Eḍeru plates of Amma I

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00028.

Language: Sanskrit.

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

Version: (e50dfba), last modified (184e36f).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩
I. Anuṣṭubh

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ sarvvākāram aśeṣasya

a

jagataḥ sarvadā śivaṁ

b

go-brāhmaṇa-nr̥pāṇāṁ cca

c

śivaṁ bhavatu sarvadā||

d

⟨2⟩ svasti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrānāṁ hārītī-putrāṇāṁ kau⟨3⟩śikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātā⟨4⟩nāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-va⟨5⟩śīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ calukyā⟨6⟩nāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇ¿u?⟨o⟩ḥ|| satyāśraya-vallabh⟦e⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩sya bhrātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhano ⟨’⟩ṣṭāda⟨7⟩śa varṣāṇi| tat-putro jayasiṁha-vallabhas trayastriṁśad varṣāṇi| tad-bhrātur indrarāja-na⟨8⟩ndano vi(ṣṇu)varddhanaḥ nava varṣāṇi| tat-putro maṁgi-yuvarājaḥ paṁcaviṁśati saṁvatsarāN| ⟨9⟩ tat-sūnur jjayasiṁhas trayodaśa saṁvatsarāN| tad-⟨d⟩vaimāturānujaḥ kokkili⟨ḥ⟩⟨Page 2r⟩ ⟨10⟩ ṣaṇ māsān| tad-agrajo viṣṇurājas svānujam uccāṭy¿ā?⟨a⟩ saptatriṁśat-saṁvatsarāN⟨.⟩ ta⟨11⟩t-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārakaḥ AṣṭādaśābdāN| tan-nandano viṣṇuvarddhanaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśa⟨12⟩d-abdān| tat-putraḥ

II. Anuṣṭubh

gaṁgga-raṭṭa-balais sārddhaM

a

dvādaśābdān ah¿ā?⟨a⟩r-nniśam

b

bhujārjjita-balaṁ ⟨13⟩ khaḍga-

c

-sahāyo naya-vikramaiḥ

d
III. Anuṣṭubh

Aṣṭottaraṁ yuddha-śataM

a

yuddhvā śaṁbhor mma⟨14⟩hālayāN

b

tat-saṁkhy¿ā?⟨a⟩yākarod vīro

c

vijayāditya-bhūpatiḥ

d
IV. Anuṣṭubh

kr̥tvā rājyaṁ ⟨15⟩ sa veṁggīś¿ā?⟨a⟩s

a

sa catvāriṁśatas samāN

b

catur-uttara-saṁkhyātāN

c

yayau ¿ś?⟨s⟩akhyaṁ ¿s?⟨ś⟩acī-pa⟨16⟩teḥ

d
V. Anuṣṭubh

tat-sūnur ¿ṇṇ?⟨nn⟩ayavi{T}d vīraḥ

a

kallyādir vviṣṇuvarddhan¡o!|

b

veṁggī-nāthas samastānām

c

āyudhā⟨17⟩nāṁ ka¡ḷ!au kr̥tī

d
VI. Vasantatilakā

varṇṇ¿a?⟨ā⟩śrama-sthiti-niyojana-dakṣa-rakṣā-

a

-ś¿ī?⟨i⟩kṣā-paraḫ para-puraṁ-jaya-sa⟨Page 2v⟩⟨18⟩kta-bāhu⟨ḥ⟩|

b

nityan trivargga-paripā¡ḷ!ana-tantra-mantri-

c

-saṁvvarddhitākhila-dharātala-la⟨19⟩bdha-tejāḥ

d
VII. Anuṣṭubh

gaja-vāji-yuddha-kuśalas

a

sārddha-saṁvvatsaraṁ ppatiḥ

b

babhūva rājye (na)ya-vi⟨20⟩d

c

abhiṣiktaḥ kulonnateḥ|

d
VIII. Rathoddhatā

tat-suto ⟨’⟩jani samasta-bhūbhr̥tāṁ

a

śāsakaḥ sakala-saṁpadāṁ pa⟨21⟩tiḥ

b

dhairrya-dāna-dhr̥ti-dharmma-nirmmala--

c

-śrī-pratāpa-dhara-mūrtti-viśrutaḥ

d
IX. Hariṇī

samara-ni⟨22⟩ratārāti-vrātān aneka-dhareśvarāN|

a

prakr̥ti-bala-saṁpannaḥ tejas-tati-krama⟨23⟩ṇonnatiḥ|

b

vilasad-asinā jitvā sūrryaṁ pratāpa-yaśomayair

c

jjagati vijayādi⟨24⟩tyo nityaṁ guṇaiś ca jigāya saḥ|

d
X. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

gaṁgān aṁgaja-vairi-śaktir asamāN| raṭṭeśa-saṁcodito

a

jitvā maṁgi-śiro ⟨’⟩hara¡T! yudhi mahā-bāhvāpta-vīryyāryyamā|

b

kr̥ṣṇaṁ saṁkilam a⟨Page 3r⟩⟨26⟩ṁkitākhila-bala-prāptoru-sad-vikramo|

c

bhītārttau ca vidhāya tat-puram araṁ yo ⟨27⟩ nirddadāha prabhuḥ

d

sa samasta-bhuvanāśraya-śrī-vijayādityaś catuścatvāri⟨28⟩ṁśad-varṣāṇi| tad-anu savitaryy astaṁ-gate timira-paṭaleneva raṭṭa-dāyāda-bale⟨29⟩nābhivyāptaM veṁgī-maṇḍalaM tad-anuja-vikramāditya-sūnuś calukya-bhīmā⟨30⟩dhipo drohārjunāpara-nāmā sva-vikramaika-sahāya-taravāri-prabhayāvabhā⟨31⟩syādhipatir abhūt⟨.⟩ kiṁ ca|| dīnānātha-nagna-naṭa-gāyaka-dharmma-dhvaja-vr̥ttīnāM pitarāv i⟨32⟩va sakheva gurur ivābhilaṣitaṁ vistīrrya kalpa-taru-pratimaś cetāṁsi dānena saṁta⟨33⟩rpya triṁśad-varṣāṇi{|} pālayitvātma-guṇaiḥ purandaram ānandayann iva tat-sakhyam agamaT|

XI. Anuṣṭubh

⟨Page 3v⟩ ⟨34⟩ tat-putro vijayādityaḥ

a

śaiśavālabdha-saṁpadā

b

sarvva-bhogādhirājyāṁga-

c

-bala-ratn(o?)⟨35⟩(gha?)-viśrutaḥ|

d
XII. Sragdharā

jīvaty eva pratāpā¿p t?⟨t p⟩itari bhuja-bala-dhvasta-tad-vairi-varggaḥ

a

paścāj jitvāri-vargga⟨36⟩n nijam ajita-mahā-śakti-saṁpanna-mantra⟨ḥ⟩

b

prajñā-cakreṇa bāhyāṁ ripu-samitim api svārttha⟨37⟩-bhogaiḥ kr̥ttārttho

c

rājyāśīr-llabdha-tejaḥ-sama-dalam adhipo jetum indraṁ prayā⟨38⟩taḥ|

d

tat-sūnur udayāditya ivāmm¡a! rāja-mahendrāpara-nāmā ripu-timi⟨39⟩ram ārān nihatya prakr̥ti-sapatna-pakṣa-nikṣipta-sāmanta-kulya-kuṭila-mano-bha⟨40⟩ṁga-karaṁ karavālam utkr̥¿t?⟨ṣ⟩ya śakti-traya-saṁpanna-pratāpāvarjita-pitr̥-pitāmaha⟨41⟩-prakr̥ti-balaḥ prajñayā sura-guruṁ tejasā bhānumantaṁ kṣamayā kṣamām ama⟨Page 4r⟩⟨42⟩ra-giriṁ vividha-budha-samāśrayatayānukurvvaN sarvva-lokāśraya-viṣṇuvarddhana-ma⟨43⟩hārājaḥ sva-rājyābhiṣeka-kr̥ta-kalyāṇaḥ siṁhāsanārūḍhaḥ kaṇḍeṟuvāḍi-viṣaya⟨44⟩-nivāsinaḥ sarvvān kuṭuṁbinas samāhūyettham ājñāpayati sma|

Asmat-kula-kallyāṇa-pa⟨45⟩raṁp¿ā?⟨a⟩rā-niyogādhikr̥ta-paṭṭavarddhinī-vaṁśāgraṇyā| kāḻakaṁpa Iti viśrute⟨46⟩na| kubja-viṣṇuvarddhanānucareṇa saṁgrāme tad-anujñayā durddharṣa-balaṁ daddara-nā⟨47⟩mānaṁ vinihatya tac-cihnāni{|} yena jagr̥hire| tat-kula-prasūta-somādityasya sūnur a⟨48⟩neka-yuddha-labdha-pratāpaḥ pritiviyarājaḥ|

XIII. Anuṣṭubh

tat-sūnus sakalārāti-

a

-mada-ccheda-karā⟨49⟩yudhaḥ

b

sevako vijayāditya-

c

-kaliyartty-aṁka-bhūbhujaḥ

d
XIV. Anuṣṭubh

Abhaiṣur bhaṇḍanādityaṁ

a

dr̥ṣtvā ⟨Page 4v⟩ ⟨50⟩ pratimukhā¿ṁrjj?⟨ñj⟩anam

b

prāptam ujj⟨v⟩ala-gaṇḍā⟨ṅ⟩kaṁ

c

yaṁ pare yama-sannibhaM|

d

yo hi|

XV. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

śātrūṇāṁ ⟨51⟩ tumuleṣu vīra-paṭahaṁ saṁśrāvya jitvā balaṁ

a

kuṁtāditya Iti{|} śrutāṁkita-mahā⟨52⟩-kīrtti-pratāpālayaḥ

b

mac-cittaṁ paritoṣya bhr̥tya-padavīṁ labdhvā prasāda⟨ṁ⟩ ga{ṁ}taḥ

c

sphītā⟨53⟩neka-balāri-bhūpa-vijayī śrī-janma-bāh¿u?⟨ū⟩nnatiḥ|

d

tasmai| sa-dvādaśa-grāmaṭiko ⟨54⟩ goṁṭūru nāma grāmaḥ sarvva-kara-parihārīkr̥tyāsmābhir ddatta Iti| viditam a⟨55⟩stu vo ⟨’⟩smābhiḥ||

Asyāvadhayaḥ| pūrvvataḥ goṁguva| dakṣiṇataḥ goṇayūru| paścimata⟨56⟩ḥ| kaluceṟuvulu| Uttarataḥ maḍapalli| eteṣām madhya-varttinaḥ kṣetra-sīmānaḥ| pūrvvataḥ| ⟨57⟩ pātuṟāyu| Āgneyataḥ| peddakoyilamu| dakṣiṇataḥ kuṟuvapoṭi| ¡nairititaḥ!⟨nairr̥tataḥ⟩ pe⟨Page 5r⟩⟨58⟩ruvāti kuṟuva| paścimataḥ| pālaguṁṭṭa paḍumaṭikaṭṭa| vāyavyataḥ| polaku⟨59⟩ṁgoṇḍa monadurgga bha¡dha!vati| Uttarataḥ maḍapallipaṟṟu| ¡Īśānataḥ!⟨Aiśānataḥ⟩ cāmiṟenigu⟨60⟩ṁṭṭa||

Asyopari na kenacid bādhā karttavyā⟨.⟩ yaḥ karoti sa paṁca-mahā-pātako bhava⟨61⟩ti⟨.⟩ tathā ca vyāsenoktaṁ

XVI. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā

a

bahubhiś cānupālitā

b

yasya ⟨62⟩ yasya yadā bhūmis

c

tasya tasya tadā phalaM||

d
XVII. Anuṣṭubh

sva-dattāṁ para-dattāṁ vā

a

yo ha⟨63⟩re¡t tu! vasundharā¡N!

b

ṣaṣṭiṁ varṣa-sahasrāṇi

c

viṣṭhāyāṁ jāyate kr̥miḥ||

d
⟨Page 5v⟩

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

⟨1⟩ {c}ca EH ⬦ {ś}ca NS.

⟨5⟩ °āvabhr̥tha- EH ⬦ °āvabhr̥¿t?⟨th⟩a- NS.

⟨6⟩ -vallabh⟦e⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩sya • Hultzsch observes that the engraver probably started to write -vallabhendrasya at first. It is also possible that the scribe’s original error was the omission of ndra; subsequently, this may have been rectified by simply deleting the e instead of inserting ndra.

⟨8⟩ vi(ṣṇu)varddhanaḥ • Hultzsch says the akṣara ṣṇu is incomplete. This needs checking with a facsimile.

⟨10⟩ uccāṭy¿ā?⟨a⟩ EH ⬦ udvāpya NS.

⟨12⟩ sārddhaM EH JFF1 ⬦ sārddhān NS. — ⟨12⟩ -balaṁ EH ⬦ -bala- NS JFF1 • The unmetrical reading -bala- may be excluded (or emended, if it is confirmed to be factual), but Hultzsch’s reading is also very awkward, though it may be interpreted as a neuter accusative used adverbially. I am tempted to read (or emend to) -balaḥ, and perhaps also emend the preceding °ārjjita to °orjjita.

⟨13⟩ khaḍga EH ⬦ padga NS.

⟨14⟩ rājyaṁ ⟨15⟩ sa veṁggīś¿ā?⟨a⟩s sa catvāriṁśatas samāN EH ⬦ rājyaṁ sa Gaṅgīśa ⟨15⟩ catvāriṁśat samāN NS.

⟨16⟩ ¿ṇṇ?⟨nn⟩ayavi{T}d EH ⬦ nayavān NS.

⟨17⟩ kaḷau kr̥tī EH ⬦ karṣākr̥tī NS. — ⟨17⟩ -dakṣa-rakṣā- EH ⬦ -rakṣā- NS.

⟨19⟩ (na)ya-vi⟨20⟩d EH ⬦ jaya-vi⟨20⟩d NS.

⟨22⟩ -krama⟨23⟩ṇonnatiḥ • Hultzsch suggests that this may be emended to -kramajonnatiḥ. The emendation is plausible, but I feel it is not really necessary. Instead, kramaṇa may be understood as equivalent to krama, "gradual progression." See my translation.

⟨24⟩ gaṁgān aṁgaja- EH JFF2 ⬦ gaṁgānāṁ gaja- NS.

⟨25⟩ a⟨Page 3r⟩⟨26⟩ṁkitākhila- EH JFF2 ⬦ aṁ⟨Page 3r⟩⟨26⟩kito-khila- NS • Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s intent was probably aṁkito ’khila-.

⟨26⟩ bhītārttau ca vidhāya ⬦ bhītārtt¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨ṁ⟩ ca vidhāya JFF2; bhītārttān atha vihāya NS; ¿bhītārttau?⟨bhītyārtaṁ⟩ ca vidhāya EH • Although Hultzsch alone reads bhītārttau, the fact that he feels the need to emend this reading indicates that it must be quite clear in the original (pending the examination of a facsimile). We now know that Saṁkila is the name of a person (see the translation of this stanza and the notes there), so a dual ending is in fact appropriate. I also see no need to emend bhīta to bhīti (or bhītyā) as Hultzsch does: he rendered them "fearful and afflicted" (rather than "afflicted with fear"). — ⟨26⟩ -puram araṁ EH NS ⬦ -pura-¿m?⟨v⟩araṁ JFF2.

⟨28⟩ -paṭaleneva EH JFF2 ⬦ -paṭale nava- NS.

⟨31⟩ kiṁ ca EH ⬦ kila NS • Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s reading seems to be better; this needs checking against a facsimile. If Hultzsch is correct, add editorial punctuation before kiṁ ca, so that it is an introduction of the next sentence.

⟨34⟩ śaiśavālabdha-saṁpadā ⬦ śaiśavāl labdha-saṁpado NS; śaiśavā⟨l⟩ labdha-saṁpadā EH • Assuming that Hultzsch is correct in reading only one l, I find his emendation unnecessary. However, pending an examination of the end of this stanza, this phrase may also need revision. — ⟨34⟩ -bhogādhirājyāṁga EH ⬦ -bhogādi-rājyāṁga NS • This needs checking against a facsimile. — ⟨34⟩ -ratn(o?)⟨35⟩(gha?)-viśrutaḥ NS ⬦ -ratnai⟨35⟩r aviśrutaḥ EH • Hultzsch tentatively suggests emending to -ratnena, but neither this nor his reading seem very good. Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s reading, which he prints without any indication of uncertainty, is much better and I provisionally adopt it, pending verification from a facsimile. I believe the most likely reading (or, if this is impossible to read, the best emendation) would be ratnaiś ca.

⟨35⟩ pratāpā¿p t?⟨t p⟩itari EH ⬦ pratāpat-pitari NS. — ⟨35⟩ vargga ⟨36⟩ n EH ⬦ varggā ⟨36⟩ n NS.

⟨36⟩ -saṁpanna-mantra⟨ḥ⟩ EH ⬦ -saṁpan-narendra- NS. — ⟨36⟩ -samitim EH ⬦ -samitam NS. — ⟨36⟩ svārttha- EH ⬦ svārtta- NS.

⟨37⟩ rājyāśīr-llabdha-tejaḥ-sama-dalam ⬦ °āśīr llabdha-tejāḥ sama-dalam adhipo EH; °āśīl-labdha-tejaḥ-samadalam- NS • Hultzsch’s Devanagari edition uses no hyphenation, and the analysis shown here is mine, based on Hultzsch’s translation. Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s reading is cited as hyphenated in his edition; from his translation it seems that he may have read or understood sama-talam. My choice of reading and analysis is based on the two editions and my conjecture; here too, checking the facsimile is essential. See also the note to the translation.

⟨38⟩ ivāmm¿a?⟨o⟩ EH ⬦ iva Amma NS.

⟨39⟩ -kulya- EH ⬦ -kubja- NS.

⟨40⟩ utkr̥¿t?⟨ṣ⟩ya EH ⬦ utkr̥tya NS • I adopt Hultzsch’s emendation with some hesitation. It certainly improves the sense of the text greatly, but the supposed mistake is not a typical one. The composer may have intended utkr̥tya in the sense of "raising," or the correct reading/emendation may be uddhr̥tya.

⟨41⟩ kṣamayā kṣamām EH ⬦ kṣmayā kṣmām NS • Pending collation with a facsimile, I adopt Hultzsch’s reading. Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s edition certainly has at least one typo, but perhaps there is one in Hultzsch’s text as well; kṣamā is not a typical word for "earth" and I would rather expect kṣmām here.

⟨43⟩ kaṇḍeṟuvāḍi- EH ⬦ kaṇḍeṟuvāṭi- NS.

⟨45⟩ kāḻakaṁpa Iti EH ⬦ ko(ṭa?)kaṁpaiti NS.

⟨46⟩ daddara- EH ⬦ daṭṭara- NS.

⟨48⟩ pritiviyarājaḥ EH ⬦ pr̥tivīya rājaḥ NS. — ⟨48⟩ -karā⟨49⟩yudhaḥ EH ⬦ -karā|⟨49⟩yudhaḥ NS • Do we have a space filler here that Hultzsch ignored?

⟨49⟩ -kaliyartty-aṁka- EH ⬦ -kalīyatyāṁka- NS.

⟨50⟩ pratimukhā¿ṁrjj?⟨ñj⟩anam EH ⬦ prītim upārjanam NS • Here too, verification against a facsimile may help, but Hultzsch’s reading, interpretation and emendation seem to be the best that can be made of the text, though I wonder if perhaps the name Arjuna is involved instead. See also the note to the translation. — ⟨50⟩ ujj⟨v⟩ala-gaṇḍā⟨ṅ⟩kaṁ EH ⬦ ujvala-gaṇṭākaṁ NS • As in the previous entry, verification against a facsimile may help, but Hultzsch’s reading, interpretation and emendation seem to be the best that can be made of the text. See also the note to the translation.

⟨52⟩ prasāda⟨ṁ⟩ ga{ṁ}taḥ • Both editors agree on reading the anusvāra with ga, but a facsimile should be checked to see if it is shifted to the right for some reason.

⟨53⟩ -vijayī NS ⬦ -vijay¿i?⟨a⟩- EH • I provisionally adopt Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s reading. If Hultzsch is correct in reading i, then I still prefer emending to ī, although Hultzsch’s emendation is also plausible. — ⟨53⟩ -grāmaṭiko EH ⬦ -grāmādhike| NS.

⟨54⟩ sarvva-kara- EH ⬦ sarvākāra- NS. — ⟨54⟩ ddatta Iti EH ⬦ dattam iti NS.

⟨55⟩ goṇayūru EH ⬦ gaiṇayūru NS.

⟨57⟩ pātuṟāyu EH ⬦ potuṟāyu NS • Hultzsch’s translation, however, has Potuṟāyu, so there may be a typo in his edition. — ⟨57⟩ peddakoyilamu EH ⬦ peṭṭakoyilamu NS. — ⟨57⟩ kuṟuvapoṭi EH ⬦ kuṟuvacoṭi NS.

⟨58⟩ polaku⟨59⟩ṁgoṇḍa- EH ⬦ pailaku⟨59⟩ṁgoṇṭa- NS.

⟨59⟩ monadurgga EH ⬦ mainadurgga NS. — ⟨59⟩ bha¡dha!vati EH ⬦ bhagavatī NS • Hultzsch only tentatively proposes emending to bhagavatī. — ⟨59⟩ maḍapallipaṟṟu EH ⬦ madapallupaṟṟu NS. — ⟨59⟩ cāmiṟenigu⟨60⟩ṁṭṭa NS EH • Read or emend cāpi ṟeniguṁṭṭa?

⟨60⟩ -pātako NS EH • Though the text is intelligible as it is, scribal omission is likely given the widespread nature of the formula that would require -pātaka-saṁyukto here.

⟨62⟩ ha⟨63⟩re¡t tu! vasundharā¡N! EH ⬦ ha⟨63⟩reta vasuṁdharāM NS.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

I
Let all manner of thing always be well for all the world, and let it always be well for cows, Brahmins and kings.

(2–12) Satyāśraya Vallabha (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārītī, 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 enemy territories 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. His brother Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana [reigned] for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I), for thirty-three years. n’s (Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s) son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine years. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five years. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen years. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning his younger brother, his elder brother Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana III), for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen years. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six years. His son

II–III
the heroic King (bhūpati) Vijayāditya (II), who earned his power by [the strength of] his arms, fought—over the course of twelve years day and night, with his sword for a companion—a hundred and eight battles against the forces of the Gaṅgas and the Raṭṭas using stratagems and daring acts,1 and built as many (i.e. 108) great temples of Śambhu.
IV
After ruling as king for forty years counted along with four more, that Lord of Veṅgī departed to become a companion of (Indra) the Husband of Śacī.
V–VII
His heroic son versed in polity (naya), the Lord of Veṅgī, Viṣṇuvardhana (V) with the forename Kali, who was accomplished in warfare (kali) with all weapons,2 was anointed to kingship for the sake of his family’s elevation on account of his knowledge of polity (naya) and his skill in battle by elephant and horse, and became Lord for a year and a half.3 He was dedicated to protecting and disciplining (his subjects) in a manner that was adept at implementing the maintenance of the status quo (varṇāśrama). His arms were (ever) busy with conquering enemy cities. He attained glory on the entire surface of the earth, which he cultivated constantly through his ministers (mantrin) (who followed) the doctrine of cherishing the three goals (trivarga).
VIII
A son was born to him, the commander of all kings and master of all bounties, famed for manifesting in a [single] physical body [both] prowess and a majesty immaculate in purposefulness, generosity, constancy and virtue (dharma).
IX
[Called] Vijayāditya (III), “the Sun of Triumph” in [this] world, he defeated with his flashing sword the swarms of enemies eager for battle [and] no few kings thanks to being endowed with prowess by nature and having gradually heightened his store of ferocious energy (tejas), and by his virtues (guṇa)4 comprised of valour and glory he constantly surpassed even the sun {with its rays full of heat and brilliance}.
X
Defeating the unrivalled Gaṅgas at the instigation5 of the Raṭṭa lord (Amoghavarṣa I?), he, that sun6 [blazing with] valour gained from his powerful arms and possessing the prowess of (Śiva) the nemesis of Kāma,7 took the head of Maṅgi in battle. This masterful man, whose hallmark was the extensive and just valour achieved through his unbroken strength, 8 not only visited fear and anguish on Kr̥ṣṇa [and] Saṁkila, 9 but utterly burned their city.

(27–33) that shelter of the entire universe (samasta-bhuvanāśraya), His Majesty Vijayāditya (III), [reigned] for forty-four years. After him, the son of his younger brother Vikramāditya (I), King (adhipa) Calukya-Bhīma (I) who was also known as Drohārjuna, became king (adhipati), who with the gleam of his sword, the only companion to his valour, cast light on the country of Veṅgī that had been enveloped by the forces of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas (raṭṭa) and his rivals (dāyāda) as if by a shroud of darkness upon the setting of the sun. Moreover: like both parents, like a friend, like a preceptor, he showered whatever they desired on the afflicted, the helpless, the naked, the dancers (naṭa), singers (gāyaka) and religious showmen (dharma-dhvaja-vr̥tti)10 and gratified their hearts with his largesse like a wish-fulfilling tree. Having reigned in this manner for thirty years, he went to become Purandara’s (Indra’s) companion as if gladdening him with his virtues.

XI
His son Vijayāditya (IV) was famed for his bountifulness that began [already] in childhood, and for [possessing] all riches, constituents of imperial power, troops and jewels.11
XII
Thanks to his valour, he [first] eradicated the host of his father’s enemies by the strength of his arm even while his father still lived. Then, having defeated the host of his intrinsic enemies12 [thanks to] invincible strategy endowed with great power, and [having defeated] the league of external enemies with the army of his intellect, [this] king (adhipa), contented with the enjoyment of his objectives (svārtha), went on to overcome Indra, ¿who had a share of glory equal to (i.e. no greater than) that obtained (by Vijayāditya) from the blessings of his kingdom?. 13

(38–44) His son Amma, otherwise called Rājamahendra, has dispelled from afar the darkness of enemies like a rising sun, has brandished his sword to shatter the twisted minds of his feudatories (sāmanta) and kinsmen (kulya) who had thrown in their lot with the party of his natural enemies, and has won the loyalty of the subjects and troops of his father and grandfather by his valour complete with the three powers (śakti-traya). Imitating (Br̥haspati) the preceptor of the gods in intellect, the Sun in splendour, the earth in patience and the divine mountain (Meru) in being a supporter {the abode} of diverse learned men {gods}, [he,] the shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana (VI), having received the sacrament of being anointed to his own kingship and having ascended his throne, has convoked all householders (kuṭumbin) who reside in Kaṇḍeṟuvāḍi district (viṣaya) and commanded them thus:

(44–48) [There was] a chieftain of the Paṭṭavardhinī family which is charged with duties by the sacred tradition of our dynasty. Widely known as Kāḻakampa, this lieutenant of Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana slew in battle by his (Viṣṇuvardhana’s) authorisation one [enemy] of indomitable forces, Daddara by name, and seized his insignia (of power). Born in his family, Somāditya had a son Pritiviyarāja, who has achieved a hero’s reputation in many a battle.

XIII
His son, whose weapons break the arrogance of all enemies, is a servant of King Vijayāditya (IV?) whose epithet is Kaliyartti.
XIV
Foes are terrified to see this Bhaṇḍanāditya appear, for ¿with collyrium around his face and a bright mark on his cheek? he looks like Yama ¿with (his elephant) Añjana turned against them, temple shining (with rut fluid)?.14

(51) He it is who,

XV
by sounding the drum of heroes while defeating the force of [my] enemies in the thick of battle, [became] an abode of great reputation hallmarked by the sobriquet “Kuntāditya,” [and] having pleased my mind, attained a position as [my] retainer and obtained [my] favour [through being] a conqueror of puffed-up enemy rulers with numerous troops, and elevated [both] by his illustrious descent and by [the might of his own] arms.

(53–55) To him, we have granted the village named Goṁṭūru along with twelve hamlets, converted into [a holding] exempt from all taxes. Let it be known to you that by us15

(55–60) Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, Goṁguva. To the south, Goṇayūru. To the west, Kaluceṟuvulu. To the north, Maḍapalli. Within these are situated the [following] perimeter fields. 16 To the east, Pātuṟāyu. To the southeast, Peddakoyilamu. To the south, Kuṟuvapoṭi. To the southwest, Peruvāti [and] Kuṟuva. To the west, Pālaguṁṭṭa [and] Paḍumaṭikaṭṭa.17 To the northwest, Polakuṁgoṇḍa, Monadurgga [and] Bhadhavati. To the north, Maḍapallipaṟṟu. To the northeast, Cāmiṟeniguṁṭṭa.

(60–61) Let no-one pose an obstacle (to his enjoyment of his rights) over it. He who does so shall be [conjoined with] the five great sins. So too Vyāsa has said:

XVI
Many (kings) have granted land, and many have preserved it (as formerly granted). Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit {reward (accrued of granting it)} belongs to him at that time.
XVII
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.

Translation into French by Estienne-Monod 2008

Seal

Plates

I
Prospérité éternelle, sous toutes ses formes, pour le monde entier, Que les vaches, les brahmanes et les rois jouissent éternellement de la prospérité !

(2–12) Prospérité ! Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, frère de Satyāśraya Vallabhendra, ornement de la lignée des Calukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, honorés dans l’univers entier, fils de Hāritī, qui obtinrent leur royaume grâce à l’excellente faveur de Kauśikī, protégés par la troupes des Mères, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, dont le cercle des ennemis fut soumis en un instant à la vue du signe illustre de l’excellent sanglier, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, dont les corps furent purifiés par le bain purificatoire de l’aśvamedha, [régna] pendant dix-huit années ; son fils, Jayasiṁha Vallabha, pendant trente-trois années ; le fils de son frère Indrarāja, Viṣṇuvardhana, pendant neuf années ; le fils de celui-ci, Maṁgi Yuvarāja, pendant vingt-cinq années ; son fils, Jayasiṁha, pendant treize années ; son demi-fère cadet, Kokkili, pendant six mois ; le frère aîné de celui-ci, Viṣṇurāja, ayant chassé son cadet, pendant trente-sept années ; son fils Vijayāditya Bhaṭṭāraka pendant dix-huit années ; le fils de celui-ci, Viṣṇuvardhana, pendant trente-six années ; le fils de ce dernier,

II–III
ayant mené cent huit combats18 contre les armées des Gaṁga et des Raṭṭa, pendant douze années et demi, jour et nuit, [peuples maîtrisant] la science de la politique et doués de courage,19 lui, qui avait acquis la puissance grâce à son bras, muni d’une épée, fit autant de grands temples pour Śaṁbhu, lui, le courageux roi Vijayāditya.
IV
Ayant régné pendant quarante-quatre années, le seigneur de Veṅgī, devint l’ami de l’époux de Śacī.
V
Son fils, qui connaissait la science de la politique, courageux, dont le nom commence par Kali,20 Viṣṇuvardhana, souverain de Veṅgī, expert en tous combats de l’âge Kali,21
VI
expert dans le maintien et l’ordre des varṇa et des āśrama, qui se consacrait à [la science de] la protection, dont le bras s’attachait à la victoire sur les villes ennemies, dont le tejas gagna sur toute la surface de la terre, rendue prospère par des ministres voués à la préservation du trivarga.
VII
Expert dans les combats d’éléphants et de cavalerie, il fut roi de son excellente lignée, pendant un an et demi, lui qui savait [comment appliquer] la science de la politique fut sacré sur son trône.
VIII
Son fils [fut] le maître de tous les rois et le seigneur de toutes les richesses, renommé pour sa personne, porteuse de la splendeur de la gloire, que son courage, sa générosité, sa fermeté, son [respect] du dharma rendaient immaculée.
IX
Ayant vaincu par son étincelante épée des multitudes d’ennemis rompus au combat, de nombreux souverains, doté de force par sa nature,22 grandi par l’héritage d’une abondante splendeur, il surpassa pour toujours le soleil dans l’univers par ses vertus qui consistaient en splendeur et gloire, lui Vijayāditya.
X
Ayant vaincu les Gaṁga inégalés, lui qui possédait la puissance de l’ennemi d’Aṅgaja,23 provoqué par le seigneur des Raṭṭa, ce soleil d’héroïsme24 au bras puissant trancha la tête de Maṁgi25 lors d’un combat, lui qui conquit une grande et belle puissance par sa force, dont l’univers fut marqué, ce seigneur qui, faisant une torche de Kr̥ṣṇa, affligé par la terreur, brûla complètement sa cité.

(27–33) Refuge de l’univers entier, l’illustre Vijayāditya [régna] pendant quarante-quatre années. Puis, le fils de Vikramāditya, frère cadet de ce dernier, le roi Calukya Bhīma, nommé aussi Drohārjuna, fut roi, après avoir illuminé, par l’éclat de son épée, accompagnée de son seul courage, le royaume de Veṁgī, envahi par l’armée des héritiers des Raṭṭa, comme au coucher du soleil [le monde est envahi] par un voile de ténèbres. Ayant comblé les désirs des hommes malheureux, sans protection, nus,26 des danseurs, des chanteurs, de ceux qui tirent subsistance de la bannière du dharma,27 comme des parents, comme un ami, comme un père, faisant [naître] la joie dans les cœurs par ses dons comme l’arbre à vœux, après avoir régné pendant trente années, contentant Puraṁdara28 par ses vertus, il devint le compagnon de celui-ci.

XI
Son fils Vijayāditya, qui obtint la prospérité dès son enfance, fut renommé pour ce joyau que fut la force de son corps, maîtrisant de tous les plaisirs,
XII
Alors que son père était encore en vie, ayant anéanti la multitude d’ennemis de ce dernier par la force de son bras et par sa splendeur, ayant vaincu ensuite la multitude de ses ennemis, lui dont les plans étaient appuyés par les grands pouvoirs invaincus,29 ayant atteint son but par la jouissance de tout ce qu’il souhaitait, désirant [conquérir un autre] royaume, ayant acquis la puissance, ce roi rejoignit Indra afin de conquérir une part égale [au pouvoir de celui-ci].

(38–44) Son fils, Amma, nommé aussi Rāja Mahendra, ayant détruit de loin les ennemis, tel le soleil levant [détruit de loin] les ténèbres, ayant dégaîné son cimeterre qui brise les pensées malhonnêtes de ses parents feudataires passés du côté des rivaux naturels, qui s’est acquis le peuple et l’armée30 qui étaient ceux de son père et de son grand-père, dont les plans, appuyés par les trois pouvoirs,31 égalant par son intelligence l’enseignant des dieux,32 par sa splendeur le soleil, par sa patience la terre et la montagne des immortels par le fait qu’il soit un refuge pour les nombreux sages, refuge de tous les hommes, le grand roi Viṣṇuvardhana, ayant organisé une cérémonie pour son couronnement, étant monté sur le trône, ayant rassemblé tous les chefs de familles habitant le viṣaya de Kaṇḍeṟuvāṭi ordonne ceci :

(44–48) Le chef de la lignée de Paṭṭavarddhinī, à la tête de charges, par la succession prospère de notre lignée, connu comme Kāḻakaṁpa, qui accompagne Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, tua au combat, avec la permission de celui-ci, le [roi] nommé Daddara dont l’armée était invincible, et s’empara des bannières de ce dernier. Le fils de Somāditya, né dans la lignée de celui-ci, [fils] dont la puissance fut obtenue dans de nombreux combats, fut Pritiviya Rāja.

XIII
Son fils, dont les armes brisèrent l’orgueil de tous les ennemis, fut un fidèle serviteur du roi Vijayāditya Kaliyarttyaṁka.
XIV
Voyant ce Bhaṇḍanāditya venir vers eux, le visage couvert de fard, les ennemis prirent peur, [lui] dont les marques brillaient sur les joues, pareil à Yama.
XV
Celui-ci, en effet, faisant, dans le tumulte causé par les ennemis, entendre le tambour des héros, ayant vaincu leur armée, appelé [aussi] Kuṁtāditya, terre d’élection d’une grande gloire et d’une grande majesté, marquées par la Révélation, a satisfait mon cœur, obtenu de me servir et acquis ma faveur, dont la grandeur des bras est l’origine de la fortune de la victoire sur les rois ennemis aux armées abondantes et nombreuses.

(53–55) Nous donnons à celui-ci, le village nommé Goṁṭūru, avec douze hameaux, exemptés de toute taxe : que ceci soit connu de vous.33

(55–60) Les limites de celui-ci sont : à l’est Goṁguva, au sud Goṇayūru, à l’ouest Kaluceṟuvulu, au nord Maḍapalli. Les limites de leur territoire34 se trouvent au milieu de ceux-ci : à l’est Potuṟayu, au sud est Peddakoyilamu, au sud Kuṟuvapoṭi, au sud ouest Peruvātikuṟuva, à l’ouest Pālaguṁṭṭa-Paḍumaṭikaṭṭa, au nord ouest Polakuṁgoṇḍa-Monadurgga-Bhadhavati au nord Maḍapallipaṟṟu, au nord est Cāmiṟeniguṁṭṭa.

(60–61) Aucune charge ne doit lui être imposée, celui qui en impose [est lié] aux cinq grands crimes. Ainsi Vyāsa a dit :

XVI
beaucoup ont donné une terre, beaucoup l’ont protégée, celui qui possède la terre en possède la fruit.
XVII
Qu’elle soit donnée par lui ou par un autre, celui qui prend une terre renaît ver de terre dans les excréments pendant soixante mille ans.

Commentary

According to Naṭeśa Śāstrī, the name of the findspot is transliterated Īḍeru. Hultzsch uses Eḍeru.

I have classified stanza 7 as an anuṣṭubh, but given the compound anomalies in its metre (an extra syllable in the first pāda and a vipulā template in the third), combined with indications of a fixed pattern, it may instead be an unknown ardhasama metre of 9/8 syllables per line, incorrectly inscribed (or read). The actual prosody of the lines is: --+-+---+ +-++-+-+ -+-++--- --++-+-+ By tentatively emending babhūva rājye to sa babhūva rājya-, we obtain an identical pattern in the odd lines, and the even lines are almost identical to begin with: --+-+---* *-++-+-* A badly composed anuṣṭubh is still most likely, but given that it would have been easy to avoid the hypermetry in the first line (e.g. gajebha-yuddha-kuśalas would be a na-vipulā), I believe it is not the only possibility.

The first line of stanza 10 (śārdūlavikrīḍita) has a punctuation mark after the caesura. There is also a punctuation mark in 15b (also śārdūlavikrīḍita), but this is not at the caesura.

The sentence viditam astu vo ’smābhiḥ (ll 54-55) implies that the composer of this grant understood asmābhiḥ in this formula to be the agent of informing, rather than the agent of the donation expressed in the main sentence. If this (mis)conception was widespread, that might explain why in many cases the main sentence includes mayā or another agent, or has a verb in the active, even when asmābhiḥ is present in this formula.

I think that Hultzsch’s equation of the names in the second list of boundaries to the twelve hamlets mentioned in the donation has much merit. Therefore, in the section on boundaries I follow Hultzsch’s segmentation of the text with spaces. Nonetheless, it is by no means certain that we have exactly twelve names in the second list of boundaries.

(28) raṭṭa-dāyāda: According to Sankaranarayanan 1973, p. 99, n. 1, Hultzsch first took this to mean "army of the Raṭṭa claimants", then corrected it to "the army of (Krishna II) the heir (or son) of the Raṭṭa (i.e. Amoghavarṣa I). The reference for the latter is EI 4 227n. not traced. But based on the Masulipatnam plates of Bhīma I (probably never edited properly, CP No. 1 of 1913-14, apparently cited by several scholars), the dāyādas mean Vēmūlavāḍa Cālukyas, and this compound must be understood as Raṭṭas and (Vēmūlavāḍa Cālukya) kinsmen.

Bibliography

Reported in Sewell 1884, p. 25, № 179. Parts cited and translated before publication by J. F. Fleet (1883, p. 218 and 1883, p. 221). First edited, possibly from the original plates, by S. M. Naṭeśa Śāstrī (1884, pp. 50–55, № 1), with a translation, without facsimile. Re-edited from the original plates by E. Hultzsch (1890, pp. 36–43, № 36), with a translation and possibly with estampages.35 Re-reported in Chandra 1957, p. 37, appendices A/1956-57, № 86. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of the above editions, but without reference to any facsimiles. In minor differences not deemed to merit an apparatus entry, Hultzsch’s readings have been given preference.

Primary

[NS] Naṭeśa Śāstrī, S. M. 1884. “Two Eastern Chalukya Copper-Plates.” IA 13, pp. 50–57. Pages 51–55, item 1.

[EH] Hultzsch, Eugen Julius Theodor. 1890. South-Indian inscriptions, Tamil and Sanskrit, from stone and copper-plate edicts at Mamallapuram, Kanchipuram, in the North Arcot district, and other parts of the Madras Presidency, chiefly collected in 1886-87. Volume I. South Indian Inscriptions 1. Madras: Government Press. Pages 36–43, item 36.

Secondary

[JFF1] Fleet, John Faithfull. 1883. “Sanskrit and Old Canarese inscriptions: No. CXXVIII.” IA 12, pp. 215–220. Page 218.

[JFF2] Fleet, John Faithfull. 1883. “Sanskrit and Old Canarese inscriptions: No. CXXIX.” IA 12, pp. 220–222. Page 221.

Sewell, Robert. 1884. List of inscriptions, and sketch of the dynasties of southern India. Archaeological Survey of Southern India 2. Madras: Government Press. Page 25, item 179.

Notes

  1. 1. While this detail is of little ultimate importance, all previous translators construe the plural instrumental naya-vikramaiḥ differently from the way I translate here. Fleet and Naṭeśa Śāstrī take it in apposition to balais, so that the Gaṅga and Raṭṭa forces are “possessed of discipline and prowess” (Fleet) or “just and powerful” (Naṭeśa Śāstrī, who may have understood these to be allies of Vijayāditya). Hultzsch’s interpretation is closer to mine: he translates, “by means of polity and valour,” but he comments that the plural must have been used in place of the expected singular due to the exigencies of the metre. I, in turn, see no problem with the plural at all, but simply understand these terms as meaning concrete and countable stratagems and acts of bravado rather than the abstract and uncountable qualities of polity and valour.
  2. 2. Although kali commonly means discord and strife rather than warfare, I believe Hultzsch is right in understanding the word in such a sense here and assuming that this clause is a playful etymology of the king’s forename.
  3. 3. This sentence, stretched across three stanzas and in the original including all of this paragraph of the translation, is awkward on several counts. I believe the intent of the composer was what I translate here. I construe kulonnateḥ as an ablative of cause, disregarding the fact that a dative would be appropriate for expressing purpose; and assume that the phrase naya-vid was iterated not out of poetic incompetence, but with the aim of emphasising that it was this quality of his that elevated him to kingship.
  4. 4. I assume that the word guṇa is used intentionally to hint at Vijayāditya’s byname Guṇaka. Although guṇa does not normally mean “ray,” I believe the poet intended it in this sense for the double entendre. Note also that solar allusions are also present throughout the first part of the stanza, where he defeats his human enemies.
  5. 5. Fleet and Hultzsch understand saṁcodita as “challenged” (to battle), which the language does not exclude. I follow Nilakanta Sastri and Venkataramanayya Yazdani 1960, vol. 2, p. 478 in the understanding of the events alluded to here, which is based on records not yet known to Fleet and Hultzsch.
  6. 6. Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s translation skips over this phrase, while Fleet understands aryaman to mean “bosom friend.” This is lexically possible and would be another instance of the conventional claim that the king’s sword was his only comrade, as in khaḍga-sahāyo in stanza 2. However, this meaning of aryaman seems to be restricted to Vedic texts, and I therefore agree with Hultzsch in understanding this word, the name of an Āditya, as synonymous to āditya and thus meaning “sun” and alluding to the name Vijayāditya. In support of this interpretation, aryaman unequivocally means “sun” in stanza 12 of the Moga grant of Bhīma I.
  7. 7. I follow Fleet and Hultzsch’s interpretation of this phrase because a comparison to Śiva is appopriate in the wider context of burning a city. However, aṁgaja is only attested in lexicons in the sense of Kāma, and the immediate context is simply martial prowess. I therefore think there is a chance the composer had something else in mind. To wit, aṁgaja may mean Karṇa who, though he was not in fact born in Aṅga, became the lord of that country in the Mahābhārata, and thus aṁgaja-vairi may be Arjuna.
  8. 8. This is another phrase that is hard to interpret, especially as regards the meaning of aṁkita and its relation to the rest of the compound. Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s translation is too vague here. Fleet renders the compound as “who was possessed of great and excellent prowess acquired by (his) notorious and perfect strength”, and Hultzsch as “who had gained great and excellent might by his strength, which impressed its mark on the universe,” noting that uru-sad-vikrama is an allusion to Viṣṇu Trivikrama. I find neither “notorious and perfect” nor “impressed its mark on the universe” to be satisfactory translations of aṁkita+akhila and opt for yet another interpretation, but cannot claim that this must be what the composer had in mind.
  9. 9. Kr̥ṣṇa is Kr̥ṣṇa II of the Rāṣṭrakūṭas, and we can now be quite certain that Saṁkila is the Cedi king Śaṅkaragaṇa, though earlier translations either omitted this word or translated it as “firebrand,” a meaning that is attested in lexicons alone and that in my opinion is unlikely to be used figuratively in this Sanskrit sentence even though the English phrase “the fire-brand Kr̥ṣṇa” sounds quite flippant. Incidentally, the fact that this is a name explains the dual in the fourth pāda; see the apparatus on bhītārttau in line 26. Also compare saṁkilam ugra-vallabha-yutaṁ, showing beyond doudt that Saṁkilam and the Vallabha are two separate persons, in stanza 3 of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II.
  10. 10. I am not confident in the interpretaion of this term. Hultzsch’s neutral translation “those who gained their livelihood by (carrying) the banner of virtue” does not really reveal who these people may have been. I believe that Naṭeśa Śāstrī’s “religious beggars,” offered without explanation, is closer to the mark. Even closer, dharma-dhvaja may be synonymous to yama-paṭa and these people may have been wandering showmen who exhibited and explained scroll paintings showing scenes of hell. Finally, dharma-dhvaja is actually attested in the sense of an impostor or hypocrite. It is thus possible that this passage is to some degree critical of Bhīma, claiming that he showered gifts on riffraff such as dancers, singers and charlatans. But a similar list of recipients of charity in verse 11 of the Ārumbāka grant of Bādapa is unambiguously positive, so I find this last option unlikely.
  11. 11. This stanza is provisionally translated and may need revision depending on the correct reading of several words in it. See the apparatus entries on line 34.
  12. 12. Hultzsch suggests that the “intrinsic enemies” (ari-vargaṁ nijam) are probably the ṣaḍvarga of psychological enemies. This is definitely possible, but enemies external to the mind, and internal only to the kingdom, i.e. rival claimants to the throne, seem more likely to me.
  13. 13. I interpret and translate the last quarter of the stanza tentatively and on the basis of my conjecture for the text. See the apparatus on line 47 for possible readings. Hultzsch sees three separate compounds where I see a single long one, and translates “who longed for (another) kingdom, and who had obtained glory, went to Indra, in order to conquer one equal half (of Indra’s throne).” I prefer to avoid supplying so much, but Hultzsch’s interpretation cannot be ruled out, and may be preferable if his reading is correct.
  14. 14. The simile is obscure and complicated by a problematic reading. Given the text’s awkwardness, a double entendre was probably intended by the poet. I follow Hultzsch in assuming that Añjana was conceived as the name of Yama’s elephant, though as he observes, this is normally the name of Varuṇa’s elephant. It also seems that one of the bitextual words applies to Bhaṇḍanāditya on the primary level, but to the elephant, rather than Yama, on the secondary one. It is also conceivable that ujjvala-gaṇḍāṅkaṁ, when applied to Bhaṇḍanāditya, means “possessing the illustrious epithet Gaṇḍa.”
  15. 15. This sentence is incomplete and should normally appear at the beginning of the current passage. Given that the text of that passage also includes the agent asmābhiḥ, the presence of this fragment here may be a simple copyist’s mistake, but see also the commentary.
  16. 16. The interpretation of this sentence and the segmentation of the following list is not quite certain. I believe that the places in the first list indicated boundaries outside the donated land, while the names in this list are fields or villages surrounding the core settlement Goṁṭūru. These are specifically declared to be included in the donated tract, and are probably identical to the twelve hamlets mentioned above. See also the commentary.
  17. 17. According to Naṭeśa Śāstrī, pālaguṁṭṭa-paḍumaṭikaṭṭa means “The western bund of the tank of pālaguṁṭṭa.”
  18. 18. Ce passage apparaît dans le pāda a de la strophe 3.
  19. 19. Hultzsh suggère que la désinence de nayavikramaiḥ est due à des nécessités métriques. Mais à cette place du mètre la quantité est indifférente. Ce pluriel peut aussi suggérer qu’il s’agit d’un composé bahuvrīhi qualifiant gaṁgga-ratta-balais, même si la syntaxe exige davantage un duel. Nous suivons cette hypothèse.
  20. 20. Il s’agit du roi Kaliyarttyaṁka dont le nom complet apparaît dans la strophe 13. Le double « l » est dû à la semi voyelle « y » : kallyādiḥ.
  21. 21. Glose du biruda Kaliyarttyaṁka.
  22. 22. Allusion aux composants de la royauté, prakr̥ti, dans lesquels figure l’armée, bala. (Arthaṣāstra, 6,1,1)
  23. 23. Kāma
  24. 24. synonyme du biruda vikramāditya.
  25. 25. Il est aussi question de ce personnage dans les insc. nos 32, str.5 ; 35, str.2 ; 41.
  26. 26. allusions aux jaïns digambara.
  27. 27. id est : les moines et ascètes errants.
  28. 28. Indra.
  29. 29. Les trois pouvoirs constitutifs de la royauté : utsāha, prabhū, mantri [Arthaśāstra, 6, 2, 33]. Expression similaire plus bas : śakti-traya-saṁpanna°.
  30. 30. Allusion aux composants de la royauté, prakr̥ti, dans lesquels figure l’armée, bala. [Arthaṣāstra, 6,1,1] Cf. strophe 9 de cette inscription.
  31. 31. Arthaśāstra 6, 2, 33. Cf. note supra.
  32. 32. Br̥haspati.
  33. 33. Cette formule apparaît d’habitude au début de l’énonciation de la donation. Le second asmābhiḥ est une faute induite par l’entraînement de la séquence usuelle viditam astu vo’smābhiḥ.
  34. 34. des hameaux.
  35. 35. PEM lists this edition as containing a facsimile, but my scan of SII 1 has no plates at all.