Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II

Seal

Plates

⟨1⟩ svasti ⬦ @ svasti PS • I see no trace of the spiral design reported by PS, not any room where it may have been. — ⟨1⟩ vijayavāṭa- ⬦ vijayavāṭi- PS. — ⟨1⟩ a⟨2⟩bhiṣṭūyamāna-⟨māna⟩vya- ⬦ a⟨2⟩bhīṣṭh¿a?⟨ā⟩ya mānavya PS.

⟨2⟩ -sagotrāṇā(M?) hāritī-putrāṇāM ⬦ -sagotrāṇā¿ma?⟨ṁ⟩ PS.

⟨3⟩ -¿ṣ?⟨m⟩ahāsena- ⬦ -m¿e?⟨a⟩hāsena- PS. — ⟨3⟩ bhaga⟨va⟩n-nārāyaṇa ⬦ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa PS.

⟨6⟩ calukyānāṁ ⬦ caḷukyānāṁ PS.

⟨13⟩ tyāg¿o?⟨au⟩dāryya-gāṁbhīryya- ⬦ tyāgod¿o?⟨ā⟩ryyā-goṁbhīryya- PS.

⟨14⟩ -nirasano¡d!⟨dd⟩yotita- ⬦ nirasta ketodyotita PS. — ⟨14⟩ -pra¡(ḷ)!⟨l⟩ayādityaḥ • Pra may have been corrected from ma, or perhaps pa was first engraved so close to the bottom edge as to leave no room for the subscript r, and then re-engraved slightly higher up.

⟨17⟩ bhagavatām arhatāM ba⟨18⟩li- ⬦ bhagavatā mahāto mahāba⟨18⟩li- PS.

⟨18⟩ -saraṇārtthaM ⬦ s¿a?⟨ā⟩ra netrī PS • In his discussion, PR subtly further modifies the reading to just navakarmma-sāra, which he considers to be a reference to nine works apparently called sāras by Koṇḍakuṇḍācārya. I utterly fail to see why these works would be mentioned in the context. The ARIE correctly says that the grant’s purposes included navakarmasaraṇa. I accept this word as correct, interpreting it as "uninterrupted continuation". The parallel locus in the third Peddāpurappāḍu set reads śaraṇārtthaM, which I find inferior.

⟨19⟩ potupa-viṣaye • PS shows the name as unclear. After examination of the photos, there is no reasonable doubt to the spelling. — ⟨19⟩ -nadyā¿T? PS • PS’s use of the double hyphen for transliterated characters belonging to a single akṣara is unreliable, so the text may be -nadyāt; conceivably, this may also be a misreading of -nadyāḥ or -nadyāḫ. — ⟨19⟩ pūrvv¿a?⟨e⟩ (ta?)(ṅgo)manūṟuvu-grāmā⟨T⟩ ⬦ pūrvvata jemanūruva-grāmā PS • In PS’s edition, the name is set with a line break after jemanū and a large space after r. I assume that his author manuscript used the Telugu character ṟ here, which the typesetter of the paper messed up. In the plate, the character I read tentatively as ta is atop the break between the two halves of the plate, and has been partly rubbed off at the edge. In the next character, the g component is very faint but quite clear, and the strokes for the vowel o have been attached to the top of this component rather than to the upper ṅ component, presumably because the descender of rttha in the previous line was in the way. In spite of the non-standard execution, the reading is reasonably certain. A field named Taṁgodunaruva is mentioned in the mid-sixth century Kondavidu set II of Pr̥thvīśrīmūla (EIAD 0188), in the vicinity of Tāṇḍikoṇḍa. The present charter probably concerns a different region (although see my commentary to the second Peddāpurappāḍu set), but the attestation of that name adds to the plausibility of my reading. In pūrvve, I emend to harmonise with the rest of this part of the sentence, but retaining pūrvva in compound or emending to pūrvvataḥ would also be acceptable.

⟨20⟩ naḻpuru- ⬦ nalpuru- PS • In PS’s edition, this word is set with a line break after na and a large space after l. I assume, but may be mistaken, that his author manuscript used the Telugu character ḻ here, which the typesetter of the paper messed up. — ⟨20⟩ Iṇ(ṭha?)ru- ⬦ Interu- PS • In PS’s edition, this word is set with a line break after Inte and a large space after r. I assume, but may be mistaken, that his author manuscript used the Telugu character ṟ here, which the typesetter of the paper messed up. PS may have been aware of the Īnteṟu grant of Bādapa and been influenced by the name of that village in velānāṇḍu-viṣaya. Here, the second character’s principal consonant is clearly ṇ. The rest is most likely ṭha mixed up with the vestiges of an earlier character (see the commentary), but possibly ṭhu or ṟu. The last character of the name is definitely ru, although a second curved stroke is attached to the bottom left of the consonant component, which may be a vestige or a slip of the chisel.

⟨21⟩ Eṣā(M?) ⬦ Eṣāna⟨ṁ⟩ PS. — ⟨21⟩ parttipāk(a)- ⬦ pattipoka- PS • The ARIE report gives this name as Pattipāka, along with the possible alternative Pattipāḍu. The segment parttipā is clear. The ā marker is notched and thus reminiscent of the later cursive o, but compare the similarly notched ā e.g. in l. 3 pādānudhyātānāM, as opposed to the bipartite o marker in l. 19 potupa. The last character of the name has the fracture line running through its body, and what may be a vowel marker atop it is tangled with the subscript part of ści in the previous like. It was this subscript that made the ARIE reader think of ḍ, with the body of k resembling a dependent u attached to it. That reading can be ruled out with certainty. I believe that no dependent vowel is attached to this last consonant. — ⟨21⟩ -grāma¿T?⟨M⟩ ⬦ -grāmāT PS. — ⟨21⟩ _ da_t⟨t⟩a_(M?)_ ⬦ dataM[…] PS • The illegible last character may be a damaged final M or a vestige of the earlier text on this section of the plate. Given the syntax in the earlier part of the sentence, perhaps dattavāN was intended. The characters of this last word are widely spaced, but there is no illegible text here. See also the next note.

⟨22⟩ ⟨na kenacid bā⟩dhā karaṇīyā ⬦ dākaraṇīya PS • The missing words seem not to have been re-engraved after overwriting the last three lines on 2v. See also the previos note and the commentary. — ⟨22⟩ paraṁ sa bhūta-rājyai(ḥ) ⟦(r?)i⟧ rājabhiḫ paripā⟨23⟩lay¿a?⟨i⟩tavya¿M?⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ para-śa bhūta rājya rājabhir paripā⟨23⟩latavyaM PS • PS rājabhir was probably intended as an upadhmānīya here, which the typesettermessed up. I interpret sa to refer to dharmaḥ meaning this charter, but the sentence is problematic nonetheless.

⟨24⟩ tasya ⟨25⟩ ta◯sya ⬦ tasya tasya ⟨25⟩ PS.

⟨25⟩ ¡sva-pitā!⟨nighnato⟩-(bh)artr̥- ⬦ sva putā chātrā PS • I normalise the beginning to the expected form, paralleled e.g. in the Koṇḍaṇagūru grant of Indra Bhaṭṭāraka. The alteration seems to be deliberate, but not only does it use a form inappropriate in compound, it also deletes the participle without which the stanza becomes rather nonsensical. See also the note to line 26. — ⟨25⟩ -bāla-y¿e?⟨o⟩⟨26⟩ṣi◯t-tapasvināM ⬦ pālayo⟨26⟩kṣi¿tta?⟨t-u⟩pasthi nāma PS.

⟨26⟩ yā gatis (s)ā ¡(ha)re!⟨bhave⟩d bhūmiM ⬦ yogati soha bhūmi PS • This line dips to avoid the descender of rtr̥ in the previous line, while the next line is initially quite level. As a consequence, the characters ma varṣa in line 27 line overlap the subscript s of ssā and the lower parts of hare in the present line. Also, ha is partly obscured by the fracture line in the plate. Nonetheless, the reading hared is beyond doubt. It seems to be a clumsy attempt to restore sense to the stanza after the alteration in the first quarter (q.v. the note to line 25). — ⟨26⟩ (ha)rataś śā⟨27⟩sanā(ṁ)kit¿a?⟨ā⟩M ⬦ […] sā⟨27⟩sanāmkitāM PS • The character ha may have been corrected from ppa or misinterpreted as ppa by the engraver.

⟨27⟩ AyaM dharmmaḥ prathama-(va)rṣa _ paripālitaḥ ⬦ AyaM dharmma pradhama varṣaM paripālitāni PS • The characters ma varṣa increasingly overlap with the previous line (see also the note to line 26). Thereafter, the current line skips to the point after the large descender of dbhū and continues at a lower horizontal level. The fracture affects only the right limb of ma in this line. The character va looks rather like ṣa and may have been corrected from that. The end of the line is clearly paripālitaḥ; what PS may have taken for an i marker or ni (promting the rest of his reading) is in fact the subscript part of śśā in the previous line. I suspect that paripālitaḥ was inscribed erroneously for pratipāditaḥ.

⟨28⟩ ◯ ⬦ śrī PS.