Pulgoṭlapaṁbuluru grant of Vijayāditya III

⟨11⟩ -jaya⟨ḥ⟩ • Emendation is not essential, but supported by the Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III. — ⟨11⟩ rā⟨12⟩j¿a?⟨ā⟩ • Emendation is not essential, but supported by the Uṟuvuṭūru grant.

⟨12⟩ ni⟨13⟩tya⟨ṁ⟩ • Once again, emendation is not essential, but supported by the Uṟuvuṭūru grant.

⟨17⟩ di(nakara) • Or, less likely, divākara.

⟨20⟩ ¿A?⟨Ā⟩yatimā⟨n a⟩pi • I emend tentatively; see also my translation. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant has the same reading.

⟨21⟩ ah(i)-nā⟨mā⟩py • I emend even more tentatively than in line 20, and I am uncertain of the intended meaning. See also my translation. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant includes the same phrase, but the edge of the plate is broken off at the critical point. Still, it seems likely that only one character is lost there between ahi at the end of the extant line and pya° in the next, so my conjecture is not confirmed. — ⟨21⟩ -kul⟦ā⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩- • To the right of la, there is a vertical bar bracketed on each side by a dot. I interpret this to be an erroneously inscribed ā marker that has been deleted by adding the dots; compare the identical mark in line 48, the probable strikeout in line 25, and the probably identical correction mark in line 28. — ⟨21⟩ -mu(kha)-ca(kra)- • I am not entirely certain of this reading, but compare the similar-looking kha in line 34.

⟨23⟩ -¿v?⟨n⟩yak⟨k⟩r̥tā(ne?)ka- • The initial v is quite clear, so -vyākr̥tāneka- would be a smaller emendation. It is, however, less appropriate to the context, and -nyakkr̥tāneka- is corroborated by line 25 of the Uṟuvuṭūru grant. The character read as ne is damaged and may have been corrected; the preceding ā marker may also be involved in this correction.

⟨24⟩ -vikrama⟨ḥ⟩ • The text is interpretable without my emendation. It seems to me, however, that a gaṇacchandas line starts with kali-viṭṭara-. In addition to the more or less correct prosody of that passage (see also the next note), the birth of Vijayāditya III from Viṣṇuvardhana V and Śīla-mahādevī has just been related above. Repeating this information in prose would be very awkward, while a restatement is acceptable if the diction now changes to verse. However, if I am correct in assuming that the following part is verse, then it is a single hemistich, since from bhadra-ghaṭa onward we have a fairly correct and coherent gaṇacchandas stanza. On the other hand, I see no way to fit the text before kali-viṭṭara- to metre. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant has a clear visarga here and also switches to verse at this point, but the stanza that follows there is analogous to stanza 2 of the present text. — ⟨24⟩ ¡ś(ī)lama!-devy¿a?⟨ā⟩ś • This may be an alternative name of the queen mother, or a scribal error for śīla-mahādevyāś. If this passage is meant to be gaṇacchandas verse, then śīla-mahādevyāś ca samutpanno yields a 30-mora line with the sub-par pattern – ⏑ ⏑ in the seventh foot, while śīlama-devyās samutpanno (without ca) yields a fully correct 27-mora line.

⟨25⟩ k⟦ā⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩tham • The superfluous vowel marker has been struck through with a horizontal line or a series of dots. — ⟨25⟩ ¿dhanaya? • I would expect a plural substantive meaning something like "subjects" or "the poor" here, but other meanings may also work. With the uninterpretable received reading, the line is a mostly correct second hemistich of an āryā stanza, with metrical licence in the fourth foot where the ni of ajani must be scanned as short in spite of the following pr. If dhanaya is erroneous, then it should most probably be corrected so that it becomes five morae in length, three of them in the second foot and two in the third. This would yield a prosodically correct 30-mora line (such as the second hemistich of a gīti) without any metrical anomalies. The parallel stanza in the Uṟuvuṭūru grant reads jīvanti dhanā katham iti and continues differently than here. That text is also unintelligible as received, but emendation to jīvanty adhanāḥ katham iti or jīvanti janāḥ katham iti would render it metrically and semantically correct. Returning to the present locus, emendation nirdhanāḥ, or possibly to jātayaḥ or jantavaḥ, would make sense in the context and produce correct metre.

⟨27⟩ Ady¿a?⟨ā⟩pi … • My emendations are tentative throughout this hemistich, and my interpretation (see the translation) is rather forced. As emended, the text is metrically correct and relatively intelligible. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant does not provide a parallel for this stanza. — ⟨27⟩ (n)(i?)v¿a?⟨ā⟩si • The first consonant may perhaps be a misshapen b, but I see no way to derive meaning with that reading. A vowel mark may not be present, but I believe that a partially drawn i has been squeezed into the narrow space between the top of the consonant and the subscript part of styā above.

⟨28⟩ ¿pūr⟦ā⟧⟨⟨i⟩⟩(ta?) Ivārkkendu d(v)areniradya gehasya? • Aside from the occasional meaningful word, I am unable to interpret this stretch or restore it with any plausibility. Most of the characters are clear. I believe, but am not entirely certain, that an original rā has been cdorrected to ri by putting a dot on either side of the ā marker and adding the i marker (see the note to line 20). My dva may perhaps be ddha, but other instances of ddha have a much larger subscript component with a conspicuously notched bottom. The following ni may perhaps be a misshapen bhi. As received, it is also gravely unmetrical, but it was probably intended to be a gaṇacchandas passage. I also find the two occurrences of adya suspect and believe that the second may be a scribal error for asya. The hemistich may have said something to the effect that Vijayāditya’s residence seems to be filled with the light of the sun and the moon (in his insignia?), but until and unless a less corrupt parallel comes to the surface, I see no hope of reconstructing it. — ⟨28⟩ gaṁg¿a?⟨ā⟩- … • The first hemistich of this stanza scans correctly with 32 morae as shown here, or with 30 morae if sadā is shifted to the next hemistich. However, I see no way to fit the second half to a regular metre. Counting sadā in the second half, a 32-mora line can be obtained with minor emendations (ḍhakkā to ḍhakka, puri to purā, digantara to digantaraṁ), but this has a faulty caesura (ma|hāśabda, and moreover, the combination of 30+32-mora hemistichs (lalitā) is rare and not known in the Veṅgī corpus before the time of Bhīma II. I therefore think that the first line is likely to include sadā. This way, paḍa-ḍhakkā-pañca-mahā produce the correct first 3 feet, while digantaraṁ nirgamane (with an added anusvāra) make the correct last 3 feet of another 32-mora line, or ra°-nirgamane (without the supplied anusvāra) may be the last 3 feet of a 27-mora, but further emendations are needed in both cases in the central two feet. For a partial parallel, the Uṟuvuṭūru grant includes a garbled hemistich that seems to read yasya vijetuḫ purataḥ pañca-mahā-śabda-saṁhati-svānati purāḥ.

⟨29⟩ ¿pur(i)? • Given the partial parallel cited in the previous note, I believe that this is a corruption of a word meaning "preceded by" compounded to the previous words, and not a word meaning "town" connected to the following words. The intent was probably -purā (for the masculine nominative of -puras in sandhi), but being uncertain, I hesitate to emend in the text. — ⟨29⟩ -ni⟨r⟩ggam⟦e⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩ne • I think that the e marker was struck out with a horizontal stroke; it is also possible that ne was corrected to ma by converting the body to an m and striking out the e marker.

⟨30⟩ -cihna- • Two heavy syllables are required here. Emendation to -cihnaṁ would be prosodically correct, but I am unable to interpret the text that way, while I can with some difficulty make sense of the received reading. — ⟨30⟩ v¿a?⟨ā⟩r¿a?⟨ā⟩h¿ā?⟨a⟩- • While the term is always varāha-lāñchana, the metre requires vārāha here.

⟨31⟩ (p?)ū(j?)¿a?⟨e⟩◯(v?)a • The first character may perhaps be sū instead of pū. The second resembles tha, dha or ṭha, but I feel it is most likely to be a misshapen ja squeezed into the space between the descender of ndra and the binding hole. The third is probably va, but may also be a damaged na; it also resembles ta to some extent, but I believe that the apparent tail stroke responsible for this is not part of the engraving. — ⟨31⟩ Īdr̥g- … • I am fairly certain that the diction switches back to prose here. This passage still includes chunks that could be gaṇacchandas verse, but no complete hemistichs can be reconstructed. It is possible that an earlier verse composition has been paraphrased in prose here.

⟨32⟩ ¿ca(g?)a?- • The only meaningful reading I can come up with is vadha, but both of the inscribed characters require a stretch to obtain this reading, and I do not find it satisfactory in the context. Could tyāga have been intended?

⟨33⟩ para-nr̥p¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩kak¿a?⟨ā⟩ri- • Emended on the basis of correcture and a differently corrupt instance of this phrase in line 29 of the Uṟuvuṭūru grant.

⟨36⟩ -tatvebhyaḥ • The e may have been added subsequently, as it is attached to the bottom left of the t, which does not happen elsewhere in the text.

⟨38⟩ ṣa(ṭka)rm(m)a- • The character ṭka may be a correction from ka or ṣka.

⟨39⟩ r¡u!yū◯ru- • The intent was probably rāyūru as in the previous line.

⟨40⟩ (pi)ṣṭhaśarmmaṇe • The reading is piṣṭha° or biṣṭha°, but the intent may have been jeṣṭha°, as in the previous line. — ⟨40⟩ -du⟨41⟩{du}r¿a?⟨u⟩dva(ha)- • The intent may have been durdurudvaha, but that would break the metre in what I believe was meant to be another stanza.

⟨41⟩ -nivastra- • This word is used in the sense of -nirvastra-. I do not normalise because doing so would break the metre, and because the single v implies that the absence of r is not a scribal mistake. — ⟨41⟩ karppaṭena • This word is unmetrical, but "de-normalisation" to kapaṭena would a fully correct first hemistich of an āryā. — ⟨41⟩ ¡Ajñopavitrina!⟨yajñopavītinaḥ⟩ • This is a very strange spelling, but I do not think there is any doubt about the intended meaning. The visarga is required for the metre; otherwise, the received and the normalised form are prosodically equivalent. — ⟨41⟩ palasa- • The intended meaning is certainly palāśa, but normalisation would break the metre. With the received reading, we have a correct second āryā hemistich, except that the caesura expected at at pala|sa is not observed. Since the fourth foot is of the pattern ⏑ – ⏑, the line is a legitimate vipulā. — ⟨41⟩ -daṇḍa- • If I am correct in my interpretation of the next word (see below), then palasa-daṇḍa ought to be a separate bahuvrīhi qualifying the subjects, not compounded to the following. However, emending to daṇḍā would disrupt the prosody, so I consider this to be a case of lax compound management or use of a noun in its stem form. — ⟨41⟩ -¡ṇini(va)ttha!⟨42⟩nā • I believe this word is a vernacularised spelling of ninivartanā, which in turn is used in the sense of nirnivartanā. I do not know of any attestation of either of these words, but think that nirnivartana can be derived cleanly and mean the same as anivartana, which is attested.

⟨42⟩ ¡gavana!- • I do not understand this word; it may be the name of a particular flower, or perhaps a variant of the Sanskrit word gahana. —⟨42⟩¿triparivarantā-bal(l)aha-namubada?⟨Page 4v⟩⟨43⟩¿k(i?)sanāṁ? • The reading is quite clear except that lla may perhaps be just la, ha may perhaps be hā, da may perhaps be ḍa, and ki may perhaps be ko. I can only guess at the intended meaning. At the beginning of this segment, the name Tripura or Tripurī may be present, or the Sanskrit words tri, parivāra and anta. This is probably followed by ballaha, equivalent to Sanskrit vallabha, possibly followed by nāma, perhaps with a Telugu declensional ending, nāmaṁbu. At the end, dakṣiṇasyām or dakṣiṇa-diśāyām may have been meant.

⟨44⟩ sva-¿bhatra?⟨bhrātrā⟩ vijayāditya¡ḥ!⟨sya⟩ • My emendation and normalisation reflects what I believe to be the intended meaning, but the form in which the composer wished to express this may have been slightly different. A less likely possibility is that the brother was also called Vijayāditya. See also the note to the translation. — ⟨44⟩ -nāmā gr¿a?⟨ā⟩mo ⟨⟨da⟩⟩tta(ḥ) • The character corrected to da involved a subscript t and a curved outline on the bottom right; it may well have been tta. The deleted character below the (visarga) may have been another (ta), which was then reinscribed further to the right. The vowel markers in māgramo seem like afterthoughts, but there is no indication that the consonants have been corrected here.

⟨45⟩ davaśapaṟu • The intent may have been deveśapaṟu, but the headmarks, though extended somewhat to the left, do not bend down as they do in all clear instances of e, and do not differ from e.g. that on the preceding ta. — ⟨45⟩ gaṇalira(raṟu) • The last character may also beṟṟu, and the penultimate may have been meant for va with the upper outline of the body omitted.

⟨48⟩ k⟦ā⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩raṇīyā • The superfluous vowel marker is clearly deleted by the addition of a dot on either side; cf. the note to line 21.

⟨55⟩ °[r asya dharmmasya pāṇḍaraṅgo] • Supplied from the signature stanza of the Uṟuvuṭūru grant. An almost identical stanza in the Candavolu plates of Vijayāditya III describes Pāṇḍaraṅga as guṇākaraḥ instead of guṇādhikaḥ.

⟨56⟩ -bhūpāl¿o?⟨a⟩⟨-pāda⟩ • Corrected on the basis of the Candavolu plates. — ⟨56⟩ ś(r)ī (va)[ca. 9+] • The Kāṭlapaṟṟu grant of Vijayāditya III, also executed by Pāṇḍaraṅga (signed in prose), ends with śivam astu| śāntir astu||. The same phrase may have been misspelt here. More likely in my opinion, even though va is clearly not vi, is that this is the beginning of the name of Śrīvijayācārya, who inscribed two other known grants of Vijayāditya.