Ciṁbuluru plates of Vijayāditya III

⟨3⟩ -lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa- ⬦ -lāñchanekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-kṣaṇa- NV • Typo in NV.

⟨5⟩ calukyānāṁ ⬦ cālukyānāṁ NV.

⟨6⟩ jayas(ī)ha ⬦ jayasiṁha NV.

⟨9⟩ °ja-dvai° • These two characaters are crowded very close together. The vowel markers on dvai may have been added subsequently. — ⟨9⟩ tasya putra⟨ḥ⟩ • The first word has probably been corrected from tasyā; the next two characters may also be a correction, e.g. from nuja.

⟨11⟩ Ekacatvāriṁśat • See the commentary about this stanza in addition to the apparatus. — ⟨11⟩ ⟨’⟩smi¡(N)!⟨ṁ⟩s ⬦ smi⟨n⟩s NV • The character I tentatively read as a final N may instead be a punctuation daṇḍa, but would then be out of place. I cannot interpret NV’s editorial markup; he too may have read a final N here and intended to mark it as superfluous, but is also possible that he ignored this character and wished to supply an anusvāra. — ⟨11⟩ -sut(o) • The ending o (also read by NV) fits my interpretation of the text and my assumption that it is in anuṣṭubh (not shared by NV), but if a vowel marker is present, it has no downward extensions and may have been added subsequently. — ⟨11⟩ viṣṇurāja⟨ḥ⟩ • At the end of this word, where a visarga is expected, there seems to be a single small circle or dot at median height. NV ignores this and it may be just damage, but it does seem to be part of the writing. — ⟨11⟩ -śa⟨12⟩rad-⟨d⟩vaya⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ -śa⟨12⟩rad-⟨d⟩vaya⟨ṁ⟩ NV.

⟨12⟩ -śūro ⬦ -śūrā NV. — ⟨12⟩ goṣṭheṣ¿ṭ?⟨v⟩ ⬦ goṣṭheṣv NV • If I am wrong in my interpretation of the second hemistich, then it is also conceivable that the intended text was goṣṭheṣṭy- or goṣṭhīṣṭy-. — ⟨12⟩ adhiṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩itā • If I am wrong in my interpretation of the second hemistich, then this word may require further emendation to adhiṣṭhito. — ⟨12⟩ apy ¿a?⟨ā⟩tma- ⬦ a¿p?⟨s⟩yātma- NV • I do not understand the purpose of NV’s emendation. — ⟨12⟩ -ve¿(ṣ?)?⟨d⟩ī ⬦ -vedī NV • I find NV’s reading acceptable in the context, but the problematic consonant does not look like d; the additional strokes on the right-hand side of the lower part appear to be a deliberate part of the writing. I assume that d had been intended, and the scribe mistook the draft for a different character, probably ṣ.

⟨13⟩ sva-¿vaśyāraśśratāviṣṭ(ā)? • NV’s edition gives this chunk of text literally as “sva-vaśyār=aś=śrat=āviṣṭā”. This implies that he analysed the segment in a particular way, but I cannot understand his analysis. The last character probably does indeed have a small ā marker attached to it, and what resembles an i marker distorted by the overhanging descender of pra above is nothing but an oversized headmark. As for the meaning of this segment, the best I can propose is to emend to sva-vaṁśyair āśritāviṣṭā, with hypersandhi applied to āśritāḥ (or viṣṭā used instead of āviṣṭā). This is a tentative suggestion and therefore I choose not to include the emendation in the edition itself. See also my translation. — ⟨13⟩ ¿c(e?)ṇḍuka-? ⬦ caṇḍuka- NV • The vertical stroke on the left of śc that I take to be an e marker may be just a slip of the chisel in the engraving of the subscript part of tma above. There is, moreover, a slight chance that a further vowel marker is attached on the top right; if this is a deliberate stroke, then it is probably a subsequent addition, since it mingles with the upper part of the following ṇ. The intended vowel might thus be a, ā or o in addition to e, which I deem to be most likely. I cannot interpret any of these readings and cannot offer a convincing emendation. If caṇḍuka is correct, this may mean a ball or a conglomerate (Schmidt’s addenda to the PW: “Ball, zusammengeballte Masse”), which does not seem appropriate but may have been used in the sense of a mass or multitude. If the correct reading is coṇḍuka, then the composer may have used the word uṇḍuka in the sense of "a lot of." Emending to caiḍuka, the word may have been eḍuka, for Buddhist (or Jain?) stūpas. Emending to candraka, this might be a technical term for a particular kind of vedikā; emending to cendraka may likewise result in indraka as a technical term. All of these words are, however, rare and barely or not at all attested in meanings that may be appropriate here. For want of a better reading/emendation, I provisionally believe cendraka to be the most likely, since this emendation presupposes a relatively minor graphical modification (ṇḍu engraved instead of ndra), and indraka can mean an audience chamber (as an asterisked entry in the PWG).

⟨14⟩ ā⟨śri⟩t¿o?⟨au⟩¿dha?⟨dā⟩ryy¿a?⟨ā⟩d ⬦ ¿ā?⟨a⟩to dh¿a?⟨ai⟩ryyād NV • NV’s emendation is unmetrical and not very meaningful. My own emendation is offered tentatively, but seems to make good sense in the context, since most of the personages listed in the first hemistich are noted for their generosity to people who were āśrita to them (see my translation). — ⟨14⟩ ambhodhi- • This word may need emendation to ambhodhiṁ, but if this was the composer’s intent, then I do not know the quality in which Vijayāditya surpasses the ocean. In other Eastern Cālukya inscriptions, kings are said to rival the ocean in profundity (agādhatā in the Pedda-Vegi plates of Jayasiṁha I and gambhīra-satva in the Pr̥thivipallavapaṭṭana grant of Viṣṇuvardhana IV) or in having great character (mahā-satvatā in the Masulipatam plates of Vijayāditya III, punningly in the case of the ocean); this latter stands right next to a claim of rivalling the earth in forbearance (kṣamāyāḥ kṣitir). The composer may have clumsily adopted a slightly different stanza that mentioned the ocean in such a connection, or–somewhat awkwardly–ambhodhi can be understood in compound with kṣamayā in the sense of "inexhaustable".

⟨15⟩ priya-⟨patnī⟩ NV • I endorse NV’s emendation of the otherwise hypometrical line. The ending of the quarter follows the ra-vipulā pattern, which would also permit other restorations such as bhāryā or kāntā instead of patnī; also, priyā may have been intended instead of priya-, and if so, then one of the above substantives may have been meant to come before, rather than after this word.

⟨16⟩ -sutā⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ -sutā NV. — ⟨16⟩ -kanyakā⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ -kanyakā NV. — ⟨16⟩ samāpannā⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ samāpannā NV. — ⟨16⟩ iv¿(e)?⟨o⟩dva⟨17⟩¿yā?⟨ha⟩T ⬦ iv¿a?⟨ā⟩dva⟨17⟩y¿ā?⟨a⟩T NV • I do not understand NV’s emendation; he may have meant to emend to ivādvayāt, but this does not make sense in the context. Since kāma-mūrttir is in the masculine, I expect something in this stanza to be about the king. In the script of the plates, the akṣaras yā and ha are very similar. In this locus, we definitely have the former, but I assume this to be a scribal mistake for a pre-drawn ha. The form udvahat is still problematic; it may have been used for the sake of the metre in place of udavahat, or may be a non-standard form for correct udvahan. Given my understanding of the narrative context, I consider the latter more likely; see also my translation.

⟨17⟩ grāma⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ grāma- NV • I believe that the second half of this stanza must have been omitted by mistake (rather than never being composed), and this second half would have contained a verb stating that a village has been granted. — ⟨17⟩ -samr̥⟨ddha⟩y¿a?⟨e⟩ ⬦ -samr̥⟨ddha⟩ye NV • I second NV’s emendation, though it requires emending the ending too, since no e is visible in the plate. — ⟨17⟩ gudrah¿a?⟨ā⟩ra- ⬦ g¿r̥?⟨r⟩udr¿ā?⟨a⟩h¿a?⟨ā⟩ra- NV • I am not sure if NV saw a subscript r̥ here that he emended to r, or saw an r to begin with, which was misprinted in his edition. Whichever the case, the reading is mistaken, and the semblance of an r or r̥ only appears because the descender of u touches the i of ājñāpayati in the following line. — ⟨17⟩ -niv¿a?⟨ā⟩sin¿ā?⟨a⟩ḥ ⬦ -nivāsino{ḥ} NV.

⟨20⟩ ciṁbuluru ⬦ ciṁbul¿u?⟨ū⟩ru NV • While it makes good sense that a long ū had been intended here, I prefer not to interfere with the original spelling both here and in line 25.

⟨22⟩ ¡n(i)kumbhebhyaḥ!⟨nikurumbebhyaḥ⟩ ⬦ ¡nikumbhābhyaḥ!⟨nikurambibhyaḥ⟩ NV • I do not understand NV’s reading of ā and emendation to i where I read and retain e; both may be typos, and we are in agreement about the essence of the emendation.

⟨23⟩ -durvv¿a?⟨ā⟩so-⟨’⟩nukāribhyaḥ ⬦ -¿durvvāsonukārrbhya?⟨durvvāsa-śaunakādibhyaḥ⟩ NV • NV’s reading was probably identical to mine aside from typos in his edition. His emendation is unnecessary; the text as received is perfectly intelligible and much better than his emendation.

⟨24⟩ -veditavy¿ā?⟨e⟩bhya⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ -veditayebhya⟨ḥ⟩ NV. — ⟨24⟩ kr̥⟨ta-ka⟩(r)ttavy¿ā?⟨e⟩bhya(ḥ) ⬦ kr̥vyebhyoḥ NV • NV offers no emendation and ignores the character rtta, which to my mind clearly determines how the text must be emended. — ⟨24⟩ -nimitt¿a?⟨e⟩ ⬦ -nimitta⟨ṁ⟩ NV.

⟨25⟩ ciṁbuluru- ⬦ ciṁbulūru- NV • See also the note to line 20. — ⟨25⟩ -nāmā ⬦ nāma NV • While elsewhere in the text, nāma has been used in the neuter accusative and the same may have been intended here, there is nothing against construing it in compound, as a masculine nominative.

⟨26⟩ -nāmā ⬦ nāma NV • See the previous note.

⟨27⟩ -nāmā ⬦ n¿a?⟨ā⟩m¿ā?⟨a⟩ NV • See note to line 25.

⟨28⟩ ya{ḥ}ẖ ⬦ yaḥ{m} NV. — ⟨28⟩ s¿ā?⟨a⟩ • The superfluous ā was probably the scribe’s misunderstanding of a visarga. — ⟨28⟩ Īśvara⟨ḥ⟩ sarvva- • There are two dots, resembling anusvāras, at (or slightly below) head level on the two sides of sa. They may be an editorial mark to correct sa into ssa. — ⟨28⟩ br¿(a)?⟨ā⟩hmaṇo jāyamā¿ṇ?⟨n⟩o • The text is acceptable as it is, but I would find it smoother with brāhmaṇe jāyamāne.

⟨36⟩ na sa ⬦ nanu NV • Since I am not sure of the intended meaning of the stanza, I cannot rule out the possibility that the second character was intended for nu, but its right limb does not extend below the baseline, and the character as a whole is a nearly perfect sa. — ⟨36⟩ deh¿i?⟨ī⟩{ti} deh¿i?⟨ā⟩{ve}ntara¿gaṁ?⟨ṁ ga⟩taḥ ⬦ {dehīti} deh¿i?⟨ī⟩vāntara⟨tā⟩¿gaṁ?⟨ṁ ga⟩taḥ NV • NV’s emendation does not seem very coherent. I offer my own conjecturally; see the translation for my interpretation of the text.

⟨37⟩ itth¿ā?⟨aṁ⟩ ⬦ ¿itthā?⟨etān⟩ NV.

⟨40⟩ mūrdhn¿aḥ?⟨i⟩ ⬦ mūrdh¿naḥ?⟨ani⟩ NV • Emendation is not strictly necessary, but the stanza normally has mūrdhni, and an añjali "of the head" does not sound very plausible, so I assume this is not an intentional variation.

⟨41⟩ -jīvitañ ⬦ -¿jīartāñ?⟨jīvitañ⟩ NV • This is probably a compound typo in NV, and he emends only because this word is part if his lemma for the preceding manusya.

⟨42⟩ u¿dh?⟨d⟩āhr̥¿dā?⟨ta⟩ñ ⬦ udāhr̥¿dhā?⟨ta⟩ñ NV. — ⟨42⟩ bu⟨d⟩dh¿na?⟨vā⟩ ⬦ budhvā NV. — ⟨42⟩ n¿ai?⟨a⟩ ¿hi?⟨mati⟩matā ⬦ nali n¿ai?⟨a⟩ hi ⟨mati⟩matā NV • NV’s nali must be a typo. His emendation to na hi is hypermetrical even though this is suggested by the received reading naihi. I can only save the metre by more heavy-handed emendation, but perhaps the original composer had a less rigorous grasp of the metre and did indeed intend the text to be na hi matimatā. A variant of this stanza (not known to me to occur in the Eastern Cālukya corpus) has na hi puruṣaiḥ. — ⟨42⟩ para-kīrtta⟨yo⟩ vilopy¿a?⟨ā⟩ḥ ⬦ para-kīrtt¿a?⟨ir⟩ vilopya{ḥ} NV • NV’s emendation is unmetrical and grammatically incorrect.

⟨44⟩ -parītāyevādya • The received reading is acceptable, but iva is not very appropriate; -parītāyaivādya would be better as far as the sense is concerned. Both are metrically risqué. Versions of this stanza found elsewhere have parītāya Adya (e.g. Kāvyādarśa 3.160) or -parītāpād adya (e.g. Hitopadeśa 4.136). — ⟨44⟩ dharmm¿a?⟨ā⟩(pe)taḥ • The received reading is acceptable, but other occurrences of this stanza have dharmmāpetaṁ, which is better.

⟨45⟩ (da)tt¿ā?⟨a⟩-pr¿a?⟨ā⟩ṇasya ⬦ datt¿a?⟨vā⟩ prāṇ¿asya?⟨āṁś ca⟩ NV • NV’s emendation is unnecessary and only makes the syntax more awkward. — ⟨45⟩ kaṭeya- ⬦ kaḍeya- NV • Although the form kaḍeya is repeatedly attested, the present plate clearly has kaṭeya.

⟨46⟩ -vra⟨47⟩ta⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ -vra⟨47⟩t¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨ḥ⟩ NV. — ⟨46⟩ saha-yogena ⬦ saha yogen¿ā?⟨a⟩ NV • Note that in addition to reading a superfluous ā where I see none, NV construes saha as a separate word, as is evident from his discussion where he says Paṇḍarāṁga was weighed together with his lord. I think this is unlikely, because yogena would then not be meaningful in the context.

⟨47⟩ -bhār¡ā! • This ending is not grammatically correct. The intended meaning is clear, but I cannot tell whether it is a scribal mistake for -bhāra- in compound, or whether the composer used -bhārā as a non-standard instrumental (or ablative). — ⟨47⟩ -n¿a?⟨ā⟩mna⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ -nāmnā NV • I am not certain how to parse the text of the colophon; different emendations may lead to different senses. See my translation and note there for my interpretation.

⟨48⟩ -niv¿a?⟨ā⟩sinaḥ⟨.⟩ ⬦ -nivāsin¿aḥ?⟨ā⟩ NV • I am not certain how to parse the text of the colophon; different emendations may lead to different senses. See my translation and note there for my interpretation. — ⟨48⟩ ¡vijavaḍa!- • As NV also observes, this is clearly Vijayavāḍa; it is, however, impossible to tell whether the ya was omitted by mistake or whether this is a legitimate variant of the name. — ⟨48⟩ ¿Akṣalalitā?⟨Akṣaralalita⟩- • Akṣaralalitācārya of Vijayavāḍa was the writer of the Koṟṟapaṟṟu grant of Vijayāditya II. The ā at the end of the present name may indicate that cāryya was omitted by the scribe, or it may simply be an incorrect way of writing the name without the title. — ⟨48⟩ śrīvi(ja)yācāryyeṇālile(kh)¿(ā)?⟨(a)⟩ ¿saśāna?⟨śāsanaM⟩ ⬦ vijayācāryyeṇ¿ā?⟨a⟩ lilekha śasanaṁ NV • NV omits śrī both in his edition and in his discussion. I prefer to construe śrī as part of the writer’s name because I doubt that clerical staff would have had śrī as an honorary epithet, but the latter is of course also possible. The active verb lilekha is syntactically incorrect with the agent in the instrumental. The composer may have conceived of the verb as passive, or may have meant the name to be in the nominative. The Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III, also inscribed by Śrīvijayācārya, spells this phrase in the same way, but there this is followed by likhita vidyadhara. Therefore, I assume that the action performed by Śrīvijayācārya is in both texts reported with the verb ālikh- (see also my commentary there), and do not emend to śrīvijayācāryyeṇa.