Vemalūrpāḍu plates of Amma II
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00047.
Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.
Repository: Eastern Cālukya (tfb-vengicalukya-epigraphy).
Version: (7554ccb), last modified (e18436c).
Edition
Seal
⟨1⟩ śrī-tribhuvan(āṁ)k(u)śa
Plates
⟨Page 1r⟩⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ <floretIndistinct>svasti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mā¿ṇ?⟨n⟩avya-sago(tr)¿a?⟨ā⟩(ṇāṁ hārī)⟨2⟩ti-put(r)¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇā(ṁ) kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ mā¡tr̥ī!⟨tr̥⟩-gaṇa-paripālitān¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩ ⟨3⟩ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānud¿d?⟨dh⟩yātānāṁ ¿v?⟨bh⟩agavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsā¿d?⟨dh⟩ita⟨4⟩-vara-varāha-lāñ¿c?⟨ch⟩anekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānā⟨ṁ⟩ Aśva(m)e⟨5⟩dh¿a?⟨ā⟩vabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīk¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ta-vapuṣāṁ| cālukyānāṁ kulam alaṁ¿kraṣo?⟨kariṣṇoḥ⟩| satyā⟨6⟩śraya-vallabhendrasy¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ| ¿bh?⟨v⟩rātā kubja-viṣṇuvarddhan¿ā?⟨o⟩ ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi|| ve(ṁ)gī-ma⟨7⟩ṇḍala⟨m a⟩p¿a?⟨ā⟩layaT| tad-¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨tma⟩jo jayasiṁhas trayastriṁśata¿T?⟨M⟩| tad-anujendrarāja-(nandano) ⟨Page 2r⟩ ⟨8⟩ (vi)ṣṇuva(r)ddhano nava| (tat-sūnur) mm(aṁ)gi-(yu)varā(ja)ḫ paṁca-vi(ṁ)śati¡|n!⟨M|⟩ ta(t-pu)tr¿ā?⟨o⟩ jayasiṁhas trayo⟨9⟩daśa| tad-avaraja⟨ḥ⟩ kokkili¡ṣ! ṣaṇ m¿a?⟨ā⟩sāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvarddhanas tam ucc(āṭ)ya saptatriṁśata(M) ⟨10⟩ varṣ¡ṣ!¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi⟨.⟩ ⟨⟨ta⟩⟩t-(pu)tro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩rako ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa| tat-suto viṣṇuvarddhana¡ṣ! ṣa¿t?⟨ṭ⟩triṁśataM|
I. Anuṣṭubh
narendra⟨11⟩-mr̥garājākhyo
amr̥garāja-p(a)rākramaḥ|
bvijayādi⟨⟨tya⟩⟩-bh(ū)p¿a?⟨ā⟩laḥ
c⟨⟨sa⟩⟩-catvāriṁśa⟦(t samā)⟧⟨⟨d a{(ṣṭhya)}⟩⟩ṣṭa⟦(bhiḥ)⟧⟨⟨kaṁ⟩⟩||
d⟨12⟩ tat-putraḥ kali-viṣṇuvarddha¿ṇ?⟨n⟩o ⟨’⟩dhyarddha-varṣaṁ| tat-putr¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ par¿ā?⟨a⟩c¿ā?⟨a⟩krarāmāpara-nāma⟨13⟩-dheyaḥ|
II. śārdūlavikrīdita
hatvā bhūri-no(ḍ)aṁba-rāṣṭra-nr̥patiṁ ma⟨ṁ⟩gim mahā-saṁgare
agaṁgān āśr¿ī?⟨i⟩ta-gaṁga⟨14⟩kūṭa-śikharān ni⟨r⟩jjitya saḍ ḍā⟨ha⟩lā-
bdhīśaṁ saṁ¿r?⟨k⟩ilam ugra-vallabha-yutaṁ yo bhāyayitvā (ca)⟨15⟩tuś-
ccatvāriṁśata{ḥ|}m abdakāṁś ca vijayā⟨di⟩ty¿ā?⟨o⟩ rarakṣa ksịtiṁ|
dtad-anujasya labdha-yauvarājyas(ya) ⟨16⟩ (vi)k(r)amādity(a)sya sutaś (c)āl(u)kya-bh¿i?⟨ī⟩mas triṁśataṁ| tasyāgrajo vijayāditya(ḥ) ṣa(ṇ mās)[āN.] ⟨Page 2v⟩ ⟨17⟩ (tad-a)gra-(sū)nur amma(r)ā(jas sapta) va(rṣāni)|| ta(t-sū)nu(m āk)ramya (bāla)⟨ṁ⟩ (c)¡(a)!(l)ukya-(bhīma-pi)⟨18⟩(tr̥)vya-yuddhamallasya na(nda)nas tāla-nr̥p¿e?⟨o⟩ māsam ekaṁ|
III. Sragdharā
nānā-(sā)manta-va⟨r⟩gg¿e?⟨ai⟩(r adhika-bala)⟨19⟩-(yu)tair mmatta-mātaṁga-sai¿ṇa?⟨nyai⟩r
ahatvā taṁ tāla-rājaṁ viṣama-raṇa-m(u)khe s¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨r⟩ddham at(yu)gra-tej(āḥ)
b⟨20⟩ (Ekā)bdaṁ samyag a⟨ṁ⟩bhonidhi-valaya-vr̥tām anvarakṣad dharitr¿i?⟨ī⟩ṁ|
cśrīmā¡n! cālukya-bhīma-kṣi⟨21⟩(tipati)-tanay(o) vikramāditya-bhūpaḥ|
dpaścād ahamahamikayā vikram(ā)⟨22⟩(di)t(yāsta)ma(ne) ¿rka?⟨rā⟩kṣa¿rsa?⟨sā⟩ Iva praj(ā)-b¿a?⟨ā⟩dh¿ā?⟨a⟩na-parā dāyāda-rājaputrā rājy(ā)bhi⟨23⟩(lāṣiṇo) yuddhamalla-rājam¿a?⟨ā⟩rttaṇḍa¡la!-kaṇṭhik(ā)-vijayāditya-prabhr̥tayo vigr¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨24⟩(hī-bhū)t(ā) ¿(stā)?⟨Ā⟩saN⟨.⟩ vigraheṇaiva p¿ā?⟨aṁ⟩ca varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi ga⟨tāni⟩⟨.⟩ tataḥ|
IV. Anuṣṭubh
yo ⟨’⟩vadh¿i?⟨ī⟩d rājamār(tt)aṇ(ḍ)an
ate⟨25⟩(ṣā)⟨ṁ⟩ (yena rane kr̥tau)
b(ka)ṇ(ṭh)ik(ā)-vi(ja)yād(itya)-
c-⟨yu⟩d(dha)mal(l)¿(o)?⟨au⟩ videś¿(ā)?⟨a⟩-gau|
dV. śārdūlavikrīdita
(A)¿(s)?⟨n⟩(ye mān)ya (ma)⟨Page 3r⟩⟨26⟩(hī-bh)r̥(t)o ⟨’⟩(p)i (bahav)o duṣṭa-prav(r̥)ttād dhatāḥ|
adeśopadrava-kāriṇaḥ prakaṭitāḥ kālāla⟨27⟩ya⟨ṁ⟩ prāpi(tāḥ)
bdo(r)-ddaṇḍ(e)rita maṇḍalāgra-la(ta)yā yasy(o)gra-s¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁgrām¿a?⟨i⟩kā
c¿n?⟨v⟩ājñā ta⟨28⟩t-(pa)ra-bh¿(r̥)?⟨ū⟩-n(r̥)paiś ca śiras¿o?⟨ā⟩ māleva sandhāryyate||
dVI. śārdūlavikrīdita
nādagdh⟨v⟩ā viniva⟨r⟩tt¿i?⟨a⟩te ripu-kulaṁ kopā⟨29⟩g(ni)r ā (mū)lata(ḥ)
aś(u)bhraṁ yasya yaśo na lokam akhila⟨ṁ⟩ santiṣṭhate na bhramaT
bdravy(āṁ)⟨30⟩bhodhara-r(āśi)r apy anudinaṁ santapyamāne bhr̥śaṁ
cdāridryogratarātapena jana⟨31⟩-sa⟨t⟩-sas(ye) na no varṣati
dVII. Anuṣṭubh
sa cālukya-bhīma-naptā(|)
avijayāditya-nandana⟨ḥ⟩
bdvādaś¡(ā)⟨32⟩(dhyāt)! (sa)mās samya¡K!
crāja-bhīmo dharātala(ṁ)|
dVIII. Āryā
tasya maheśvara-mū(r)tter umā-s¿ā?⟨a⟩mā⟨33⟩(nākr̥teḥ kumā)rābhaḥ
abl(o)kamahādevy¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ khalu yas samabhavad ammarājākh⟨y⟩a⟨ḥ⟩
cdIX. Sragdharā
Am⟨m⟩ādhīśas tato ⟨’⟩bh¿u?⟨ū⟩t para-bala-jayino bhīma-bhūpasya putra⟨Page 3v⟩⟨35⟩(ś)
a(cha)trānte vallabhena prahr̥tam api punaḥ paṭ(ṭ)am ¿a?⟨ā⟩d¿a?⟨ā⟩ya dha(rttur)
b(nnyā)⟨36⟩y(ā)y(ā)tartta-siddhe(r) vvinaya-para-¿bh?⟨b⟩r̥ha¿t?⟨d⟩-bhīma-rājasya pautro
c¡ya(vva)!⟨yauva⟩⟨37⟩-(śrī-rā)jya-kaṇṭhābharaṇa-vilasato vikramāṁkasya napt¿a?⟨ā⟩||
dX. Upendravajrā
para-sva-san(tya)⟨38⟩kta-mano-viśuddhaḥ
aparāpriyān mukta-vaco-viśuddhaḥ
bparopak¿a?⟨ā⟩r(ī) ⟨39⟩ (dvi)ja-sattamas tvam
citi tri-śuddho musiyā(bh)idhānaḥ
dXI. Indravajrā
śrīman-(m)ah(ā)⟨40⟩(rāja)-padottamasya
aśi¿ṭ?⟨ṣ⟩ṭe¿ṭ?⟨ṣ⟩ṭa-ban¿d?⟨dh⟩u-priya-darśanasya
bdevādy-r̥ṇ¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨41⟩(ni pra)timuṁcato ⟨’⟩laṁ
cputro ⟨’⟩bhavat sat-kula-nandanasya
dXII. Anuṣṭubh
guṇḍamayyābhidhā⟨42⟩nasya
a(ṣa)ṭ-(k)armma-kāriṇas sadā
bpautro bhāradvājasya
cgotreṇāmita-(teja)⟨43⟩sa⟨ḥ⟩
d(svāmi)nā tulay¿o?⟨ā⟩ dhr̥tasya pā⟨ṇḍa⟩rāṁgasya naptr¿a?⟨ā⟩ du(r)ggar(ā)jena (vijñā)⟨Page 4r⟩⟨44⟩pito ⟨’⟩mmar(ā)jaḥ tasm¿o?⟨ai⟩ prasanna-cittaḥ sv¿a?⟨ā⟩mi-hitāya prīt¿ī?⟨i⟩-p¿u?⟨ū⟩rv(v)an (t)ava ma⟨45⟩ntriṇe ⟨’⟩grahāran dāsy¿a?⟨ā⟩mīti prativacanam uktavāN|
XIII. Upendravajrā
sa ¡yavva!⟨yauva⟩rājyā(ṣṭa)-sam(e) ⟨’⟩bhiṣi(kt)o
ad(v)i⟨46⟩-ṣa¿t?⟨ṭ⟩ka-(saṁ)vatsara-paṭṭa-baddhaḥ
bmahāhav¿a?⟨e⟩ṣu prasabhan nihatya
cri(p)¿u?⟨ū⟩(n ane)kān prav¿a?⟨i⟩bh(ā)⟨47⟩ti nityaṁ
dso ⟨’⟩yaṁ samadhigata-paṁca-mah¿a?⟨ā⟩-śabda⟨ḥ⟩ parama-brahmaṇya⟨ḥ⟩ parama-bhaṭṭāra⟨48⟩ka⟨ḥ⟩ parama-m¿a?⟨ā⟩heśvaro mātā-pitr̥-bhakta⟨ḥ⟩|| karmma-r¿a?⟨ā⟩¿ḻ?⟨ṣ⟩ṭra-v(ā)sino rā¿ḻ?⟨ṣ⟩ṭrakūṭa-pramu⟨49⟩khān kuṭuṁbinas sarvv¿a?⟨ā⟩n eva samāh¿u?⟨ū⟩yettham ājñāpayati⟨.⟩ viditam a⟨50⟩stu vaḥ|
XIV. Anuṣṭubh
I¿ṭ?⟨ṣ⟩ṭeśvara-pras¿a?⟨ā⟩dasya
asarvva-j¿i?⟨ī⟩va-dayāvataḥ
bnitya-dharmmā¿ddha?⟨rttha⟩-k¿a?⟨ā⟩masya
c⟨51⟩ kim ato musiyasya te|
dXV. Anuṣṭubh
Amma-rājābhidhānā⟨r⟩th¿o?⟨au⟩
amātr̥-candrāv ubh¿o?⟨au⟩ smr̥t¿o?⟨au⟩
bt(ā)v ekībh(ū)⟨52⟩ya kiṁ citraṁ
cpraj(ā)nāṁ hita-kāriṇau|
dAṇmaṇaṁguru n¿a?⟨ā⟩ma gr¿a?⟨ā⟩me (da)kṣiṇa-dig-bhāge ⟨53⟩ rāja-viṣayādhyakṣa-satkāra-pūrvakaṁ daśa-¿k?⟨kh⟩āri-kodrava-bīj(ā)vāpa-kṣ(e)tram ādāya⟨54⟩Aṇ(ḍ)eki nāma grām(e) Ut(t)ara-dig-(bh)āge p(ū)rvavad (d)aśa-kh(ā)ri-kodrava-b(ī)j(ā)vāpa-kṣet(r)a⟨Page 4v⟩⟨55⟩(m ād)¿(a)?⟨ā⟩(ya) ¡ye!⟨E⟩ta(sm)in gr(ā)me Abhyantarīkr̥tya kāra(ṁ)ce¡ḍ-v!⟨ḍu-v⟩¿a?⟨ā⟩stavy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya (kr)o(vi)-ku(lāya) ⟨56⟩ (bhāra)dvāja-gotrāya musiyana(ś)a(r)mmaṇe sarvva-parih¿a?⟨ā⟩rī(kr̥)tya Uttarāya¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-(n)i(mitte) ⟨57⟩ (tum)iya-ve(ṇi)ya(pū)ṇḍ(i) nāma gr¿a?⟨ā⟩m¿(ā)?⟨a⟩(ṭ)ik¿a?⟨ā⟩-dvayam agrah¿a?⟨ā⟩raṁ pr¿a?⟨ā⟩dāT||
A(s)yāva⟨58⟩(dha)yaḥ⟨.⟩ (p)¿u?⟨ū⟩rvataḥ me(da)l(ko)ṇḍa⟨.⟩ dakṣiṇataḥ gaṭṭip¿u?⟨ū⟩ṇḍ¿(i)?⟨ī⟩⟨.⟩ paś(ci)mataḥ ḻ(e)ṁk(o)ṇḍa-n¿a?⟨ā⟩ma-gr¿a?⟨ā⟩ma(ḥ) ⟨59⟩ (Ut)⟨t⟩(a)rataḥ A(ṇma)(ṇaṁ)guru-n(ā)ma-gr¿a?⟨ā⟩maḥ|
kṣetra-s¿i?⟨ī⟩m(ā)n(i)⟨.⟩ p¿(u)?⟨ū⟩(r)vvataḥ muyala-k(uṭṭu)na ⟨60⟩ ś¿(ā)?⟨a⟩mī⟨.⟩ ¿(A)?⟨Ā⟩(gne)yataḥ guṇ(ṭh)a⟨.⟩ da(kṣi)¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ataḥ gu(ṇṭeti)¡(A)!⟨ya⟩ (ka)ṟ(i)ti (ve?)¡(v)!⟨m⟩(ula) (gonu?)⟨.⟩ n¿(a)?⟨ai⟩⟨61⟩¡(ri)!⟨rr̥⟩(t)¡(i)!⟨ya⟩(taḥ) (veṁca) dakṣiṇam(u)na paruv(ulu)⟨.⟩ paścimataḥ Eṭ(i)ya ka(ṟiti ca)(ṭalalu?)⟨.⟩ ⟨62⟩ (vāyav)yataḥ (kuṇṭa?)⟨.⟩ Uttara{ṁ Ura}taḥ ca(li)-gu(ṇṭha)⟨.⟩ ¿I?⟨Ī⟩ś¿a?⟨ā⟩nataḥ m(u)yyali(kuṭṭuna vella)⟨63⟩-(ṟā)y(u)(||)
(A)s(yopa)ri na kenaci¡t!⟨d⟩ bā(dhā) ka(r)ttavyā⟨.⟩ yaḥ kar(o)ti sa (paṁca-mahāpāta)⟨64⟩k(air) y(yu)¿t(k)?⟨kt⟩(o bhavati)⟨.⟩ (yaḥ p)¿(a)?⟨ā⟩(la)ya(t)i sa puṇy(o) bhava(ti|| tath)¿(a)?⟨ā⟩ (coktaṁ) rāma(bhadr)¿(a)?⟨e⟩(ṇa)
XVI. śālīnī
⟨65⟩ s¿a?⟨ā⟩m¿a?⟨ā⟩n(yo) ⟨’⟩(yan dharmma-setur n)¿(d)?⟨n⟩(r̥)pā(ṇāṁ)
a( k)¿(a)?⟨ā⟩(l)¿(a)?⟨e⟩ (k)¿(a)?⟨ā⟩(l)¿(a)?⟨e⟩ (pālanīyo bhava)¿(t)?⟨d⟩(bhiḥ)
b(sarvvā)⟨Page 5r⟩ ⟨66⟩ (n) etān bh¿a?⟨ā⟩vi¿(ṇ)?⟨n⟩aḥ pārtthivendr(ā)n
cbhūyo bh¿u?⟨ū⟩(yo yā)ca(te) rāmabha(d)raḥ||
dXVII. Vasantatilakā
mad-vaṁśa-(jā)⟨67⟩¿p?⟨ḫ⟩ par¿ā?⟨a⟩-ma(hīpa)ti-vaṁśa-jāś ca
apāpād apeta-ma(naso bhu)vi (bhā)vi-bhūpāḥ
bye⟨68⟩p¿a?⟨ā⟩layanti mama dh¿ā?⟨a⟩rmmam imaṁ samastan
cteṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩m ayaṁ v(i)rac(i)to ⟨’⟩ṁja(li)r (eṣ)a m¿u?⟨ū⟩⟨69⟩rdhni||
dXVIII. Anuṣṭubh
bahubhir vvasudh¿a?⟨ā⟩ dattā
abahu(bh)i(ś cānu)p¿a?⟨ā⟩l¿a?⟨i⟩tā
byasya yasya yadā bhūmis
cta⟨70⟩sya tasya tadā phalaṁ
dXIX. Anuṣṭubh
sva-dattāṁ para-dattā⟨ṁ⟩ vā{ṁ}
ayo haretā vasundharāṁ
bṣaṣṭi⟨71⟩-va(r)ṣa-sahasr¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇi
cviṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩(ā)yāṁ j(ā)yate k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩miḥ|
dXX. Anuṣṭubh
mānyaṁ viṁśati-khārī-ko-
a⟨72⟩drava-bījāvāpa-kṣetraṁ
bĀjñaptir asya dharmmasya
ckaṭakeśo yaśo-nidhiḥ||(<floretIndistinct>)
d⟨73⟩ vaṁgipaṟu-v¿a?⟨ā⟩sta¿rvya?⟨vye⟩nātr¿a?⟨e⟩ya-gotreṇa bhaṭṭa-guṇḍena viracitaṁ kāvya(ṁ)⟨.⟩ ⟨74⟩ (ta)s(mai) bhāga-dvayan dattaṁ|| ghanava(ṭṭa)-b(īro?)j(e)na l(i)khitaḥ|| ¿s?⟨ś⟩ivam astu<floretIndistinct>
⟨Page 5v⟩Apparatus
Seal
Plates
⟨2⟩ mā¡tr̥ī!⟨tr̥⟩- ⬦ māt¿rī?⟨r̥⟩- EH • Vowel markers for r̥ (not a subscript r) and ī are both present on t.
⟨3⟩ ¿v?⟨bh⟩agavan- ⬦ bhagavan- EH.
⟨6⟩ -vallabhendrasy¿ā?⟨a⟩ ⬦ -vallabhendrasy¿ā?⟨a⟩{ḥ} EH. — ⟨6⟩ ¿bh?⟨v⟩rātā ⬦ bhrātā EH.
⟨11⟩ -p(a)rākramaḥ ⬦ -p¿ā?⟨a⟩rākramaḥ EH • The engraver probably started adding the vowel marker for (ā), but only got to a short distance horizontally and did not turn downward. — ⟨11⟩ ⟨⟨sa⟩⟩-catvāriṁśa⟦(t samā)⟧⟨⟨d a{(ṣṭhya)}⟩⟩ṣṭa⟦(bhiḥ)⟧⟨⟨kaṁ⟩⟩ ⬦ ⟨⟨sa⟩⟩ catvāriṁśad abdhyaṣṭakaṁ EH • According to Hultzsch, the text °d abdhyaṣṭakaṁ seems to have been engraved over an erasure and may have been meant for °d aṣṭakaṁ or °d abdakān.In my view, this correction goes hand in hand with the insertion at the beginning of the pāda: the initially engraved text was almost certainly catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ. This was corrected to sa-catvāriṁśad aṣṭakaṁ in the following steps. First, sa was added at the beginning. Then, tsa was partly hammered out (only vestiges of the subscript s are now visible) and corrected to da. Next, the engraver attempted to correct mā to ṣṭa, but accidentally engraved ṣṭhya. At this stage, he decided to skip this character, since ṣṭa was already there anyway to the right. He finally went on to correct bhiḥ to kaṁ (the left leg of bh and part of the i remain visible, along with the visarga whose upper dot has been repurposed into an anusvāra). I am quite confident about most of this reconstruction, except for the putative correction of mā to ṣṭa, where something even more complex may have been going on. It may be worth adding that the Maliyapūṇḍi grant, whose preamble is almost to the letter identical to the present one, reads catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ at this point.
⟨13⟩ -no(ḍ)aṁba- ⬦ -no¿d?⟨ḍ⟩aṁba- EH • Hultzsch’s emendation may be based on the known form nolamba of this name. In the parallel stanza in the Maliyapūṇḍi grant, he likewise reads d and emends to ḍ. The character here is not a good specimen of d, and I think it plausible that it was intended for ḍ. A previously unpublished parallel of the stanza in the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa clearly spells the name with ḍ.
⟨14⟩ ni⟨r⟩jjitya ⬦ nirjjitya EH. — ⟨14⟩ saḍ ḍā⟨ha⟩lā° ⬦ saḍ-ḍā⟨ha⟩lā° EH • Hultzsch construes saḍ- in compound (indicated by his translation, though not in his Devanagari edition), while I take it as a separate word; see the note to the translation.
⟨16⟩ (vi)k(r)amādityasya ⬦ (vi)k(r)amādity¿ā?⟨a⟩sya EH • As in parākramaḥ above (l. 11), the engraver probably started adding an ā here, but the end of the subscript y barely turns to the right, and does not turn downward at all..
⟨17⟩ va(rṣāni)|| ⬦ varṣ¿a?⟨ā⟩ni| EH.
⟨19⟩ sai¿ṇa?⟨nyai⟩r ⬦ s¿aiṇa?⟨enai⟩r EH. — ⟨19⟩ hatvā ⬦ ¿h?⟨dd⟩atvā EH • I do not see the reason for Hultzsch’s emendation and believe that it is a typo in his edition. Since it is shown in a footnote together with the previous emendation, he may have intended ha here, which the typesetter mistook for dda. The Maliyapūṇḍi grant, also edited by Hultzsch and at a time previous to the present edition, includes the same stanza. There, Hultzsch reads saino hātvā and emends to senair hatvā.
⟨20⟩ (Ekā)bdaṁ ⬦ E{r}kābdaṁ EH.
⟨23⟩ °m¿a?⟨ā⟩rttaṇḍa¡la!- ⬦ °m¿a?⟨ā⟩rttaṇḍa{la}- EH • I choose not to consider the unexpected syllable a scribal mistake, since the same occurs in line 24 of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant. However, line 23-24 of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa has the expected mārttaṇḍa in the same sentence. — ⟨23⟩ kaṇṭhik(ā)- • The ā may be a subsequent addition, since it overlaps with part of the following character. — ⟨23⟩ -vijayāditya- ⬦ -v¿ī?⟨i⟩jayāditya- EH.
⟨26⟩ -prav(r̥)ttād dhatāḥ ⬦ -pravr̥tt¿ā?⟨o⟩ddhatāḥ EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels.
⟨27⟩ -s¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁgrām¿a?⟨i⟩kā ¿n?⟨v⟩ājñā ⬦ -saṁgrāmak¿ān?⟨asy⟩ājñā EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels.
⟨28⟩ śiras¿o?⟨ā⟩ ⬦ śiraso EH • See the commentary for my interpretation of this stanza on the basis of parallels. — ⟨28⟩ nādagdh⟨v⟩ā ⬦ nādag⟨dh⟩vā EH.
⟨30⟩ jana⟨31⟩sa⟨t⟩- ⬦ jana¿sa?⟨tā⟩- EH • The parallel locus in the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa confirms the intuition of Venugopaul Chetty, who proposes this emendation for the parallel in line 31 of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant.
⟨31⟩ dvādaś¡(ā)⟨32⟩(dhyāt)! ⬦ dvādaś(ā)⟨32⟩¿dhy?⟨ś⟩āt EH • Hultzsch prefers to emend the verb to aśāt, the active imperfect third person of śās, though he notes that adhyāt may have been intended for the same imperfect form of adhyās. While dh is quite clear here, the reading in both parallels (line 32 of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa and line 32 of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant) is dvādaśāvyāt. For the latter, Hultzsch suggests the emendation dvādaśāvat. Although āvat and aśāt are both grammatically sound and metrically fitting, it is perhaps more likely that we are facing a solecism here. The composer may have intended the precative form avyāt for a past indicative, or may have meant adhyāt as a legitimate form of adhyās.
⟨34⟩ bhīma- ⬦ bh¿i?⟨ī⟩ma- EH.
⟨35⟩ dha(rttur) (nnyā)° ⬦ dhartt¿a?⟨u⟩¡r nn!⟨ḥ| n⟩yā° EH • I believe the reading rtta, printed in Hultzsch’s edition, must be a typo. In the published facsimile, the subscript u is the only part of this character that can be made out. I assume that the purpose of Hultzsch’s footnote is not to emend rtta to rttu, only to normalise the sandhi and punctuation at the end of the verse line.
⟨36⟩ ¡ya(vva)!⟨yauva⟩⟨37⟩-(śrī-rā)jya- • I second Hultzsch’s opinion that the composer must have been driven by metrical constraints to use the impossible form yauvaśrīrājya instead of śrī-yauvarājya.
⟨42⟩ bhāradvājasya • It seems that the author mentally added a svarabhakti vowel to this name, e.g. as bhāraduvājasya.
⟨43⟩ (svāmi)nā tulay¿o?⟨ā⟩ dhr̥tasya ⬦ svāminātulayo⟨d⟩dhr̥t⟨v⟩asya EH • I am not satisfied with Hultzsch’s emendation, but my own is also offered tentatively. I am not sure of its exact meaning (see note to the translation), but it seems plausible and requires much less intervention in the received text. The o of yo is written as two separate strokes, and it even seems possible that the upper stroke, being much fainter in the facsimile, has been cancelled by the engraver, correcting the character to yā. — ⟨43⟩ pā⟨ṇḍa⟩rāṁgasya naptr¿c?⟨ā⟩ • These words may have been corrected, or at least marked for correction, in the original. There seem to be two vertical lines bracketing the character pā, and quite a bit of noise surrounding the following characters up to and including ptra.
⟨44⟩ r(ā)jas • The consonant r has an extra vowel marker on the bottom left. Can it be that someone wanted to correct the following tasmo into tasmai by adding such a stroke, and accidentally put it on the wrong letter?
⟨45⟩ ¡yavva!⟨yauva⟩rājyā(ṣṭa)-sam(e) ⟨’⟩bhiṣi(kt)o • The wording yauvarājye ’ṣṭa-samo ’bhiṣiktaḥ or yauvarājyāṣṭa-samābhiṣiktaḥ would be easier and clearer here. The second of these requires only a very small emendation and is closer to the style of the next phrase, so it may have been the composer’s intent; but the text is only slightly awkward without emendation.
⟨46⟩ (saṁ)vatsara- • The character saṁ is rather wide and there is some noise before it and more after it. It is my impression that two or even three characters have been deleted here, and saṁ was inscribed in the resulting space. — ⟨46⟩ mahāhav¿a?⟨e⟩ṣu ⬦ mahāhaveṣu EH.
⟨51⟩ kim ato • Hultzsch tentatively suggests emending to śrīmato. I find that very unlikely, and believe that kim ato was employed by the composer in the sense of kim ataḥ pareṇa; see also my translation.
⟨57⟩ gr¿a?⟨ā⟩m¿(ā)?⟨a⟩(ṭ)ik¿a?⟨ā⟩- ⬦ gr¿a?⟨ā⟩mādika- EH.
⟨59⟩ muyala-k(uṭṭu)na ⬦ mu(yya)likuṭṭuna EH.
⟨60⟩ guṇ(ṭh)a ⬦ guṇṭa EH. — ⟨60⟩ (ve?)¡(v)!⟨m⟩(ula) • Hultzsch attributes the correction/normalisation of vevula (of which he prints only ve as unclear) into vemula to his consultant Krishna Sastri. The estampage looks more like navula to me. — ⟨60⟩ (gonu?) • Hultzsch prints this word as clear. The estampage looks more like koṇḍa to me.
⟨62⟩ Uttara{ṁ Ura}taḥ EH • I follow Hultzsch’s emendation here, but I wonder if Uttaraṁ should instead be understood as a noun to go with the previous statement (the northern side of a pond?). In this case there is no dittography, but tta must be supplied to correct Urataḥ into Uttarataḥ, beginning the next statement. — ⟨62⟩ -gu(ṇṭha) ⬦ -guṇṭa EH. — ⟨62⟩ (vella) • Hultzsch notes that the reading of this word comes from Krishna Sastri.
⟨63⟩ (mahāpāta)⟨64⟩k(air) ⬦ mahāpāta⟨64⟩k¿o?⟨ai⟩r EH.
⟨66⟩ bh¿a?⟨ā⟩vi¿(ṇ)?⟨n⟩aḥ ⬦ bh¿a?⟨ā⟩vin¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ EH.
⟨73⟩ ātr¿a?⟨e⟩ya- ⬦ ātreya- EH. — ⟨73⟩ kāvya(ṁ) ⬦ kāvya⟨M⟩ EH.
Translation by Dániel Balogh
Seal
Plates
(1–11) Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cālukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hārīti, 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 protected (pāl-) the country of Veṅgī for eighteen years. His son Jayasiṁha (I), for thirty-three. His younger brother Indrarāja’s (Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s) son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen. His [brother] of inferior birth, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning him, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven years. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six.
I
(12–13) His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son, also called Paracakrarāma,
II
(15–18) The son of his younger brother—Vikramāditya, who had attained the rank of heir-apparent (yauvarājya)—[this son] Cālukya-Bhīma [reigned] for thirty [years]. His elder-born [son]4 Vijayāditya (IV) for six months. His firstborn son Ammarāja (I), for seven years. After assaulting his underage son, King (nr̥pa) Tāla—the son of Yuddhamalla, the paternal uncle of Cālukya-Bhīma—for one month.
III
(21–24) Then, upon the demise of the Sun of Valour (Vikramāditya), collateral (dāyāda) princes (rājaputra)—such as Yuddhamalla, Rājamārtaṇḍa and Vijayāditya of the Locket (kaṇṭhikā)—materialised like demons (rākṣasa) {upon the setting of the sun}, yearning for kingship out of egomania and bent on oppressing the subjects. Five years passed in nothing but strife. Then—
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
(43–45) Ammarāja, when he was petitioned [to this effect] by Durgarāja, the great-grandson14 of Pāṇḍarāṁga whom his overlord (svāmin) had weighed in the balance, gladly replied to him (Durgarāja): “I shall be pleased to grant a rent-free holding (agrahāra) to this minister of yours (i.e. to Musiya), as he is dedicated to his master’s (i.e. Durgarāja’s) cause.”15
XIII
(47–50) He, [Amma II] who has deserved the five great sounds17, the supremely pious Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka) and supreme devotee of Maheśvara, devoted to his mother and father, convokes all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Karmarāṣṭra district (viṣaya), and commands them as follows. Let [this] be known to you:
XIV
XV
(52–57) Having sectioned off a field (sufficient) for sowing ten khārīs of kodrava seed in the southern direction of the village named Aṇmaṇaṁguru after paying [due] respect to the royal territorial overseers; having sectioned off a field likewise (sufficient) for sowing ten khārīs of kodrava seed in the northern direction of the village named Aṇḍeki; and having incorporated (the resulting plot) into this [latter] village; on the occasion of the winter solstice he (Amma II) has given the two hamlets named Tumiya and Veṇiyapūṇḍi, with all exemptions, as a rent-free holding (agrahāra) to Musiyanaśarman of the Krovi family and the Bhāradvāja gotra, a resident of Kāraṁceḍu.23
(57–59) Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, Medalkoṇḍa. To the south, Gattipūṇḍi. To the west, the village named Ḻeṁkoṇḍa. To the north, the village named Aṇmaṇaṁguru.
(59–63) The boundaries of the field [are as follows]. To the east, a śamī tree at the triple boundary juncture.24 To the southeast, a pond. To the south, a gonu tree with neem trees on the bank of the Guṇṭeṟu (river). To the southwest, the salt marshes25 on the southern side of the lake. To the west, … (caṭalalu) on the bank of the river. To the northwest, a pond. To the north, the Cali pond. To the northeast, a white stone at the junction of boundaries.
(63–64) 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. He who protects it shall be meritorious. So too has Rāmabhadra said,
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
(73–74) The poetry has been composed by Bhaṭṭa Guṇḍa of the Ātreya gotra, a resident of Vaṁgipaṟu. Two shares (of the donated field) have been given to him. Written (likhita) by Ghanavaṭṭa Bīroja.27 Let it be well.
Translation into French by Estienne-Monod 2008
Seal
Plates
(1–11) Prospérité ! Kubja Viṣṇuvardhana, frère de Satyāśraya Vallabhendra, qui orne la dynastie des Cālukya, illustres, du même gotra que les descendants de Manu, loués dans l’univers entier, fils de Hārīti, ayant reçu leur royaume par l’excellente faveur de Kauśikī, protégés par les Mères réunies, méditant aux pieds du seigneur Mahāsena, eux dont les cercles ennemis ont été soumis en un instant à la vue du signe de l’excellent sanglier, faveur octroyée par le bienheureux Nārāyaṇa, eux dont les corps ont été purifiés grâce aux bains consécutifs au sacrifice du cheval, a protégé le maṇḍala de Veṅgī pendant dix huit années. Son fils Jayasiṁha pendant trente-trois ans ; Le fils d’Indrarāja, frère cadet de ce dernier, Viṣṇuvardhana, pendant neuf ans ; Le fils de celui-ci, Maṁgi, le prince héritier, pendant vingt-cinq ans ; Son fils Jayasiṁha pendant treize ans ; Le frère cadet de ce dernier, Kokkili, pendant six mois ; Son frère aîné, Viṣṇuvardhana, après l’avoir chassé, pendant trente-sept ans ; Le fils de celui-ci, Vijayāditya, l’illustre seigneur, pendant dix-huit ans ; Son fils Viṣṇuvardhana pendant trente-six ans ;
I
(12–13) Son fils Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana pendant un an et demi ; Son fils, dont l’autre nom est Paracakrarāma,
II
(15–18) le fils du roi Vikramāditya, frère cadet de ce dernier,29 qui avait reçu les droits du prince héritier, Cālukya Bhīma a protégé la terre pendant trente ans ; Son fils aîné, Vijayāditya30 pendant six mois ; Son fils aîné, Ammarāja, pendant sept ans ; Après avoir attaqué le fils de celui-ci,31 alors qu’il était enfant, le fils de Yuddhamalla, oncle du côté parternel de Cālukya Bhīma, le roi Tāla a protégé la terre pendant un mois.
III
(21–24) Ensuite, convaincus de leur supériorité, lorsque Vikramāditya s’éteignit, occupés à opprimer leurs sujets, comme des Rākṣasa opprimant les créatures au coucher du soleil, les princes prétendant au trône, aspirant à la conquête du pouvoir, Yuddhamalla, Rājamārtaṇḍa et Kaṇṭhikā Vijayāditya en tête, se firent la guerre. Cinq années de guerre passèrent32 puis,
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
(43–45) Quand le seigneur Durgarāja, descendant de Pāṇḍarāṁga,34 aux incomparables vertus guerrières, lui en fit la requête, Ammarāja, dont le cœur était plein de bienveillance envers cet homme dévoué au bien de son maître, répondit : « c’est de tout cœur que je donnerai un agrahāra à ton ministre. »
XIII
(47–50) Celui-ci qui a étudié les cinq grands sons,35 d’une extrême piété, très grand seigneur, très grand adorateur de Maheśvara, dévoué à sa mère et à son père, ayant convoqué tous les chefs de familles du Karmarāṣṭra, les raṣṭrakūṭa en tête, ordonne ceci : qu’il soit connu de vous que :
XIV
XV
(52–57) Après avoir rendu les honneurs à l’administrateur de la circonscription, ayant pris un champ où l’on sème des graines de kodrava37 pour dix khāri,38 dans la partie sud du village nommé Aṇmaṇaṁguru, ayant pris de même un champ où l’on sème des graines de kodrava pour dix khāri, dans la partie nord du village nommé Aṇḍeki, ayant inclus ces deux champs dans ce village, il a donné à Musiyanaśarman, résidant à Kāraṁcedu, de la lignée de Krovi, du gotra de Bharadvāja, exemptés de toute taxe, à l’occasion du solstice d’hiver, en qualité d’agrāhara, les deux villages nommés Tumiyaveṇiyapūṇḍi.
(57–59) Ses limites sont : à l’est Medalkoṇḍa, au sud Gaṭṭipūṇḍi, à l’ouest le village nommé ḻeṁkoṇḍa, au nord le village nommé Aṇmaṇaṁguru.
(59–63) Les limites de ces champs sont : à l’est un arbre śamī, au point de jonction des trois limites, au sud-est un étang, au sud un arbre gonu et un arbre vemula sur le rivage de l’étang, au sud-ouest des marécages, au sud du lac, à l’ouest Ca[talalu*]39 sur le rivage de la rivière, au nord-ouest un étang, au nord l’étang Cali, au nord-est une pierre blanche au point de jonction des trois limites.
(63–64) Aucune charge ne doit lui être imposée, celui qui en impose est lié aux cinq grands crimes. Celui qui protège cette terre acquiert des mérites. De même Rāmabhadra a dit ceci :
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
(73–74) Le poème a été composé par Bhaṭṭaguṇḍa, du gotra d’Atreya, résidant à Vaṁgipaṟu. [Nous] donnons à celui-ci deux parts.44 Gravure de Ghanavaṭṭabīroja. Bénédiction !
Bibliography
Noticed in Krishna Sastri 1910, p. 15, appendices A/1909-1910, № 4. Edited from inked impressions by E. Hultzsch (1925-1926), with facsimiles and translation.45 The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Hultzsch’s edition with his estampages.
Primary
[EH] Hultzsch, Eugen Julius Theodor. 1925-1926. “Vemalurpadu Plates of Ammaraja II.” EI 18, pp. 226–235.
Notes
- 1. See the last apparatus entry to line 11 for my reconstruction of the pre- and post-correction text in this verse, concerning the length of Narendramr̥garāja’s reign.
- 2. I construe bhūri- in compound with nodaṁba-rāṣṭra, as Hultzsch does in the Maliyapūṇḍi grant, and understand it to mean “large/populous/plentiful/mighty.” It is also possible to construe bhūri as an adverb, as translated by Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty for that inscription, in which case Vijayāditya III defeated Maṅgi summarily or repeatedly. With this latter interpretation, saḍ must be construed in compound to the following word; cf. the next note.
- 3. I construe saḍ as an adverb with nirjjitya. Hultzsch construes it in compound with the following word, translating, “the excellent Ḍāhala”. Both interpretations are plausible grammatically, and the choice matters little ultimately, but I feel that while an enemy country may be described as bhūri (cf. the previous note) to emphasise the king’s prowess even more, the adjective sat would not be used for the country of a defeated enemy.
- 4. The word agraja, literally “fore-born,” is established in the sense of elder brother, yet Vijayāditya IV was the son of Cālukya-Bhīma. The word may have been used by the composer in an unconventional sense here (compare agra-sūnur in the next item and a possible use of agra-janman in line 32 of the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II). More probably, °āgraja may be a mistake for °ātmaja.
- 5. See the commentary about the problems with the reading and interpretation of this stanza.
- 6. I translate the expected meaning, but the word adhyāt is problematic; see the apparatus to line 31.
- 7. Or, as translated by Hultzsch, “from her,” i.e. from Lokamahādevī.
- 8. Hultzsch associates this statement about the turban and parasol with Bhīma I, which does not seem likely from the syntax. He translates, “who seized and wore again at the top (?) of (his) parasol the diadem although it had been struck at by Vallabha”. I believe that my metaphorical interpretation of chatra was the composer’s intent.
- 9. As Hultzsch points out, Amma II was in fact the great-grandson of Bhīma I. The composer may have used pautra in the generalised sense of “paternal descendant,” but such usage is not normal.
- 10. Hultzsch translates this phrase as “who duly attained success by righteousness.” I think the intent of the composer was more explicit, expressing that Bhīma I was predestined to seize the crown, and did so by rightful means. Hultzsch further proposes an alternative interpretation, namely that he “duly attained (the surname) R̥tasiddhi”, which does not seem likely.
- 11. Hultzsch translates naptr̥, most often meaning “grandson” in classical language, as “great-grandson” here, assuming that the composer skipped a generation of the ancestry here, and citing a parallel for such a use of naptr̥. I prefer to take it in the wider sense of “descendant,” since Amma II was the great-great-grandson of Vikramāditya I.
- 12. Musiya’s father does not seem to be named, unless his name is punningly hidden in one of his epithets; he may, for example, have been called Nandana. There is also a slight possibility that the father was Guṇḍamayya, named in the next stanza; in this case it is Musiya’s grandfather who is not named.
- 13. If I (in agreement with Hultzsch) interpret this phrase correctly, then Musiya’s father had the title mahārāja. This may have been a religious title, or it may have been conferred on him on account of being a minister, presumably to Pāṇḍarāṅga. I think it is also possible, that the composer had meant to say that his mahārāja (probably Pāṇḍarāṅga) had conferred “the highest rank” (that of minister) on this person. This meaning, however, cannot be obtained in a straightforward manner from the compound.
- 14. The Maliyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II tells us that Durgarāja was the son of Vijayāditya, son of Niravadya Dhavala, son of Pāṇḍarāṅga, so naptr̥ must mean great-grandson here.
- 15. Hultzsch’s interpretation of this passage differs on several counts from mine. Apart from some insignigicant details, the main difference hinges on my emendation tulayā dhr̥tasya. Hultzsch emends differently (see the apparatus to line 43) and translates, “whose fighting-power had been unequalled.” I find his emendation too heavy-handed, and the resulting text less than likely. If my conjecture tulayā dhr̥tasya is correct, I am still not certain of the precise meaning. It may refer in particular to a tulābhāra ceremony in which Pāṇḍarāṅga’s overlord (probably Bhīma I) awarded to Pāṇḍarāṅga the equivalent of his body weight in gold or another precious substance; or it may be meant in a more generic metaphoric sense, i.e. that this overlord had assayed the qualities of Pāṇḍarāṅga (and found them superior). This latter interpretation may be equivalent to the idea of (catur-)upadhā-(vi)śuddha used for ministers in some grants of the Eastern Cālukyas (Śrīpūṇḍi grant of Tāḻa II, Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II). Additionally, stanza 20 of the Ciṁbuluru plates of Vijayāditya III unambiguously say that Pāṇdarāṅga was weighed against gold by his lord, which confirms my conjecture here and rules out the second interpretation.
- 16. This is quite certainly the meaning intended by the composer, but the text is somewhat awkward (see the apparatus to line 45), and may also mean that he was anointed (as king) in the eighth year of his heir-apparent status. Given the next line’s explicit mention of his crowning at the age of 12, this was probably not the meaning the composer had in mind.
- 17. The expression pañca-mahāśabda probably refers to being honoured by the sound of five musical instruments, but may also mean five titles beginning with “great”. See Fleet 1888, pp. 296–298, n. 9 for a discussion. Hultzsch points out that this title is restricted to feudatory chiefs, and therefore opines that the person described here is Durgarāja. The list of epithets is indeed not a typical one for Eastern Cālukya rulers and includes neither the name of Amma nor his biruda Vijayāditya. However, the introduction of the sentence, so ’yam, should definitely mean that the present subject is the same as that of the preceding stanza, and I do not think Durgarāja would have been called a parama-bhaṭṭāraka. As to the crux of Hultzsch’s argument, the words pañca-mahāśabda are mentioned as dynastic paraphernalia in the legendary genealogy of the Eastern Cālukyas (e.g. the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya, line 22;), and also appear in some earlier grants (applied to the king in the Paḷḷivāḍa grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II, line 11; applied to the dynasty as a whole in line 7 of the Ceruvu Mādhavaram plates of Kali Viṣṇuvardhana V). Nevertheless, the structure of the grant is inconsistent, and the concept may have been that Durgarāja addresses the interested parties here.
- 18. This stanza and the next one are apparently out of context, interrupting the progression of the text from “let it be known to you” to the details of the grant beginning in line 52.
- 19. Or, as Hultzsch translates, “who desires the favour of (his) lord.”
- 20. Or, perhaps, “who always desires morality (dharma) and pragmaticism (artha).”
- 21. See the apparatus to line 51. I choose not to emend the text here and understand it to mean “why go into any further detail?”
- 22. I understand musiyasya te to mean your, i.e. Durgarāja’s Musiya. It could also be construed as “to you, Musiya,” but I think Amma is more likely to be addressing his immediate underling, just as he does in lines 44-45, tava mantriṇe.
- 23. I agree with Hultzsch that the de facto donor implied here is probably Amma II himself, not Durgarāja. I assume that the two hamlets mentioned at the end of the executive section are the administrative divisions incorporating two fields mentioned at the beginning, and thus that one of the hamlets (presumably Tumiya) formerly belonged to the village of Aṇmaṇaṁguru. For “hamlets” I rely on a slight emendation of the text (see the apparatus to line 57) where Hultzsch emends differently. I consider the reading obtained by his emendation to be inferior, and he himself struggles with interpreting it.
- 24. I translate the Telugu on the basis of Hultzsch’s translation and a smattering of Telugu words gleaned from other Eastern Cālukya inscriptions.
- 25. Hultzsch notes that he assumes paruvulu to be the plural of para, salt marsh.
- 26. Or perhaps “the castellan Yaśonidhi.” I agree with Hultzsch that yaśo-nidhi is more likely to be a description than a proper name, and that there is a fair chance that the castellan is Durgarāja himself.
- 27. According to Hultzsch’s note, Bīroja corresponds to Sanskrit Vīropādhyāya.
- 28. Corr. à Guṇagāṁka.
- 29. Frère de Guṇagāṁka.
- 30. Corr. à Kollabhigaṇḍa.
- 31. Corr. à Vijayāditya V.
- 32. Cette époque correspond dans les autres inscriptions au règne de Yuddhamalla qui dura sept ans. Il y a donc un décalage de deux ans dans la chronologie de cette praśasti.
- 33. Ce mot est sans doute un équivalent de kaṇṭhika , S.I.I. , p 49, note 1. : « collier porté comme emblème du yuvarāja, prince héritier ».
- 34. correct. pour Pārāṁga.
- 35. Selon J. F. Fleet, ce titre est réservé aux vassaux du roi, cf. E. P. XII, p. 255, note 2. , il s’agirait donc dans ce passage de Durgarāja et non d’Ammarāja, comme le remarque E. Hultzsch in E. P. 18, p 234, note 4.
- 36. Il y a manifestement ici une rupture de construction, le donataire est indiqué au génitif alors qu’il sera au datif dans la phrase suivante, datif du bénéficiaire dépendant du verbe prādāt.
- 37. Paspalum scrobiculatum, sorte de millet.
- 38. Mesure à grains, quantité équivalente à 9,55 tonnes (d’après les tables de conversion in Renou-Filliozat, 1985, vol. II, appendices p. 758, mesures et poids).
- 39. Nous ignorons le sens de ce mot.
- 40. Traduction du mot dharma, qui prend ici le sens d’ « action pieuse » et par extension de « don ».
- 41. soit 19, 11 tonnes de kodrava.
- 42. le mot mānya désigne une terre exemptée de taxe. Cf. D. C. Sircar, 1966, p. 199.
- 43. Traduction du mot dharma, cf. note supra.
- 44. Des revenus de la donation.
- 45. The translation does not include the first 33 lines, which are by and large identical to the first 34 lines of the Maliyapūṇḍi grant.
Commentary
The name Nodaṁba in stanza 2 must have a short o for the metre to be correct. The same stanza has two enjambements, including one from the first hemistich to the second.
XX
V
- pravr̥ttāddhatāḥ is the received reading identical in all three, including the lack of sandhi (complemented with a punctuation mark in V). Butterworth and Venugopaul Chetty, the first editors of M (hereafter: BVC), accept this reading, while Hultzsch (hereafter: H) emends it to pravr̥ttoddhatāḥ.
- kālālayaṁ appears without a recognisable anusvāra in M and V, and the text is intelligible that way. However, the anusvāra is clearly present in Ī, yielding a better text, so I assume that it has been lost or accidentally omitted in the other two records.
- sāṁgrāmikā vājñā is not attested as such; the variants are M saṁgrāmakāvājñā; V saṁgrāmakānājñā; Ī sāṁgrāmikanājñā. BVC emend to saṁgrāmakasyājñā in their edition of M, which H tentatively endorses in his re-edition of M and his edition of V. I find this too heavy-handed and believe that the composer may have used vā in the sense of eva (or, essentially, as a hiatus filler). However, the original intent may also have been the better attested sāṁgrāmikā nājñā, in which case n must be a hiatus filler (cf. BHSG §4.65).
- para-bhū-nr̥paiś is also not attested; M and V read parabhr̥nr̥paiś, while Ī has parabhr̥nnr̥paiś. BVC and H both emend bhr̥ to bhū. While para-bhr̥t is a legitimate word for which Ī appears to supply confirmation, I cannot make sense of it in the context. Conversely, engraving bhr̥ instead of bhū is a very straightforward scribal mistake, and bhr̥n may be the result of the scribe’s attempt to make sense of the unintelligible bhr̥.
- For śirasā, M and V read śiraso. The text is intelligible that way (and H does not emend it in his editions), but I agree with BVC that śirasā (to be construed with sandhāryyate) is more elegant, and this reading is confirmed by Ī.
I thus prefer to interpret the stanza as indicated in my translation. However, depending on the choice of readings, a number of slightly different alternative interpretations may be possible. If pravr̥ttoddhatāḥ is preferred in pāda a, then the other kings are “formidable and obdurate in their depravity, blatantly wrecking the country.” Reading saṁgrāma-kāv in pāda c, the text might mean that “his command (given) on the field of vicious battle is borne on the head,” but this relies on the rather laborious use of ku in the sense of bhūmi. The phrase tat-para-bhū-nr̥paiś could be construed as tatpara-bhū-nr̥paiś, “kings of the land (i.e. subordinates) intent (on obedience),” but the contrast with kings of other lands is poetically more effective.