Nandapur Plate of 169 GE

⟨1⟩ adhikaraṇaM ⬦ adhikaraṇ¿ā?⟨a⟩M M S • Reading ṇā here would imply that the akṣara has a different shape from all other cases of ṇā in this inscription, which show a clockwise stroke at the bottom to make the ā (e.g. in line 9 pratikarāṇāṁ). By contrast, we can avoid the need to make any emendation by simply reading the expected ṇa, which does not seem problematic if we compare the forms of ṇa and M observed, e.g., in line 8 avadhāraṇayā, line 4 atisraṣṭuM, line 13 dattaM. — ⟨1⟩ saṁvyavahā⟨2⟩ryy- ⬦ saṁvyavahā⟨2⟩ry- M S.

⟨2⟩ bodhayanti likhanti S ⬦ bodhaya¿nti?⟨ti⟩ likha¿nti?⟨ti⟩ M • Majumdar proposes to emend to bodhayati likhati, but he has not understood that adhikaraṇam is the subject of the sentence; the editorial note 1 on p. 55 of Majumdar’s article provides a manner to escape from the necessity of emendation, but likewise misunderstands adhikaraṇam as object. Sircar refrains from making the emendation in the text, although he proposes it in a note (p. 382 n. 2), where he correctly explains the situation as follows: “Plural number was used through confusion apparently because the adhikaraṇa or board of administration consisted of several members: cf. vijñāpayati naḥ below.”

⟨3⟩ -brāhmaṇa- ⬦ -brāhmaṇā- M S • The akṣara that was read ṇā by Majumdar and Sircar but is read ṇa here has the same shape as the one read thus in adhikaraṇaM in line 1. See the apparatus entry thereon.

⟨4⟩ kkrītvāti° ⬦ krītvāti° M S.

⟨6⟩ -nīvyā{ḥ} ⬦ -nīvyāḥ M; -nīvyā S • Sircar’s reading is a silent emendation. Removing the visarga is justified by the fact that we find akṣaya-nīvyā in parallel passages in the Baigram plate, l. 5, and the Paharpur plate, l. 9.

⟨10⟩ -vi(dho)pratikara- ⬦ -vidhotpratikara- M S • We find -vidhāpratikara- in the parallel passage in the Baigram plate, l. 12. With reference to a term udbalika (Sircar 1966, p. 348), Sircar argues (1965, p. 383, n. 3) that -vidha-utpratikara- is acceptable because the otherwise unattested word utpratikara could mean the same same as apratikara and akiñcitpratikara. Although the very unclear akṣara dho could equally well be read as dhā to take us one step closer to -vidhāpratikara-, we would still be stuck with an intrusive t to be removed by emendation, and so I accept Sircar’s explanation. Even if utpratikara is otherwise unattested, ut as a negative prefix is relatively well attested (e.g., utkaca, uddāma).

⟨12⟩ gopāli-bhogāyā⟨ḥ⟩ S ⬦ gopāli-bhogāyā M.

⟨15⟩ -s(ī)mānaṁ ⬦ -saṁmānaṁ M; -paṁmānaṁ S • Sircar’s reading must be a printing error.

⟨19⟩ 7 M ⬦ 8 S • Majumdar’s edition as printed contains the reading 7, which is corrected to 8 in the Additions and Corrections to this article in EI. Obviously Sircar failed to take notice of that correction when he copied Majumdar’s text for his own edition.