Grant of the paḍuvāraṁbu to three villages by Kalimuḍirāju

Editor: Jens Thomas.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSTelugu00018.

Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.

Repository: Telugu Inscriptions (tfb-telugu-epigraphy).

Version: (585a60b), last modified (d5dcd05).

Edition

⟨Face A⟩ ⟨1⟩ svasti śrimaT sakalalōkāśrayajayasiṁgha⟨2⟩vallabhamahārājulākuN pravarddhamānavijayarā⟨3⟩jyasaṁvatsaraṁbuḶ Eṇuṁbodi Ann-ēṇṭi Armmapūṇṇa⟨4⟩ma nāṇḍuṁ mlāviṁḍirājula muṭḷu kalimuḍirājuL ⟨5⟩ mlāviṁḍi samudrarakṣanāku baṇi sēsina kalvavī⟨6⟩ḻa kuṟla maddikāḍu mūṭiki vitpaṟti uttaraṁbuna pulo⟨7⟩ṁbuna ceṟuvu paḍumāṟi kō{r}ṭa Eṇuṁbodi puṭḷu Ā⟨8⟩ṟla paṭṭu sēnu tūrppuna kōṭi tā(ḻu)tōṁṭaḷāyu paḍuvā⟨9⟩raṁbu icciri pāṟa paḍuvāraṁbu mlāvi(ṁ)ḍīśvaraṁbuna kaḷā⟨10⟩kaṇḍugum icci kuḍucuvāru yiṟla kānu Ē-veṟuguvā⟨11⟩ru vitpaṟti gāṇaṁbu(n dho)lgoṭṭu(na)ṁ gāṇaṁbu cuvvuṭūru gāṇaṁbu ⟨12⟩ [ca. 10*](vra)ccinavāru bārāṇasi vēvru ⟨13⟩ [ca. 10*]līḍisa (sa)mudraṁbu malā ⟨14⟩ [ca. 11*]ḍisenavadiki ⟨15⟩ [ca. 8*]ramañci ⟨Face B⟩ ⟨16⟩ [ca. 2*]

I. Anuṣṭubh

(bahubhi)r vvasu(dhā) dat(tā)

a
⟨17⟩

bahubhiś cānupālitā

b

yasya ya[sya ya]⟨18⟩dā bhūmi(ḥ)

c

tasya tasya tadā pha[laṁ]

d
⟨19⟩
II. Anuṣṭubh

svadatt¡a!⟨ā⟩ṁ paradatt¡a!⟨ā⟩ṁ vā

a

yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ va[sundharāṁ]

b
⟨20⟩

ṣaṣ¿ṭhi?⟨ṭi⟩¡(ṁ)⟨r⟩! varṣasahasrāṇi

c

viṣṭhāyāṁ jāya[te kr̥miḥ]

d
⟨21⟩
III. Anuṣṭubh

(bhū)midānāT paran dānaṁ

a

na bhūtan na bhaviṣya(ti)

b
⟨22⟩

tasyaiva vāraṇāT pāpan

c

na bhūtan na bhaviṣyati

d
⟨23⟩
IV. Anuṣṭubh

brahmasvaṁ vi(ṣa)saṁpannaṁ

a

yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ ma(hī)pate

b
⟨24⟩

teṣāṁ [havir na vai] medhya[ṁ]

c

[ca. 3*]mēdhya[ca. 4*]

d
⟨25⟩ [unknown number of lost or illegible lines]

⟨Face C⟩ ⟨26⟩ maḷavivisva⟨27⟩ṁbu sadāmavī⟨28⟩sainyamākaḷi ⟨29⟩ muḍisvarace

Apparatus

⟨3⟩ pūṇṇa⟨4⟩ma • In Prakrit a syllable of three morae is very unusual wherefore I would regard the double ‹ṇṇa› of °pūṇṇama in lines 3-4 as the usual graphemic reduplication of a consonant after a repha that might originally have been written in the inscription.

⟨5⟩ samudrarakṣanāku ⬦ samudrarakai nāku ? • K. M. Sastri states in a note that “M. S. Sastri reads ’samudrarambunāku’ which may be for ’samuddharaṇambunaku’” (Sastri 1969, p. 286, n. 1). He furthermore suggests reading samudrarakṣaṇāku. The akṣara ‹kai› very often has two strokes to the left side the lower one of which starts in the midst of the akṣara. If this stroke is extended to the right below the akṣara and the upper stroke is disregarded as a damage we get an akṣara that very much looks like a ‹kṣa›. Confusion of ‹na› and ‹ṇa› occurs in several inscriptions. This minimal editorial correction renders a proper form samudrarakṣanāku ’for the preservation of the tank’. The term samudra- is also used elsewhere to denote a tank. — ⟨5⟩ kalvavī⟨6⟩ḻa ⬦ kalcivī⟨6⟩ḻa ? • The element kalva- from kaluva ’lotus’ is attested in other place names as well. — ⟨5⟩ kuṟla ⬦ ruṟla ? • Sometimes /ṭ/ becomes /ṟ/ next to /l/ as in yiṟla (from iṭlā, line 10). The place name can therefore go back to kuṭ- or perhaps kuṁṭ- as e. g. kuṁṭa ’pond’ or kuṭṭa (modern guṭṭa) ’hill’.

⟨6⟩ maddikāḍu ⬦ madhdikadu ? • The printing of the edition is a little bit blurred at this place. Radha Krishna reads the edited text as ‹dhdi› as well (1971, p. 13) while K. M. Sastri reads it as ‹ddi› (1969, p. 286). Since ‹da› and ‹ḍa› are often very similar or indiscernible, what was intended by the scribe might have been maddikāḍu ’Maddi-grove’ (maddi denotes a plant).

⟨7⟩ kō{r}ṭa ⬦ kōrṭa ?.

⟨11⟩ (dho)lgoṭṭu(na)ṁ ⬦ (tho)lgoṭṭu(na)ṁ ?.

⟨12⟩ [ca. 10*](vra)ccinavāru • The verb vraccu ’to destroy’ often occurs in the imprecation of inscriptions, its object being a holy location. What is edited as bārāṇasi vēvru can to a certain degree of certainty be restored as bārāṇasi vēvru pāṟa campinavāru (or something similar). This sentence forms a common apodosis of the condition the protasis of which must read somewhat like "who does impede it" the usual phrase being dēniki vakraṁbu vaccinavāru. Since vraccu also occurs in the apodosis I would tend to emend parts of the missing akṣaras in lines 12-13 into dēniki vakraṁbu vaccinavāru bārāṇasi vēvru pāṟa campinavāru.

⟨17⟩ ya[sya ya] ⬦ ya[ca. 3*]⟨18⟩dā ?.

⟨18⟩ pha[laṁ] ⬦ pha[ca. 2*] ?.

⟨19⟩ svadatt¡a!⟨ā⟩ṁ paradatt¡a!⟨ā⟩ṁ vā yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ va[sundharāṁ] ⬦ svadattaṁ paradattaṁ vā yō harēti va[ca. 3*] ? • Subrahmanya Aiyer published the inscription in Telugu characters wherefore vowel length had to be marked everywhere. According to the conventions vowel length is not marked on e and o in Sanskrit when transcribed into the Latin alphabet.

⟨23⟩ vi(ṣa)saṁpannaṁ ⬦ ve(ṣa)saṁpannaṁ ?. — ⟨23⟩ yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ ma(hī)pate ⬦ yo harēti ma(hī)patē ?.

⟨24⟩ teṣāṁ [havir na vai] medhya[ṁ] ⬦ tēṣāṁ [ca. 3*]mēdhya ?.

Translation by Sastri 1969

Hail! In the eighth year of the increasing years of the reign of the illustrious Sakalalōkāśraya Jayasiṁghavallabha Mahārāja, on the armmapūṇṇama day, Kalimuḍirājulu, officer of Mlāviṁḍirājulu gave for the improvement of the village of Mlāviṁḍi, to (the workmen of ?) the three villages Kalcivīḻa, Ruṟla and Maddikadu (the income from the tax paḍuvāramu derived from) land sowable with eight puṭṭis of paddy, in the field to the north of Vitpaṟṟu, and towards the west of the tank, and the plot of land adjoining the water-way on the eastern side consisting of palmyrah trees. They should enjoy (this) after paying the (tax) paḍuvāramu due to the brahmins and the (tax?) kaḷākaṇḍugumu to the temple of Mlāviṁḍīśvara. Those who know (this) (=witness) that it should be (maintained) like this are the old settlers of Vitpaṟṟu, Tholgoṭṭu and Cuvvuṭūru.

Translation by Jens Thomas

Svasti! At the armma-fullmoon day of the eighth year in the era (saṁvatsara-) of the prospering victorious rule of the glorious Jayasiṁghavallabha mahārājulu who was endowed with the whole world, Kalimuḍirājulu, officer of the ruler of Mlāviṁḍi, gave to the three (villages) that have done work for the preservation of the tank of Mlāviṁḍi, (namely) Kalvavīḻa, Kuṟla, and Maddikāḍu, the paḍuvāraṁbu (i. e. a certain share) of the tank in the field north of Vitpaṟṟu, of a field of eight paṭṭus of fertile soil on the western bank, and of the beleric myrabalan (tree) gardens of the eastern bank. Having given the paḍuvāraṁbu for the brahmins and sixteen khaṇḍukas (i. e. a grain measure) at Mlāviṁḍīśvaraṁbu (i. e. probably a temple) they may enjoy (the remaining income). Those who know that these (terms) are like this are the communities of Vitpaṟṟu, Dholgoṭṭu and Cuvvuṭūru. (Who so ever) impedes (it has quasi killed) thousand (brahmins at) Varāṇasi. [...]

I
Many kings bestowed a grant / ⟨?⟩ And many had it well protected / ⟨?⟩ Who so ever owns the land / ⟨?⟩ Will have profit get extracted //1//
II
What he gave or someone else / ⟨?⟩ Who acts to its detriment / ⟨?⟩ For sixty thousand years as worm / ⟨?⟩ Will be born in excrement //2//
III
The grant of land, a gift that grand / ⟨?⟩ Neither was nor will there be / ⟨?⟩ And viler deed as to impede / ⟨?⟩ Neither was nor will there be //3//
IV
Brahmins’ posessions of poisonous essence / ⟨?⟩ Who confiscates, oh king o’the world / ⟨?⟩ [...] / ⟨?⟩ [...] //4//

Commentary

The width of the gaps is taken from Subrahmanya Aiyer’s edition according to the given dots. All the editorial changes have been made on grammatical and linguistic grounds in absence of a picture. The word śrimaT is written with a virāma in the edition. It is, however, not clear whether this is the editor’s choice to enhance reading or reflects the original spelling in the inscription. While the suffix -ḷ on saṁvatsarambuḷ is often regarded as a Telugu plural (e. g. Sastri 1969, p. 140) it is in my opinion a locative in that the expression is borrowed from Kannaḍa. The spelling ‹ṁbuna› at the beginning of line 7 suggests that in this inscription, as in some others, the anusvāra is written either on top of the akṣara that it preceeds in pronunciation or right before the akṣara. Subrahmanya Aiyer states in a note that the lines 12-15 of face A “are cut below in the characters of the same type” (1928, p. 208, n. 1). The four lines are given in the note so that the line numbering continues with number 12 on the second face in his edition. Face C is given in another note where Subrahmanya Aiyer states that the lines are found on the left side of the slab (). The Sanskrit imprecation verses are well known from other inscriptions apart from verse no. 4 that I could not find in the material at my disposal. The basic idea may be found in other verses where it is said that a brahmin’s possession (brahmasvaṁ) is like poison (viṣa-). Yet, the phrasing as can be found in this inscription seems to be rare (or unique) wherefore the missing parts could not be filled in.

Bibliography

The inscription was noted in A. R. No. 147 of 1899 and first published by Subrahmanya Aiyer without picture and without translation (1928, pp. 208–209, № 584). K. M. Sastri re-edits the same text and provides a translation (1969, p. 286, № 10). He regards 1928 nos. 584 and 585 to form one inscription.

Secondary

Subrahmanya Aiyer, K. V. 1928. South-Indian inscriptions (texts). Volume VI: Miscellaneous inscriptions from the Tamil, Telugu and Kannada countries. South Indian Inscriptions 6. Calcutta: Governement of India, Central Publication Branch. Pages 208–209, item 584.

Sastri, Korada Mahadeva. 1969. Historical grammar of Telugu with special reference to Old Telugu c. 200 B.C. - 1000 A.D. Anantapur: Sri Vekateswara Univ. Page 286, item 10.