Kaṇḍyam plates of Dānārṇava
Editor: Dániel Balogh.
Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00071.
Languages: Sanskrit, Telugu.
Repository: Eastern Cālukya (tfb-vengicalukya-epigraphy).
Version: (7554ccb), last modified (e18436c).
Edition
Seal
⟨1⟩ śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa
Plates
⟨Page 1r⟩I. uncertain
⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ <unknown> lakṣmīṁ tanotu jagatāṁ kāla-galasyāruṇa-(divyojva)la jāyo(ṭā)nta
absu⟨2⟩ranadī-kuhara-kambukarāñjala-nikara Iva bhāti||
cdsvasti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhu⟨3⟩vana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hārīti-putrāṇāṁ kauśikī-vara-prasāda⟨4⟩-labdha-rājyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānāṁ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānu⟨5⟩dhyātānāṁ bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varāha-lāñcha⟨6⟩nekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pavitrīkr̥⟨7⟩ta-vapuṣāṁ cāḷukyānāṁ kulam alaṁ¡kār!⟨kari⟩ṣṇos satyāśraya-vallabhendrasya bhrātā||
II. Anuṣṭubh
śrī⟨8⟩-patir vvikrame¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ādy¿a?⟨o⟩
adurjjayād balito dharām
bāhr̥tyāṣṭādaśābdāni
ckubja-viṣṇu⟨Page 2r⟩⟨9⟩r apād imāM|
dtad-ātmajo jayasiṁhas trayastriṁśaT| tad-anujendrarāja-nandano vi⟨10⟩ṣṇuvarddhano nava| tat-sūnur mmaṅgi-yuvarājaḥ pañcaviṁśati| tat-putro jayasiṁhas tra⟨11⟩yodaśa| tad-avarajaḥ kokiliḥ ṣaṇ māsāN| tasya jyeṣṭho bhrātā viṣṇuvardhanas tam uccāṭya sapta⟨12⟩triṁśaT| tat-putro vijayāditya-bhaṭṭārako ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa| tat-suto viṣṇuvardhana⟨ḥ⟩ ṣaṭtri⟨13⟩ṁśaT|
III. Sragdharā
tat-sūnur bhānu-bhāso raṇa-vigaṇanayā nīlakaṇṭhālayānāṁ
asa-grāmā⟨14⟩rāmakāṇāṁ sa-lalita-ramaṇī-saṁpadā⟨ṁ sat-padā⟩nāṁ
bkr̥tvā prottuṅgam aṣṭottara-śatam abhunag vī⟨15⟩ra-dhīro ⟨’⟩ṣṭa-yuktāś
ccatvāriṁśat samāḥ kṣmāṁ jana-nuta-vijayāditya-nāmā narendraḥ|
dtat-putr¡o! ⟨16⟩ kali-viṣṇuvardhano ⟨’⟩dhyarddha-varṣaṁ|| tat-priya-tanayaḥ|
IV. Sragdharā
Aṅgāt saṁgrāma-raṅge nija-lasa⟨Page 2v⟩⟨17⟩d-asinā maṅgi-rājottamāṅgaṁ
atuṅgādreḥ śr̥ṅgam urvyām aśa⟨ni⟩r iva mudāpātayat kannarāṅkaṁ
bniśśa⟨18⟩ṁkaṁ śaṁkilena pra¿dh?⟨th⟩ita-janapadād durggamān nirggamayya
cdrāg dāvaṁ yaḥ praveśya{ḥ} prabhur abhaya⟨19⟩-manā¿ṁ?⟨ḥ⟩ pratyapād ba¡ddha!gāṅkaṁ|
dV. Anuṣṭubh
sa śrīmān vijayāditya-
a-bhūpat¿e?⟨ir⟩ bhrātr̥bhis saha|
bcatvā⟨20⟩riṁśat samās sārdhaṁ
ccaturbhir abhuna¡K! bhuvaM|
dVI. Anuṣṭubh
tad-bhrātur vikramāditya-
a-bhūpates sa⟨21⟩c-camūpateḥ
bvilasat-kaṇṭhikā-dāma-
c-kaṇṭhasya tanayo nayī||
dVII. Sragdharā
dīnānāthāturā⟨22⟩ṇāṁ dvija-vara-samiter yyācakānā(ṁ) yatīnāṁ
anānā-deśāgatānā(ṁ) paṭu-vara-naṭa-sad-gāya⟨23⟩kānāṁ kavīnāṁ
bbandhūnām andhakānāṁ Abhilaṣita-phala-śrāṇanād rakṣaṇād yo
cmā⟨24⟩tāvat triṁśad abdān bhuvam abhunag asau cāru-cālu⟨kya⟩-bhīmaḥ||
dVIII. Śārdūlavikrīḍita
tat-putraḥ sva-bhujāsi-khaṇḍita⟨Page 3r⟩⟨25⟩-ripu-kṣmābhr̥d balād vāsavīṁ
ajitvā¿s?⟨ś⟩āṁ viraje pratiṣṭhita-jaya-staṁbhaḥ ¿prā?⟨pa⟩ṭiṣṭh¿e?⟨o⟩ raṇe
bsvarṇṇārū⟨26⟩ḍha-tulo ⟨’⟩tra bāḍham atulo dhātrī-tale kṣatriyai(r)
cmmitrābhaḥ parirakṣati sma vijayāditya⟨27⟩s samārddhaṁ dharāM|
dIX. Vasantatilakā
tasyātmajaḥ praṇata-vairi-śiro-vilagna-
a-ratna-dvirepha-paricuṁbita-pāda-padmaḥ
b⟨28⟩ meruṁ hasaṁs tulita-hāṭaka-rāśi-bhāsā
cvarṣāṇi sapta samapād bhuvam ammarā⟨29⟩jaḥ|
dX. Anuṣṭubh
tat-sutaṁ vijayādityaṁ
abālam uccāṭya līlayā
b¿ko?⟨tā⟩lādhipatir ākra⟨30⟩mya
cmāsam ekam apād bhuvaṁ||
dXI. Anuṣṭubh
taṁ jitvā yudhi cāḷukya-
a-bhīma-bhūmipates sutaḥ
bvikra⟨31⟩māditya-bhūpo ⟨’⟩pān
cmāsān ekādaśa kṣitiṁ|
dXII. Anuṣṭubh
tatas tālapa-rājasya
asūnus sūnr̥ta-vā⟨32⟩k prabhu¿ṁ?⟨ḥ⟩
byuddhamalla-dharādhīśas
csapta varṣāṇy apād bhuvaM||
dXIII. śārdūlavikrīdita
nirjjityārjjuna-sannibho janapa⟨Page 3v⟩⟨33⟩dāt tan nirggamayyoddhatān
adāyādān ina-bhānu-līna-bha-gaṇākārān vidhā(ye)tarā(N)|
bvajrīvo(r)jj(i)⟨34⟩(ta)-nākam amma-nr̥pater bhrātā kanīyān bhuvaṁ
cbhīmo bhīma-parākramas samabhunak saṁvatsarā(n) dv(ā)⟨35⟩(da)śa||
dXIV. Lalitā
tat-sūnur ammarājo {pi} dharma-paraḥ pañcaviṁśati(ṁ) ca samāḥ
abrājya(ṁ ca)kāra ta(r)ppi(ta)⟨36⟩-vipra-jano vijita-vairir ūrjjita-kīrttiḥ||
cdXV. Indravajrā
dvaim¿a?⟨ā⟩turas tasya ca dānapeśo
a(j)y(e)ṣṭho mahad-bhū⟨37⟩ri-bhujo jitāri⟨ḥ⟩
b(śrīmā)n su-veṅg¿i?⟨ī⟩-viṣayādhipo ⟨’⟩bhūt
ctas⟨m⟩i⟨n⟩ kṣi⟨tiṁ⟩ (śāsa)ti satya-dh¿(ā)?⟨a⟩nyaḥ||
dXVI. Indravajrā
⟨38⟩ sūno⟨r⟩ br̥had-bhīma-m⟦i⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩h¿i?⟨ī⟩¡bhu(ja)sya!
a¿rāptaḥ?⟨naptuḥ⟩ kalāvit-kali-viṣṇu-nāmna(ḥ)
bsūnuḥ kali(ṁ)geśvara-sat-sutā(yāṁ?)
c⟨39⟩ bh(ī)mādhipo ⟨’⟩bhūd vara(-m ūr?)jap(āyāM|?)
dXVII. Upajāti
(ka)vāṭa-va(kṣ)ā (d)r̥(ḍ)ha-dīrggha-bā(h)uḥ
akṣātra-svakarmma-kṣama-m ā(ś)ri⟨40⟩tov(aT?)
bdharmma⟨ḥ⟩ s(v)aya(ṁ?) (deha)-m i(h/v)(o)ru-(k)¿i?⟨ī⟩(rtt)i(r)
cvvirājat(e) bhū-jana va(tsa)l(o yaḥ|)
dXVIII. Upajāti
bālye ⟨’⟩dhigam(y)[ā]⟨Page 4r⟩⟨41⟩kh(i)la-rāja-vidy(o)
avi(dyā)-vid-ācār¿u?⟨ya⟩-matānuyāy(ī)
bnyā(y)(a?) [.]y[⏑][––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓]
c[––]⟨42⟩ya vikhyāti(m upā)(ga?)to yaḥ||
dXIX. Sragdharā
śāke sa(ṁ)vatsaraughe dvi-nava-(vasu)[⏑––⏑––⏑–⏓]
a[––]⟨43⟩ṣṭamyāṁ surānāṁ vara-guru-divase san-muhūrtte mah¿o?⟨au⟩j(ā)ḥ
b(de)(vānā?)[–⏑––⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑]⟨44⟩tiṁ tarppayitvā yatheṣṭaṁ
cśrīmā¡n! cālu(kya-bhī)ma-(kṣi)[tipati][-tanayaḥ][–⏑––⏑–]⟨45⟩nā(ṁ)||
dXX. Śārdūlavikrīḍita
tyāgo yasya mahīpater agaṇitā[.]ī[–⏑––⏑⏓]
a[–––⏑⏑–⏑]⟨46⟩da(r)ppa-mathanaṁ śau(r)yyaṁ sadāryya-stutaṁ
b[–––⏑⏑–⏑–⏑⏑⏑–––⏑–]⟨47⟩bhūpati⟨ḥ⟩
cśrīmac-cāru-calukya-bhīma-nr̥pa(t)[eḥ] [––⏑––⏑⏓]
d[sa sarvva-lokāśraya]⟨48⟩-(śr)ī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājādhirāja-param(e)śva(ra)[ḥ parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyo mā]⟨Page 4v⟩⟨49⟩(tā?)(-pitr̥-pā)dānudhyātaḥ ma(ṁ)tri-pur(o)h(i)ta-s(e)nāpati-[]yuvarāja[ca. 10+] ⟨50⟩ (pottepinā)ṇḍu-viṣaya-⟨⟨(ni)⟩⟩vāsino rāṣṭrak¿u?⟨ū⟩ṭa-pra(mu)[khān kuṭuṁbinaḥ][ca. 10+]
XXI. Mālabhāriṇī
⟨51⟩ (m)udugoṇḍa-ca(ḻ)uk(y)a-va(ṁ)śaj(o y)aḥ
aprathito mal(l)(a?)-[⏑–⏑–⏑–⏓]
b[⏑⏑–⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–⏓]
c[⏑]⟨52⟩(ji?)ti prāpta-vas(u)(ndha)rāyā(ṁ/ḥ)||
dXXII. Upajāti
tadātma(jo) [–⏑⏑–⏑–⏓]
a[⏓–⏑––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓]
b⟨53⟩ (dhī?)mān dhanu(r)-nni(r)jjita-bhūr¿a?⟨i⟩-śatruḥ
c(pātra-pra)(daḥ?) kṣ(a)tra-gu(ṇai?)[ḥ prapannaḥ]
dXXIII. Praharṣiṇī
[–––⏑⏑⏑⏑–⏑]⟨54⟩(pe?)rakāṁbā
abhāryyāryyāmara-hita-kā(riṇī) (surūpā?)
bdharmmārttham (m?)a[⏑⏑⏑–⏑–⏑–⏓]
c[–––]⟨55⟩ta-bahu-mu(khe?)śvara⟨sya⟩ putr(aḥ||?)
dXXIV. Upajāti
tayor udārāḥ para-dāra-dūrāḥ
asutā ba[––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓]
b[⏓–]⟨56⟩(dhi?)(kau) mal(yana)-(gu?)ṇ(ḍ)iyākhyau
cjagaty amuṣmi(n p)r¿i?⟨a⟩thitau (ca?) t(e)(ṣu?)
dXXV. Sragdharā
yau [–––⏑––⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑––⏑–]⟨Page 5r⟩ ⟨57⟩ (dvā?)v (a?)n(ī?)(cā)
abh(a)dr(ā?)ṇ(āṁ?) tā(p)an(ī)(m u?)jvala-yuta-rucira-cchatra-(yugmo)ru-vastra(ṁ)
b(bhe)r(ī)ṁ ca (staṁbha-bandhaṁ?) (sita)-(pa?)⟨58⟩(ṭa?)-vr̥ta-sa(d)-bhūri-vistār(a)kā(dī)ny
c(ā?)pt(au?) tau (d)vau samasta-kṣitipa-(gad)i(t)a-cihn(ā)ni cās(mābh)i(r eva||)
dtābhyāṁ ma⟨59⟩(lli)yarāja-goṇḍiyarājabhyāṁ bhavad-viṣaye pottepināṇḍu-tri-śataṁ śāsan(ī)kr̥tya sarva-kara-pa(ri)⟨60⟩(hā)raṁ tat-k(l?)eśa-pari(tu)ṣṭair asmābhir ddattam iti viditam astu va(ḥ|)
Asyāvadhayaḥ⟨.⟩ pūrvvataḥ (paṁ?)⟨61⟩pavādi nāma nad(ī|) dakṣ(i)ṇataḥ Uttaravarusa| paścimataḥ minuṁbāka(nā)(ṇḍū|?) ⟨62⟩ (U)ttarataḥ vedegu(na?) (ḍebhbha)di||
hastipaka-dvi-sahasra-dvātriṁśad-vīra-nikara-(ga)⟨63⟩(ṇa)-yuvarājaḥ| pa(ripāla)nīyam eta¡t ś!⟨c ch⟩āsanam ā-candra-tāra-bhū-kulaśaila(M)|| A⟨64⟩syopari na kenaci(d b)ādhā karttavyā⟨.⟩ yaḥ kar(o)ti sa pa(ṁ)ca-mahāpātako bhavati| tathoktaṁ ⟨65⟩ v(y)āse(na)||
XXVI. Anuṣṭubh
bahubhi(r) vvasudhā dattā
abahubhi(ś cā)nup(ā)litā|
byasya yasya (yadā bhūmi)⟨Page 5v⟩⟨66⟩s
ctasya tasya tadā (phalaṁ||)
dXXVII. Anuṣṭubh
(sva-dattāṁ para)-dattāṁ vā
a(yo) haret¿i?⟨a⟩ vas(undha)rāṁ|
bṣaṣṭi-(varṣa-saha)⟨67⟩srāṇi
cviṣṭhāyāṁ j(āya)⟨te⟩ kr̥(miḥ)||
dXXVIII. Vasantatilakā
(mad-vaṁśa-jā)ḫ para-(ma)hīpati-(vaṁśa-jā vā)
apāpād a(peta)⟨68⟩-manaso bhuv(i) bhāv(i)-bhū(pā)
bye (p)āl¿e?⟨a⟩yanti mama dharmmam ima(ṁ) samastan
ct(e)ṣām ma(yā) ⟨69⟩ viracito ⟨’⟩⟨ṁ⟩jali(r) e(ṣa) mūrddhni(|)|
dXXIX. Anuṣṭubh
(Anye?)ṣāṁ ccha⟨r⟩ddi¿(ṣo)?⟨taṁ⟩ bh(o)ktā
aśvā sva-v¿a?⟨ā⟩nta⟨ṁ⟩ na ¿ka?⟨khā⟩dati
bśuna(ḥ kaṣṭa?)(ta)⟨70⟩(raḥ) p(āpa)⟨ḥ⟩
c(sva-datta)(syāpa)hā(rakaḥ||)
d(Ā)jñaptiḥ kaṭaka-rājaḥ| jon(tācāryya-likhitaṁ)⟨.⟩ ⟨71⟩ (nā?)ga(ma?)(bhaṭṭa-kā)(vyaṁ||)
Apparatus
Seal
Plates
⟨1⟩ -(divyojva)la jāyo(ṭā)nta MN • The invocatory stanza was probably a gīti, possibly a different member of the āryā family. I cannot reconstruct a meaningful and metrical reading. MN shows divyojva and ṭā in round parentheses, which elsewhere he uses for emendation. But in the present case I see no reason why he would have wanted to emend the preceding syllables to these strings; also, the number of akṣaras in this line would be very small compared to adjacent lines if the parenthetical text were not present on the plate. Scribal errors may well be present in addition to misreading and misprinting. The composer’s intent probably included the words jaṭā and karāñjali, and I would expect also to see yatra or some other relative pronoun. See the translation for an attempt at interpretation.
⟨7⟩ cāḷukyānāṁ MN • MN prints ḷ in several places where the estampage has l, so it is likely that here too, though no estampage is available, the actual reading is with l.
⟨8⟩ -patir ⬦ -pati MN • Since MN prints a double v after this word, but does not supply r, I assume r is present in the original. — ⟨8⟩ vvikrame¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ādy¿a?⟨o⟩ ⬦ vvikramenādya MN • I emend on the basis of the parallel stanza in the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II. — ⟨8⟩ dharām ⬦ darām MN • Since MN does not emend, I assume the original text has the correct dh.
⟨9⟩ imāM ⬦ imam MN • Again, I merely assume that the original is correct. — ⟨9⟩ trayastriṁśaT MN • Here and in lines 12 and 13 below, MN of course prints °triṁśat without explicit indication that a final consonant is present. The actual reading is perhaps °triṁśata, intended for °triṁśataṁ.
⟨12⟩ ⟨’⟩ṣṭādaśa ⬦ Aṣṭādaśa MN. — ⟨12⟩ viṣṇuvardhana⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ viṣṇuvardhana MN.
⟨14⟩ sa-lalita-ramaṇī-saṁpadā⟨ṁ sat-padā⟩nāṁ ⬦ salilata-ramaṇīm saṁpadānā MN • I overrule MN on the basis of the parallels in the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. Given the length of the line, the missing sequence is probably omitted in the original, not a typo in MN’s edition. — ⟨14⟩ -dhīro ⟨’⟩ṣṭa- ⬦ dhīr=aāṣṭa- MN • The locus reads -dhīr aṣṭa- in the Tāṇḍikoṇḍa grant of Amma II and -dhīroṣṭa- in the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. The latter is perhaps more likely here. — ⟨14⟩ -yuktāś ⬦ -yuktas MN.
⟨16⟩ Aṅgāt ⬦ Abdāt MN • I overrule MN on the basis of the parallels in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman.
⟨17⟩ aśa⟨ni⟩r ⬦ asa⟨ni⟩r MN.
⟨18⟩ durggamān MN • Parallels of this stanza are found in the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. The former very clearly reads durggaman here, while the latter is unclear, but was read as durggamān by its editor. — ⟨18⟩ dāvaṁ ⬦ dhāvaṁ MN • Of the two parallels, Amma’s grant clearly reads dāvaṁ here (misread or misprinted by its original editor as dhāvaṁ, perhaps under the influence of the present grant’s published edition), while Śaktivarman’s plates are wholly illegible at this locus (but their original editor supplies dhāvaṁ). In my opinion dāvaṁ is the only sensible choice, but this does not exclude the possibility that MN’s reading is correct here, in which case the present text needs emendation.
⟨19⟩ ba¡ddha!gāṅkaṁ • The word is baddegāṁkaṁ in both parallels, and that is the correct form of the name. I assume that the plates are erroneous here, but this may also be a typo in MN’s edition.
⟨20⟩ -bhūpat¿e?⟨ir⟩ • MN does not emend this word and may have read or printed it incorrectly. The original editor of the Nāgiyapūṇḍi grant of Amma II also prints bhūpate, probably on the basis of the present grant, though the reading there is clearly bhūpati (with or without r). — ⟨20⟩ tad- ⬦ tat- MN.
⟨22⟩ -vara- • Both known parallels read vaṭu here, which is superior. MN may have misread the plate.
⟨23⟩ mā⟨24⟩tāvat • Both known parallels read māteva here. As mātāvat is morphologically incorrect, I tend to believe MN misread the plate here.
⟨24⟩ abdān ⬦ abdhān MN. — ⟨24⟩ -putraḥ ⬦ -putro MN.
⟨25⟩ balād • I am tempted to emend to -balo, but the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman have the same reading. — ⟨25⟩ jitvā¿s?⟨ś⟩āṁ • The s may be a typo in MN, but since the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman read the same, I assume it is an original mistake. — ⟨25⟩ ¿prā?⟨pa⟩ṭiṣṭh¿e?⟨o⟩ ⬦ prādiṣṭhe MN • Lacking a visual representation of the current plate, I can only guess at the received reading, but suspect that it may have ṭi rather than di. I emend on the basis of stanza I of the Pulivaṟṟu grant of Amma I, which is possibly the earliest attestation of this stanza, and certainly provides the best reading for this locus. Compare also stanza VII of the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman.
⟨26⟩ bāḍham ⬦ baddham MN • The parallel is quite clear here.
⟨27⟩ dharāM ⬦ varāM MN.
⟨29⟩ ¿ko?⟨tā⟩lādhipatir • I understand MN’s edition to mean that he emends an inscribed ko to tā. The emendation is vindicated by the parallel stanza in the Pāṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. The spelling of the name is tāḻā° in the latter and reportedly (but unverifiably) tālā° in the latter.
⟨30⟩ cāḷukya- MN • MN prints ḷ in several places where the estampage has l, so it is likely that here too, though no estampage is available, the actual reading is with l.
⟨31⟩ prabhu¿ṁ?⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ prabhuṁ MN • I emend on the basis of parallels in several other grants.
⟨32⟩ -gaṇākārān ⬦ -gaṇākārām MN.
⟨35⟩ {pi} ⬦ pi MN • I emend with some hesitation. MN may have perceived this as a prose passage, but its prosody is too close to a gaṇacchandas structure to be accidental. The visarga in samāḥ also suggests a hemistich boundary. Removing this pi, coupled with some improvements of MN’s reading (confirmed by the facsimile), results in a perfect specimen of the rare metre lalitā. Perhaps pi was added because the drafter of the grant too, while adopting a pre-existing text, believed this to be prose and thus permissive of small changes. — ⟨35⟩ pañcaviṁśati(ṁ) ⬦ pañcaviṁśati MN. — ⟨35⟩ ta(r)ppi(ta) ⬦ tarpite MN.
⟨36⟩ ūrjjita- ⬦ ajita- MN.
⟨37⟩ -bhujo ⬦ -bhujair MN. — ⟨37⟩ ⟨’⟩bhūt tas⟨m⟩i⟨n⟩ ⬦ bhūd api MN. — ⟨37⟩ kṣi⟨tiṁ⟩ (śāsa?)ti ⬦ kṣitiṁ śāsati MN. — ⟨37⟩ satya-dh¿(ā)?⟨a⟩nyaḥ • For this locus, MN shows “dhanyaḥ(vān)”. He may have intended to emend to satyavān yaḥ, or to indicate the latter as a possible alternative reading. The vowel of dh does seem to be ā, but by my perception a relative pronoun would be out of the syntax here, so I prefer to read dhanyaḥ.
⟨38⟩ sūno⟨r⟩ ⬦ sūno MN • It seems from MN’s discussion that he interpreted suno as a nominative. See my commentary on this stanza. — ⟨38⟩ -m⟦i⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩h¿i?⟨ī⟩¡bhu(ja)sya! ⬦ -mahībhujasya MN • The reading is quite certain, but out of context the fourth character would more likely be read as ca or ṣa, and the entire sequence bhujasya may be a correction engraved over something else. — ⟨38⟩ ¿rāptaḥ?⟨naptuḥ⟩ ⬦ Āptaḥ MN • The reading, though unintelligible, is unambiguous in the estampage. It would perhaps be more straightforward to emend to rājñaḥ, since the engraver could easily have mistaken a slightly smudged pre-drawn jña for pta. But since interpreting the stanza would be problematic that way, I tentatively emend as indicated. The retroflex and dental nasal are often mixed up, and rā may well be a scribal misrecognition of a smudged ṇa. See the commentary for my interpretation. — ⟨38⟩ kalāvit- ⬦ kalāvit MN • The text works with a nominative (in which case this word describes the son), but because of proximity and the word-play in kalā/kali, I prefer to understand this word as describing Kali Viṣṇuvardhana in spite of the slightly more awkward syntax involved. — ⟨38⟩ -nāmna(ḥ) ⬦ -nāmnā MN.
⟨39⟩ sūnuḥ ⬦ sūnoḥ MN. — ⟨39⟩ kali(ṁ)geśvara- ⬦ kaḷiṅgeśvara- MN. — ⟨39⟩ -sutā(yāṁ?) ⬦ -sutāya(ḥ) MN • Only the left edge of y is visible in the estampage, and this is far from unambiguous. I accept that MN could make out y more clearly, in the original. Depending on the ending of the word ūrjapā (see note below), the stanza would also be intelligible and mean the same with sutāyāṁ. — ⟨39⟩ vara(-m ūr?)jap(āyāM|?) ⬦ varam urjapāyāṁ| MN • Much of the sequence mūrjapāyāM is probably a correction written over something else. I read mū in accordance with secondary literature citing this name as Ūrjapā, assuming that the u marker is entirely below the body of m, and the hook that changes it to ū is at baseline to the right of the body. This character seems to have been changed from ra, and there would have been no room to insert a regular-shaped ū between this character and the next. Nonetheless, MN’s reading mu is also definitely possible, as is plain ma. The next one appears to have been ja even before correction. No repha is discernible in the estampage, but on MN’s statement I accept that one is present; the faint vertical line above and to the right of the j’s initial circle may be a vestige of that. The following pa also seems to be pre-correction, but the barely distinct ā marker, if it is one, is probably a subsequent addition. The final y is, however, heavily corrected. The ending may be yāḥ instead of yāM (see also the note on sutāyāṁ above), but does not seem to be simply yāṁ. The string varam is probably not a neuter accusative but a masculine nominative with an epenthetic m to avoid hiatus with the following ū; see also the apparatus to -kṣama-m in line 39 and deha-m in line 40. — ⟨39⟩ (d)r̥(ḍ)ha- • This is clearly the word intended, but the first consonant may in fact be dh or ḍh, and the second looks like ḍ. — ⟨39⟩ kṣātra- ⬦ kṣatra- MN. — ⟨39⟩ -kṣama-m ā(ś)ri⟨40⟩tov(aT?) ⬦ -kṣamām āsri⟨40⟩tovaT MN • MN’s kṣamā is definitely kṣama, and his sri is probably a typo for śri, which is a plausible but not fully certain reading of the the last character in line 39, partly obscured by the rim of the plate. The sequence is hard to make sense of, but I think kṣama-m is probably non-standard sandhi for kṣama (epenthetic m inserted to avoid hiatus); scribal error for kṣama Āśrito is also a possibility. The string āśritovat was perhaps intended to be āśritoddhr̥t, one who uplifts. The v may have a very faint i attached to it, but I see no plausible reading involving -viT.
⟨40⟩ dharmma⟨ḥ⟩ s(v)aya(ṁ?) (deha)-m i(h/v)(o)ru-(k)¿i?⟨ī⟩(rtt)i(r) ⬦ dharmasyāya(m) deham ihor kīrttir MN • The m in MN’s reading was presumably meant to be ṁ; it is shown in round parentheses, which may mean that it is supplied rather than unclear. His ihor must have been intended for ihoru. As indicated in my markup, much of the last line is unclear, and this applies in particular to any character components below the baseline. Nonetheless, I am certain that MN’s sya must be read as sva. Reading ihoru and ivoru both seem possible, and both are fairly appropriate in the context. The problematic character does resemble the one in deham, but but is narrower and does not have a distinct tail like the h of the latter. The final r may be indicated by the squiggliness of the lower outline of the i marker on the next character, or it may be absent and need to be supplied; see also the next note. I am far from certain of my reading and restoration as a whole, much less of my understanding of the text. Nonetheless, if an epenthetic m is assumed (as perhaps twice in line 39, see the notes above), then dharmmaḥ svayaṁ deha-m ivoru-kīrttir (for deha Ivoru-) is intelligible and fits the context. — ⟨40⟩ vvirājat(e) ⬦ virājate MN • The subscript v is clearly visible. This in turn confirms that the preceding word was meant to in r, even though a repha is not clearly present here. — ⟨40⟩ (bhū)-jana ⬦ bhūjana MN • The heavy noise below ja implies a subscript consonant, but even though bhū-jana is a little awkward, any alternative reading (e.g. ’bhūj jana) would be inappropriate in the context. — ⟨40⟩ va(tsa)l(o yaḥ|) ⬦ vatsalāya| MN • In the character I read as lo, a vowel marker on the right-hand (the tail of l) is indeed clear, but a second vowel stroke seems to be attached to the bottom left of the body. The visarga before the punctuation mark is faint but fairly certain. — ⟨40⟩ bālye ⟨’⟩dhi_gam(y)[ā]⟨Page 4r⟩⟨41⟩khila- ⬦ bālyādhi vīra-dharmm-a⟨Page 4r⟩⟨41⟩khila MN • The vowel marker of lye is clear, attached on the left to the subscript y. MN’s vīra-dharmm-a seems to be a reading of the characters I read as dhi_gamyā, but something is clearly wrong with his edition, since he als reads dhi before this. I cannot guess why a space, the width of one regular character, was skipped by the scribe here, but if a character (such as MN’s ra) is present in that space, it is very faint and must have been beaten out by the engraver. After that, ga is almost closed at the bottom, but it is definitely not dha. The subscript component of the last character is partly obscured by damage (or by the rubbing’s inability to fit into the inner corner of the rim), but it is quite certainly y, not m.
⟨41⟩ vidy(o) ⬦ vidyā MN • The second stroke for o is indistinct and may not be present. I would prefer a bahuvrīhi in the masculine nominative here, though it is also possible to wring meaning out of the text if we read vidyā- in compound here. — ⟨41⟩ -ācār¿u?⟨ya⟩- ⬦ -ācāra- MN • The composer’s intent may also have been ācāra, but the plate definitely has ru. Either of these words may also be interpreted so that they are not compounded to the preceding, but in that case vidyā-vid would be largely tautological. — ⟨41⟩ nyā(y)(a?) ⬦ nyāye MN • I see no indication of an e marker, but MN may be correct.
⟨43⟩ vara- ⬦ vāre MN.
⟨44⟩ yatheṣṭaṁ ⬦ yadheṣṭaṁ MN. — ⟨44⟩ -(kṣi)[tipati][-tanayaḥ] ⬦ -kṣiti[…] MN • In the estampage, the plate breaks off right after (and partly through) kṣi, so if MN could read ti, then the edge of the plate suffered further damage by the time the estampage was made. It is also possible that he too supplied ti for restoration.
⟨45⟩ agaṇitā ⬦ agaṇita MN.
⟨46⟩ -mathanaṁ ⬦ -madhanaṁ MN. — ⟨46⟩ śau(r)yyaṁ sadāryya-stutaṁ ⬦ śauryaudārya stuta MN.
⟨47⟩ bhūpati⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ bhūpatis MN • Or perhaps construe bhūpati-, with the compound going on into the last quarter, but that would be redundant with nr̥pateḥ. Possibly supply dānārṇavo before this word. — ⟨47⟩ -calukya- ⬦ -cāḷukya- MN. — ⟨47⟩ [sa sarvva-lokāśraya] ⬦ […] MN • The lacuna should be about two characters shorter than in the line above, i.e. 14 characters in total, of which 7 belong to the end of the preceding stanza. The āśraya-epithet is expected here, and sa sarvva-lokāśraya is exactly 7 characters long. In his Māṁgallu grant, Dānārṇava’s epithet is samasta-bhuvanāśraya, but he calls himself Vijayāditya there, presumably because he is reigning in Amma II’s stead. In the present grant, when Dānārṇava has been properly crowned, he bears the regnal name Viṣṇuvardhana. Since all Viṣṇuvardhanas are sarva-lokāśraya and all Vijayādityas are samasta-bhuvanāśraya, it is very probable that Dānārṇava too used the former epithet when he took the regnal name Viṣṇuvardhana.
⟨48⟩ param(e)śva(ra)[ḥ parama-bhaṭṭārakaḥ parama-brahmaṇyo mā] ⬦ parameśvara[…] MN • Again, we expect the lacuna to be about two characters shorter than in the previous line, probably around 12 to 14 characters. My restoration of 14 characters is thus feasible, and the epithet parama-brahmaṇya is confirmed by the Māṁgallu grant.
⟨49⟩ -s(e)nāpati-[]yuvarāja[ca. 10+] ⬦ -senāpati[…] MN • The whole lacuna should be about the same length as the last line on 4r (the back side of this line), i.e. roughly 14 characters. Parallel loci (emended and restored) are -senāpati-yuvarājādy-aṣṭādaśa-tīrtthādhyakṣam ittham ājñāpayati in the Māṁgallu grant of Dānārṇava, and -senāpati-yuvarāja-dauvārikādhyakṣam ittham ājñāpayati in the Raṇastipūṇḍi grant of Vimalāditya and the Andhra Sahitya Parishad plates of Śaktivarman. I restore yuvarāja with some confidence, since it is common to all three parallels, and the circular stroke at the edge of the crack makes y likely. However, all three parallels have this phrase after the words rāṣṭrakūṭa-pramukhān kuṭuṁbinas samāhūya, while in the present grant that phrase comes subsequently, so ājñāpayati is unlikely here. The lost text may perhaps have been yuvarāja-dauvārikādhyakṣān samāhūya.
⟨50⟩ (pottepinā)ṇḍu- ⬦ pottapināṇḍu- MN • The name is unclear here but seems to be pottepi, which is very clear in line 59. — ⟨50⟩ -⟨⟨(ni)⟩⟩vāsino ⬦ -nivāsino MN • From the estampage, I would read just vāsino without hesitation. But since the formula is nivāsino in almost all related grants, and MN prints this reading, I assume that the faint strokes to the right of ya and the clearer semicircular stroke above that are remnants of a small-size ni that was added subsequently in the space between two characters. — ⟨50⟩ -pra(mu)[khān kuṭuṁbinaḥ][ca. 10+] ⬦ pra[…] MN • A lacuna of about 15 characters is expected. Since the phrases are not in the usual order (see the note to line 49), no straightforward restoration is possible. The missing text beyond kuṭuṁbinaḥ may be sarvvān ittham ājñāpayati yathā, perhaps without sarvvān or without yathā.
⟨51⟩ -ca(ḻ)uk(y)a- ⬦ -cāḷukya- MN • The second consonant of this name is quite certainly neither ḷ nor l, though ḻ is also less than certain. — ⟨51⟩ prathito mal(l)(a?)- ⬦ pradhitāmala MN.
⟨52⟩ (ji?)ti ⬦ jita- MN • The first character is indistinct; ji is possible assuming an i marker distorted because of the descender of mu above. Although MN explicitly refers to jita-prāpta-vasundharā, conquered land, this reading can be ruled out given the clear ti. See also my commentary about this stanza. — ⟨52⟩ -vas(u)◯(ndha)rāyā(ṁ/ḥ) ⬦ -vasuṁdharāyāṁ MN.
⟨53⟩ dhanu(r)-nni(r)jjita◯- ⬦ vasūn nirjjitā MN. — ⟨53⟩ (-pra)(daḥ?) ⬦ -padaḥ MN • Possibly a typo in MN. — ⟨53⟩ kṣ(a)tra- • This is quite certainly the intended word, but the inscribed text may be kṣitra-. — ⟨53⟩ -gu(ṇai?)[ḥ prapannaḥ] ⬦ -gu[…] MN • Only the bottom left corner of the last character is extant, but it was quite certainly n or ṇ with e or ai. My subsequent restoration is conjectural.
⟨54⟩ (pe?)rakāṁbā MN • MN shows the first character as clear. I accept his reading assuming he could make it out more clearly in the original, but it is completely indistinct in the estampage. — ⟨54⟩ bhāryyāryyāmara- ⬦ bhāryyāmara- MN • Probably a typo in MN. — ⟨54⟩ (surūpā?) MN • MN shows this word as clear, but it is completely indistinct in the estampage. — ⟨54⟩ dharmmārttham (m?)a ⬦ dharmmād dharmya MN • Probably a typo in MN. — ⟨54⟩ ta-bahu-mu(khe?)śvara⟨sya⟩ putr(aḥ||?) ⬦ ta-bahu-śuro ¿ś?⟨s⟩mara-puttraḥ|| MN • MN’s śu is impossible. His śmara (which, emended to smara, he equates to Kusumāyudha) cannot be excluded, but does not seem to make sense in the context. My supplied sya is entirely conjectural, but the metre requires an extra syllable here and the preceding syllable needs to be long. The ending may be putrāḥ or putrā; I see no way of fitting any of the three forms into the context unless putrā has been used for putrī.
⟨55⟩ udārāḥ ⬦ udāraḥ MN. — ⟨55⟩ -dūrāḥ ⬦ -ddhdharaḥ MN. — ⟨55⟩ sutā ba[––⏑⏑–⏑–⏓] ⬦ śutādi[…] MN.
⟨56⟩ (dhi?)(kau) ⬦ dhiko MN • The first character of the line is wholly indistinct in the estampage. I have some doubts about MN’s reading. If it is correct, perhaps the beginning of the verse quarter could be restored as tatrādhikau, but if teṣu at the end of the stanza is clear, then this seems redundant. — ⟨56⟩ mal(yana)-(gu?)ṇ(ḍ)iyākhyau ⬦ mallana-goṇḍiyākhyo MN • See also line 59 for a different spelling of these names. — ⟨56⟩ (p)r¿i?⟨a⟩thitau ⬦ pr̥dhito MN. — ⟨56⟩ (ca?) t(e)(ṣu?) MN • I have some doubts about MN’s reading, especially about ca, but cannot improve it on the basis of the estampage. Could this word be caturṣu? — ⟨56⟩ yau [–––⏑––⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑⏑––⏑–] ⬦ yo […] MN • The lacuna ought to be about 10-12 characters long, but since the metre is certain, either 16 characters were fitted into this space, or some were omitted by the scribe.
⟨57⟩ (dvā?)v (a?)n(ī?)(cā) ⬦ dve vanīṁ cā MN • The estampage or its reproduction for printing is defective at the top left; only a possible subscript v is visible of the first character. After that, bodies are largely clear, but anything above head height is invisible in the facsimile. The final vowel is quite certainly ā, though au would be easier in the context. I assume that MN’s reading from the original cannot be very far off the mark, but my own suggestion is tentative. MN probably saw the word avanī here, but that does not result in a meaningful reading. — ⟨57⟩ bh(a)dr(ā?)ṇ(āṁ?) ⬦ bhadrāṇī MN • My reading is tentative and I cannot securely interpret it in context. — ⟨57⟩ tā(p)an(ī)(m u?)jvala- ⬦ tāpanīyojvala- MN • MN’s reading of yo does not seem possible from the estampage, since this unclear character is much narrower than a y ought to be. A regular-width character corrected to a tiny y cannot be ruled out, but does not seem likely. The body looks like v, c or m, and my tentative reading is the best I can think of in the context, but very possibly also wrong. — ⟨57⟩ (staṁbha-bandhaṁ?) • MN prints this word as clear. The reading is very plausible but difficult to interpret. — ⟨57⟩ (sita) ⬦ śita MN.
⟨58⟩ °ā(dī)ny (ā?)pt(au?) tau (d)vau ⬦ °ādī¿nyaptaḥ to dve?⟨prāptaḥ prodyat⟩ MN.
⟨59⟩ pottepināṇḍu- ⬦ pottapināṇḍu- MN.
⟨60⟩ -k(l?)eśa- ⬦ -kośa- MN. — ⟨60⟩ Asyāvadhayaḥ ⬦ Asyādhyāyaḥ MN. — ⟨60⟩ (paṁ?)⟨61⟩pavādi ⬦ paṁ⟨61⟩pāva¿di?⟨tī⟩ MN • MN’s editor in a footnote agrees that “The reading of the name of the river Paṁpāvatī seems to be probable”. That name may have been intended, but the first paṁ is indistinct in the facsimile; the following p almost certainly has a short a, and the following v almost certainly has a long ā. See also the note to the translation of lines 60-62.
⟨61⟩ Uttaravarusa ⬦ Uttaras-varusa MN. — ⟨61⟩ minuṁbāka(nā)(ṇḍū|?) • MN prints this word as clear, and the punctuation mark as supplied. To me, ṇḍū doesn’t seem very likely from the facsimile, but I have no better reading.
⟨62⟩ (ḍebhbha)di ⬦ ḍebbadi MN. — ⟨62⟩ -vīra- ⬦ -dhīra- MN.
⟨63⟩ -tāra- ⬦ -tārārka- MN.
⟨68⟩ -manaso ⬦ -manase MN. — ⟨68⟩ bhuv(i) ⬦ bhūmi MN. — ⟨68⟩ -bhū(pā) ye ⬦ -bhūpo yaṁ MN. — ⟨68⟩ ima(ṁ) ⬦ imāṁ MN. — ⟨68⟩ viracito ⟨’⟩⟨ṁ⟩jali(r) e(ṣa) ⬦ viracitāñjali Eva MN.
⟨69⟩ (Anye?)ṣāṁ ccha⟨r⟩ddi¿(ṣo)?⟨taṁ⟩ bh(o)ktā ⬦ sarveṣāṁ ca ddiṣo bhoktava MN • The first two characters are indistinct in the estampage. I restore on the basis of Sircar 1965, p. 178, appendix 2, № 14, but the parallel is very loose, so MN may be right about sarveṣāṁ. — ⟨69⟩ śvā sva-v¿a?⟨ā⟩nta⟨ṁ⟩ na ¿ka?⟨khā⟩dati ⬦ śvāsrvanti na kadāti MN. — ⟨69⟩ śuna(ḥ kaṣṭa?)(ta)⟨70⟩(raḥ) p(āpa)⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ śunakodvita⟨70⟩ra pāpa MN.
⟨71⟩ (nā?)ga(ma?)(bhaṭṭa)- • I accept MN’s reading, but wonder if the name is perhaps rather Mādhavabhaṭṭa, the composer of several grants of Amma II that were likewise written by Jontācārya. The second character is, however, definitely ga and not dha in the plate. — ⟨71⟩ (-kā)◯(vyaṁ||) • There may be up to 4 illegible characters after this word, but MN does not report any reading here, so more likely there is only noise.
Translation by Dániel Balogh
Seal
Plates
I
(2–7) Greetings. Satyāśraya Vallabhendra (Pulakeśin II) was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Cāḷukyas—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—
II
(9–13) 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. His son Vijayāditya (I) Bhaṭṭāraka, for eighteen. His son Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), for thirty-six.
III
(15–16) His son Kali-Viṣṇuvardhana (V), for a year and a half. His dear son—
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
XV
XVI
XVII
XVIII
XIX
XX
(47–50) That [shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya)], His Majesty Viṣṇuvardhana, [the supremely pious] Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja), [the Supreme Sovereign (parama-bhaṭṭāraka)], deliberately appointed [to kingship] by his mother and father, [convokes] the minister (mantrin), the chaplain (purohita), the general (senāpati), the crown prince (yuvarāja) [and the commander of the guard (dauvārikādhyakṣa), and commands all] householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Pottepināṇḍu district (viṣaya) [as follows.]9
XXI
XXII
XXIII
XXIV
XXV
(58–60) To these two, Malliyarāja and Goṇḍiyarāja, being pleased with their tribulations (undertaken on our behalf), we have granted the Pottepināṇḍu three-hundred in your district, substantiated as a (copperplate) charter with a remission of all taxes. Let this be known to you.
(60–62) Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, the river named Paṁpavādi.14 To the south, Uttaravarusa. To the west, Minuṁbāka-nāṇḍū. To the north, the Vedeguna ¿seventy?.15
(62–65) The prince (yuvarāja) who controls an elephant force and whose troops are a host of two thousand and thirty-two warriors.16 This decree is to be protected as long as the moon, the stars, the earth and the noble mountains (kula-śaila) [remain]. Let no-one pose an obstacle over it. He who does so shall have the five great sins. So Vyāsa has said:
XXVI
XXVII
XXVIII
XXIX
(70) The executor (ājñapti) is the castellan (kaṭaka-rāja). Written (likhita) [by] Jontācārya. The poetry is Nāgamabhaṭṭa’s.
Bibliography
Reported in Krishnamacharlu 1942, p. 10, appendices A/1937-38, № 26 with discussion at Krishnamacharlu 1942, pp. 81–82, § 12. Edited from the original by Manda Narasimham (1937-1938), with partial estampages (showing plates 3v to 5v, but not the earlier plates and the seal) and a summary of the contents. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on a collation of Narasimham’s edition with his facsimiles where available.18 Minor typographic mistakes in Narasimham’s edition (which are numerous) are ignored in the apparatus here.
Primary
[MN] Narasimham, Manda. 1937-1938. “Kandyam plates of Danarnava, Dated in S. S. 892.” JAHRS 11, pp. 80–88.
Secondary
Krishnamacharlu, C. R. 1942. Annual report on South Indian epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1938. Delhi: Government of India. Page 10, appendixes A/1937-38, item 26.
Krishnamacharlu, C. R. 1942. Annual report on South Indian epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1938. Delhi: Government of India. Pages 81–82, section 12.
Notes
- 1. The text as read by MN is unintelligible and I am unable to propose a plausible reconstruction; see also the apparatus to line 1. I believe the composer probably intended to express something similar to my translation here. The river goddess Gaṅgā resides in Śiva’s hair.
- 2. Either, neither or both of the words balin and durjaya may be names here. Compare line 8 of the Kākamrāṇu grant of Bhīma I, where it is claimed that Viṣṇuvardhana uprooted a Durjaya (if this is a name) to obtain the country of Veṅgī. The slightly different parallel stanza in the Kalucuṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II is likewise ambiguous.
- 3. Or, if MN’s edition is incorrect here, “to clever Brahmin pupils, actors.” See the apparatus to line 22.
- 4. See the apparatus to line 25 for textual problems with this stanza. Vijayāditya IV’s ascension of a balance scale is also mentioned in close proximity to his erection of a victory pillar in Viraja in stanza 32 of the Diggubaṟṟu grant of Bhīma II.
- 5. Or perhaps: with the brilliance of the heap of gold that had been weighed (in the balance against him).
- 6. According to MN, and the prevailing opinion in secondary literature, this stanza describes the birth of Dānārṇava as the son of Bhīma II and Ūrjapā. I see no way to obtain this meaning; see the commentary for details.
- 7. I believe that a stanza about Dānārṇava’s birth must have been omitted before this one. See also the commentary to stanza XVI.
- 8. See the apparatus to lines 39 and 40 for textual problems that make the interpretation of this stanza difficult.
- 9. See the apparatus notes to lines 47 to 50 about the restorations in this passage.
- 10. Most of this stanza is lost, and the extant last quarter is metrically problematic. My tentative translation is along the lines suggested in my commentary to this stanza. Malla may be the name (or the beginning of the name) of the progenitor introduced here, or it may be a simple epithet, “champion,” to a name in the lost part. The reading Malli- (for Malliya, as in line 59) is also possible.
- 11. MN interprets this stanza to mean that the a member of the lineage had a son named Smara. This seems very unlikely, but my own reading of the last quarter is also uncertain and not readily interpretable. See also the apparatus to line 54.
- 12. Again, my interpretation and semantic restoration of this highly lacunose verse is quite uncertain.
- 13. Much of this stanza is uncertainly read and difficult to interpret. MN’s summary of the context renders it this way: “To these two princes, Mallana and Goṇḍiya, who have enriched my Treasury and thereby pleased Us, We have bestowed in our royal pleasure two sparkling white large parasals(sic), royal robes, the war drum, the stambha, the fillet, large white silken tents with poles, elephants and all the insignia of feudatory chieftains (sāmanta)”. Here, “fillet” must correspond to bandha, which is not very convincing. “Tents” are an intriguing idea, but I am not certain if vistāraka can mean a tent pole. I do not know where he finds “elephants” in the text, unless this is the word bhadra. A grant of Amma II (CP 7 of 1937-38) is reported (Krishnamacharlu 1942, p. 82) to list “the privilege of tying plantain trees to pillars (before his residence)” in a list of insignia and prerogatives conferred on a mahāsāmanta. The original phrase is not cited, but I wonder if staṁbha-bandha may mean the same.
- 14. MN suggests that this is the Pampāvatī river near modern Hampi, but this seems far from certain. The name is less than identical (see also the apparatus to line 60), and the region is too far outside the Eastern Cālukya domain. The donated land is bounded on the west by Minuṁbākanāṇḍū. A Mīnuṁbāka viṣaya is featured in the Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 2) of Viṣṇuvardhana II, with a capital (rāja-dhānī) at Kasimi or Kisimi. The first editor of these plates (Padmanabha Sastry 1994, pp. 47–48) identifies this place as Kasimkoṭa in the Pithapuram taluk of East Godavari District. Even if that identification is incorrect, a district where Viṣṇuvardhana II (or a contemporary of his) granted land could not have been to the west of the Pampāvatī.
- 15. MN silently normalises the word ḍebhbhadi to ḍebbadi, Telugu for seventy. I assume that the interpretation is correct.
- 16. These words are not linked in any way to the surrounding text. MN and his editor are probably correct in assuming that the person mentioned here is charged with enforcing and protecting the grant as per the next sentence. MN believes that this yuvarāja is the Eastern Cālukya crown prince. His editor objects, noting that this is probably a different dignitary, and points to the yuvarāja Ballaladeva velā-bhaṭa in the Pāṁbaṟṟu grant of Amma II for a parallel, whom he equates to velā-bhaṭa in the Guṇḍugolanu grant of Amma II, where he seems to be charged with the protection of the grant and is said to possess a force of elephants and (or four) two thousand warriors. The relevant passages of both these grants are problematic, but at any rate, the yuvarāja mentioned here is indeed probably not a Cālukya crown prince.
- 17. Based on the published estampage, an initial ū is perhaps more likely but the short u read by MN is also possible.
- 18. Where no estampage is available, I follow Narasimham unless otheriwse noted and do not indicate the position of binding holes.
Commentary
XVI
XVIII
XXI