Pedda-Gāḻidipaṟṟu grant of Amma II

Seal

Plates

⟨11⟩ (samā)[⏑⏓] KR • According to KR’s note, the scribe “apparently left out the last two syllables of the fourth quarter”. The date of Narendra-Mr̥garāja’s reign is variously given in related grants as 40, 44 or 48 years, of which 44 is the rarest and 48 is the most common. Variants of this stanza exist with the endings catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ, catvāriṁśat samās samaḥ and sa-catvāriṁśad aṣṭakam, each of which is attested once that I know of. Given the predominance of 48 in the prose versions of the genealogy and the fact that the existence of variants in this stanza may be explained by an effort to eliminate the non-standard sandhi in the presumable original catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ, I am tempted to restore this text here. The Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II records the length of his reign in a different metre and unambiguously as aṣṭa-yuktāś catvāriṁśat samāḥ. Scholars disagree about the length of Narendra-Mr̥garāja’s reign, and Krishna Rao (Krishna Rao 1937–1938, pp. 269–270; Krishna Rao 1934–1935, pp. 27–28) argues vehemently for 40. He apparently accepts this record as another piece of evidence for 40 years, which is definitely not admissible, since the omitted characters could have corresponded to any of the versions cited here. I thus prefer not to restore anything here. Since no image of this page is available, it is also possible that the text shown by KR as unclear is wholly illegible, and the allegedly omitted characters are actually present, perhaps compressed or added between the lines.

⟨15⟩ (triṁśad-abda-pramā)ṇa(ṁ) ⬦ (triṁśad-abdā)(krameṇa?) KR • The reading adopted here was offered, with full confidence, by an editorial footnote to KR’s edition. KR’s original restoration does not look very intelligible to me; they may have meant to restore triṁśad abdān krameṇa.

⟨16⟩ uccāṭya{|} • KR’s edition shows no punctuation here, but has a footnote saying, “Mark of punctuation is not necessary here.” I assume that a mark is present in the original, but the footnote anchor may also be a typo (the same anchor is used several times on this page next to punctuation marks present in the text that KR consider superfluous).

⟨18⟩ taj-ja- • Though the verse is intelligible as read by KR, I would prefer to emend to taj-jaḥ here, or to read this if the plate permits.

⟨19⟩ sa-sutam • Below the left-hand side of su, there are some lines resembling a figure 3. These may belong to an aborted subscript character. — ⟨19⟩ a¿dh?⟨t⟩ibalaṁ ⬦ adhibalaṁ KR • Since adhibala seems to be attested only as a technical term in drama, I prefer to emend.

⟨22⟩ veṁg¿ī?⟨i⟩- ⬦ veṁgī- KR • The metre requires a short vowel here. — ⟨22⟩ -rājādhirāj(aḫ pa?)(ra)-nr̥pa- ⬦ -rājādhirājo (jita-ripu)- KR • The reading adopted here is shown (as clear) in a footnote signed “N. L. R.” in KR’s edition. I do not know who its author may be. In the published photo, nr̥pa is clear, aḫ pa is at least more plausible than jita, and ra is almost clear.

⟨24⟩ -(kaṇṭha)¡| n!⟨| n⟩ ⬦ -(kaṇṭhaṁ)| {n} KR • The dot that KR reads as an anusvāra is above ṇṭha, so it is probably damage, and the punctuation mark was placed before the conjunct as in line 18 above and several times below. — ⟨24⟩ kṣattriyāditya- ⬦ kṣatriyāditya- KR.

⟨26⟩ tri-m(ū)⟨r⟩tter ⬦ tri-mūrtter KR.

⟨27⟩ nan¿u?⟨ya⟩- ⬦ nanya- KR.

⟨28⟩ gguṇa-vapur acalā-s(thai)r ⬦ gguṇa-vapur-acalā s(vai)r KR • KR prints his reading as clear throughout. I cannot interpret it, and while I have reservations about construing guṇa-vapur as an adverb in the accusative, I feel that acalā-sthair is a definite improvement.

⟨29⟩ yasyo(ccai)ḥ- ⬦ yasyo(ccai)ḥ KR.

⟨30⟩ -mahendra⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ -mahendra- KR.

⟨31⟩ -sandh¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ta- ⬦ -sāndrita- KR.

⟨33⟩ g(i)◯⟦(r)i⟧riśa ⬦ gi{vi}riśa KR • The superfluous character looks more like ri than vi to me, and I assume it was deleted in the original, perhaps on account of being too close to the hole. I accept KR’s reading of the i-s as short, but either or both may in fact be long, and it is also possible that ri was re-engraved to correct girīśa to giriśa or vice versa.

⟨36⟩ -mahārāj¿a?⟨ā⟩dhirāja- ⬦ -mahārājādhirāja- KR.

⟨38⟩ -dharmm¿a?⟨ā⟩dhyakṣa- ⬦ -dharmmādhyakṣa- KR • It is also possible to read dhammādhyakṣa here, but there is definitely not both a repha and an ā.

⟨39⟩ et(th)am ⬦ et¿t?⟨th⟩am KR • The subscript th resembles t with the tail extended into a nearly full circle. It is not the regular shape of th, but clearly distinct from t and identical to the one (read as th by KR) in sthāna earlier in this line.

⟨40⟩ siṁhāsanato(|) • KR reports a superfluous punctuation mark here. It is not visible at all in the estampage, but it may well have been obscured by the closeness of the plate’s rim, and punctuation does sometimes appear after the caesura of an āryā-type metre in this grant and related ones. — ⟨40⟩ ¿adivana?- ⬦ [3×] KR • These characters are clear and were probably omitted from KR’s edition because they could not interpret them. Neither can I, except to assume that this is part of the gotra’s name. There may be an anusvāra at the end of this word, but since the dot is above (rather than to the right of) na, I assume that it is noise (though compare e.g. l21 saṁśuddhā). — ⟨40⟩ -grevyākhy¿o?⟨e⟩ ⬦ -grevyākhyo KR • I emend tentatively and do not find the stanza fully intelligible even with the emendation. It is even less clear without the emendation, and the incorrect sandhi in gotro (see the next entry) suggests that some sort of emendation is necessary. — ⟨40⟩ gotr¿o?⟨e⟩ ⬦ gotr¿o?⟨aḥ⟩ KR • I emend tentatively; see also the previous entry.

⟨41⟩ (calukyeśānāM) ⬦ cālukye(śānāM) KR • If the reading cā is correct (which the facsimile permits), then it requires emendation because the metre needs a short syllable here.

⟨42⟩ ā(sī)¡(|n)!⟨n|⟩ ⟨n⟩(yak)⟨k⟩r̥(ta)- ⬦ āsīn nyakr̥ta- KR • KR makes no note of the punctuation mark which, as in several other instances, is placed so as not to disrupt an akṣara that would have had to be broken up to put a punctuation mark between words. He reads an original nn and does not emend k to kk (implying he may have read an original kk too, which was misprinted k), but as far as I can tell in the unclear estampage, both these consonants are single.

⟨43⟩ guṇavā¡|(n)!⟨n|⟩ elapa- ⬦ guṇavāN{|} melapa- KR • I see no trace of a final N as read by KR and believe that the consonant after the punctuation mark is n rather than m, the right arm of which would have overlapped with the left-hand side of the following la. Thus, here too we have a punctuation mark that respects akṣara boundaries in preference to word boundaries, and the name is probably elapa. KR further observes that the vowel of the character after the punctuation mark may be ai, since there is a "loop-like" stroke at its bottom. This stroke is thinner than the engraved strokes and bends in the wrong direction for the lower stroke of an ai, so I am quite confident it is damage, but cannot fully rule out the possibility that the vowel is indeed ai. — ⟨43⟩ -pra(dhān?)o ⬦ -pra(bhā?)vo KR • I adopt the reading proposed by KR’s editor in a footnote, which seems much more likely and makes better sense.

⟨44⟩ -pa(dmāliḥ|) ⬦ -padmā(rcako)|| KR • KR’s reading is unmetrical and ruled out by the estampage. The correct reading was proposed in a note signed N. L. R. in KR’s edition.

⟨45⟩ ⟨⟨jina-vrata⟩⟩ • This text was omitted due to eyeskip at vratā. There may be a pair of vertical strikes on each side of the addition. — ⟨45⟩ -dharmm¿a?⟨ā⟩ ⬦ -dharmmā KR.

⟨46⟩ pra(siddhau)(|?) buddh(i)par(au){|} ⬦ prasiddhau{|} buddhiparau{|} KR • KR prints both punctuation marks as clear. I do not see the first one (which would be placed correctly at the caesura). The second, which is clear in the facsimile, is indeed superfluous. I suspect that the first one is in fact missing and was engraved at the wrong place.

⟨49⟩ śrīdvār(o/au)(r?)(vv-ab)(j?)(a)(riṣṭhī?)(v)(a?)(n)(a?)-pa(ḍa/da)- ⬦ śrī-dvārau (rvvabaraṣṭhīvana?)-pada- KR • This piece of text resists all my attempts to read a fully intelligible sequence into it. The vestiges permit several readings for many components, but nothing that makes consistent sense. I believe I have improved the beginning and end of this string, but I am far from confident about those, and remain at a loss about the middle. See the commentary for further details. — ⟨49⟩ -vilasa(c)- ⬦ -vilasa¡(t)!⟨c⟩- KR • KR may be correct (compare śrīma¡t!⟨c⟩- in the previous line), but what I can make out in the estampage permits reading a c here. — ⟨49⟩ (va?)⟨50⟩[–] (ścistā?)r(i?)k(ā)◯sthau ⬦[–]⟨50⟩[–––] rika-sthau KR • I cannot interpret the readings tentatively proposed here, but prefer to indicate the most likely characters implied by the vestiges.

⟨50⟩ (pā?)lau ⬦ (cūlau) KR. — ⟨50⟩ (ba?)⟨51⟩(sa?)[⏑]- ⬦ ⟨51⟩ [⏑⏑⏑]- KR • Again, I cannot interpret the readings I tentatively propose. I agree with KR that there seem to be three illegible characters at the beginning of line 51, but I am also certain there is one, resembling ba, at the end of line 50. The last of the three in line 51 is faint and may have been deleted; otherwise, the text may be hypermetrical.

⟨52⟩ śi¿ś?⟨ṣ⟩yo¡|ś!⟨ś|⟩ ⬦ śi¿ś?⟨ṣ⟩y¿o|ś?⟨aś⟩ KR • It seems that KR is correct in reading an o here. I normalise only the placement of the punctuation mark (which, as elsewhere, must have been placed so as to interrupt a word in preference to interrupting an akṣara). I prefer not to emend the case endings, since I am not convinced that KR’s emendation corresponds to the intent of the composer. See also the next entry and the note to the translation. — ⟨52⟩ śāstra-jñ¡(o)r! nnāthasen¡o(r)! (mmu)ni- ⬦ śāstra-jño{r} n{n}āthaseno m{m}uni- KR • I am not convinced that KR’s emendation corresponds to the composer’s intent, though I am uncertain about the interpretation of this passage. See also the previous entry and the note to the translation. — ⟨52⟩ -paṭu(ḥ) ⟨⟨sa⟩⟩n-nuto° • It seems to me that immediately to the right of the visarga (which is not really recognisable as such, but which I accept on KR’s authority) there is a mark shaped like a cross or dagger, almost the height of a character body. I take this to be an editorial mark for insertion. The added character is immediately below this point.

⟨53⟩ °(ā)¡rjy!ārjjakānāM ⬦ °(ā)r¿j?⟨y⟩yājjakānāM KR.

⟨55⟩ ni(r)mmitam etad • The character me has a superfluous vertical stroke down from the elbow of the right arm. The scribe probably began to write mm then aborted the subscript part.

⟨56⟩ -gāḻidipaṟṟu ⬦ -gāḻiḍipaṟṟu KR • As KR notes, he reads ḍi by a somewhat arbitrary "inclination". Indeed, d and ḍ are often indistinguishable in this script. However, the same word in line 61 appears with the prefix koḍa, where ḍ is written with a distinct upward curl at the end, whereas the similar character in the name gāḻidipaṟṟu ends on a downward bend.

⟨57⟩ yisupakaṭṭala- ⬦ yisu kaṭṭala- KR • A character is missing from KR’s edition. — ⟨57⟩ Ālapaṟ(t?)iyuṁ • KR prints ṟti as clear, but the subscript component is indistinguishable in the photo; could it not be rather ṟṟi? However, ṟti is clear in what appears to be the same word in line 58 (where, conversely, KR prints that character as unclear) and line 61.

⟨60⟩ t(e)pparāla ⬦ tapparāla KR.

⟨61⟩ -gāḻidipaṟtiyuṁ ⬦ -gāḻiḍipaṟtiyuṁ KR • See the note on line 56 above. — ⟨61⟩ (var?)¿(dh?)?⟨d⟩(dhita?)- ⬦ (pālita)- KR • KR’s reading is clearly incorrect. In a footnote, N. L. R. says (with full confidence) that the reading is ca sthita. This is quite plausible on the basis of the photo, but does not seem very good in the context. My own reading is, nonetheless, tentative. The first character looks most like bha, while the second is a conjunct with a clear i, whose consonant components are open to many interpretations.