Pr̥thivipallavapaṭṭana grant of Viṣṇuvardhana IV

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00019.

Hand description:

Halantas. In the Telugu section, there occurs a final form of Ḷ. Instances are found from line 23 onward. It looks like a full-sized ḷa without a headmark, though it can be simplified to a wavy vertical line with a loop at the bottom, as in l28, -konthukaḶ. Final N (l16, pramukhāN) is simplified, with a long stem and no headmark.

Other palaeographic observations. As Fleet obseres, in l10 °opajāyamāno°, jā is formed very strangely, with a downward-bending vowel marker attached to the top prong of j. In l15 -jvālā, the vowel is also attached to the upper prong, but it bends upward. The weird khā in line 16, which Fleet calls "very anomalous", looks essentially like a pa, with the right limb bending outward. It has some resemblance to a khā that, according to Indoskript, occurs in the Vijayawada plates of Cālukya-Bhīma I. Short and long i/ī are not distinguished in the Telugu section (except in some words perceived to be Sanskrit, e.g. l24 śrīya). Though Fleet reads some (incorrect) long ī-s there when the circle is not completely closed on the left, in my opinion these are just less well executed short i-s. They definitely lack the conspicuous inward hook of instances of long ī in the Sanskrit. In the Telugu part, anusvāras are placed at the top right of the character after the character to which they belong (and were thus read by Fleet as being one character further on than they were meant to be). A number of characters in the Telugu part, looking like a circle that may have nothing inside or various parts of a plus-shaped cross, are shown here as an unclearly written th. Some or all of these may have been meant for dh, ḻ or ṟ but the notchless circular shape of these glyphs speaks against them being one of the Dravidian retroflexes. Unambiguous instances of ṟ in line 28 and probable instances of ḻ in line 25 look very different from these. Rare initial Ū occurs repeatedly in the Telugu section. The Telugu section may be in a different hand, but it is more likely to be the same hand, perhaps a late one who attempted to imitate an earlier style throughout the document, and to a greater extent in the Sanskrit section.

Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.

Repository: Eastern Cālukya (tfb-vengicalukya-epigraphy).

Version: (53617f4), last modified (44ecfe4).

Edition

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ (sva)sti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-(saṁst)ūyamāna-⟨māna⟩vya-(sago)trāṇ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁ hāri⟨2⟩ti-(putrā)ṇāṁ k¿o?⟨au⟩ś¿ī?⟨i⟩kī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānā⟨ṁ⟩ mātr̥-gaṇa-p¿ā?⟨a⟩rip¿a?⟨ā⟩li⟨3⟩tānāṁ (svā?)mi-mahās¿ā?⟨e⟩na-¿pādānāduān(th)anā?⟨pādānudhyātānāṁ⟩ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-pra⟨4⟩sā⟦(dasa)⟧da-samāsādita-var¿ā?⟨a⟩-varāha-lāñchan¿ā?⟨e⟩kṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīk(r̥)⟨5⟩t¿a?⟨ā⟩rāt¿ī?⟨i⟩-(m)¿ā?⟨a⟩ṇḍalānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁ ca⟨Page 2r⟩⟨6⟩ḷukyānāṁ k¿a?⟨u⟩(la)m alaṁka(riṣṇoḥ) sv¿a?⟨ā⟩si-dhārā-prabhāvāva(r)jj(i)tāś{r}(eṣa-mahī-maṇḍa)la⟨7⟩sya śrī-vi(ṣṇuva)rddhana-mahārājasya ⟨pautraḥ⟩ bhr¿u?⟨ū⟩-bh¿ā?⟨a⟩ṁga-mātra-vidhūta-sam¿ā?⟨a⟩stārāt(i-maṇḍalasya) ⟨8⟩ kāriṇa⟨ḥ⟩ Aneka-tulā-dhr̥ta-śātakumbha-viśrāṇan¿a?⟨ā⟩vadāta-śar¿i?⟨ī⟩rasya śrī-(vija)⟨9⟩yādi(tya)-mahārājasya priya-tanayaḥ cakrava⟨r⟩t¿th?⟨t⟩i-lakṣaṇopetaḥ (cakra)⟨10⟩dhara Iva lakṣm¡i!⟨ī⟩-vallabhaḥ bhāsvān i⟨va ni⟩tyopajāyamānodayaḥ candra Iva (ja)⟨Page 2v⟩⟨11⟩gad-āhlādana-karaḥ sura-gaja Iva dāna-va⟨r⟩ṣ¿i?⟨ī⟩ jalanidhir iva gambh¿i?⟨ī⟩ra-satvaḥ yudhiṣṭhira Iva ⟨12⟩ bh¿i?⟨ī⟩masenānvitaḥ kā⟨r⟩t¿th?⟨t⟩ikeya Ivāpratihata-śaktiḥ śakti-trayopetaḥ catasr̥ṣu nr̥⟨13⟩pa-vidyāsu vicakṣaṇaḥ yuddheṣu viṣama-siddhiḥ A⟨r⟩tthi-jane kāma-dhenuḥ str¿i?⟨ī⟩ṣu ma⟨14⟩kara-dhvajaḥ ripu-timira-vidhvaṁsane pralayādityaḥ jvalat-pratāpānala-jvālāval¿i?⟨ī⟩⟨15⟩ḍha-ripu-nr̥p¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ ⟨śī⟩ghra-pavanaḥ vijig¿i?⟨ī⟩¿p?⟨ṣ⟩ur ddharmma-vijay¿i?⟨ī⟩ parama-brahmaṇyaḥ para⟨ma⟩-māhe⟨Page 3r⟩⟨16⟩śvaraḥ sarvva-lokāśraya-śr(ī)-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājaḥ rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭa-pramu(khā)N kuṭ¡i!⟨u⟩mbinaḥ (sa)⟨17⟩rvvān ittham ājñ¡a!payati⟨.⟩ viditam astu vo ⟨’⟩smābhiḥ

svast¿a?⟨i⟩⟨.⟩ p¡ri!thiv¡i!-pal⟨l⟩ava-paṭṭana⟨ṁ⟩buna Ūri⟨18⟩vāru karigaḷḷa-vaḍavariki Ūri-svāmuḶ Iccina s¡t!⟨th⟩iti⟨.⟩ reṇḍuvāḍala-paṭṭanāvuraku ⟨19⟩ Ariyu (ḍ)agu-teṟeyu siddhāyaṁbu daṇḍu-dasaparādhaṁbunu sarvva-bāda-pa⟨20⟩riyāruvu Ūru-dāya-sesi Icci⟨.⟩ diniki vakraṁbu ḷedu vaccinavāru gaḷareni Ūri s¡t!⟨th⟩iti ⟨21⟩ dappinavāru⟨.⟩ diniki vakraṁbu vaccina gaccuru reṇḍuv¿a?⟨ā⟩ḍala Ele muvarulemula ce⟨22⟩sinadiyu cannu⟨.⟩ viripayināḍuv¿a?⟨ā⟩ru gaḷgina Eḷemuḷa cesina seyuḍu sanu

⟨Page 3v⟩ ⟨23⟩ mahanabiyuḶ narāḷoka mahasatthavuḶ virāpava mahanabiyu(Ḷ) gajña(ṁ?)bu (se)⟨24⟩(th)la naḍupuḶ ¡śamasta-bhuvanaśrīya!⟨samasta-bhuvanāśraya⟩ kanadiraju

badrapereya Ūri panina vrasi vara ⟨25⟩ vayye(ḻ)i māhanabhiḶ vayye(ḻ)i mahabhiḶ panikoḷuce neraka pañcina vras(i)

⟨26⟩ vayye(ḻ)i mahanabhiyuḶ ma⟨⟨(ka)⟩⟩la kon(th)ukaḶ sa⟨r⟩vva-(lo)k¿a?⟨ā⟩śraya mahāsatthavaḶ ⟨27⟩ perddaḶ n¡e!⟨i⟩ravadya mahāsartthavaḶ pasiṇḍi mu(ṭh)lu veṭandala caruvayya viṣṇuvarddhana ma⟨28⟩hasatthavaḶ pasukṣevula kon(th)ukaḶ Accakuṟṟavaniyu kon(th)ukaḶ ga(jaṁbu?) se(ṭh)lala ⟨29⟩ naḍupuḶ prithi(v)i mahasartthavaḶ veṭandaḶ ponikan(th)iṟamukoḷa naḍupu viṣṇuvarddhana ⟨Page 4r⟩ ⟨30⟩ mahasatthavala kon(th)ukalu niravadya-¡pridhivi!⟨pr̥thivī⟩-kanadirajuḶ gunavana mahanabhiyuḶ ⟨31⟩ muddakañcikoḶ ramisvarā-¡pridhivi!⟨pr̥thivī⟩-mahasartthavaḷa Apayajanuvakola koṇḍukaḶ korin(th)ikoḶ ⟨32⟩ karigala-¡pridhivi!⟨pr̥thivī⟩-mahasatthavala konthukaḶ nandi mahanavila naḍupu śrī-maha⟨33⟩satthavaḷa saka⟨la⟩-¡lokaśrayya!⟨lokāśraya⟩ ¡pridhivi!⟨pr̥thivī⟩ mahasartthavala div¿a?⟨ā⟩karayya pa(ñca)⟨34⟩koḶ

śrī-jaṣṭi-pendaṭṭaṟṟa gan(th)ān(th)u

⟨Page 4v⟩ ⟨Page 5r⟩ ⟨Page 5v⟩

Apparatus

⟨1⟩ -(saṁst)ūyamāna- ⬦ -saṁ⟨s⟩tūyamāna- JFF • Fleet’s notation may mean that s is lost rather than omitted, but it is the same as that for māna later in the line. Parts of s and t are definitely visible in the rubbings.

⟨2⟩ p¿ā?⟨a⟩rip¿a?⟨ā⟩li⟨3⟩tānāṁ ⬦ parip¿a?⟨ā⟩li⟨3⟩tānāṁ JFF • The last three characters in line 2 (especially pali) are horizontally compressed and squeezed together. There is no trace of correction, but it seems likely that at first, pālitānāṁ must have been engraved, after which li was struck out and ripali was added in its place.

⟨3⟩ (svā?)◯mi- • I am not at all certain that svā is or was ever present in the plate. There are some scratches next to the hole, but they are too narrow and their shape does not indicate svā, although it is possible that the expected character was once indeed engraved, and has been badly worn. — ⟨3⟩ -¿pādānāduān(th)anā?⟨pādānudhyātānāṁ⟩ • The character duā, with two vowel markers, may be a scribal mistake for a pre-written ddhā, itself a mistake for dhyā. The subscript component of the next character, which I read with JFF as th, is a rough circle divided into four quarters by a cross. It is conspicuously different from the standalone th in the Sanskrit section (line 5, °āvabhr̥tha) as well as from subscript th-s (line 9, cakravatthi; l13, atthi). It is, however, also not a proper ṟ, and looks identical to several characters that JFF reads as th in the Telugu section. — ⟨3⟩ -pra⟨4⟩sā⟦(dasa)⟧da- ⬦ -pra⟨4⟩sāda-{sada}-samāsādita- JFF • I am fairly certain that the second and third character in the line have been deleted.

⟨5⟩ ca⟨Page 2r⟩ ⟨6⟩ ḷukyānā ⬦ cā⟨Page 2r⟩ ⟨6⟩ ḷukyānāṁ JFF • I (and Fleet) read ḷu with goodwill. The character looks rather like ḍu or du.

⟨8⟩ kāriṇa⟨ḥ⟩ • This is in all probability the end of a compound qualifying the issuing king’s fathers, the earlier part of the compound being omitted. See my commentary.

⟨10⟩ bhāsvān i⟨va ni⟩tyopajāyamānodayaḥ ⬦ bhāsvān i¿ty?⟨v⟩opajāyamānodayaḥ JFF • The character ni is very narrow and in my opinion very likely to have been corrected from an earlier final N. The following tyo may have been corrected from an initial I, but this is much less certain. Fleet’s less invasive emendation is not implausible, but I cannot conceive of a scribe who accidentally writes tyo instead of vo, and believe that something more complicated must have been going on here. My suggested omission of two akṣaras can be easily attributed to eyeskip haplography, although this is still complicated by the presumed correction from an original bhāsvāN I. For the content of my emendation, compare Āditya Iva satatodaya-karī applied to Vijayāditya III in his Sātalūru plates.

⟨15⟩ -nr̥p¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ ⟨śī⟩ghra-pavanaḥ • I adopt JFF’s emendations, but śīghra-pavanaḥ on its own strikes me as very odd. The beginning of a compound ending with ghra-pavanaḥ may well have been omitted here. Compare para-gaja-ghana-paṭala-pavanaḥ in line 9 of the Lohaner plates of Pulakeśin II, and especially Ari-nr̥pa-vāji-vāraṇa-padāti-mahābhra-virāma-mārutaḥ applied to Viṣṇuvardhana V in the Sātalūru plates of Vijayāditya III.

⟨17⟩ svast¿a?⟨i⟩ RRM ⬦ svasti JFF; svasta KMS. — ⟨17⟩ -pal⟨l⟩ava- JFF ⬦ -pallava- KMS RRM. — ⟨17⟩ -paṭṭana⟨ṁ⟩buna JFF ⬦ -paṭṭanabuna KMS RRM • The expected anusvāra may in fact be present, as there is a conspicuous dot inside the subscript b of kuṭimbinaḥ in the previous line. This is, however, well to the right of bu, and there is plenty of blank space where an anusvāra would normally be placed.

⟨18⟩ -vaḍavariki KMS RRM ⬦ -vaḍav¿a?⟨ā⟩riki(ṁ?) JFF • JFF’s vā is probably a tentative emendation, while his kiṁ is an uncertain alternative reading of what is probably just a small spot of damage. — ⟨18⟩ reṇḍu° KMS RRM ⬦ reṇ(ḍ/ṭ)u° JFF. — ⟨18⟩ °vāḍala- JFF RRM ⬦ °vaḍala- KMS • Probably a typo in KMS.

⟨19⟩ (ḍ)agu JFF RRM ⬦ dagu KMS • JFF and RRM print a clear ḍ, while KMS’s d may be a typo or an error of my scan. The character is not a definite ḍ as it lacks a notch in its bottom, but it is also not a d, as the end of its body stroke curves upward and inward. — ⟨19⟩ siddhāyaṁbu KMS ⬦ siddhāyabu(ṁ?) JFF; siddhāyabu RRM • The anusvāra is clear at the top right of (bu). — ⟨19⟩ daṇḍu KMS RRM ⬦ daṇ(ḍ/ṭ)u JFF. — ⟨19⟩ -dasaparādhaṁbunu KMS ⬦ da¿s?⟨ś⟩¿a?⟨ā⟩parādhabunu JFF; -dasaparādhabunu RRM • The anusvāra is again clear at the top right of (bu). — ⟨19⟩ -bāda- KMS ⬦ -bā¿d?⟨dh⟩a- JFF; -bā¿da?⟨dhā⟩- RRM.

⟨20⟩ Ūru- JFF KMS ⬦ ⟨gānu⟩ Ūru- RRM • RRM do not explain their emendation, which is opaque to me. — ⟨20⟩ Icci JFF KMS ⬦ Icci⟨ri⟩ RRM • KMS also suggests emending to Icciri in a tentative note. — ⟨20⟩ diniki JFF ⬦ dīniki KMS RRM. — ⟨20⟩ vakraṁbu KMS ⬦ vakrabuṁ JFF; vakrabu RRM. — ⟨20⟩ ḷedu JFF KMS ⬦ ¡ḷ!⟨l⟩edu RRM. — ⟨20⟩ gaḷareni JFF KMS ⬦ ga¡ḷ!⟨l⟩areni RRM.

⟨21⟩ diniki JFF ⬦ dīniki KMS RRM. — ⟨21⟩ vakraṁbu KMS ⬦ vakrabuṁ JFF; vakrabu RRM. — ⟨21⟩ reṇḍuv¿a?⟨ā⟩ḍala RRM ⬦ reṇḍuvaḍala KMS; reṇ(ḍ/ṭ)uv¿a?⟨ā⟩ḍala JFF. — ⟨21⟩ Ele JFF KMS ⬦ E¡l!⟨ḷ⟩e RRM. — ⟨21⟩ ce⟨22⟩sinadiyu KMS ⬦ ve⟨22⟩sinadiyu JFF RRM • The last character of line 22 is partly invisible in Elliot’s rubbings because the paper did not fit the rim of the plate well, but it is quite clear in Fleet’s estampage. In spite of Fleet’s reading of ve, it is indeed much more likely to be ce than ve (compare the circular body of several instances of va earlier in the line), and the elongated and notched body of ca e.g. in cannu in the next line.

⟨22⟩ viripayināḍuv¿a?⟨ā⟩ru ⬦ vīripayināḍuv¿a?⟨ā⟩ru RRM; vīripayin āḍuvaru KMS; viripayinā¿d?⟨ḍ⟩uvaru JFF. — ⟨22⟩ Eḷemuḷa JFF KMS ⬦ Eḷemu⟨varul emu⟩¡ḷ!⟨l⟩a RRM.

⟨23⟩ mahanabiyuḶ JFF ⬦ mahānabiyuḶ KMS; mah¿a?⟨ā⟩nabiyuḶ RRM • Here and below, RRM emend all instances of mahanabiyuḶ and mahasatthavuḶ to mahā-, while Sastri reads (or silently emends to) the same. — ⟨23⟩ narāḷoka JFF KMS ⬦ naraḷoka RRM. — ⟨23⟩ gajña(ṁ?)bu JFF ⬦ gajñaṁbu KMS; gajñabu RRM. — ⟨23⟩ (se)⟨24⟩(th)la- ⬦ se⟨24⟩(ḻḻa/thu)- JFF; se⟨24⟩ḍla- KMS; seṭhla- RRM • The problematic character’s subscript component is certainly l. The principal component is a circle with a horizontal line crossing it; a similar character occurs in line 3 and several times in the following lines. See also the palaeographic discussion. It is definitely neither ḍ nor ṭh. I would expect ḻ to be elongated, and notched in the centre.

⟨24⟩ naḍupuḶ KMS RRM ⬦ nadupuḶ JFF • While d and ḍ are practically indistinguishable from the glyph alone, I accept the Telugu scholars’ opinion. — ⟨24⟩ ¡śamasta-bhuvanaśrīya!⟨samasta-bhuvanāśraya⟩ ⬦ ¡ś!⟨s⟩amasta-bhuvana-śrīya JFF; śamasta-bhuvana-śriya KMS; ¡śamastabhuvanaśriya!⟨samasta-bhuvanāśraya⟩ RRM • While d and ḍ are practically indistinguishable from the glyph alone, I accept the Telugu scholars’ opinion. — ⟨24⟩ kanadiraju JFF ⬦ kanaḍiraju KMS; kanadir¿a?⟨ā⟩ju RRM. — ⟨24⟩ Ūri panina JFF KMS ⬦ Ūr¿i?⟨u⟩pa¿n?⟨ñc⟩ina RRM. — ⟨24⟩ vrasi vara JFF KMS ⬦ vr¿a?⟨ā⟩si⟨na⟩ v¿a?⟨ā⟩r¿a?⟨u⟩ RRM.

⟨25⟩ vayye(ḻ)i RRM ⬦ vayyeti JFF; vayyeṭi KMS • The problematic consonant looks much like a modern Telugu t. It is certainly not ṭ; I believe RRM are right in reading it as ḻ (which they print as certain). — ⟨25⟩ māhanabhiḶ JFF ⬦ mahānabhiḶ KMS; mah¿a?⟨ā⟩nabhi⟨yu⟩Ḷ RRM. — ⟨25⟩ vayye(ḻ)i mahabhiḶ ⬦ vayyeti mahabhiḶ JFF; vayyeṭi mahābhiḶ KMS; {vayyeḻi mahabhiḶ} RRM. — ⟨25⟩ vras(i) KMS ⬦ vras(i/e) JFF; vr¿a?⟨ā⟩se RRM • The vowel marker does not seem to be closed into a circle on the left, but it is shorter than an e śiromātrā is expected to be, and e is written with a pr̥ṣṭhamātrā everywhere else. Compare the same word in the previous line, where RRM too read si: there the circle is almost complete but does not seem to be closed at the left side of the bottom. There are multiple instances of very similar markers in the Telugu section in places where i is definitely expected, and has been read by RRM as well as others; see line 30 for several side by side. — ⟨25⟩ vayye(ḻ)i RRM ⬦ vayyeti JFF; vayyeṭi KMS.

⟨26⟩ ma⟨⟨(ka)⟩⟩la ⬦ marala KMS; (sa?)kala- JFF; sakala- RRM • The first character definitely looks like ma, not sa. The second character (which was obviously added afterward in the space between the first and the third) is, however, quite certainly ka; KMS’s reading may be a silent emendation. — ⟨26⟩ kon(th)ukaḶ ⬦ konthukaḶ JFF; kondukaḶ KMS; konṟukaḶ RRM • See the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description about the problematic character. This instance is a circle with a cross inside.

⟨27⟩ perddaḶ n¡e!⟨i⟩ravadya RRM ⬦ pe(rdda/ṭṭā)Ḷ n¡e!⟨i⟩ravadya JFF; perddaḶ neravadya KMS • Except for the initial pe, these characters are small and narrow, and may have been written over a shorter deleted segment. — ⟨27⟩ pasiṇḍi KMS RRM ⬦ pasiṇ(ḍ/ṭ)i JFF. — ⟨27⟩ mu(ṭh)lu RRM ⬦ mudhlu JFF; muḍlu KMS • See the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description about the problematic character. This instance is a circle with nothing inside, so I accept RRM’s reading of ṭh (which they print without uncertainty). — ⟨27⟩ viṣṇuvarddhana JFF KMS ⬦ v¿e?⟨i⟩ṣṇuvarddhana RRM • Here again, the vowel marker is not closed on the left and thus resembles an e śiromātrā; see also the note to line 25. Note that the vowel marker in neravadya earlier in this line is also the expected pr̥ṣṭhamātrā, so I do not think an e was intended here. — ⟨27⟩ ma⟨28⟩hasatthavaḶ JFF ⬦ ma⟨28⟩hāsatthavaḶ KMS; ma⟨28⟩h¿a?⟨ā⟩satthavaḶ RRM.

⟨26⟩ kon(th)ukaḶ ⬦ konthukaḶ JFF; kondukaḶ KMS; konṟukaḶ RRM • Both instances of this word in the line are read by the different editors as shown here, and the problematic character in both appears as a circle with a T shape (a cross sans the upper arm) inside. See also the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description.

⟨28⟩ ga(jaṁbu?) ⬦ ga(jabuṁ?) JFF; gajña KMS; gajñabu RRM • Compare the unambiguous gajña(ṁ?)bu in line 23. The problematic segment here is very narrow. Apart from the quite certain anusvāra, it may be a very compressed and poorly executed jabu, or a partly disjointed and even more poorly executed jña. A correction from jña to jabu is also possible. RRM’s reading jñabu is, however, out of the question, since there is only one descender, which may either be part of ñ or an u marker. — ⟨28⟩ se(ṭh)lala ⬦ se(dhra?)la JFF; seḍlala KMS; seṭhla RRM • See the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description about the problematic character. This time, it is an oval with nothing inside, so I read it as ṭh. RRM may be right that la is superfluous (compare l. 24), but it is certainly present.

⟨29⟩ naḍupuḶ KMS RRM ⬦ nadupuḶ JFF • Again, I accept the Telugu scholars’ opinion. — ⟨29⟩ prithi(v)i- ⬦ prithi¿m?⟨v⟩i- JFF; prithimi- KMS; p¡ri!⟨r̥⟩thivī- RRM • The problematic character is distinctly different from the following ma, so I prefer to assume it is a correct va with an accidental extra stroke. — ⟨29⟩ ponikan(th)iṟamukoḷa ⬦ p(o/au)nikan(th?)iṟamukoḷa JFF; ponikanḍiṟamu koḷa KMS; ponikakṣeṟamukoḷa RRM • See the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description about the problematic character. This time it is a circle with two lines inside, pointing to 12 and 3 o’clock from the centre. I cannot agree with RRM’s kṣ, as this character looks very different not only from a typical kṣ but also from the cursive one in line 28. Reading the vowel as e also seems unlikely even though the marker is not closed on the left; compare the note to line 25. — ⟨29⟩ naḍupu KMS RRM ⬦ nadupu JFF • Again, I accept the Telugu scholars’ opinion.

⟨30⟩ kon(th)ukalu JFF ⬦ konḍukalu KMS; konṟukalu RRM • See the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description about the problematic character. This one is a circle with a horizontal line inside. — ⟨30⟩ -¡pridhivi!⟨pr̥thivī⟩-Ḷ ⬦ -prithivi- JFF; -pridhivi- KMS; -p¿ri?⟨r̥⟩thivī- RRM.

⟨31⟩ muddakañcikoḶ KMS RRM ⬦ mu(dd/ṭṭ)akañcikoḶ JFF. — ⟨31⟩ ramisvarā JFF ⬦ ramisvanā KMS; ramīśvarā RRM • Presumably a typo in KMS, while RRM’s reading may be a silent emendation.

⟨30⟩ -¡pridhivi!⟨pr̥thivī⟩-Ḷ ⬦ -prithivi- JFF; -prithivī- KMS; -p¿ri?⟨r̥⟩thivī- RRM.

⟨31⟩ -mahasartthavaḷa JFF ⬦ -mahasartthavaḶ KMS; -mah¿ā?⟨ā⟩satthavaḷa RRM. — ⟨31⟩ Apayajanuvakola KMS ⬦ Apayajanuva-kāla JFF; Apayajanuvako¿l?⟨ḷ⟩a RRM. — ⟨31⟩ koṇḍukaḶ RRM ⬦ koṇ(ḍ/ṭ)ukaḶ JFF; konḍukaḶ KMS. — ⟨31⟩ korin(th)ikoḶ RRM ⬦ korindhikoḶ JFF; korinḍikoḶ KMS • See the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description about the problematic character. Here too, it is an empty circle.

⟨32⟩ -¡pridhivi!⟨pr̥thivī⟩ ⬦ -prithivi- JFF; pridhivī- KMS; -p¿ri?⟨r̥⟩thivī- RRM. — ⟨32⟩ konthukaḶ JFF ⬦ konḍukaḶ KMS; konṟukaḶ RRM • See the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description about the problematic character. This instance is a circle with a complete cross inside it. — ⟨32⟩ nandi JFF RRM ⬦ nadi KMS • KMS’s omission of n is probably a typo, since it is present in his translation. — ⟨32⟩ -mahanavila JFF ⬦ mahānavila KMS; mah¿a?⟨ā⟩navi⟨yu⟩la RRM.

⟨29⟩ naḍupu RRM ⬦ nadupu JFF; naḍu KMS • Again, I accept the Telugu scholars’ opinion. KMS’s omission of pu is a typo, since the syllable is present in his translation.

⟨32⟩ -maha⟨33⟩satthavaḷa JFF ⬦ -mahā⟨33⟩satthavaḷa KMS; -mah¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨33⟩satthava¿la?⟨Ḷ⟩ RRM.

⟨33⟩ saka⟨la⟩-¡lokaśrayya!⟨lokāśraya⟩ RRM ⬦ sakā⟨la⟩¡lokaśrayya!⟨lokāśraya⟩ JFF; sakalokaśrayya KMS • JFF’s first ā is probably a typo, since he does not emend it. — ⟨33⟩ -¡pridhivi!⟨pr̥thivī⟩ ⬦ -prithivi- JFF; pridhivī- KMS; -p¿ri?⟨r̥⟩thivī- RRM. — ⟨33⟩ mahasartthavala JFF ⬦ mahāsartthavala KMS; mah¿a?⟨ā⟩sarthava¿la?⟨Ḷ⟩ RRM. — ⟨33⟩ div¿a?⟨ā⟩karayya JFF RRM ⬦ divakarsyya KMS • Typo in KMS.

⟨34⟩ -jaṣṭi-pendaṭṭaṟṟa JFF RRM ⬦ -jaṣṭi pedaṭṭaṟṟa KMS • The omission of n in KMS must be a typo. — ⟨34⟩ gan(th)ān(th)u ⬦ gandhānthu JFF; ganḍānḍu KMS; ganṟānṟu RRM • See the note to line 23 and the palaeographic description about the problematic character. Here, the first instance has a horizontal line across it, while the second has full cross inside.

Translation by Dániel Balogh1

(1–17) Greetings. ⟨The grandson⟩ of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (III), who made the complete circle of the earth bow down by the power of the blade of his sword and who was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāriti, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, to whom the realms of adversaries instantaneously submit at the [mere] sight of the superior Boar emblem they have acquired by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice—; the dear son of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Vijayāditya (I), the ¿maker?,2 who by a mere frown dispersed all enemy kingdoms, whose body was cleansed by the distribution of gold weighed on many balance scales, 3 His Majesty the supremely pious King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), supreme devotee of Maheśvara, who possesses the bodily marks of a universal sovereign (cakravartin), who is the beloved of Royal Fortune (lakṣmī) as (Viṣṇu) the Bearer of the Discus {is the beloved of Lakṣmī}, whose ascendancy occurs perpetually, as that of the sun,4 who produces delight in the world like the moon {with its rays}, who scatters gifts like a divine elephant {sprinkling rut fluid}, who is profound by nature, like the ocean, who is attended by a fearsome army like Yudhiṣṭhira {who is attended by Bhīmasena}, whose power is as irresistible as {the spear} of Kārttikeya, who is equipped with the three powers (śakti-traya), learned in the four royal sciences, prevailing over adversity (viṣama-siddhi) in battles, a cow of plenty (kāmadhenu) to supplicants, a crocodile-bannered [god of love] to women, a doomsday sun (pralayāditya) to dispel the darkness of his enemies, the flames of the wildfire of whose blazing valour have licked enemy kings, a ¿swift? wind, 5, a conqueror (vijigīṣu) who conquers righteously (dharma-vijayin)—[this Viṣṇuvardhana] commands all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)— as follows: let it be known to you that we ⟨have given⟩ 6

(17–22) Greetings. The masters of the town (ūri-svāmuḷ) in Prithivīpallava-paṭṭana have made a grant to (the deity) Karigaḷḷa-vaḍavaru in the town.7 The town’s donation is [comprised of] the fixed income (siddhāyaṁbu) from (the taxes) ari and dagu-teṟe and the penalties on the ten kinds of crime collected from Reṇḍuvāḍala-paṭṭana, with an exemption from all interference. Whatever action the three officers of Reṇḍuvāḍala protecting the grant take against those violating it, will prevail. If there is any authority over these officers, [even then] the action taken by the latter will prevail.8

(23–24) [The three officers are]9 The sea merchant (mahanabiyuḶ) Narāḷoka;10 the land merchant (mahasatthavuḶ) Virāpava; the sea merchant guildmaster Gajñaṁbu as the agent (naḍupuḷ) of Samasta-bhuvanāśraya Kanadiraju.11

(24–25) By the order of the town, composed by Badrapereya and written by the sea merchant Vayyeḻi. 12

(26–34) [Witnessed by:]13

  • sea merchant Vayyeḻi
  • land merchant Sarvalokāśraya, the son of Makala14
  • the respected land merchant Neravadya
  • treasury officer Veṭandala Caruvayya
  • land merchant Viṣṇuvardhana
  • guildmaster Gajaṁbu, son of Accakuṟṟavaniyu [who was the] son of Pasukṣevulu, as the agent of land merchant Prithivi
  • Veṭandaḷ Ponikanthiṟamukoḷ, as the agent of Niravadya Pridhivi Kanadirajuḷ son of the land merchant Viṣṇuvardhana
  • sea merchant Gunavana
  • Muddakañcikoḷ
  • land merchant Ramisvarā Pridhivi
  • Korinthikoḷ, son of Apayajanuvakol
  • sea merchant Nandi, son of the land merchant Karigala Pridhivi, as the agent of His Honour the land merchant Sakala-Lokāśraya Pridhivi
  • land merchant Divākarayya Pañcakoḷ

(34) Engraved by His Honour Śrī Jaṣṭi Pendaṭṭaṟṟa.15

Translation into French by Estienne-Monod 2008

(1–17) Prospérité ! Le petit-fils de l’illustre grand roi Viṣṇuvardhana, qui a conquis le cercle de la terre immense par la puissance de la lame de son épée, ornement de la lignée des Calukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, honorés dans le monde entier, fils de Hāriti, qui obtinrent leur royaume grâce à la l’excellente faveur de Kauśikī, protégés par la troupe des Mères, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, dont les cercles ennemis furent soumis en un instant à la vue du signe du sanglier illustre, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, dont les corps furent purifiés par les bains purificatoires de l’aśvamedha, le cher fils de l’illustre grand roi Vijayāditya, destructeur qui a balayé le cercle de tous ses ennemis par son seul froncement de sourcil, qui a purifié son corps en pesant maintes donations d’or,16 lui qui porte la marque d’un souverain cakravartin ; bien-aimé de la Fortune, comme Cakradhara est le bien-aimé de Lakṣmī, il voit s’accroître sa prospérité comme le soleil levant, il fait le bonheur de l’univers comme la lune le réjouit de ses rayons, il fait pleuvoir des dons, comme l’éléphant des dieux fait pleuvoirs le dāna, il possède un profond courage, comme l’océan dont la profondeur est la nature, il dispose d’une armée terrifiante, comme Yudhiṣṭhira est accompagné de Bhīmasena, sa puissance est invaincue comme la lance de Kārtikeya, dont les pouvoirs sont inattaquables, il est doué des trois pouvoirs, expert dans les quatre sciences des rois,17 il obtient des succès difficiles dans les combats, il est la vache des désirs pour les miséreux, Makaradhvaja pour les femmes, s’agissant de disperser ces ténèbres que sont les ennemis, il est le soleil de la Grande Destruction, feu impétueux dont les flammes du brasier qu’est son énergie flamboyante lèchent les rois ennemis, vijigīṣu, conquérant du dharma, très pieux, excellent seigneur, le grand roi illustre, refuge de tous les hommes, Viṣṇuvardhana, ordonne ceci à tous chefs de familles, rāṣṭrakūṭa en tête : qu’il soit connu de vous que par nous à Pr̥thivi-pallava-paṭṭana ?18

Commentary

The findspot “Ahadanakaram” has not been identified; already Fleet prints the name in inverted commas, while Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy refer to it as “elusive.”

The plates had a ring, which was cut by the time Fleet saw it. The seal was also lost by that time. Or perhaps a seal was never attached, as the authenticity of the plates is questionable.

In the Telugu section of the grant, I attempt to provide a diplomatic reading of what is visible in the plates, noting in the apparatus alternative from JFF, KMS (many of which seem to be silent emendations) and RRM. In spacing, hyphenation and punctuation, I largely follow RRM.

The word karigaḷḷa in line 18 seems to be part of the name of the deity who receives this grant, and it occurs again in the form karigala in line 32 as part of the name of a person who also has the name or title pridhivi implying a royal connection. The other known occurrence of karigalla (in this third form) is in stanza 2 of the Sātalūru plates of Vijayāditya III, where it is almost certainly used as a cognomen of Viṣṇuvardhana V. Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy 1975, p. 126 also point out this, and suggest interpreting the term as “he who is efficient in taming the elephants” or “he who forcibly takes away (or steals away) the elephants of the enemy kings”, also citing (and expressing disagreement) with Veturi Prabhakara Sastri who interpreted it as meaning “he who hits at the cheeks of the elephants.” They infer, very plausibly, that the deity of the present grant is thus named after the king, and further suggest deriving vaḍavaru from Sanskrit bhaṭṭāra. In this they again disagree with the opinion of Veturi Prabhakara Sastri (and M. Somasekhara Sarma who agreed with Prabhakara Sastri) that the word is from Tamil uḍaiyavar, since the cognates of those are vaḍayaru (odayaḍu) in Telugu and vaḍayar (oḍeyaru) in Kannaḍa.

The presence of the name Karigaḷḷa suggests that this charter was issued by Viṣṇuvardhana V. For reasons to be elaborated elsewhere, I believe that attribution to Viṣṇuvardhana IV is more likely. The unintelligibly corrupt string karigaḍapelimarājaraja in the Pamiḍimukkala plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II may contain the epithet Karigaḷḷa, indicating that it was used by several Viṣṇuvardhanas.

Bibliography

Edited from the original by J. F. Fleet (1884) without translation, with estampages of the plates. Fleet’s edition and introduction was reproduced in Burgess and Naṭeśa Śāstrī 1886, pp. 174–176. Subsequently noticed in Chandra 1957, p. 37, appendices A/1956-1957, № 86 and again in Gai 1967, p. 49, appendices A/1962-1963, № 17, both without discussion. The text of the Telugu section (without indication of editorial intervention) was published with a translation by Korada Mahadeva Sastri (1969, pp. 299–301). A more critical and thorough edition and analysis of the Telugu section was also published by K. V. Ramesh and S. V. Ramachandra Murthy (1975), who also summarise previous scholarly opinions published in Telugu.

The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Fleet’s text with his facsimiles and with inked impressions from Sir Walter Elliot’s collection.19

Additional, untraced bibliography, mostly in Telugu:20

  • Journal of the Punjab Historical Society, Vol. 5, pp. 174ff;21
  • Bhāratī vol. 5 pt. 2 (1928), pp. 96-110, a critical study of the text by Veturi Prabhakara Sastri;
  • Bhāratī vol. 5 (1928?), pp. 286-301 and 661-665, discussion especially of palaeography by Mallampalli Somasekhara Sarma;22
  • Andhra Sahithya Parishat Patrika 22 (1933 or 1934), pp. 174-176, text and notes by Lakshmana Rao;
  • Andhra Sahithya Parishat Patrika 22 (1933 or 1934), pp. 185-196, critical study by Kunduri Iswaradatt;
  • Chilukuri Narayana Rao, History of Telugu Language (Andhra-bhasha-charitramu) (1937), vol. 2 (or vol. 1?), pp. 1310-1316, text and notes;
  • Bhāratī vol. 14(probably 1937), pp. 825-847: discussion by K. Suryanarayana.
  • RPS, pp. 71-72 (publication not identified): text and notes by M. Somasekhara Sarma;
  • Andhra Pariśōdhakamaṇḍali Pancama vārṣikōtsava (publication not identified): notes by K. V. Lakshmana Rao;

Primary

[JFF] Fleet, John Faithfull. 1884. “Sanskrit and Old Canarese inscriptions: No. CXLVII.” IA 13, pp. 185–187.

[KMS] 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 299–301.

[RRM] Ramesh, K. V. and S. S. Ramachandra Murthy. 1975. “The Ahadanakaram plates: a critical study.” Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India 1, pp. 124–131.

Secondary

Chandra, B.C. 1957. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for 1956-57. New Delhi: Manager of Publications (Department of Archaeology). Page 37, appendixes A/1956-1957, item 86.

Gai, G. S. 1967. Annual report on Indian epigraphy for 1962-63. Delhi: Manager of Publications. Page 49, appendixes A/1962-1963, item 17.

Gaur, Albertine. 1975. Indian charters on copper plates in the Department of Oriental Manuscripts and Printed Books. London: British Museum Publications. Page 6, item Ind. Ch. 9.

Notes

  1. 1. The translation of the Sanskrit section is my own. For the Telugu section, I venture a tentative translation, likely to be wrong in many details, based on K. M. Sastri’s translation (1969, pp. 300–301), Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy’s discussion (1975, pp. 127–130), and my own conjecture.
  2. 2. This word is probably the end of a longer compound, the rest of which was accidentally omitted. See the commentary.
  3. 3. That is, gold weighed on a scale against his body, the tulāpuruṣa mahādāna.
  4. 4. I translate my conjectural emendation noted in the apparatus for line 10.
  5. 5. There is probably something wrong with the text here. I translate as best I can, but see the apparatus note to line 15.
  6. 6. The text leaves off abruptly here, and the Telugu section begins anew with the salutation svasti.
  7. 7. Karigaḷḷa is apparently a cognomen of Viṣṇuvardhana V (but see also the commentary), and Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy 1975, p. 126 argue that vaḍavaru is equivalent to Sanskrit bhaṭṭāra(ka). The deity is thus probably one established by the king.
  8. 8. I follow K. M. Sastri in the translation of these two sentences. According to Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy, the latter means that whoever questions the punitive action of the town’s officers shall be subject to the same punishment.
  9. 9. According to Sastri, this is already the beginning of the list of witnesses. I follow Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy in the interpreting this passage as specifying the three officers referred to above, but segment it differently. By their explanation, Narāḷoka is both mahanabiyuḶ and mahasatthavuḶ, while the last person with the royal name is neither.
  10. 10. See Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy 1975, pp. 128–129 for a convincing argument to equate mahanabiyuḶ and its variants to Sanskrit mahā-nāvika and mahasatthavuḶ and its variants to mahā-sārthavāha, interpreted respectively as masters of trade over sea and land. I adopt this interpretation here, although some doubt is cast on it by the fact that mahasatthavuḶ is several times associated with a royal title. Were the kings given merchant honorifics, or were some merchants named after kings? See especially the combination of mahasatthavaḷa with śrī and a royal cognomen in ll. 32-33.
  11. 11. I accept Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy’s translation of naḍupu as “agent,” but in their interpretation each time it is a person named after a king who seems to be the agent of a person with a commoner’s name. I therefore venture, without being at all certain, that the relationship is to be understood in reverse, with the commoner-named people acting as royal agents.
  12. 12. Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy’s explanation of this passage is not at all transparent. It seems to me that neither composition nor writing can actually be read in the text, and I do not know how panikoḷuce neraka pañcina vrasi figures in their interpretation. They may well be right to believe that the repetition of vayyeḻi mahānabhiḷ (with some variation) is redundant dittography, but I am not at all convinced that the persons named acted in the functions with which these scholars associate them. K. M. Sastri’s translation makes these people witnesses, with the first Vayyeḻi “toiling in the service of the village” and the second Vayyeḻi “in the service of the village at the instance of the first, who could not carry on the work.”
  13. 13. In segmenting the list below, I mostly follow Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy, but add Sastri’s translations of some terms left untranslated by them, and adopt the spellings shown in the present edition.
  14. 14. In Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy’s discussion this is “son of Sakala”. Given that the reading is quite certainly makala, I wonder if this word is a Tamil one meaning “son” redundantly rather than a name, in which case this Sarvalokāśraya might be the son of Vayyeḻi, who has just been mentioned twice before.
  15. 15. Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy suggest deriving pandaṭṭaṟṟa from Tamil peruntaṭṭāṟa equivalent to Sanskrit mahā-suvarṇakāra and attested in some inscriptions of the Gaṅgas of Talakāḍu. This sounds plausible, but I do not know whether “engraved by” is their translation of ganthānthu or a conjecture, and I wonder if a master goldsmith would receive the honorific śrī.
  16. 16. Allusion au sacrifice dit tulābhāra au cours duquel le roi donne son poids en or à un ou à plusieurs brahmanes.
  17. 17. La philosophie, les trois Veda, l’économie et les traités politiques. Arthaśāstra, 1, 2, 1.
  18. 18. La suite du texte semble être rédigée en telugu, nous n’avons pu proposer une traduction.
  19. 19. Scans of these impressions were obtained by Emmanuel Francis from the Edinburgh University Library, the Bibliothèque nationale de France and the British Museum.
  20. 20. These items have been gathered from Ramesh and Ramachandra Murthy 1975, Chandra 1957, p. 37, appendices A/1956-1957, № 86, and personal communication with Jens Thomas. Some may be inaccurate.
  21. 21. Not found; volume 5 of the Journal of the Panjab Historical Society (1918) seems to end on p. 125; volume 5 of the Journal of the Panjab University Historical Society (1938) seems to end on p. 75.
  22. 22. Or possibly in Volume 2 (1925?) rather than 5, same page range.