿i?⟨ī⟩ndrayo ¡bh¿ya?⟨ū⟩d! ⬦ ¿s?⟨ś⟩ac¿i?⟨ī⟩ndrayo⟨ḥ⟩ bhūd PS • I agree with PS that bhūd was intended here (though bhyad was clearly written), but I do not know if the weird grammar/sandhi involves a scribal mistake for *śacīndrayor bhūd (with bhūd standing for abhūd), or was meant to represent *śacīndrayo ’bhūd (with śacīndrayoḥ first losing the visarga and then participating in o-sandhi). — ⟨41⟩ -(lakṣm)¿(e)?⟨yo⟩(ḥ) PS • PS prints the text as clear, but it is far from being so in the published estampage. The second character is indeed almost certainly kṣm; nothing is visible of a vowel marker, so I accept PS’s word that its vowel is e. However, what is visible of the first does not look like la at all. I wonder if it could be rū, implying that the composer had the name Rukmiṇī in mind; otherwise, it looks most like ha.

⟨42⟩ -janābhip(ū)jya{ṁ}n • The expected form is -janābhipūjyas, but the presence of pre-nasalisation implies that this is not a scribal mistake, so I prefer not to make this emendation in the text.

⟨43⟩ dha(rmmā)nugatau • PS proposes emending to dharmmarājānugatau “for the sake of the metre”. The emendation would in fact break the metre (resulting in an invalid pattern in the fourth foot), though it would bring the total mora count of the hemistich to the same as that of the second hemistich. The stanza is in fact a completely correct lalitā with 30 morae in the first hemistich and 32 in the second, assuming that I am right in emending to sarvvāyudha at the end of the line (see below). — ⟨43⟩ sarvvā⟨yu⟩dha ⬦ sarvva-dha⟨rmma⟩ PS • The emendation suggested by PS sounds rather flat, and is also unmetrical (resulting in syncopation from the first to the second foot). I am pretty certain that the vowel of rvv is ā rather than a, in which case my proposal is quite straightforward and fits much better into a comparison to Nakula and Sahadeva.

⟨44⟩ -prav¿i?⟨ī⟩(ṇo) ⬦ -pravīṇo PS • The last character looks rather like ṇe, but was probably meant for ṇo and is quite possibly a correction from (no). — ⟨44⟩ n¿ī?⟨i⟩rjjita- ⬦ nirjjita- PS.

⟨45⟩ g(r)āmo • I accept PS’s testimony for the correct spelling grāmo, which he prints as clear. In the published estampage, there is no trace of a subscript r.

⟨46⟩ -par(i)hāra⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ -parihār¿a?⟨o⟩ PS.

⟨47⟩ p(ū)rv(v)a(ta)ḥ ⬦ pūrvvattaḥ PS • Probably a typo in PS. — ⟨47⟩ māva(lū?)(ru) • Here and below, PS prints all text as clear. My edition shows unclear readings where the published estampages and/or the context confirm his readings, and tentative unclear readings where I cannot confirm his reading from the facsimiles.

⟨50⟩ -(pāta)[ko bha]⟨51⟩vati| ⬦ -pāta[ka-yukto bha]⟨51⟩vati| PS • The broken-off corner is too small to have accommodated PS’s restoration, much less the customary pātaka-saṁyukto. The formula occurs with pātako in the Eḍeru plates of Amma I and the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II.

⟨54⟩ sun(dh)arā◯ṁ ⬦ sum¿d?⟨dh⟩arā⟨ṁ⟩ PS. — ⟨54⟩ (viṣ)¡(ṭ)!⟨ṭh⟩(āyā)ṁ ⬦ viṣṭāyāṁ PS • The estampage is quite illegible here; it is also possible that the original has ṣṭh.

⟨55⟩ (ka)(ṭṭa-rā?)(jaḥ) • I accept PS’s testimony for this unusual spelling. The sequence ṭṭarā is absolutely illegible in the published facsimile. — ⟨55⟩ j(āntā)cāryya • Again, I accept PS’s testimony. The spelling may perhaps be jontācāryya, as in multiple related grants.