Nūtimaḍugu plates of Vikramāditya II

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00064.

Language: Sanskrit.

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

Version: (37404d2), last modified (29bf874).

Edition

⟨Page 2r⟩ ⟨1⟩ […] tat-putro jayasiṁha-vallabhas trayastriṁśad va(rṣāṇi)| tad-anu⟨2⟩[jendra-rā]jasya priya-tana(yo) viṣṇuvarddhano nava (vatsa)rāN| tat-suto maṁgi-yu⟨3⟩[varājaḥ pa]ñcaviṁśati⟨ṁ⟩| tat-putro jayasiṁhas trayodaśa vatsarāN⟨|⟩ tad-dvaimāturānujaḥ ⟨4⟩ [kokki]liḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya (jyeṣṭho) bhrātā viṣṇuvarddha(naḥ) svānujam ājā(v u)⟨5⟩[ccā]ṭya saptatriṁśaT| tat-tanujo vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārakaḥ Aṣṭā(daśa) ⟨6⟩ [varṣāṇi|] tad-auraso viṣṇurājaḥ ṣaṭtriṁśad abdāN|

I. Anuṣṭubh

tat-suto vijayādityaś

a

catvāriṁśata⟨7⟩[–⏑⏓]

b

[a]ṣṭottara-śata-śrīman-

c

-narendreśvara-kārakaḥ

d

tad-ātmajaḥ (ka)li-viṣṇuvarddhanas sārddha⟨8⟩[-samāṁ| tat-suto] vijayāditya(ḥ) catuścatvāriṁśad varṣāṇi| tad-bhrātur yuvarājasya vi⟨Page 2v⟩⟨9⟩[kramādityasya] tanayaḥ cālukya-bhīmas triṁśad varṣ{v}āṇi⟦va⟧⟨⟨|⟩⟩ tat-suto vijayādi⟨10⟩[tyaḥ ṣaṇ māsā]N|

II. Anuṣṭubh

sapta saṁvatsarā¡n!⟨ṁs⟩ tasya

a

sūnur amma-mahīpatiḥ

b
III. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

yāte gaṇḍaragaṇḍa-bhū(bhu)⟨11⟩[ji] [⏑–] prāptābhiṣekas ta(ta)s

a

sūnuṁ [–⏑] vaśāt sa [–⏑] vijayādityaṁ punas tālapa(ḥ)

b

⟨12⟩ [–––]ru-gataṁ vidhāya ba [⏑––](bhūya) bhūmīśva(ro)

c

bhūmiṁ pālayati ⟨13⟩ [sma] [–⏑⏑⏑]taṁ śrutvā vaco [–⏑⏓]

d
IV. Śārdūlavikrīḍita

Āgatya drutam āyata-pratimukha⟨14⟩[––⏑–]n uddhatān

a

hatvā tad-rudhirā[]-bhīma-ba(la)[]-nistriṁśa-bhāsvad-bhuja(ḥ)

b

tan dagdhvā ⟨15⟩ [⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏑⏑] śrīmad-vikramāditya-bhū-

c

pālas tālapam eṣa paṭṭam avahac cū⟨16⟩[–⏑––⏑⏓]

d

viśālāvakāśam imaṁ […] kṣiti-payo-rāśiṣu kūla-śālī⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨17⟩ […]t prabhur adhipater yyasya saroruhāsanaḥ||

V. Hariṇī

yad-asi⟨18⟩-[⏑⏑––]tvāgādham mahad ripur ambugair

a

vviśati vimukho vārāṁ rāśiṁ sphurad-raṇa-raṁgataḥ|

b

ya⟨19⟩[⏑⏑]-vanitā-cakṣur-vvāri-prasikta-tanus satīn

c

asakr̥d akhilā jajñe [––⏑–⏑] ⟨20⟩ [⏑–⏑–]

d
VI. Anuṣṭubh

vikramaika-sahāyo ⟨’⟩ṣṭau

a

yu⟨d⟩dhvā yuddha-śataṁ samā(ḥ)

b

yuddhe labdha⟨21⟩-[⏑–] rājyaṁ

c

yaḥ kīrttyā samam agrahīT||

d
VII. Indravajrā

yat-kānti-vikrānti-kr̥tābhibhūtī

a

la⟨22⟩[–⏑––⏑⏑]-citta-vr̥¿rtī?⟨ttī⟩

b

candro mr̥gārāti-rucāv apīmau

c

jātau [⏑––⏑] guhā⟨Page 3v⟩⟨23⟩[⏑––]

d
VIII. Mālinī

(A)panudati pareṣāṁ rāga-mo(hau ya)dīyo

a

(di)śati ca karavāla⟨24⟩-[–⏑––⏑––]|

b

cirayati samagraṁ bhūri-sāṁsāra-mohan

c

nara Iva ⟨25⟩ (bhu?)vi siddho loka-vikhyāta-kīrttiḥ||

d

sa samasta-bhuvanāśraya-śrī⟨26⟩-(vi)kramāditya-mahārājādhirāja-parameśvara-parama-bhaṭṭāra⟨27⟩(ka-pa)rama-brahmaṇyaḥ kaṇḍervvāḍi-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhā⟨28⟩(n kuṭimbinas sa)rvvān ittham ājñāpayati

viditam astu […] mādityā […]

Apparatus

⟨4⟩ svānujam ājā(v u)⟨5⟩[ccā]ṭya • The reading is plausible, but compare line 12 of the Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I, which have svānujam {adam} uccāṭya.

⟨7⟩ catvāriṁśata⟨7⟩[–⏑⏓] • NLR only observes that the text from aṣṭottara is half an anuṣṭubh stanza. I prefer to assume that we are dealing with a full stanza here, though it is possible that the first hemistich has indeed been converted into prose. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I, which contains a practically identical genealogy, has corrupt prose here: tat-suto vijayādityaḥ catvāriṁśat samaḥ. Other grants of the dynasty describe the length of Vijayāditya II’s reign in anuṣṭubh (though not juxtaposed to the extant hemistich here) as catvāriṁśat samāṣṭabhiḥ or catvāriṁśat samās samaḥ. There is no way to determine whether a reign of forty or forty-eight years was assigned here. The last character in line 7 may perhaps be T or tsa rather than ta.

⟨8⟩ [-samāṁ| tat-suto] NLR • The meaning of the lost text was certainly as restored by NLR, but the words may have been different. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I have samaḥ tan-nandano here.

⟨9⟩ varṣ{v}āṇi ⬦ varṣāṇi NLRrṣvā is the first legible character in this line after the palimpsest area, and it definitely has a subscript component, possibly ṭh but probably v. — ⟨9⟩ ⟦va⟧⟨⟨|⟩⟩ NLR • I accept NLR’s note on this correction, but cannot confirm it from the photo, where I see strokes that resemble a daṇḍa followed by ga.

⟨8⟩ vi⟨Page 2v⟩⟨9⟩[kramādityasya] NLR • I assume that NLR could read the text he prints as clear and could estimate the number of lost characters with some precision, in which case his restoration is perfectly plausible. But if he was guessing where he admits no doubt, then the text could have run somewhat differently. The Bezvāḍa plates of Bhīma I read tad-bhrātur yyuvarājasya vikramāditya-bhūpateḥ putro bhīmaḥ.

⟨9⟩ vijayādi⟨10⟩[tyaḥ ṣaṇ māsā]N| NLR • Again, I accept NLR’s reading and restoration but wonder if there was an anuṣṭubh hemistich here, to complete the following half stanza.

⟨10⟩ -bhū(bhu)⟨11⟩[ji] [⏑–]-bhū(bhu)⟨11⟩[⏑⏑–] NLR • At the end of line 10 I see nothing recognisable beyond bhū, but I assume that NLR’s bhu is based on vestiges. He does not make the restoration I suggest, but surely had the same in mind. Unless the vestigial bhu is quite clear in the original, bhūbhr̥ti is also possible.

⟨11⟩ prāptābhiṣekas NLR • I would expect this word to be in the accusative but must accept NLR’s reading because nothing is legible in the published photo. — ⟨11⟩ [–⏑] vaśāt NLR • Perhaps restore kāla-vaśāt? — ⟨11⟩ [–⏑] vijayādityaṁ NLR • Perhaps restore bheka or beta?

⟨12⟩ [sma] [–⏑⏑⏑]taṁ ⬦ [⏑–⏑⏑⏑]taṁ NLR.

⟨13⟩ drutam āyata- NLR • I accept NLR’s reading with hesitation. If the reading m āya is correct, then there is at least one extra stroke (resembling a punctuation mark) to the right of .

⟨14⟩ -rudhirā[]- NLR • Perhaps restore -rudhirākta-?.

⟨15⟩ eṣa paṭṭam avahac cū NLR • Again, this reading seems doubtful, but I cannot improve it.

⟨16⟩ viśālāvakāśam … ⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨17⟩ … saroruhāsanaḥ|| NLR • The reading is highly doubtful. This was almost certainly a stanza in the original. NLR suggests that its metre may have been āryā, but if his reading is largely correct, then this is prosodically impossible. Given the lengths of adjacent lines (29 characters each in lines 14 and 15; 31 in line 18), the total length of the stanza would have been about 40 characters, with about 2 in the first lacuna and about 13 in the second. It may perhaps have been in viyoginī (42 characters total), but this too is only possible if NLR’s reading is substantially incorrect.

⟨20⟩ labdha⟨21⟩-[⏑–] NLR • Perhaps restore labdha-jayo?

⟨21⟩ -kr̥tābhibhūtī NLR • I see no trace of an ī in this otherwise fairly legible word and cannot interpret the text with this ending. — ⟨21⟩ -vr̥¿rtī?⟨ttī⟩ NLR • I adopt NLR’s reading as printed, but there may be a typo in his intended emendation. In the photo, all I can see is an unclear t with a possible i on top.

⟨24⟩ samagraṁ NLR • I do not know whether the hypometrical prosody is a misprint in NLR’s edition or an omission in the original. The intended text may have been ca samagraṁ, susamagraṁ, etc. — ⟨24⟩ […] mādityā […] NLR • NLR prints eight dots for the first lacuna and two for the second. It is not clear to me whether he intends the number of dots to represent the length of lacunae; elsewhere in the text, some of his lacunae seem to correspond to my estimates of lacuna length at two dots per akṣara, but elsewhere at one dot per akṣara.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–6) His son Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I), for thirty-three years. His younger brother Indrarāja’s (Indra Bhaṭṭāraka’s) dear son Viṣṇuvardhana (II), for nine years. His son Maṅgi Yuvarāja, for twenty-five. His son Jayasiṁha (II), for thirteen years. His younger brother by a different mother, Kokkili, for six months. After dethroning his younger brother in battle, his eldest brother Viṣṇuvardhana (III), for thirty-seven [years]. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen years. His son Viṣṇurāja (Viṣṇuvardhana IV), for thirty-six years.

I
His son Vijayāditya (II), who erected a hundred and eight majestic Narendreśvara [temples], for forty […]1

(7–10) His son Kali Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His son Vijayāditya (III), for forty-four years. The son of his brother the heir-apparent (yuvarāja) Vikramāditya, Cālukya-Bhīma (I), for thirty years. His son Vijayāditya (IV), for six months.

II
His son King Amma (I), for seven years.
III
When King Gaṇḍaragaṇḍa (Amma I) had gone [to heaven], then through the power of [fate?] Tālapa made [prisoner] his (Amma I’s) son [Beta] Vijayāditya, who had been anointed (as king). [Tālapa] protected the earth as king, having heard the voice […]2
IV
Arriving in haste, killing haughty [enemies?], his arms glowing with a sword of fearsome might which was [smeared?] with the blood of that [enemy], scorching that […] Tālapa, His Majesty, this King Vikramāditya (II) took up the […] turban (of royalty).

(16–17) […] ¿this great opportunity? […] ¿endowed with banks among masses of land and water? […] ¿the overlord (adhipati) whose Lord is the Lotus-throned (Brahmā)?3

V
¿From the flashing theatre of battle? [he?] enters, ¿with face averted?, the great mass of waters, unfathomable [even] to water creatures […] sword […] his body sprinkled with water from the eyes of the women [of his enemies] […] the entire […] ¿was born repeatedly?4
VI
Having fought a hundred battles ¿over eight years? with none but his valour for company, attaining [victory?] in battle, he grasped the kingdom together with fame.5
VII
[…] ¿a state of mind overwhelmed by? his comeliness and valour […] the moon […] ¿these two, though they resemble a lion, have become? […]6
VIII
His […] pushes away the passion and delusion of others, and [his] sword indicates […]; ¿[he] entirely delays copious worldly delusion?, renowned ¿on earth? like Nara (Arjuna), with a reputation spread wide among the people.

(25–28) That shelter of the entire universe (samasta-bhuvanāśraya), His Majesty the supremely pious Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), the Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka) Vikramāditya (II), commands all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Kaṇḍervvāḍi district (viṣaya) as follows:

(29) Let it be known [to you that] […]

Commentary

This set of plates is a palimpsest, with two plates of an Eastern Cālukya grant re-utilised for a Vijayanagar grant (edited in the same article). Only plates 2 and 3 of the original grant are preserved, with the genealogy extant from Jayasiṁha I onward. The pages of the original grant are not in the same order as those of the later one, so that EC page 2r is Vijayanagar 2r; EC 2v = V 2v; EC 3r = V 1r and EC 3v = V 1v. At least one, probably two additional plates at the end of the EC grant are also lost. The two remaining plates have been re-cut into the shape of a typical Vijayanagar grant, causing the loss of some characters at the corners. The plates, when found, were bound by a ring without a seal.

Stanza 3 (śārdūlavikrīḍita) has a caesura in the middle of a word in pāda b. If NLR reads the text correctly, then pāda c of stanza 4 (śārdūlavikrīḍita) has muta cum liquida licence, a caesura in the middle of a word (before a suffix), and enjambement (at a compound boundary) from this pāda to the next.

Bibliography

Edited from the original by N. Lakshminarayan Rao ([1956] 1939–1940, № A), with photographs of 2v and 3r,7 without translation. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Lakshminarayan Rao’s edition with his visual aids where available. The photos are rather poor, wholly illegible in the areas overwritten by the later grant and barely or not at all legible outside the palimpsest. I thus follow Lakshminarayan Rao unless otherwise noted, and I adopt NLR’s indications of unclear text rather than marking up as unclear everything that is not clearly legible in the printed photos.

Primary

[NLR] Lakshminarayan Rao, N. [1956] 1939–1940. “Two inscriptions on copper-plates from Nutimadugu.” EI 25, pp. 186–194. Item A.

Notes

  1. 1. The short lost segment was probably just “years,” but it is also possible that it was a number (e.g. eight) to be added to 40.
  2. 2. My translation follows the suggestions I make in the apparatus for line 11. The second hemistich is more problematic and may have a quite different meaning.
  3. 3. This stretch of text, probably a stanza, is badly preserved and may have been incorrectly read even where extant; I cannot grasp a coherent idea that would connect the available fragments.
  4. 4. Here too, the preserved segments are not sufficient to make a coherent whole, and some of the readings are suspect. The stanza, or at least the first hemistich, may have been a simile likening a battle to an ocean.
  5. 5. If the reading is correct (which is somewhat doubtful), then this stanza says that Vikramāditya II spent eight years fighting a war, presumably against Tālapa (and perhaps his father Yuddhamalla). This means either that Vikramāditya II fought his wars during the reign of Amma I or, less likely, that the chronology of the dynasty needs to be adjusted, adding an eight-year interregnum between Amma I and Tālapa, who is recorded to have reigned only for a month.
  6. 6. Again, the stanza is too fragmentarily preserved to find a coherent thread, and some readings may be incorrect.
  7. 7. There are no images of 2r and 3v (at least in the reprinted Epigraphia Indica volume). Plate 1 and the plate(s) subsequent to 3 are lost.