The Kanjuruhan Charter (682 Śaka)

Editor: Arlo Griffiths.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSIDENKKanjuruhan.

Languages: Old Javanese, Sanskrit.

Repository: Nusantara Epigraphy (tfc-nusantara-epigraphy).

Version: 2024-09-25 10:32 (f7262b6), last modified 2023-05-15 17:26 (76fd1b6).

Edition

Logical
Physical
Full

⟨1⟩ || svasti śaka-varṣātīta 682

I. Anuṣṭubh

⟨2⟩ || Āsī¡t·!⟨n⟩ nara-pati¡ḥ!⟨r⟩ dhīmān

deva-siṁhaḥ pra⟨3⟩tāpavān·

yena gupt(ā) purī bhāti

pūtikeśva⟨4⟩ra-pāvitā

II. Anuṣṭubh

|| limv¡aḥ a!⟨o ’⟩pi tanaya¡ḥ!⟨s⟩ tasya

gajayān¡aḥ!⟨a⟩ ⟨5⟩ Iti smr̥taḥ

rarakṣa svar-ggate tāte

pura(ṁ) kāñjuruhan· mahat·

III. Anuṣṭubh

⟨6⟩ || limvasya duhitā jajñe

prada-putr(ā)sya bhūpateḥ

Utteja⟨7⟩n¡ā I!⟨e⟩ti mahiṣī

jananī yasya dhīmataḥ

IV. Vasantatilakā

|| Ānandanaḥ kalaśa⟨8⟩-je bhagavat¡i A!⟨y a⟩gastye

bhakt¡aḥ!⟨o⟩ dvijāti-hita-kr̥¡t·!⟨d⟩ gajayāna[–⏓]

⟨9⟩ pauraiḥ sa-nāyaka-gaṇaiḥ samakārayat· tat·

ramyam· maha⟨10⟩rṣi-bhavanam· valahājir (ī)ḍyaḥ

V. Vasantatilakā

|| pūrvvaiḥ kr̥tām· tu sura-dāru-mayī(m·) ⟨11⟩ samīkṣya

kīrtti-priyaḥ kalaśa-ja-pratimāṁ manasvī

Ājñā⟨12⟩pya śilpina¡m· A!⟨m a⟩ram· s¡aḥ c!⟨a c⟩a dīrgha-darśśī

kr̥ṣṇādbhutopala-ma⟨13⟩yīm· nr̥pati¡ḥ!⟨ś⟩ cakāra

VI. Sragdharā

|| rājñāgastyaḥ śakābde nayana-vasu⟨14⟩-rase mārggaśīrṣe ca māse

Ārdrarkṣe śukra-vāre pratipa⟨15⟩da-divase pakṣa-sandhau dhruve vā

r̥ttvigbhi¡ḥ!⟨r⟩ veda-vidbhi¡ḥ!⟨r⟩ yati-vara⟨16⟩-sahitaiḥ sthāpakādyaiḥ sa-pauraiḥ

karmma-jñaiḥ kumbha-lagne sudr̥ḍha⟨17⟩-mati-matā sthāpitaḥ kumbhayoniḥ

VII. Sragdharā

|| kṣetram· gāvaḥ supuṣṭāḥ mahiṣa⟨18⟩-gaṇa-yut¡āḥ d!⟨ā d⟩āsa-dāsī-purogāḥ

dattā rājñā maharṣi-pravara-caru-ha⟨19⟩vis-snāna-sammārjanādi-

-vyāpārārtham· dvijānām· bhavanam api vr̥hat· ⟨20⟩ danturam· c¡a A!⟨ā⟩dbhutam· ca

visrambhāy¡a A!⟨ā⟩tithīnām· yava-yavi⟨21⟩ka-śayyācchādanaiḥ suprayuktam·

VIII. Vasantatilakā

|| ye bāndhav¡āḥ n!⟨ā n⟩r̥pa-sutā¡ḥ!⟨ś⟩ ca ⟨22⟩ sa-mantri-mukhyāḥ

dattau nr̥pasya yadi te pratikūla-cittāḥ

nāsti⟨23⟩kya-doṣa-kuṭilāḥ narake pateyuḥ

n¡a A!⟨ā⟩mutra c¡a I!⟨e⟩ha ca gatim· ⟨24⟩ [para]māṁ labhante

I. Anuṣṭubh

⟨2⟩ || Āsī¡t·!⟨n⟩ nara-pati¡ḥ!⟨r⟩ dhīmān

deva-siṁhaḥ pra⟨3⟩tāpavān·

yena gupt(ā) purī bhāti

pūtikeśva⟨4⟩ra-pāvitā

II. Anuṣṭubh

|| limv¡aḥ a!⟨o ’⟩pi tanaya¡ḥ!⟨s⟩ tasya

gajayān¡aḥ!⟨a⟩ ⟨5⟩ Iti smr̥taḥ

rarakṣa svar-ggate tāte

pura(ṁ) kāñjuruhan· mahat·

III. Anuṣṭubh

⟨6⟩ || limvasya duhitā jajñe

prada-putr(ā)sya bhūpateḥ

Utteja⟨7⟩n¡ā I!⟨e⟩ti mahiṣī

jananī yasya dhīmataḥ

IV. Vasantatilakā

|| Ānandanaḥ kalaśa⟨8⟩-je bhagavat¡i A!⟨y a⟩gastye

bhakt¡aḥ!⟨o⟩ dvijāti-hita-kr̥¡t·!⟨d⟩ gajayāna[–⏓]

⟨9⟩ pauraiḥ sa-nāyaka-gaṇaiḥ samakārayat· tat·

ramyam· maha⟨10⟩rṣi-bhavanam· valahājir (ī)ḍyaḥ

V. Vasantatilakā

|| pūrvvaiḥ kr̥tām· tu sura-dāru-mayī(m·) ⟨11⟩ samīkṣya

kīrtti-priyaḥ kalaśa-ja-pratimāṁ manasvī

Ājñā⟨12⟩pya śilpina¡m· A!⟨m a⟩ram· s¡aḥ c!⟨a c⟩a dīrgha-darśśī

kr̥ṣṇādbhutopala-ma⟨13⟩yīm· nr̥pati¡ḥ!⟨ś⟩ cakāra

VI. Sragdharā

|| rājñāgastyaḥ śakābde nayana-vasu⟨14⟩-rase mārggaśīrṣe ca māse

Ārdrarkṣe śukra-vāre pratipa⟨15⟩da-divase pakṣa-sandhau dhruve vā

r̥ttvigbhi¡ḥ!⟨r⟩ veda-vidbhi¡ḥ!⟨r⟩ yati-vara⟨16⟩-sahitaiḥ sthāpakādyaiḥ sa-pauraiḥ

karmma-jñaiḥ kumbha-lagne sudr̥ḍha⟨17⟩-mati-matā sthāpitaḥ kumbhayoniḥ

VII. Sragdharā

|| kṣetram· gāvaḥ supuṣṭāḥ mahiṣa⟨18⟩-gaṇa-yut¡āḥ d!⟨ā d⟩āsa-dāsī-purogāḥ

dattā rājñā maharṣi-pravara-caru-ha⟨19⟩vis-snāna-sammārjanādi-

-vyāpārārtham· dvijānām· bhavanam api vr̥hat· ⟨20⟩ danturam· c¡a A!⟨ā⟩dbhutam· ca

visrambhāy¡a A!⟨ā⟩tithīnām· yava-yavi⟨21⟩ka-śayyācchādanaiḥ suprayuktam·

VIII. Vasantatilakā

|| ye bāndhav¡āḥ n!⟨ā n⟩r̥pa-sutā¡ḥ!⟨ś⟩ ca ⟨22⟩ sa-mantri-mukhyāḥ

dattau nr̥pasya yadi te pratikūla-cittāḥ

nāsti⟨23⟩kya-doṣa-kuṭilāḥ narake pateyuḥ

n¡a A!⟨ā⟩mutra c¡a I!⟨e⟩ha ca gatim· ⟨24⟩ [para]māṁ labhante

IX. Vasantatilakā

|| vaṁśyā¡āḥ n!⟨ā n⟩r̥pasya rucit¡āḥ y!⟨ā y⟩adi datti-vr̥ddhau

Āstikya⟨25⟩-śuddha-matayaḥ kr̥ta-vipra-pūjāḥ

dānādya-puṇya-yajanāddhyayanā⟨26⟩di-śīlāḥ

rakṣantu rājya¡m· A!⟨m a⟩[niśa]m· nr̥pati¡ḥ!⟨r⟩ yath¡ā E!⟨ai⟩vam·

Apparatus

⟨4⟩ limvaḥ C • Some predecessors have read this name as Liṣva, and this reading was hesitantly approved by Damais (1957, p. 640). But I believe that the context requires that we see in this name the Javanese word limva. See the translation below. Note that the name is recorded as Limva, not Liṣva, in Damais 1970, p. 734. — ⟨4⟩ gajayānaḥ ⬦ gajayāna C • The visarga is clearly visible after the curve of the stone.

⟨5⟩ pura(ṁ) C • One expects puram·, but for this there seems to be too little space. The stone is damaged here.

⟨6⟩ prada-putr(ā)sya C • The stone is damaged here, so the presence of ā cannot be verified.

⟨7⟩ jananī yasya ⬦ jananīyasya C.

⟨8⟩ gajayāna[–⏓] C • Damais 1955, p. 204, n. 5: “Nous nous étions demandé dans Ep. Aant., VIII : 2 5, ligne 1, si les deux syllabes non transcrites par De Casparis à la fin de la ligne 8 (elles ont disparu dans la brisure de la pierre) ne seraient pas rājā. Nous venons de vérifier le passage sur la stèle elle-même. Seule la partie gauche du premier des deux aksara manquants est encore visible avant la brisure et il nous paraît certain qu’il ne peut s’agir d’un rā.”

⟨10⟩ valahājir (ī)ḍyaḥ ⬦ v(a)lahājiri(dh)yaḥ C • De Casparis admitted his inability to interpret his reading. Damais 1952, p. 23, n. 3 proposed the alternative valahājiriḍyaḥ but says nothing about how he interprets this. Long and short i/ī are in many cases barely distinguishable in this inscription. Emend valahāśirīḍyaḥ (for expected valahāśīrīḍyaḥ) or valahājid īḍyaḥ? — ⟨10⟩ -mayī(m·) ⬦ -mayīṁ C.

⟨14⟩ Ārdrarkṣe ⬦ Ārdrarkṣye C • The correct reading was proposed by Damais (1952, p. 23, n. 3).

⟨16⟩ sa-pauraiḥ C • Based on inspection of the stone, and comparing this word to the graphic appearance of pauraiḥ at the beginning of line 9, Damais (1952, p. 23, n. 3) found De Casparis’ reading unacceptable and proposed sahoraiḥ as alternative.

⟨19⟩ -sammārjanādi C • Sarkar (1970, n. 30) argued unconvincingly for the reading samvarddhanādi of De Casparis’ predecessors. Both the traces of the akṣaras and the sense plead for De Casparis’ reading.

⟨20⟩ visrambhāya ⬦ viśrambhāya C.

⟨21⟩ -śayyā° ⬦ -cayyā° C • De Casparis’ reading is obviously a misprint (for in the transliteration system he used, ç corresponds to ś). The double yy presumably does not make position (śayā is needed for the meter).

⟨24⟩ vaṁśyāḥ ⬦ vaṁcyāḥ C • Again, De Casparis’ reading is an obvious misprint.

⟨26⟩ A[niśa]m· ⬦ A[tula]m· C • The alternative restoration adopted here was suggested to me by Dániel Balogh.

Translation by Arlo Griffiths

(1) Hail! The elapsed Śaka year 682.¹

I

There was a king, the wise and valorous Devasiṁha, protected by whom shines (or: shone) the city purified by Pūtikeśvara.²

II

His son, Limva (“Swing”), known as Gajayāna (“having an elephant’s gait”),³ also protected the great city of Kāñjuruhan, when his father had gone to heaven.

III

A daughter, giver of sons,⁴ was born to this Limva, the wise king, whose chief queen [and the daughter’s] mother was Uttejanā.⁵

IV

Delighting (because of this daughter’s birth), and devoted to the pot-born lord Agastya, the [king named] Gajayāna, praiseworthy defeater of the Vala-Slayer (Indra), benefactor of the twice-born (Brahmins), had the charming abode of the great sage built by citizens along with several foremen.

V

And that sensible king, fond of fame, who saw had longevity in view, but who had seen the cedar-wood image of the Pot-born (Agastya), made by the ancestors, carefully⁶ instructed a sculptor, and had an image of astonishing black stone prepared.

VI

In the Śaka year [denoted by] eyes-Vasus-flavors (682), in the month of Mārgaśīrṣa, on Friday, under the lunar mansion Ārdra, on the pratipad day, at the juncture of the fortnights,⁷ and (vā) in the Dhruva (conjunction), with Aquarius (kumbha) in the ascendant (lagna), the Pitcher-born (Agastya) was caused to be built by the king, of firm intellect, at the hands of priests, versed in the Vedas, together with the best of ascetics, and together with citizens among whom architects etc.⁸

VII

Land, well-fed cows, together with herds of buffaloes and preceded by male and female servants, were given by the king in order for the twice-born to execute caru (oblation of boiled rice), havis (oblation of melted butter), ablutions, anointments etc. for the best of great sages, as well as a great lodge, storeyed (?, dantura) and astonishing, for guests to rest, well furnished with beds ((i.e. mattresses)) made of barley straw and covers.

VIII

If (in the future) the relatives and sons of the king, together with their chief ministers, shall be of adverse mind in relation to this donation of the king, they shall, perverted by the sin of heterodoxy, fall into hell and neither in this world nor in the next do they attain the highest destination.

IX

In case the descendants of the king are inclined to the augmentation of the donation, may they, with their intellect purified by orthodoxy, having worshiped the twice-born and being accustomed to meritorious deeds like donations, and to worship, study, etc., always protect the whole kingdom in the same way as does the (present) king.

Commentary

A unique feature is the nearly consistent absence of sandhi, sometimes even against the meter, so that numerous normalizations are called for in editing this inscription. Exceptions where vowel sandhi is applied are prada-putrāsya (st. III, this reading is, however, somewhat uncertain) and rājñāgastyaḥ (st. VI).

Bibliography

This, the oldest dated inscription of East Java, is of great historical interest and has been edited several times. After the discovery of the main fragment, a posthumously published provisional transcription by J. L. A. Brandes (1913), and a more thorough study by F. D. K. Bosch (1916, with numerous corrections and additions in Bosch 1923), discovery of further fragments necessitated a revised edition by Bosch (1924). However, the most reliable, indeed virtually flawless, edition is that of J. G. de Casparis (1941). Thirty years later, H. B. Sarkar (1971–1972), and also in an article published separately, just one year earlier (1970) pretended to give a more reliable interpretation than that of his predecessors, but at least his decipherment is not more reliable at all.⁹ A photo of an excellent inked estampage, showing large parts of lines 10–21, was included as plate 1 in Brandes and Krom 1913; both of Bosch’ publications also photographic reproductions, but De Casparis (1941, p. 498, n. 7) has warned that they are often misleading. A useful photograph of the main fragment is available as OD 743. Moreover, the stone is accessible at the National Museum in Jakarta (stone D.113), where I was able to verify the published readings on 6 July 2011. Only variant readings from De Casparis’ edition are systematically noted in my apparatus, and I have also recorded all the philological observations made by L.-Ch. Damais (1952). I refer for the sake of convenience only to Sarkar’s 1970 publication, not to the one of 1971.

Primary

Brandes, Jan Laurens Andries and Nicolaas Johannes Krom. 1913. Oud-Javaansche Oorkonden: Nagelaten transcripties. Verhandelingen van het Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen 60 (parts 1 and 2). Batavia; 's-Hage: Albrecht; Nijhoff. [URL]. Item I, pages 1–2, plate 1.

Bosch, Frederik David Kan. 1916. “De Sanskrit-inscriptie op den steen van Dinaja (682 Saka).” TBG 57, pp. 410–444.

Bosch, Frederik David Kan. 1924. “Het Lingga-heiligdom van Dinaja.” TBG 64, pp. 227–286.

Poerbatjaraka, R. Ng. 1926. Agastya in den Archipel. Leiden: Brill. [URL]. Pages 51–55.

Chatterjee, Bijan Raj and Niranjan Prasad Chakravarti. 1933. India and Java, part II (Inscriptions). Second edition, revised and enlarged. Greater India Society Bulletin 5. Calcutta: [M.C. Das, Prabasi Press]. [URL]. Pages 35–40.

[C] de Casparis, Johannes Gijsbertus. 1941. “Nogmaals de Sanskrit-inscriptie op de steen van Dinojo.” TBG 81, pp. 499–513.

Sarkar, Himanshu Bhusan. 1970. “The stone of Kañjuruha (Dinaja) 682 Śaka.” In: R. C. Majumdar felicitation volume. Edited by Himansu Bhusan Sarkar. Calcutta: K. L. Mukhopadhyay, pp. 262–268.

Sarkar, Himansu Bhusan. 1971–1972. Corpus of the inscriptions of Java (Corpus inscriptionum Javanicarum), up to 928 A. D. 2 vols. Calcutta: K.L. Mukhopadhyay. Volume I, pages 25–33, item IV.

Secondary

Bosch, Frederik David Kan. 1923. “De Sanskrit-inscriptie op den steen van Dinaja (verbeteringen en aanvullingen op Tijdschrift Bat. Gen. Dl. LVII, 1915, p. 410 vlg.)” OV (Bijlage C), pp. 29–35.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1949. “Epigrafische aanteekeningen.” TBG 83, pp. 1–26. Pages 24–25.

Poerbatjaraka, R. Ng. 1952. Riwajat Indonesia, djilid I. Djakarta: Jajasan Pembangunan. Pages 61–65.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1952. “Études d’épigraphie indonésienne, III: Liste des principales inscriptions datées de l’Indonesie.” BEFEO 46 (1), pp. 1–105. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1952.5158. [URL]. Pages 22–23, part A, item 3.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1955. “Études d’épigraphie indonésienne, IV: Discussion de la date des inscriptions.” BEFEO 47, pp. 7–290. DOI: 10.3406/befeo.1955.5406. [URL]. Page 204.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1957. “Riwajat Indonesia, djilid I.” BEFEO 48 (2), pp. 607–649. [URL]. Pages 640–648.

Damais, Louis-Charles. 1970. Répertoire onomastique de l'épigraphie javanaise (jusqu'à Pu Siṇḍok Śrī Īśānawikrama Dharmmotuṅgadewa): Étude d'épigraphie indonésienne. Publications de l'École française d'Extrême-Orient 66. Paris: École française d'Extrême-Orient. Page 43, item 8.

Nakada, Kōzō. 1982. An inventory of the dated inscriptions in Java. Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 40. Tokyo: Toyo Bunko. Pages 72–73, part I, item 3.

Notes

1. The first line, not comprising any Sanskrit grammatical morphology, is in Old Javanese. Many inscriptions that are entirely in this language start with dating formulae of the same structure.
2. Note of Chatterjee; article by Stutterheim (?).
3. On the meaning of limva = limba in Old Javanese, see Zoetmulder and Robson 1982, p. 1029. It seems that the Sanskrit name glosses the indigenous one.
4. The compound pradaputrā is very unusual, for putrapradā is expected and would be metrically only slightly objectionable (yielding an iambic pattern that is avoided only in the most pure form of anuṣṭubh meter). The grammatical irregularity seems more drastic than would have been the slight metrical transgression, so meter cannot evidently be invoked to justify the form. Possibly it was intended as proper name (Pradaputrā) rather than as adjective. See also the discussion in de Casparis 1941, pp. 504–505, which does not sufficiently emphasize the irregularity of the compound.
5. The fact that they did not acknowledge the word division here (jananī yasya) explains why De Casparis and some other precedessors postulate a figure called Jananīya in translating this stanza.
6. Or take aram with cakāra, as does Chatterjee?
7. See note Damais who argues that this must have been the pratipad, i.e.\ first day of the waning fortnight.
8. See Damais 1952, p. 22, n. 2 on the interpretation of the calendrical parameters. Damais read sahoraiḥ instead of sapauraiḥ and interpreted hora as meaning “astrologer”, though admitting that this meaning “ne semble pas exister en sanskrit « classique »”.
9. Sarkar’s readings normalize the spelling and are unreliable especially in the matter of final consonants (notably ṁ/m).

Display Options Word Wrap Line Numbers Comments Processing Instructions

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>

<?xml-model href="https://raw.githubusercontent.com/erc-dharma/project-documentation/master/schema/latest/DHARMA_SQF.sch" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>

<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://relaxng.org/ns/structure/1.0"?>

<?xml-model href="https://epidoc.stoa.org/schema/latest/tei-epidoc.rng" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>

<title>The Kanjuruhan Charter (682 Śaka)</title>

<resp>EpiDoc Encoding</resp>

<surname>Griffiths</surname>

</persName>

</respStmt>

<resp>intellectual authorship of edition</resp>

<surname>Griffiths</surname>

</persName>

</respStmt>

</titleStmt>

<authority>DHARMA</authority>

<pubPlace>Jakarta</pubPlace>

<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSIDENKKanjuruhan</idno>

<p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported Licence. To view a copy of the licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ or send a letter to Creative Commons, 444 Castro Street, Suite 900, Mountain View, California, 94041, USA.</p>

</licence>

</availability>

</publicationStmt>

<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>

</msIdentifier>

</msContents>

<!-- If you need to identify individual hands (EGD §7.5/) in addition to one or more paragraphs of general palaeographic description, wrap <summary> around the <p> or <p>s above, and, outside <summary>, create <handNote> elements for each hand as follows:

-->

</handDesc>

</physDesc>

</msDesc>

</sourceDesc>

</fileDesc>

<p>The project DHARMA has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no 809994).</p>

</projectDesc>

<p>Public URIs with the prefix bib to point to a Zotero Group Library named ERC-DHARMA whose data are open to the public.</p>

</prefixDef>

<p>Internal URIs using the part prefix to point to person elements in the <ref>DHARMA_idListMembers_v01.xml</ref> file.</p>

</prefixDef>

</listPrefixDef>

</encodingDesc>

<change who="part:argr" when="2023-01-07" status="draft">first commit of draft encoding</change>

</revisionDesc>

</teiHeader>

<body>

<ab xml:lang="kaw-Latn"><lb n="1"/>|| svasti śaka-varṣātīta <num value="682">682</num></ab>

<l n="a"><lb n="2"/>|| Āsī<choice><orig>t·</orig><reg>n</reg></choice> nara-pati<choice><orig>ḥ</orig><reg>r</reg></choice> dhīmān</l>

<l n="b">deva-siṁhaḥ pra<lb n="3" break="no"/>tāpavān·</l>

<l n="c">yena gupt<unclear>ā</unclear> purī bhāti</l>

<l n="d">pūtikeśva<lb n="4" break="no"/>ra-pāvitā</l>

</lg>

<l n="a">|| limv<choice><orig>aḥ a</orig><reg>o '</reg></choice>pi tanaya<choice><orig>ḥ</orig><reg>s</reg></choice> tasya</l>

<l n="b">gajayān<choice><orig>aḥ</orig><reg>a</reg></choice> <lb n="5"/>Iti smr̥taḥ</l>

<l n="c">rarakṣa svar-ggate tāte</l>

<l n="d">pura<unclear>ṁ</unclear> kāñjuruhan· mahat·</l>

</lg>

<l n="a"><lb n="6"/>|| limvasya duhitā jajñe</l>

<l n="b">prada-putr<unclear>ā</unclear>sya bhūpateḥ</l>

<l n="c">Utteja<lb n="7" break="no"/>n<choice><orig>ā I</orig><reg>e</reg></choice>ti mahiṣī</l>

<l n="d">jananī yasya dhīmataḥ</l>

</lg>

<l n="a">|| Ānandanaḥ kalaśa<lb n="8" break="no"/>-je bhagavat<choice><orig>i A</orig><reg>y a</reg></choice>gastye</l>

<l n="b">bhakt<choice><orig>aḥ</orig><reg>o</reg></choice> dvijāti-hita-kr̥<choice><orig>t·</orig><reg>d</reg></choice> gajayāna<seg met="+="><gap reason="lost" quantity="2" unit="character"/></seg></l>

<l n="c"><lb n="9"/>pauraiḥ sa-nāyaka-gaṇaiḥ samakārayat· tat·</l>

<l n="d">ramyam· maha<lb n="10" break="no"/>rṣi-bhavanam· <seg>valahājir <unclear>ī</unclear>ḍyaḥ</seg></l>

</lg>

<l n="a">|| pūrvvaiḥ kr̥tām· tu sura-dāru-mayī<unclear>m·</unclear> <lb n="11"/>samīkṣya</l>

<l n="b">kīrtti-priyaḥ kalaśa-ja-pratimāṁ manasvī</l>

<l n="c">Ājñā<lb n="12" break="no"/>pya śilpina<choice><orig>m· A</orig><reg>m a</reg></choice>ram· s<choice><orig>aḥ c</orig><reg>a c</reg></choice>a dīrgha-darśśī</l>

<l n="d">kr̥ṣṇādbhutopala-ma<lb n="13" break="no"/>yīm· nr̥pati<choice><orig>ḥ</orig><reg>ś</reg></choice> cakāra</l>

</lg>

<l n="a">|| rājñāgastyaḥ śakābde nayana-vasu<lb n="14" break="no"/>-rase mārggaśīrṣe ca māse</l>

<l n="b">Ārdrarkṣe śukra-vāre pratipa<lb n="15" break="no"/>da-divase pakṣa-sandhau dhruve vā</l>

<l n="c">r̥ttvigbhi<choice><orig>ḥ</orig><reg>r</reg></choice> veda-vidbhi<choice><orig>ḥ</orig><reg>r</reg></choice> yati-vara<lb n="16" break="no"/>-sahitaiḥ sthāpakādyaiḥ sa-<seg rend="check">pauraiḥ</seg></l>

<l n="d">karmma-jñaiḥ kumbha-lagne sudr̥ḍha<lb n="17" break="no"/>-mati-matā sthāpitaḥ kumbhayoniḥ</l>

</lg>

<l n="a">|| kṣetram· gāvaḥ supuṣṭāḥ mahiṣa<lb n="18" break="no"/>-gaṇa-yut<choice><orig>āḥ d</orig><reg>ā d</reg></choice>āsa-dāsī-purogāḥ</l>

<l n="b" enjamb="yes">dattā rājñā maharṣi-pravara-caru-ha<lb n="19" break="no"/>vis-snāna-sammārjanādi</l>

<l n="c">-vyāpārārtham· dvijānām· bhavanam api vr̥hat· <lb n="20"/> danturam· c<choice><orig>a A</orig><reg>ā</reg></choice>dbhutam· ca</l>

<l n="d" real="++++-++||-----+++-++-+=">visrambhāy<choice><orig>a A</orig><reg>ā</reg></choice>tithīnām· yava-yavi<lb n="21" break="no"/>ka-śayyācchādanaiḥ suprayuktam·</l>

</lg>

<l n="a">|| ye bāndhav<choice><orig>āḥ n</orig><reg>ā n</reg></choice>r̥pa-sutā<choice><orig>ḥ</orig><reg>ś</reg></choice> ca <lb n="22"/>sa-mantri-mukhyāḥ</l>

<l n="b">dattau nr̥pasya yadi te pratikūla-cittāḥ</l>

<l n="c">nāsti<lb n="23" break="no"/>kya-doṣa-kuṭilāḥ narake pateyuḥ</l>

<l n="d">n<choice><orig>a A</orig><reg>ā</reg></choice>mutra c<choice><orig>a I</orig><reg>e</reg></choice>ha ca gatim· <lb n="24"/><supplied reason="lost">para</supplied>māṁ labhante</l>

</lg>

<!-- 14

vasantatilakā

+ + - + - - - + - - + - + =

––⏑–⏑⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏓

--> <l n="a">|| vaṁśyā<choice><orig>āḥ n</orig><reg>ā n</reg></choice>r̥pasya rucit<choice><orig>āḥ y</orig><reg>ā y</reg></choice>adi datti-vr̥ddhau</l>

<l n="b">Āstikya<lb n="25" break="no"/>-śuddha-matayaḥ kr̥ta-vipra-pūjāḥ</l>

<l n="c">dānādya-puṇya-yajanāddhyayanā<lb n="26" break="no"/>di-śīlāḥ</l>

<l n="d">rakṣantu rājya<choice><orig>m· A</orig><reg>m a</reg></choice><supplied reason="lost">niśa</supplied>m· nr̥pati<choice><orig>ḥ</orig><reg>r</reg></choice> yath<choice><orig>ā E</orig><reg>ai</reg></choice>vam·</l>

</lg>

</div>

<lem source="bib:Casparis1941_01">limvaḥ</lem>

<note>Some predecessors have read this name as Liṣva, and this reading was hesitantly approved by Damais (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Damais1957_02"/><citedRange>640</citedRange></bibl>). But I believe that the context requires that we see in this name the Javanese word <foreign>limva</foreign>. See the translation below. Note that the name is recorded as Limva, not Liṣva, in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Damais1970_01"/><citedRange>734</citedRange></bibl>.</note>

</app>

<lem>gajayānaḥ</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">gajayāna</rdg>

<note>The <foreign>visarga</foreign> is clearly visible after the curve of the stone.</note>

</app>

<note>One expects <foreign>puram·</foreign>, but for this there seems to be too little space. The stone is damaged here.</note></app>

<lem source="bib:Casparis1941_01">prada-putr<unclear>ā</unclear>sya</lem>

<note>The stone is damaged here, so the presence of <foreign>ā</foreign> cannot be verified.</note>

</app>

<lem>jananī yasya</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">jananīyasya</rdg>

</app>

<lem source="bib:Casparis1941_01">gajayāna<seg met="+="><gap reason="lost" quantity="2" unit="character"/></seg></lem>

<note><bibl><ptr target="bib:Damais1955_01"/><citedRange unit="page">204</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">5</citedRange></bibl>: <q>Nous nous étions demandé dans <hi rend="italic">Ep. Aant.</hi>, VIII : 2 5, ligne 1, si les deux syllabes non transcrites par De Casparis à la fin de la ligne 8 (elles ont disparu dans la brisure de la pierre) ne seraient pas <foreign>rājā</foreign>. Nous venons de vérifier le passage sur la stèle elle-même. Seule la partie gauche du premier des deux aksara manquants est encore visible avant la brisure et il nous paraît certain qu'il ne peut s'agir d'un <foreign>rā</foreign>.</q></note></app>

<lem>valahājir <unclear>ī</unclear>ḍyaḥ</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">v<unclear>a</unclear>lahājiri<unclear>dh</unclear>yaḥ</rdg>

<note>De Casparis admitted his inability to interpret his reading. <bibl><ptr target="bib:Damais1952_01"/><citedRange unit="page">23</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">3</citedRange></bibl>

proposed the alternative <foreign>valahājiriḍyaḥ</foreign> but says nothing about how he interprets this. Long and short <foreign>i/ī</foreign> are in many cases barely distinguishable in this inscription. Emend <foreign>valahāśirīḍyaḥ</foreign> (for expected <foreign>valahāśīrīḍyaḥ</foreign>) or <foreign>valahājid īḍyaḥ</foreign>?</note></app>

<!-- <app loc="10">

<lem>pūrvvaiḥ</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">pūrvaiḥ</rdg>

</app> -->

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">-mayīṁ</rdg>

</app>

<lem>Ārdrarkṣe</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">Ārdrarkṣye</rdg>

<note>The correct reading was proposed by Damais (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Damais1952_01"/><citedRange unit="page">23</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">3</citedRange></bibl>).</note>

</app>

<!-- <app loc="14">

<lem>pratipa<lb n="15" break="no"/>da-divase</lem>

<note>for <foreign>pratipaddivase</foreign> (<foreign>metri causa</foreign>) according to Sarkar’s n. 24a. But is a thematic stem <foreign>pratipada</foreign> in any way substandard?</note>

</app>

-->

<lem source="bib:Casparis1941_01">sa-<seg rend="check">pauraiḥ</seg></lem>

<note>Based on inspection of the stone, and comparing this word to the graphic appearance of <foreign>pauraiḥ</foreign> at the beginning of line 9, Damais (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Damais1952_01"/><citedRange unit="page">23</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">3</citedRange></bibl>) found De Casparis' reading unacceptable and proposed <foreign>sahoraiḥ</foreign> as alternative.</note>

</app>

<lem source="bib:Casparis1941_01">-sammārjanādi</lem>

<note>Sarkar (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Sarkar1970_03"/><citedRange unit="note">30</citedRange></bibl>) argued unconvincingly for the reading <foreign>samvarddhanādi</foreign> of De Casparis’ predecessors. Both the traces of the <foreign>akṣara</foreign>s and the sense plead for De Casparis’ reading.</note>

</app>

<lem>visrambhāya</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">viśrambhāya</rdg>

</app>

<lem>-śayyā°</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">-cayyā°</rdg>

<note>De Casparis’ reading is obviously a misprint (for in the transliteration system he used, <foreign>ç</foreign> corresponds to <foreign>ś</foreign>). The double <foreign>yy</foreign> presumably does not make position (<foreign>śayā</foreign> is needed for the meter).</note></app>

<lem>vaṁśyāḥ</lem>

<rdg source="bib:Casparis1941_01">vaṁcyāḥ</rdg>

<note>Again, De Casparis’ reading is an obvious misprint.</note>

</app>

<note>The alternative restoration adopted here was suggested to me by Dániel Balogh.</note>

</app>

</listApp>

</div>

<p n="1">Hail! The elapsed Śaka year 682.<note>The first line, not comprising any Sanskrit grammatical morphology, is in Old Javanese. Many inscriptions that are entirely in this language start with dating formulae of the same structure.</note></p>

<p rend="stanza" n="1">There was a king, the wise and valorous Devasiṁha, protected by whom shines <supplied reason="explanation">or: shone</supplied> the city purified by Pūtikeśvara.<note><seg rend="check">Note of Chatterjee; article by Stutterheim (?).</seg></note></p>

<p rend="stanza" n="2">His son, Limva <supplied reason="explanation"><q>Swing</q></supplied>, known as Gajayāna <supplied reason="explanation"><q>having an elephant's gait</q></supplied>,<note>On the meaning of <foreign>limva</foreign> = <foreign>limba</foreign> in Old Javanese, see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Zoetmulder1982_01"/><citedRange unit="page">1029</citedRange></bibl>. It seems that the Sanskrit name glosses the indigenous one.</note> also protected the great city of Kāñjuruhan, when his father had gone to heaven.</p>

<p rend="stanza" n="3">A daughter, giver of sons,<note>The compound <foreign>pradaputrā</foreign> is very unusual, for <foreign>putrapradā</foreign> is expected and would be metrically only slightly objectionable (yielding an iambic pattern that is avoided only in the most pure form of <foreign>anuṣṭubh</foreign> meter). The grammatical irregularity seems more drastic than would have been the slight metrical transgression, so meter cannot evidently be invoked to justify the form. Possibly it was intended as proper name (Pradaputrā) rather than as adjective. See also the discussion in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Casparis1941_01"/><citedRange>504-505</citedRange></bibl>, which does not sufficiently emphasize the irregularity of the compound.</note> was born to this Limva, the wise king, whose chief queen <supplied reason="subaudible">and the daughter's</supplied> mother was Uttejanā.<note>The fact that they did not acknowledge the word division here (<foreign>jananī yasya</foreign>) explains why De Casparis and some other precedessors postulate a figure called Jananīya in translating this stanza.</note></p>

<p rend="stanza" n="4">Delighting <supplied reason="explanation">because of this daughter's birth</supplied>, and devoted to the pot-born lord Agastya, the <supplied reason="subaudible">king named</supplied> Gajayāna, <seg rend="check">praiseworthy defeater of the Vala-Slayer <supplied reason="explanation">Indra</supplied></seg>, benefactor of the twice-born <supplied reason="explanation">Brahmins</supplied>, had the charming abode of the great sage built by citizens along with several foremen.</p>

<p rend="stanza" n="5">And that sensible king, fond of fame, who saw had longevity in view, but who had seen the cedar-wood image of the Pot-born <supplied reason="explanation">Agastya</supplied>, made by the ancestors, carefully<note><seg rend="check">Or take <foreign>aram</foreign> with <foreign>cakāra</foreign>, as does Chatterjee?</seg></note> instructed a sculptor, and had an image of astonishing black stone prepared.</p>

<p rend="stanza" n="6">In the Śaka year <supplied reason="subaudible">denoted by</supplied> eyes-Vasus-flavors <supplied reason="explanation">682</supplied>, in the month of Mārgaśīrṣa, on Friday, under the lunar mansion Ārdra, on the <foreign>pratipad</foreign> day, at the juncture of the fortnights,<note>See note Damais who argues that this must have been the <foreign>pratipad</foreign>, i.e.\ first day of the waning fortnight.</note> and <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>vā</foreign></supplied> in the Dhruva <supplied reason="explanation">conjunction</supplied>, with Aquarius <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>kumbha</foreign></supplied> in the ascendant <supplied reason="explanation"><foreign>lagna</foreign></supplied>, the Pitcher-born <supplied reason="explanation">Agastya</supplied> was caused to be built by the king, of firm intellect, at the hands of priests, versed in the Vedas, together with the best of ascetics, and together with citizens among whom architects etc.<note>See <bibl><ptr target="bib:Damais1952_01"/><citedRange unit="page">22</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">2</citedRange></bibl> on the interpretation of the calendrical parameters. Damais read <foreign>sahoraiḥ</foreign> instead of <foreign>sapauraiḥ</foreign> and interpreted <foreign>hora</foreign> as meaning <q>astrologer</q>, though admitting that this meaning <q>ne semble pas exister en sanskrit « classique »</q>.</note></p>

<p rend="stanza" n="7">Land, well-fed cows, together with herds of buffaloes and preceded by male and female servants, were given by the king in order for the twice-born to execute <foreign>caru</foreign> <supplied reason="explanation">oblation of boiled rice</supplied>, <foreign>havis</foreign> <supplied reason="explanation">oblation of melted butter</supplied>, ablutions, anointments etc. for the best of great sages, as well as a great lodge, storeyed <supplied reason="explanation">?, <foreign>dantura</foreign></supplied> and astonishing, for guests to rest, well furnished with beds <supplied reason="explanation">(i.e. mattresses)</supplied> <seg rend="check">made of barley straw</seg> and covers.</p>

<p rend="stanza" n="8">If <supplied reason="explanation">in the future</supplied> the relatives and sons of the king, together with their chief ministers, shall be of adverse mind in relation to this donation of the king, they shall, perverted by the sin of heterodoxy, fall into hell and neither in this world nor in the next do they attain the highest destination.</p>

<p rend="stanza" n="9">In case the descendants of the king are inclined to the augmentation of the donation, may they, with their intellect purified by orthodoxy, having worshiped the twice-born and being accustomed to meritorious deeds like donations, and to worship, study, etc., always protect the whole kingdom in the same way as does the <supplied reason="explanation">present</supplied> king.</p>

</div>

<p>A unique feature is the nearly consistent absence of sandhi, sometimes even against the meter, so that numerous normalizations are called for in editing this inscription. Exceptions where vowel sandhi is applied are <foreign>prada-putrāsya</foreign> (st. III, this reading is, however, somewhat uncertain) and <foreign>rājñāgastyaḥ</foreign> (st. VI).</p>

</div>

<p>This, the oldest dated inscription of East Java, is of great historical interest and has been edited several times. After the discovery of the main fragment, a posthumously published provisional transcription by J. L. A. Brandes (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Brandes1913_01"/></bibl>), and a more thorough study by F. D. K. Bosch (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Bosch1916_01"/></bibl>, with numerous corrections and additions in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bosch1923_02"/></bibl>), discovery of further fragments necessitated a revised edition by Bosch (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Bosch1924_02"/></bibl>). However, the most reliable, indeed virtually flawless, edition is that of J. G. de Casparis (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Casparis1941_01"/></bibl>). Thirty years later, H. B. Sarkar (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Sarkar1971-1972_01"/></bibl>), and also in an article published separately, just one year earlier (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Sarkar1970_03"/></bibl>) pretended to give a more reliable interpretation than that of his predecessors, but at least his decipherment is not more reliable at all.<note>Sarkar’s readings normalize the spelling and are unreliable especially in the matter of final consonants (notably <foreign>ṁ/m</foreign>).</note> A photo of an excellent inked estampage, showing large parts of lines 10–21, was included as plate 1 in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Brandes1913_01"/></bibl>; both of Bosch' publications also photographic reproductions, but De Casparis (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Casparis1941_01"/><citedRange unit="page">498</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">7</citedRange></bibl>) has warned that they are often misleading. A useful photograph of the main fragment is available as OD 743. Moreover, the stone is accessible at the National Museum in Jakarta (stone D.113), where I was able to verify the published readings on 6 July 2011. Only variant readings from De Casparis' edition are systematically noted in my apparatus, and I have also recorded all the philological observations made by L.-Ch. Damais (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Damais1952_01"/></bibl>). I refer for the sake of convenience only to Sarkar's 1970 publication, not to the one of 1971.</p>

</listBibl>

</listBibl>

</div>

</body>

</text>

<!--

%1 Rd. ^fgrR—fĩîr̥ af"*. Bosch is doubtful about the reading 4 tf HW. Metre requries a long syllable in Ç. I would prefer to read –qCT§Ttt–.

%2 Bosch reads ^fèfèïïT^. 3Bosch reads *pM| and corrects it as STf hut the reading sofCfT is certain.

%4 In this verse rd. suig^T ^ S ^ r a ‚ – g ^ ^ r ^ ^ I > " ^ ~ T and

%5 Perhaps we have to read q*f çīift*H or çWrHI^ The second sylable in ?rfef should be short,

%6 Rd. 5ī5uf^

%7 In verse 9 read tf*íT?*f%aT, ^mf^<ī–, rf^T and TO^ïïfèrö ^ f & r e ^ . Bosch wrongly reads ^fèren for cf%íCT.

%1 This verse may also be translated thus: Limva had á daughter born unto him; the mother of the wise (king i. e. Limva) was Uttejana, the chief queen of the king (i. e. Devasimha), the son of Prada. But the difficulty of this explanation is, 'that the inscription opens with the Devasiṁha and not with Prada, which according to this interpretation' would be the name of the father of Devasimha.

%2 Bosch connects bhaktaḥ with Agastye and translates as 'devoted to Agastya.’ . But it appears that the word at the begining of the verse, the reading of which is not certain, is to be connected with the locative in the first pāda. moreover Bosch reads maunaih and thinks that it has been used by the poet for munibḥiḥ o r maunibhih. But the reading is maulaiḥ. Maula is used in the sense of hereditary servants or ministers of the king ( ^I^HIH ^ T ^ ) . Nâyaka I have taken in the sense of Senāpati. I can not explain the wood Balahajiri, It may be a Javanese word and I do not know i f it has any connection with Balayin, which i s the Javanese name for Agastya.

%3 Bosch i s not certain of the reading of talagata which he has taken in the sense of 'crumbling.’ Thus according to him the King had the image of stone made when he found that the wooden image was crumbling to pieces. But the root tal is found in the sense of 'foundation' o r establishment of some sacred object Again, Bosch takes araṁ in the sense of 'forthwith/ I have preferred to connect it with eakïïra. Aramkr i s used i n S a n s k r i t i n the sense of 'to prepare.'

-->

</TEI>