Mandsaur Stone Inscription of the Time of Naravarman
Version: (3083d2d), last modified (c200993).
Edition
⟨1⟩ ⟨Fragment A⟩ (si)ddhaM sahasra-śirase tasm(ai) puruṣāy(ā)m(i)tātmane catus-samudra-paryyaṅka-toya-nidrālave namaḥ śrī¿r?-mmālava-gaṇāmnāte praśaste kr̥ta-sa(ṁ)jñite
⟨2⟩ (E)ka-ṣaṣṭy-adhike prāpte samā-śata-catuṣṭaye prāvr̥(ṭ)-kāle śubhe prāpte manas-tuṣṭi-kare nr̥ṇāM ma¿gh?e pravr̥tte śakkrasya kr̥ṣṇasyānumate tad(ā)
⟨3⟩ niṣpanna-vrīhi-yavasā kāśa-puṣpair alaṁkr̥tā bhābhir abhyadhikaṁ bhāti medinī sasya-mālinī dine ¿Āśvoja?-śuklasya paṁcamyām atha satkr̥te
⟨4⟩ Īdr̥k-kāla-vare ramye praśāsati vasundharāM prāk-puṇyopacayābhyāsāt saṁvarddhita-manorathe jayavarmma-narendrasya pautre devendra-vikkrame
⟨5⟩ kṣitīś(a)-si¿ṅ?havarmmaṇas si¿ṅ?ha-vikrānta-gāmini satputre śrī¿r?-mmahārāja-naravarmmaṇi pārtthive tat-pālana-guṇoddeśād dharmma-prāpty-arttha-vistaraḥ
⟨6⟩ pūrvva-janmāntarābhyāsād balād ākṣipta-mānasaḥ sva-yaśaḥ-puṇya-saṁbhāra-vivarddhita-kr̥todyamaḥ mr̥ga-tr̥ṣṇā-jala-svapna-vid(y)ud-d(ī)pa-śikhā-cala(M)
⟨7⟩ jīva-lokam imaṁ jñātvā śaraṇyaṁ śaraṇaṅ gataḥ tridaśodāra-phaladaṁ svargga-strī-cāru-pallavaM vimānāneka-viṭapaṁ toyadāṁbu-madhu-sravaM
⟨8⟩ (v)āsudevaṁ jagad-vāsam aprameyam ajaṁ vibhuM mitra-bhr̥tyārtta-satkarttā sva-kulasy¿a?tha candramāḥ yasya vittaṁ ca prāṇāś ca deva-brāhmaṇasā⟨d⟩ ga(tā)[ḥ]
⟨9⟩ mahā-kāruṇikaḥ satyo dharmmārjjita-mahādhanaḥ satputro varṇṇavr̥ddhes tu satpautro tha jayasya vai duhitur bbalaśūrāyā⟨ḥ⟩ satputro jayamit(r)a(y)ā
⟨10⟩ ⟨Fragment B⟩ gārggāyaṇa-sagotro vai jāti(ta)[ḥ] [⏓⏑–⏑⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓]
⟨11⟩ pure mahati vikhyāte paṁca-dvig[uṇa-saṁjñake?] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓]
⟨12⟩ nānā-vr̥kṣa-latā-gulma-saṁpra[yukta] [⏑–⏑⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓]
⟨13⟩ dhanyo (bha)vatu maṅgalyaḥ pu(tra)[-pautra-samanvitaḥ?] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓]
⟨14⟩ kr̥ṣṇenāddhy(u)ṣitas tāva(t) [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑––⏓] [⏓⏓⏓⏓⏑–⏑⏓]
Bibliography
Fragment A first reported in Bhandarkar 1913, pp. 58–59 and Bhandarkar 1913. Discussed in Bhandarkar 1913 and Shastri 1913. Edited in Shastri 1913–1914 (with rubbing made by Bhandarkar). Sircar in SI prints only the text of this fragment. Fragment B first reported by M. B. Garde in ARASI 1922–23, p. 187. Edited in Bhandarkar et al. 1981. Summarised in Trivedi & Trivedi 2001, pp. 28–29 (No. 17). Further discussion in Bhandarkar 1917, Bose [1942] 1937–1938, pp. 325–327.
Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (2019, № IN00017). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.
Secondary
Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna, Bahadur Chand Chhabra & Govind Swamirao Gai. 1981. Inscriptions of the early Gupta kings. Corpus inscriptionum indicarum 3, revised edition. New Delhi: Archaeological survey of India. Item 14.
Bhandarkar, Devadatta Ramakrishna. 1927–1936. A list of the inscriptions of northern India in Brahmi and its derivative scripts, from about 200 A. C.: Appendix to Epigraphia Indica and record of the Archaeological Survey of India, volumes XIX to XXIII. Calcutta: Archaeological Survey of India. [URL]. Item 3.
Sircar, Dines Chandra. 1965. Select inscriptions bearing on Indian history and civilization. Volume I: from the sixth century B.C. to the sixth century A.D. 2nd edition revised and enlarged. Calcutta: University of Calcutta. Book III, item 51.
Goyal, Śrīrām. 1993. गुप्तकालीन अभिलेख/Guptakālīna Abhilekha (Inscriptions of the Gupta Age). Jodhpur: Kusumanjali Prakashan. Items 341-342.
<?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_Schema.rng" type="application/xml" schematypens="http://purl.oclc.org/dsdl/schematron"?>
<?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"?>
<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xml:lang="eng">
<teiHeader>
<fileDesc>
<titleStmt>
<title>Mandsaur Stone Inscription of the Time of Naravarman</title>
<respStmt>
<resp key="creator"/>
<persName ref="part:daba">
<forename>Dániel</forename>
<surname>Balogh</surname>
</persName>
</respStmt>
<funder>European Research Council (ERC), grant agreement no 809994</funder>
</titleStmt>
<publicationStmt>
<authority><ref target="https://dharmalekha.info">DHARMA</ref></authority>
<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>
<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSSiddham00017.xml</idno>
<!--
If this file is moved into a named DHARMA corpus, retain the Siddham identifier as <altIdentifier>
-->
<availability><licence target="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA 4.0</licence></availability>
<date from="2019" to="2026">2019-2026</date>
</publicationStmt>
<sourceDesc>
<msDesc>
<msIdentifier>
<repository>DHARMAbase</repository>
<idno/>
</msIdentifier>
<msContents>
<summary/>
</msContents>
<physDesc>
<handDesc>
<p/>
</handDesc>
</physDesc>
</msDesc>
</sourceDesc>
</fileDesc>
<encodingDesc>
<p>Encoded in TEI/EpiDoc according to the <ref target="https://hal.science/halshs-02888186">DHARMA Encoding Guide for Documentary Editions, version 2</ref></p>
</encodingDesc>
<revisionDesc>
<change who="part:daba" when="2023-05-15" status="draft">Additional global changes for compatibility with DHARMA</change>
<change who="part:axja" when="2021-07-06" status="draft">Updating toward the encoding template v03</change>
<change who="part:daba" when="2020-08-04" status="draft">Initial import: harmonising file structure with DHARMA inscription template v02. Text and comments as inherited from the Siddham archive of January 2019, unless otherwise indicated (by a name and date in the comment). Comments are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly considered or researched opinion.</change>
</revisionDesc>
</teiHeader>
<text xml:space="preserve">
<body>
<div type="edition" xml:lang="san-Latn" rendition="class:83225 maturity:83211"><!--
This inscription is digitally edited by Dániel Balogh from photographs of the original stone (taken at Gwalior Museum in January 2017). Some alternative opinions are cited from Bhandarkar's text in CII3rev (Bh) and, for the first fragment only, to those of Shastri_1913-14 (S) and Sircar SI. Version of January 2019. Comments below are offered "as is" and do not represent a thoroughly researched or considered opinion.
--><p><lb n="1"/><milestone unit="fragment" n="A"/>
<unclear>si</unclear>ddhaM
</p>
<lg n="1" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">sahasra-śirase tasm<unclear>ai</unclear></l>
<l n="b">puruṣāy<unclear>ā</unclear>m<unclear>i</unclear>tātmane</l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">catus-samudra-paryyaṅka</l>
<l n="d">-toya-nidrālave namaḥ</l>
</lg>
<lg n="2" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">śrī<sic>r</sic>-mmālava-gaṇāmnāte</l>
<l n="b">praśaste kr̥ta-sa<unclear>ṁ</unclear>jñite</l>
<l n="c"><lb n="2"/><unclear>E</unclear>ka-ṣaṣṭy-adhike prāpte</l>
<l n="d">samā-śata-catuṣṭaye</l>
</lg>
<lg n="3" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">prāvr̥<unclear>ṭ</unclear>-kāle śubhe prāpte</l>
<l n="b">manas-tuṣṭi-kare nr̥ṇāM</l><!--
L2. S and Bh read prāvr̥kkāle and emend. I agree with Sircar (SI) that the character is correctly ṭkā, though not a very nice one. I would expect k to have larger arms that curve down; more likely is a slightly angular ṭ with a scratch at the bottom left that looks like an arm on the left side.
-->
<l n="c">ma<choice><sic>gh</sic><corr>h</corr></choice>e pravr̥tte śakkrasya</l>
<l n="d">kr̥ṣṇasyānumate tad<unclear>ā</unclear></l><!--
L2. Bh follows S in emending maghe to mahe and dismisses Sten Konow's meghe pranr̥tte, suggested (apparently as a reading, not as an emendation) in #Shastri_1913-14:320n5. Bh also discusses this Indra festival briefly in #Bhandarkar_1981:263. The reading maghe is absolutely clear in the stone. Since śakramaha seems to be a very common name of the festival, I adopt the emendation. However, makhe (of which maghe a dialectal variation like āśvoja) is also plausible, compare pravr̥tteṣu makheṣu ca in Harivaṁśa 62.54 (the same passage where the Indra festival and Kr̥ṣṇa are discussed, and which also includes a long description of the joy and fertility of nature at this time, including sasasyāyāṁ ca sīmāyāṁ in 62.53 and phalavatsu tr̥ṇeṣu ca| ikṣumatsu ca deśeṣu in 62.54).
--><!--
L2. The vowel mark of kr̥ is conspicuously different from those of kr̥ in lines 1, 3 and 6: those are a regular curly diagonal attached to the stem of k, while this one curves the other way. This unusual form was probably engraved because the preceding sya was perceived to be in the way.
--></lg>
<lg n="4" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="3"/>niṣpanna-vrīhi-yavasā</l>
<l n="b">kāśa-puṣpair alaṁkr̥tā</l>
<l n="c">bhābhir abhyadhikaṁ bhāti</l>
<l n="d">medinī sasya-mālinī</l><!--
L3. The e of medinī is a vertical pr̥ṣṭhamātrā extending beyond the baseline. Other e marks are regular śiromātrās.
--></lg>
<lg n="5" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">dine <sic>Āśvoja</sic>-śuklasya</l>
<l n="b">paṁcamyām atha satkr̥te</l>
<l n="c"><lb n="4"/>Īdr̥k-kāla-vare ramye</l>
<l n="d">praśāsati vasundharāM</l><!--
L4. Note the rare initial ī.
--></lg>
<lg n="6" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">prāk-puṇyopacayābhyāsāt</l>
<l n="b">saṁvarddhita-manorathe</l><!--
L4. yā (in puṇyopacayā) has a cursive bipartite y, and its right-hand stroke is merged with the downward segment of the following bh.
--><!--
L4. The right-hand component of the vowel mark of no is attached to the body, not to the headmark.
--><!--
L4. Is this form of th typically southern?
-->
<l n="c">jayavarmma-narendrasya</l>
<l n="d">pautre devendra-vikkrame</l>
</lg>
<lg n="7" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="5"/>kṣitīś<unclear>a</unclear>-si<sic>ṅ</sic>havarmmaṇas</l>
<l n="b">si<sic>ṅ</sic>ha-vikrānta-gāmini</l><!--
L5. V7a is unmetrical, not fitting either the pathyā or any vipulā pattern (would be a "ja-vipulā" if there is such a thing; it does, however, seem OK for an archaic anuṣṭubh). I believe this is not accidental, but a grammatical correction from an original siṁhavarmmasya that the poet would have had in mind.
--><!--
L5. Other editors read kṣitīśe. I think that would be redundant with pārtthive in the fourth quarter and the syntax is less messy this way. The character śa definitely has something at the top left, but it is not a full-fledged e mātrā (which should look like the left-hand component of śo in tridaśodāra, l. 7). Some, though not all, śa characters have a small headmark (see e.g. śakkrasya in l2), so here we may be dealing with a more pronounced headmark, or perhaps a different character was erroneously begun and then changed into śa.
-->
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">satputre śrī<sic>r</sic>-mmahārāja</l>
<l n="d">-naravarmmaṇi pārtthive<!--
L5. Bh prints satpure, but this is a typo, the reading is clearly satputre. S prints the correct reading. Note tr not doubled.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="8" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">tat-pālana-guṇoddeśād</l>
<l n="b">dharmma-prāpty-arttha-vistaraḥ<!--
L5. Bh prints dharma, but it's dharmma, correct in S.
--></l>
<l n="c"><lb n="6"/>pūrvva-janmāntarābhyāsād</l>
<l n="d">balād ākṣipta-mānasaḥ</l><!--
L6. As Sircar (SI) observes, mānasaṁḥ may have been initially engraved, with the anusvāra rubbed out. Or there is just shallow spot damage above saḥ.
--></lg>
<lg n="9" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a" enjamb="yes">sva-yaśaḥ-puṇya-saṁbhāra</l>
<l n="b">-vivarddhita-kr̥todyamaḥ</l><!--
L6. The ā in saṁbhāra has a full-length vertical component, not just a slight bend downward. Also note brevis in longo at end of odd pāda.
-->
<l n="c" enjamb="yes">mr̥ga-tr̥ṣṇā-jala-svapna</l>
<l n="d">-vid<unclear>y</unclear>ud-d<unclear>ī</unclear>pa-śikhā-cala<unclear>M</unclear></l><!--
L6. S and Bh read vidduddīpa, emending to vidyud. The intent was clearly vidyud, and the error is the engraver's, based on a smeared template. The ī of ddī extends far down on the left-hand side, almost as far as the subscript d of ddu. The template must have had dyu, with the subscript y extending far up, almost as far as the ī of ddī.
--><!--
L6. The final halanta M is unclear in the object as it is now exhibited, but seems to be inserted below (and barely to the right of) la. This is probably because the edge of the stone was near, not because it is a later insertion.
--></lg>
<lg n="10" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="7"/>jīva-lokam imaṁ jñātvā</l>
<l n="b">śaraṇyaṁ śaraṇaṅ gataḥ</l><!--
L7. Note the cursive form of lo where the curved stem of l bends down, right, then down again instead of attaching separate mātrās to the regular form. This seems to be generally a southern thing.
--><!--
L7. jñā is also unusually shaped. The ā mātrā (attached to the middle prong) curves back to touch the top right corner of j (this, without touching, also seems to be a southern characteristic), and the hook of ñ is a loop that crosses the stem to form the bottom right stroke, while the top left stroke is connected to the loop.
--><!--
L7. The śa of śaraṇa is also cursive: in other śa-s (including the one in śaraṇya) the middle bar is a separate horizontal stroke attached only to the right side of the body, whereas here it is a diagonal continuation from the bottom left.
--><!--
L7. ru is again cursive: the hook is changed into a loop that continues in the u mātrā (just like the bottom part of ñ earlier).
-->
<l n="c">tridaśodāra-phaladaṁ</l>
<l n="d">svargga-strī-cāru-pallavaM</l><!--
L7. The final m of pallavam is only very slightly smaller than regular characters and is not lowered, but has no headmark.
--><!--
L7. Sircar (SI) notes that the comparison of Vāsudeva to a tree with the gods as its fruit may be a reference to the Viśvarūpa concept.
--></lg>
<lg n="11" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">vimānāneka-viṭapaṁ</l>
<l n="b">toyadāṁbu-madhu-sravaM</l><!--
L7. S and Bh read srāvaM, emending to sravaM. The original stone is clear, there is no ā mātrā (nor does there seem to be one in Bh's rubbing).
-->
<l n="c"><lb n="8"/><unclear>v</unclear>āsudevaṁ jagad-vāsam</l>
<l n="d">aprameyam ajaṁ vibhuM</l><!--
L8. me again has a (more than) full-height pr̥ṣṭhamātrā.
--></lg>
<lg n="12" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">mitra-bhr̥tyārtta-satkarttā</l>
<l n="b">sva-kulasy<choice><sic>a</sic><corr>ā</corr></choice>tha candramāḥ</l>
<l n="c">yasya vittaṁ ca prāṇāś ca</l>
<l n="d">deva-brāhmaṇasā<supplied reason="omitted">d</supplied> ga<unclear>tā</unclear><supplied reason="lost"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->ḥ</supplied><!--
L8. Note muta cum liquida in ca prāṇāś; not a ma vipulā.
--><!--
L8. S emends to brāhmaṇasāt kr̥tāḥ. Bh rejects this. Bh's emendation seems more reasonable than S's, since ga is clear. Tā is indiscernible in the object as it is presently exhibited (being covered with cement and whitewash), but clear in the rubbing.
--></l>
</lg>
<lg n="13" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="9"/>mahā-kāruṇikaḥ satyo</l>
<l n="b">dharmmārjjita-mahādhanaḥ<!--
Much of line 9 (especially in the first column, v13ab) is smeared with cement in the present state of the inscription. The bottoms of some letters may be altogether lost. In the rubbing, everything except the bottom of subscript characters is clear.
--><!--
L9. S and Bh take Satya to be the donor's name. I wonder; satya is surrounded by other laudatory adjectives and the name should come somewhere in the subsequent lost portion.
--></l>
<l n="c">satputro varṇṇavr̥ddhes tu</l>
<l n="d">satpautro tha jayasya vai</l><!--
L9. Still single tr in satputro and pautro.
--></lg>
<lg n="14" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a">duhitur bbalaśūrāyā<supplied reason="omitted">ḥ</supplied></l>
<l n="b">satputro jayamit<unclear>r</unclear>a<unclear>y</unclear>ā<!--
L9. Du is very unusual as the u mātrā curves up on the right, not on the left; moreover, it extends all the way to the headline. A very similar form occurs in Maitraka inscriptions (Bühler, G.: "Valabhï Grants: No. XV. - A Grant of ˜ïlåditya I., dated samvat 290" . Indian Antiquary 9.1880: 237-239 (2 Plates).); right-curving u that does not reach the headline also occurs in Valkha inss. (Ramesh-Tiwari No. 27).
--><!--
L9. Bhandarkar prints °tur bala, but the b is clearly doubled in the rubbing (in the actual stone, the end is all but obscured by plaster). S's text is correct.
--><!--
SI restores a visarga at the end and emends to jayamitrāyāḥ, but this would render the pāda unmetrical. Bh translates "son through Jayamitrā," implying that he accepts the instrumental, but in that case duhitur would not agree with jayamitrayā. Emending to duhitrā would take care of that problem, but leave satputro in c redundant. I therefore believe jayamitrayā was intended as a genitive, either through inattention or (in case jayamitrayāḥ was originally inscribed), as a conscious alteration of the word for the sake of the metre.
--></l><!--
I am assuming that fragment B is the direct continuation of fragment A. The appearance of the fragments neither proves nor disproves this. The edges do not seem to join, but they are exhibited in a sloppy manner, covered with cement. Neither the bottom of fragment A, nor the top of fragment B seems to bear any fragments of descending or ascending glyph parts, nor are any clearly lost on either side. Alternatively, any number of lines may have been lost between the two fragments; if the number of lost lines is even, then fragment B starts with a verse beginning; if the number is odd, fragment B starts at the middle of a stanza. To my knowledge no rubbing of fragment B has been published.
-->
<l n="c"><lb n="10"/><milestone unit="fragment" n="B"/>
gārggāyaṇa-sagotro vai</l>
<l n="d">jāti<unclear>ta</unclear><supplied reason="lost">ḥ</supplied> <seg met="=-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="5" unit="character"/></seg></l><!--
L10. Bhandarkar prints jñātitaḥ, though he translates "and by caste" so he probably did read jāti, which is unambiguous in the stone.
--></lg>
<lg n="15" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="c"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="d"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
</lg>
<lg n="16" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="11"/>pure mahati vikhyāte</l>
<l n="b">paṁca-dvig<supplied reason="lost" cert="low">uṇa-saṁjñake</supplied><!--
L11. Note Bhandarkar's conjecture (already proposed by Garde in ARASI 1922-23:187), to mean daśapura.
--></l>
<l n="c"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="d"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
</lg>
<lg n="17" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="c" enjamb="yes"><lb n="12"/>nānā-vr̥kṣa-latā-gulma</l>
<l n="d">-saṁpra<supplied reason="lost">yukta</supplied> <seg met="-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="4" unit="character"/></seg></l>
</lg>
<lg n="18" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="c"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="d"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
</lg>
<lg n="19" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><lb n="13"/>dhanyo <unclear>bha</unclear>vatu maṅgalyaḥ</l>
<l n="b">pu<unclear>tra</unclear><supplied reason="lost" cert="low"><!-- CHECK if <unclear> applies better.-->-pautra-samanvitaḥ</supplied></l><!--
L13. Dha looks very different from dha-s in l9, which are oval, while this one is angular and has a headmark. The character that should be bha may have been meant for bha, but looks a lot more like va. Compare the bh-s in l3.
--><!--
L13. The restoration pautra-samanvitaḥ at the was originally suggested by Bhandarkar; I agree that it is very plausible.
-->
<l n="c"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="d"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
</lg>
<lg n="20" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="c"><lb n="14"/>kr̥ṣṇenāddhy<unclear>u</unclear>ṣitas tāva<unclear>t</unclear></l>
<l n="d"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l><!--
L14. Bhandarkar reads kruṣṇena°, emending to kr̥. The character is definitely kr̥, of the form that consists of a regular ka (the descender of which looks like an u mātrā), with a vowel mark curving from below the arms to the left and up. The same form occurs repeatedly in the first fragment (though the curving vowel mark is a bit larger and more ornate here, being at the beginning of a line). A different form is used in A2 in kr̥ṣṇasya, perhaps because the preceding sya left no room for the vowel mark to curl upward.
--><!--
L14. At the end, most of a regular t is visible, but there are only indistinct vestiges of the subscript character.
--></lg>
<lg n="21" met="anuṣṭubh">
<l n="a"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="b"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="c"><seg met="====-++="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
<l n="d"><seg met="====-+-="><gap reason="lost" quantity="8" unit="character"/></seg></l>
</lg><!--
L14. Any number of additional lines may be lost.
--></div>
<div type="apparatus">
<listApp>
<app loc="line">
<lem/>
<rdg source="bib:AuthorYear_01"/>
</app>
</listApp>
</div>
<div type="translation" source="bib:AuthorYear_01"><!--Indicate @resp or change @source when a translation is added -->
</div>
<div type="commentary">
</div>
<div type="bibliography">
<p>Fragment A first reported in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1913_04"/><citedRange>58-59</citedRange></bibl> and <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1913_02"/></bibl>. Discussed in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1913_03"/></bibl> and <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1913_01"/></bibl>. Edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Shastri1913-1914_01"/></bibl> (with rubbing made by Bhandarkar). Sircar in SI prints only the text of this fragment. Fragment B first reported by M. B. Garde in <bibl><ptr target="bib:ARASI1922-1923"/><citedRange>187</citedRange></bibl>. Edited in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/></bibl>. Summarised in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Trivedi+Trivedi2001_01"/><citedRange>28-29</citedRange></bibl> (No. 17). Further discussion in <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1917_01"/></bibl>, <bibl><ptr target="bib:Bose1937-1938_01"/><citedRange>325-327</citedRange></bibl>.</p>
<p>Originally encoded for Siddham in the project Beyond Boundaries (Grant Agreement No. 609823) by Dániel Balogh (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Balogh2019_03"/><citedRange unit="item">IN00017</citedRange></bibl>). Encoding updated to DHARMA conventions by Dániel Balogh.</p>
<listBibl type="primary">
<bibl n="siglum"><ptr target="bib:AuthorYear_01"/></bibl>
</listBibl>
<listBibl type="secondary">
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1981_01"/><citedRange unit="item">14</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Bhandarkar1927-1936_01"/><citedRange unit="item">3</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1965_02"/><citedRange unit="book">III</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">51</citedRange></bibl>
<bibl><ptr target="bib:Goyal1993_01"/><citedRange unit="item">341-342</citedRange></bibl>
</listBibl>
</div>
</body>
</text>
</TEI>