Land grant to Arahanta-Bhaṭāraḷu under the rule of Jayasiṁhavallabha

Editors: Jens Thomas, Mallampalli Sōmaśēkhara Śarma.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSTelugu00100.

Language: Telugu.

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

Version: 2024-05-22 10:49 (585a60b), last modified 2024-05-22 10:43 (d5dcd05).

⟨1⟩ svasti śrī-sakalalōkāśraya-⟨2⟩śrī-jayasiṁghavallabha-mahā⟨3⟩rājulāku pravarddhamāna-vi⟨4⟩[jaya](rā)jya-saṁvatsaraṁbu⟨5⟩ll eṇbodi Annēṇṭan paḷḷināṇṭi ⟨6⟩ dayāvesanu ⟨7⟩ prithivīdēśa-raṭṭaguḷḷa ⟨8⟩ muṭḷu danyavesanu prithivīdēśa-⟨9⟩raṭṭaguḷḷuvāriki muṭḷu kalyāṇa-da⟨10⟩sanula Icciri Arahanta-bhaṭā⟨11⟩raḷāku Āṟu puṭḷu ⟨12⟩ Āṟḷa paṭṭu sukṣētraṁbu ⟨13⟩ dēni tloṁṟūri raṭṭaguḷḷa Anva⟨14⟩yaṁbuna-vār evvaraiyumu rakṣimpan uṁna ⟨15⟩ paṁnu vḷāyuṁ dēniki Ahitaṁbu cintiñcu-⟨16⟩(vāru) pañca-mahā-pātaka-saṁyuttu[…] ⟨17⟩ [1 lost or illegible line]

Apparatus

⟨5⟩ paḷḷināṇṭi • In Sōmaśēkhara Śarma’s Telugu edition the district is spelled paḷlināṇṭi. This is the way double ⟨ḷḷ⟩ is spelled in modern Telugu wherefore I presume that the inscription really shows ⟨ḷḷ⟩ since ⟨ḷl⟩ does not occur in the inscriptions that I could see pictures of. This ought to be the case in all of these instances. Sometimes, however, Sōmaśēkhara Śarma’s edition indeed shows ⟨ḷḷ⟩ (e. g. line 8)

⟨6⟩ dayāvesanu • In my opinion the latter element of the name is a Prakrit word vēsa ’dress, appearance’. The script does not differentiate between long /eː/ and short /e/. As for the ending see the commentary.

⟨9⟩ kalyāṇa-da⟨10⟩sanula • The oblique is not warranted since Icciri is an inflected verb. Hence, one should emendate into -lu.

⟨16⟩ saṁyuttu[…] • From other inscriptions we can reconstruct the missing part as °saṁyuttunṟ agu

⟨17⟩ [1 lost or illegible line] • It is probable that this line contained the scribe’s name with a verb for ’to write’.

Translation by Jens Thomas

Svasti! In the era¹ of the increasing reign of victory of the Mahārāja Śrī Sakalalōkāśraya Śrī Jayasiṁghavallabha, in the eighth year, Dayāvēsa of Paḷḷināṇḍu, Dhanyavēsa, officer of Pr̥thvīdēśa-Raṭṭaguḍi, and Kalyāṇadassana, officer of Pr̥thvīdēśa-Raṭṭaguḍi gave to the Lord Arhat good land (with a) "handful" of millet (which is) six puṭṭis.² As long as anyone of the lineage of the Raṭṭaguḍi(s)³ of Tloṁṟūru⁴ is ready to protect (this grant) the taxe(s)⁵ will be removed. Who(ever) contrives evil against it will be (guilty) of the five great sins.

Translation by Sastri 1969

Hail! In the eighth year of the increasing victorious reign of the illustrious sakalōkāśraya Jayasiṁghavallabha mahārāja, Dayāvesanu of Paḷḷināṇḍu, Danyavesanu officer of Prithivīdēśa Raṭṭaguḷḷu (and) Kalyāṇa Dasanulu, (another) officer of Prithivīdēśa Raṭṭaguḷḷu gave to Arahanta bhaṭāra fertile excellent land sowable with six puṭṭis of paddy. Whoever of the descendants of family [sic!] of Tloṁṟūri Raṭṭaguḷḷu, protects this (gift) will be free from taxes. Those who think of obstructing it will incur the five great sins.

Commentary

The names of the donors are Prakrit names. Regarding -nu in °vēsanu there are two possibilities: 1. it is a Kannaḍa masculine ending, or 2. it is the conjunctive particle. In the latter case the names would not have an ending which would be exceptional. The respective word seems to be Prakrit vēsa- "dress/appearance", e. g. dayāvēsa- "whose appearence is compassion". Sōmaśēkhara Śarma suggested that they are Prakrit forms of vacanu or vyasanu; in this case, however, there would be no ending as well. The donée is Arahanta-bhaṭāra which probably refers to a single person with a honorific plural suffix. It could be the Buddha or the Jina. In this context the names of the donors appear to be secondary names, adopted later in a religious connection, or pious names given in a Jaina or Bauddha family. Sōmaśēkhara Śarma states that the part between evvaraiyumu and dēniki was obscure to him (1946, p. 186). K. M. Sastri refers to this passage in his grammar section regarding the usage of the infinitive with an auxiliary verb that conveys "the idea of futurity". In this connection he translates the passage a little bit differently than in his translation of the whole inscription: “if any of those belonging to the family of raṭṭaguḍis is going to protect this (gift i.e. in the future)” (). This is the only example of such a construction. Sastri thereby tacitly also explains the form uṁna in line 14 as a conditional in -inan (hence unnan). Sastri’s explanation is intriguing. As to my knowledge this construction rather is used in the English sense "going to do, ready to do". Hence, the meaning would be "if anyone is going to protect". It is possible that the connotation was different at the time but it seems to me that in this case the imprecation would indicate that if someone comes into the situation of protecting the grant, then the tax exemption will be put into effect. A similar construction is used to “express readiness” (Arden 1937, p. 230, № 481). The example given is వాడు ఆ పని చెయ్యనయి ఉన్నాడు [vāḍu ā pani ceyyanayi unnāḍu]. He is ready to do that work (ibidem); so, the construction entails ayi + uṇḍu (lit. "having become be", hence a perfect) and therefore is not completely identical either. However, we could also assume uṁna to be an infinitive as well. The mere infinitive could be used for forming a subclause indicating simultaneity as in the often used phrase X ēḷan "while X was ruling". Therefore, rakṣimpan uṁna might mean "while/as long as being ready to protect". In this case the tax exemption would temporally coincide with the actual protection. K. M. Sastri notes that the reading paṁnu vḷāyuṁ in line 15 “[m]ay be a scribal error for pannuḷ vāyum” (1969, p. 288, n. 1). That means that pannu "tax" would be in the plural and the respective verb is pāyu "to leave, quit". Apart from this good idea subscript ⟨°ḷ⟩ may have been a damage that Sōmaśēkhara Śarma interpreted as part of the akṣara. The original must be consulted to clearify this. The grammatical form pāyun(u) can be both singular and plural with an inanimate subject.

Bibliography

The inscription was published by Sōmaśēkhara Śarma together with a discussion but without a picture. According to him a picture of the estampage should have been published in one of the upcoming volumes of South Indian Inscriptions. However, I could not verify this and the picture may have never been published. Sōmaśēkhara Śarma states that he encountered the inscription in the enclosure of the taluk’s office and that it had not been noted in ARIE at that point (1946, p. 182). The inscription was re-published by K. M. Sastri together with a translation and by B. Radha Krishna. Both do not mention any entry in ARIE.

Primary

[SS] Somasekhara Sarma, Mallampalli. 1946. “Modaṭi jayasiṁhavallabhuni mācerla śilāśāsanamu.” Bh 23 (8), pp. 182–186. Pages 182–186.

Secondary

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. Pages 287–288, item 11.

Radhakrishna, Budaraju. 1971. Early Telugu inscriptions (up to 1100 A.D.): with texts, glossary & brief linguistic history. Hyderabad: Andhra Pradesh Sahitya Akademi. Page 12, item 15.

Notes

1. In contrast to the conventional interpretation as a plural I tend to see the ending as Kannaḍism due to the adoption of the fixed formula that follows the Sanskrit phrase ending in °saṁvatsare. As for the translation "era" see Sircar 1966, p. 293
2. As for the phrases denoting the quantity and quality of the land see Jens Thomas (forthcoming).
3. A honorific plural is widespread in the inscriptions. Here, however, it is not entirely clear whether a specific Raṭṭaguḍi is referred to or a family.
4. The modern form of the village would be Toṇḍūru.
5. If Sastri is correct the scribe misspelled an intended plural here

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>Land grant to Arahanta-Bhaṭāraḷu under the rule of Jayasiṁhavallabha</title>

<resp>EpiDoc Encoding</resp>

<forename>Jens Christian</forename>

<surname>Thomas</surname>

</persName>

</respStmt>

<resp>intellectual authorship of edition</resp>

<forename>Mallampalli</forename>

<surname>Sōmaśēkhara Śarma</surname>

</persName>

</respStmt>

</titleStmt>

<authority>DHARMA</authority>

<pubPlace>Berlin</pubPlace>

<idno type="filename">DHARMA_INSTelugu00100</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>

The inscription was published without picture.

</p>

<!-- 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 when="2022-04-02" who="part:jeth">Initial encoding of the file</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2020-10-12">Version 3.2 : movinng the xml:lang to the root</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2020-07-02">Version 3.1: adding the encodingDesc and linking the template with the DHARMA Schema</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2020-03-18">Version 2: addition of handDesc and summary</change>

<change who="part:axja" when="2019-12-18" status="draft">Creation of the

template</change>

</revisionDesc>

</teiHeader>

<body>

<p>

<lb n="1"/>svasti śrī-sakalalōkāśraya-<lb break="no" n="2"/>śrī-jayasiṁghavallabha-mahā<lb break="no" n="3"/>rājulāku pravarddhamāna-vi<lb break="no" n="4"/><supplied reason="undefined">jaya</supplied><unclear>rā</unclear>jya-saṁvatsaraṁbu<lb break="no" n="5"/>ll eṇbodi Annēṇṭan paḷḷināṇṭi

<lb n="6"/>dayāvesanu

<lb n="7"/>prithivīdēśa-raṭṭaguḷḷa

<lb n="8"/>muṭḷu danyavesanu prithivīdēśa-<lb break="no" n="9"/>raṭṭaguḷḷuvāriki muṭḷu kalyāṇa-da<lb break="no" n="10"/>sanula Icciri Arahanta-bhaṭā<lb break="no" n="11"/>raḷāku Āṟu puṭḷu

<lb n="12"/>Āṟḷa paṭṭu sukṣētraṁbu

<lb n="13"/>dēni tloṁṟūri raṭṭaguḷḷa Anva<lb break="no" n="14"/>yaṁbuna-vār evvaraiyumu rakṣimpan uṁna

<lb n="15"/>paṁnu vḷāyuṁ dēniki Ahitaṁbu cintiñcu-<lb break="no" n="16"/><unclear>vāru</unclear> pañca-mahā-pātaka-saṁyuttu<gap reason="undefined" extent="unknown"/>

</p>

</div>

<lem>paḷḷināṇṭi</lem>

<note>In Sōmaśēkhara Śarma's Telugu edition the district is spelled <foreign>paḷlināṇṭi</foreign>. This is the way double ⟨ḷḷ⟩ is spelled in modern Telugu wherefore I presume that the inscription really shows ⟨ḷḷ⟩ since ⟨ḷl⟩ does not occur in the inscriptions that I could see pictures of. This ought to be the case in all of these instances. Sometimes, however, Sōmaśēkhara Śarma's edition indeed shows ⟨ḷḷ⟩ (e. g. line 8)</note>

</app>

<lem>dayāvesanu</lem>

<note>In my opinion the latter element of the name is a Prakrit word <foreign>vēsa</foreign> 'dress, appearance'. The script does not differentiate between long /eː/ and short /e/. As for the ending see the commentary.</note>

</app>

<lem>kalyāṇa-da<lb break="no" n="10"/>sanula</lem>

<note>The oblique is not warranted since <foreign>Icciri</foreign> is an inflected verb. Hence, one should emendate into -<foreign>lu</foreign>.</note>

</app>

<lem>saṁyuttu<gap reason="undefined" extent="unknown"/></lem>

<note>From other inscriptions we can reconstruct the missing part as °<foreign>saṁyuttunṟ agu</foreign></note>

</app>

<note>It is probable that this line contained the scribe's name with a verb for 'to write'.</note>

</app>

</listApp>

</div>

<p>

Svasti! In the era<note>In contrast to the conventional interpretation as a plural I tend to see the ending as Kannaḍism due to the adoption of the fixed formula that follows the Sanskrit phrase ending in °<foreign>saṁvatsare</foreign>. As for the translation "era" see <bibl><ptr target="bib:Sircar1966_01"/><citedRange unit="page">293</citedRange></bibl></note> of the increasing reign of victory of the Mahārāja Śrī Sakalalōkāśraya Śrī Jayasiṁghavallabha, in the eighth year, Dayāvēsa of Paḷḷināṇḍu, Dhanyavēsa, officer of Pr̥thvīdēśa-Raṭṭaguḍi, and Kalyāṇadassana, officer of Pr̥thvīdēśa-Raṭṭaguḍi gave to the Lord Arhat good land (with a) "handful" of millet (which is) six <foreign>puṭṭis</foreign>.<note>As for the phrases denoting the quantity and quality of the land see Jens Thomas (forthcoming).</note> As long as anyone of the lineage of the Raṭṭaguḍi(s)<note>A honorific plural is widespread in the inscriptions. Here, however, it is not entirely clear whether a specific <foreign>Raṭṭaguḍi</foreign> is referred to or a family.</note> of Tloṁṟūru<note>The modern form of the village would be Toṇḍūru.</note> is ready to protect (this grant) the taxe(s)<note>If Sastri is correct the scribe misspelled an intended plural here</note> will be removed. Who(ever) contrives evil against it will be (guilty) of the five great sins.

</p>

</div>

<p>

Hail! In the eighth year of the increasing victorious reign of the illustrious sakalōkāśraya Jayasiṁghavallabha mahārāja, Dayāvesanu of Paḷḷināṇḍu, Danyavesanu officer of Prithivīdēśa Raṭṭaguḷḷu (and) Kalyāṇa Dasanulu, (another) officer of Prithivīdēśa Raṭṭaguḷḷu gave to Arahanta bhaṭāra fertile excellent land sowable with six <hi rend="italic">puṭṭis</hi> of paddy. Whoever of the descendants of family [sic!] of Tloṁṟūri Raṭṭaguḷḷu, protects this (gift) will be free from taxes. Those who think of obstructing it will incur the five great sins.

</p>

</div>

<p>

The names of the donors are Prakrit names. Regarding -<foreign>nu</foreign> in °<foreign>vēsanu</foreign> there are two possibilities: 1. it is a Kannaḍa masculine ending, or 2. it is the conjunctive particle. In the latter case the names would not have an ending which would be exceptional. The respective word seems to be Prakrit <foreign>vēsa</foreign>- "dress/appearance", e. g. <foreign>dayāvēsa</foreign>- "whose appearence is compassion". Sōmaśēkhara Śarma suggested that they are Prakrit forms of <foreign>vacanu</foreign> or <foreign>vyasanu</foreign>; in this case, however, there would be no ending as well. The donée is <foreign>Arahanta-bhaṭāra</foreign> which probably refers to a single person with a honorific plural suffix. It could be the Buddha or the Jina. In this context the names of the donors appear to be secondary names, adopted later in a religious connection, or pious names given in a Jaina or Bauddha family.

Sōmaśēkhara Śarma states that the part between <foreign>evvaraiyumu</foreign> and <foreign>dēniki</foreign> was obscure to him (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:SomasekharaSarma1946_01"/><citedRange unit="page">186</citedRange></bibl>). K. M. Sastri refers to this passage in his grammar section regarding the usage of the infinitive with an auxiliary verb that conveys "the idea of futurity". In this connection he translates the passage a little bit differently than in his translation of the whole inscription: <cit><quote>if any of those belonging to the family of raṭṭaguḍis is going to protect this (gift i.e. in the future)</quote><bibl rend="omitname"><citedRange unit="page">211</citedRange></bibl></cit>. This is the only example of such a construction. Sastri thereby tacitly also explains the form <foreign>uṁna</foreign> in line 14 as a conditional in -<foreign>inan</foreign> (hence <foreign>unnan</foreign>). Sastri's explanation is intriguing. As to my knowledge this construction rather is used in the English sense "going to do, ready to do". Hence, the meaning would be "if anyone is going to protect". It is possible that the connotation was different at the time but it seems to me that in this case the imprecation would indicate that if someone comes into the situation of protecting the grant, then the tax exemption will be put into effect. A similar construction is used to <cit><quote>express readiness</quote><bibl><ptr target="bib:Arden1937_01"/><citedRange unit="page">230</citedRange><citedRange unit="item">481</citedRange></bibl></cit>. The example given is వాడు ఆ పని చెయ్యనయి ఉన్నాడు [<foreign>vāḍu ā pani ceyyanayi unnāḍu</foreign>]. <hi rend="italic">He is ready to do that work</hi> (ibidem); so, the construction entails <foreign>ayi + uṇḍu</foreign> (lit. "having become be", hence a perfect) and therefore is not completely identical either. However, we could also assume <foreign>uṁna</foreign> to be an infinitive as well. The mere infinitive could be used for forming a subclause indicating simultaneity as in the often used phrase <foreign>X ēḷan</foreign> "while X was ruling". Therefore, <foreign>rakṣimpan uṁna</foreign> <hi rend="italic">might</hi> mean "while/as long as being ready to protect". In this case the tax exemption would temporally coincide with the actual protection.

K. M. Sastri notes that the reading <foreign>paṁnu vḷāyuṁ</foreign> in line 15 <cit><quote>[m]ay be a scribal error for <hi rend="italic">pannuḷ vāyum</hi></quote><bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:Sastri1969_01"/><citedRange unit="page">288</citedRange><citedRange unit="note">1</citedRange></bibl></cit>. That means that <foreign>pannu</foreign> "tax" would be in the plural and the respective verb is <foreign>pāyu</foreign> "to leave, quit". Apart from this good idea subscript ⟨°ḷ⟩ may have been a damage that Sōmaśēkhara Śarma interpreted as part of the <foreign>akṣara</foreign>. The original must be consulted to clearify this. The grammatical form <foreign>pāyun(u)</foreign> can be both singular and plural with an inanimate subject.

</p>

</div>

<p>The inscription was published by Sōmaśēkhara Śarma together with a discussion but without a picture. According to him a picture of the estampage should have been published in one of the upcoming volumes of South Indian Inscriptions. However, I could not verify this and the picture may have never been published. Sōmaśēkhara Śarma states that he encountered the inscription in the enclosure of the taluk's office and that it had not been noted in ARIE at that point (<bibl rend="omitname"><ptr target="bib:SomasekharaSarma1946_01"/><citedRange unit="page">182</citedRange></bibl>). The inscription was re-published by K. M. Sastri together with a translation and by B. Radha Krishna. Both do not mention any entry in ARIE.</p>

</listBibl>

</listBibl>

</div>

</body>

</text>

</TEI>