Elūru grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00072.

Hand description:

Halantas.

Original punctuation.

Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is a dot or small circle above headline, usually to the right of, but occasionally above the character to which it belongs and occasionally above the next character, especially when that next character is gha. In l7-8 saṁghaṭṭo° it may be pushed across a line and page break.

Language: Sanskrit.

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

Version: (0f7aa42), last modified (5347f23).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ śrī-vijayasiddhi

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ svast(i)⟨.⟩ (śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvanābhiṣṭū)yamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇā(ṁ) ⟨2⟩ k(au)śik(ī)-vara-prasā(da)-labdha-rājy(ā)nāṁ sv(ā)mi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānām mātr̥-[ga]⟨3⟩ṇa-(pa)ripā(litā)nām bhagavan-nārāyaṇa-prasāda-samāsādita-vara-varā⟨4⟩ha-lāñchanānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna-pav¿ī?⟨i⟩trīkr̥ta-vapuṣā(ṁ) ca⟨5⟩lukyānāṁ kula-jala⟨dhi⟩-samudi(t)endo(ḥ) naya-vinaya-v¿ī?⟨i⟩kr¿ā?⟨a⟩mopārjjita-cāru⟨6⟩-bhūri-k¿i?⟨ī⟩rte⟨ḥ⟩ śrī-jayasiṁha-vallabha-mahā⟨rā⟩jasya priy⟦(a-bhrātu)⟧⟨⟨ānuja⟩⟩sya Indra-sa⟨7⟩māna-vik(r)amasya śrī-Ind⟨r⟩a-bhaṭṭ¿a?⟨ā⟩rakasya sūn¿e?⟨o⟩r aneka-samara-sa⟨Page 2r⟩⟨8⟩(ṁ)ghaṭṭ(o)palabdha-yuddha-vijaya-yaśaḥ-pras¿u?⟨ū⟩ty-āmoda-gandhādhivāsi⟨9⟩ta-sakala-di¡g!-maṇḍalasya śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājasya priya-tana⟨10⟩yaḥ samatiś¿e?⟨ayi⟩ta-pit¡ru!⟨r̥⟩-guṇa⟨ḥ⟩ śakti-sa⟨ṁ⟩panna⟨ḥ⟩ Ānv¿i?⟨ī⟩kṣiky-ādi-vidy(ā)-pra⟨11⟩yog(e)ṣ(u) śrī-vijayasiddhiḥ svāsi-dhārā-⟨namita-⟩ripu-nr̥{i}pati-vara-(ma)⟨12⟩kuṭa-ta(ṭa)-ghaṭitāneka-maṇi-kiraṇa-rāga-ra¿jñ?⟨ñj⟩ita-¿ch?⟨c⟩araṇa-yuga¡(ḷa)!⟨la⟩⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨13⟩ śrī-(sarvva)l(okāś)raya-(ma)hā(rā)jaḥ Evam ā¿ñj?⟨jñ⟩āpayati

Ayyavo(ḷu?)⟨14⟩-v¡a!s(t)avy(ā)ya bh¡a!⟨ā⟩radvāja-sa(g)otr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya ¡tetriya!⟨taittirīya⟩-⟨sa⟩brahmacāriṇe v(iṣṇuśa)⟨Page 2v⟩⟨15⟩rmmaṇa⟨ḥ⟩ (p)¡avu!⟨au⟩trāya ven(n?)eśarm(m)aṇa⟨ḥ⟩ putrāya ¿śaṣ?⟨ṣaṭ⟩-ka(r)m(m)a-niratāya śr(ī)dharaśarmma⟨16⟩ṇe ve(ṁ)¡gh!⟨g⟩i-viṣaye Elū(ru nāma grā)m(e)⟨.⟩ pūrvva-diś(āyāṁ)⟨.⟩ (vālmī)ka pūrvvata⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ v(ā)lmīk¿i?⟨a⟩ ⟨17⟩ (d)akṣiṇata⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ vālmī⟨ka⟩ paścimata(ḥ)⟨.⟩ [ja]¡ḷ!⟨l⟩a-ś¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ṁ¡gh!⟨g⟩a Utta(rata)⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ (Eta)¡(t)!⟨c⟩(-ca)tur-a(vadh)i dvāda⟨18⟩(śa)-¡k!⟨kh⟩a(ṇḍikā)-(ko)drava-bīja-paripramāṇa⟨ṁ⟩ kṣetra⟨ṁ⟩⟨.⟩ (Uttara-diśā)⟨yāṁ⟩⟨.⟩ m(ū)l(āṁ?)bu-ta⟨19⟩¿(dh)?⟨ṭ⟩āka (pūr)vvata⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ ja¡ḷ!⟨l⟩a-ś¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ṁ¡gh!⟨g⟩a dakṣiṇata⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ colivinthi-¿ś?⟨s⟩(ī)mā pa(ścima)ta⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ (ja?)¡(ḷ)!⟨l⟩(a)-⟨20⟩ś¡(r)i!⟨r̥⟩(ṁ)¡gh!⟨gh⟩a Uttarataḥ⟨.⟩ Eta(c-cat)ur-avadhi dvādaśa-¡k!⟨kh⟩aṇḍikā-kodrava-bīja-pa⟨21⟩ripramāṇa(ṁ) kṣetra(ṁ viṣṇu)varddhana-¡A!nnaprā¿s?⟨ś⟩a-nimitte ¿O?⟨U⟩daka-pūrvva⟨ṁ⟩ datta(ṁ)⟨.⟩ ⟨Page 3r⟩ ⟨22⟩ g¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ha-s¿t?⟨th⟩ānaṁ puṣ(p)a-(vāṭ)ik¿a?⟨ā⟩-sa(hitaṁ sarvva)-kara-parih(ā)re⟨ṇa⟩ p⟨r⟩ava[rddhamāna]⟨23⟩-vijaya-rājya-saṁva(tsa)re daśa (varṣe)

I. Anuṣṭubh

(bh)ūmi-dānāt paraṁ dānaṁ

a

na bh(ūta)[ṁ na bhavi]⟨24⟩ṣya{vi}ti

b

ta¿sya hai?⟨syai⟩va haraṇāt pāpa(ṁ)

c

(na) bhūta⟨ṁ⟩ na bhaviṣyati

d
II. Anuṣṭubh

(sva)-[dattāṁ para-da]⟨25⟩ttāṁ vā

a

yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ va

b
⟨Page 3v⟩

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

⟨1⟩ -(bhuvanābhiṣṭū)yamāna- KR2 ⬦ -bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna- KR1 • This combination is to my knowledge unique. Most Eastern Cālukya plates use bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna. The form jagad-abhiṣṭūyamāna occurs in some grants of Maṅgi Yuvarāja and Viṣṇuvardhana II. There are also corrupt hybrids: the Cendaṟa grant of Jayasiṁha II has jagada-saṁstuyamāna (sic), and the Pamiḍimukkala plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II have sakala-bhūvana-jāgad-abhiṣṭūyamāna-. — ⟨1⟩ -sagotrāṇā(ṁ) • The word hāritī-putrāṇāṁ is expected after this point, and was almost certainly omitted accidentally by the scribe, not deliberately by the composer.

⟨5⟩ -samuditendo(ḥ) ⬦ -samuditend¿a?⟨oḥ⟩ KR1; -samuditendu⟨ḥ⟩ KR2. — ⟨5⟩ priy⟦(a-bhrātu)⟧⟨⟨ānuja⟩⟩sya ⬦ priyā¿ṇ?⟨n⟩ujasya KR1 KR2 • KR clearly read ṇu because of the ā marker of the earlier character that was partly hammered out and overstruck.

⟨7⟩ -Ind⟨r⟩a- ⬦ -Indra- KR1 KR2 • There is no room at the bottom of the place for a subscript r. The tail of the subscript d seems to be extended somewhat to the right, which may have been meant to indicate that r. — ⟨7⟩ -sa⟨Page 2v⟩⟨8⟩(ṁ)ghaṭṭ(o) KR1 KR2 • I accept KR’s opinion that the anusvāra is above gha on the next page. The small circular mark there may, however, be just an artefact created in raising the rim.

⟨9⟩ priya- • The subscript r seems to have been deleted and re-engraved at a shallower depth to make room below for the i of -ādi.

⟨10⟩ Ānv¿i?⟨ī⟩kṣiky- ⬦ Anvīkṣiky- KR1; Aṇv¿i?⟨ī⟩kṣiky- KR2. — ⟨10⟩ -pra⟨11⟩yog(e)◯ṣ(u) ⬦ -pra⟨11⟩yo⟨ga⟩-śeṣaḥ KR1 KR2.

⟨11⟩ -dhārā-⟨namita-⟩ripu- ⬦ -dhārā-ripu- KR1 KR2.

⟨12⟩ °ta-¿ch?⟨c⟩araṇa- ⬦ °tāruṇa-pāda- KR1; °ta-caraṇa- KR2.

⟨14⟩ -⟨sa⟩brahmacāriṇe ⬦ -brahmacāriṇe KR1; -sabrahmacāriṇe KR2.

⟨15⟩ ven(n?)eśarm(m)aṇa⟨ḥ⟩ ⬦ vennaśarmmaṇa⟨ḥ⟩ KR1 KR2 • The ARIE report also reads the name as Venneśarman. The e is certainly present on the second character. I am not at all sure that a subscript consonant is present. The plate is badly corroded there, so there may have been something, but I see nothing that could be identified with confidence as a vestige.

⟨16⟩ (vālmī)ka • Throughout the two lists of boundaries, I refrain from supplying endings for the names of features. KR does supply (or, in some cases, read) masuline nominative endings here, but my impression is that none are present in the original, and some of the words ought to be neuter rather than masculine. I attribute the lack of endings to non-standard usage of nouns in the stem form, not a scribal error, nor precisely a grammatical error of the composer. It is also possible that the nouns were intended to be in compound, for which see the commentary.

⟨17⟩ [ja]¡¡ḷ!⟨l⟩a-ś¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ṁ¡gh!⟨g⟩a! ⬦ jaḷa-ś¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ṁ¡gh!⟨g⟩a⟨ḥ⟩ KR2; [ja]ṭa-ś¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ṁ¡gh!⟨g⟩a KR1 • KR explicitly mentions this improved reading in his introduction to his revised edition. While ḷa is perfectly clear, the preceding character is entirely lost to corrosion, which KR’s second edition does not admit. Given the perfectly clear instance in line 19 and a differently damaged instance in line 19-20, the restoration is nonetheless sound. KR further notes that Sanskrit jala-śr̥ṁga is a mirror translation of Telugu nīṭi-kommu, which he explains as a “blind arm of a water course”, elaborating that it is an extension of a tank or a natural body of water, which fills up only in the rainy season, and is a feature often seen at village boundaries in this part of the Andhra country. Although the interpretation assumes two non-standard spellings, writing ḷa for la is quite common in the corpus, and gha for ga occurs occasionally, including veṁghi in line 16 of the present inscription. I therefore think KR’s reading and interpretation are both correct. — ⟨17⟩ (Eta)¡(t)!⟨c⟩(-ca)tur-a(vadh)i ⬦ Et¿et?⟨aiś⟩ catur-avadhi KR1; Et¿et?⟨aiś⟩ catur-udadhi- KR2.

⟨18⟩ -¡k!⟨kh⟩a(ṇḍikā)◯-(ko)drava- ⬦ -¡k!⟨kh⟩aṇḍi-(ko)drava- KR1 KR2 • The character kā is partly eaten by the binding hole but is still recognisable to the left of it. — ⟨18⟩ -(diśā)⟨yāṁ⟩ mūl(āṁ?)bu- ⬦ -diśā⟨yā⟩m kul⟨y⟩ābu- KR1; -diśā¿ṁ?⟨yām⟩bu- KR2 • KR’s second edition probably has a typo here; his intent may have been to emend to -diśāyāṁ Ambu-. I think the character mū is reasonably clear. I am not at all certain that an ā was present on la. The anusvāra is above and to the right of bu. — ⟨18⟩ -ta⟨19⟩¿(dh)?⟨ṭ⟩āka⟨ṁ⟩ ⬦ -ta⟨19⟩¿(r)?⟨ṭ⟩ākaḥ KR1 KR2 • The first character in line 19 is much too broad to be r, but it is a fairly plausible dh, which may in turn be the engraver’s misrecognition of a pre-drawn ṭ.

⟨19⟩ colivinthi- ⬦ vāliviṇṭi KR1; coliviṇṭi KR2 • KR notes that his reading coliviṇṭi is the Telugu genitive singular of the name Coliviṇṇu, and locates a modern village by this name near Eluru. Nonetheless, the correct reading of the last character is beyond doubt nthi. I do not know if this is a plausible genitive, perhaps of Colivinnu. A possible parallel formation is muttinthi-boya in the Reyūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II. — ⟨19⟩ ja¡ḷ!⟨l⟩a- KR2 ⬦ jaṭa- KR1. — ⟨19⟩ (ja?)¡(ḷ)!⟨l⟩(a)-⟨20⟩ś¡(r)i!⟨r̥⟩(ṁ)¡gh!⟨gh⟩a KR2 ⬦ jaṭa-ś¡ri!⟨r̥⟩ṁ¡gh!⟨g⟩a KR1 • As in line 17 above, the reading ja is problematic. The locus is not as badly damaged, but the extant strokes are difficult to interpret. Correction may have been involved both on this character and on the following ḷa. Given the clear instance earlier in this line, I agree with KR that jaḷa must have been intended.

⟨20⟩ Eta(c)-catur- ⬦ Et¿e?⟨ai⟩ś catur- KR1 KR2. — ⟨20⟩ -¡k!⟨kh⟩aṇḍikā- ⬦ -¡k!⟨kh⟩aṇḍi{kā}- KR1 KR2.

⟨21⟩ -nimitte ¿O?⟨U⟩daka- ⬦ -nimittaṁ ¿di?⟨U⟩daka- KR1; -nimittaṁ Udaka- KR2.

⟨22⟩ parih(ā)re⟨ṇa⟩ p⟨r⟩ava[rddhamāna-] ⬦ -parihopa va […] KR1; -parihare pa va […] KR2 • My restoration is not entirely certain given that it also requires the restitution of an omitted syllable and an omitted subscript r. There is, however, no other solution I can come up with that is even remotely plausible in the context. Given the end of the next line, it is quite certain that three characters are lost at the edge of the plate here. — ⟨22⟩ daśa (varṣe) ⬦ daśame [pi|] KR1 KR2 • From the photos of the original, the reading varṣe is certain beyond reasonable doubt in spite of considerable corrosion, except that the superscript r and/or the e marker may have been omitted in the original. Similare dating formulae with a redundant varṣe do occur in the corpus: pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-savasare triṁśati varṣa (continuing with month, forthnight and day) in the Koṇeki grant of Viṣṇuvardhana II; pravaddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṁvachare viṁśati-trir varṣeṁ in the Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III; and pravarddhamāna-vijaya-rājya-saṁvatsare pañca varṣe in the Koṇḍakaṟipḻola grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III.

⟨23⟩ bh(ūta)[ṁ na bhavi]⟨24⟩ṣya{vi}ti ⬦ na bhū(ta)[…]⟨24⟩ṣyati KR1 KR2.

⟨24⟩ s(v)a-[dattāṁ para-da]⟨25⟩ttāṁ ⬦ sva-[…]⟨25⟩ttāṁ KR1 KR2.

⟨25⟩ haret¿i?⟨a⟩ • The inscribed word looks like hireti, but the first i marker is very thin and probably belongs to the earlier inscription on this plate (see the commentary). — ⟨25⟩ va • The text ends abruptly here.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–13) Greetings. From the ocean that is the lineage of the majestic Calukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world,1, who attained kingship by the grace of Kauśikī’s boon, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by Lord Mahāsena, who are protected by the band of Mothers, who acquired the superior Boar emblem by the grace of the divine Nārāyaṇa, and whose bodies have been hallowed through washing in the purificatory ablutions (avabhr̥tha) of the Aśvamedha sacrifice—had arisen a moon [who was] His Majesty King (mahārāja) Jayasiṁha Vallabha (I), who earned his great good reputation by his political acumen (naya), discipline (vinaya) and valour. His dear younger brother [was] Indra Bhaṭṭāraka whose valour equalled Indra’s. His son [was] His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (II), who perfumed the complete circle of the quarters with pleasant fragrance from the efflorescence of his glory [achieved by] martial victory attained in the clash of many a battle. His dear son, His Majesty King (mahārāja) Sarvalokāśraya (Maṅgi Yuvarāja), who surpasses the virtues of his father, who is endowed with [the three] power[s], who is His Majesty Vijayasiddhi {prevailing in victory} in applications of sciences such as critical investigation (ānvīkṣikī) and whose pair of feet are tinted by the hues of the rays from the many gems fitted to the surfaces of the crowns of prominent enemy kings bowed down by the blade of his sword, commands thus.

(13–23) [I have granted land] in the Veṁgi district (viṣaya), at the village named Elūru, to Śrīdharaśarman of the Bhāradvāja gotra and the Taittirīya school, a resident of Ayyavoḷu, grandson of Viṣṇuśarman and son of Vennaśarman, engaged in the the six duties (of a Brahmin). [Item,] in the eastern direction [of the village]. A termite mound to the east. A termite mound to the south. A termite mound to the west. An oxbow lake2 to the north. A field [demarcated] with these four boundaries, comprising (an area sufficient for sowing) twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed. [Item,] in the northern direction [of the village]. The Mūlāṁbu3 pond to the east. An oxbow lake to the south. The border of (the village) Colivinthi4 to the west. An oxbow lake to the north. A field [demarcated] with these four boundaries, comprising (an area sufficient for sowing) twelve khaṇḍikās of kodrava seed. [These have been] given, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water, on the occasion of the annaprāśa [ceremony] of (prince) Viṣṇuvardhana [III]. [Also,] a homestead plot together with a flower garden. [All these were donated] with an exemption from all taxes, in the year that is the tenth year of the progressive triumphant reign.

I
There has never been and will never be a gift surpassing the gift of land, nor has there ever been or will ever be a sin [surpassing] the seizing of the same.
II
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another5

Commentary

The boundary lists in lines 16-17 and 18-20 are somewhat problematic because of the inconsistent (and mostly missing) case endings. I am quite certain that the demarcation of two separate fields is presented here, both commencing with the location of the field with respect to the village Elūru. In each demarcation, this is followed by four pairs of “landmark” + “direction”, in the conventional order of East–South–West–North. It is therefore most likely that the landmarks are to be construed in the nominative, understood to mean that each landmark is to the specified direction of the field. With this interpretation, however, the syntax of the text is extremely fragmented, with several complete sentences inserted parenthetically as it were into the framing sentence that announces the grant.

Conversely, if the landmark–direction pairs are to be construed as compounds meaning that the field is to the specified direction of each landmark, the resulting sentence is syntactically more or less correct, although highly convoluted and complex. There are some cases in the Eastern Cālukya copperplate corpus where boundary demarcations are (or may be) presented in this manner. In the Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III, the demarcation likewise follows a statement of the field’s location with respect to the village. That grant, incidentally, is the only other Eastern Cālukya charter that I know of to use termite mounds as boundary markers. There, however, the directions come in the order West–North–South–East, whereby the conventional subjective order East–South–West–North obtains if the pairs are interpreted to mean that the field is to the said direction of the landmark. The Peddāpurappāḍu plates (set 1) of Viṣṇuvardhana II (but not the other two related sets from Peddāpurappāḍu) also situates the field relative to the landmarks, but there this is made explicit by putting the landmarks in the ablative case, although the actual order is still E–S–W–N, so the subjective order (of the boundaries relative to the field) is reversed. The Nutulapaṟu grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja demarcates three fields in two differently unconventional sequences of directions, one or both of which may also have to be understood as positioning the field relative to each landmark. In the Peñceṟekuru grant of Maṅgi Yuvarāja, the landmarks are likewise in the ablative, and their sequence is likewise erratic. Finally, the Kopparam plates of Pulakeśin II also put the landmarks in the ablative case, but the sequence there is again unconventional (E–W–S–N).

It is thus possible that the demarcations are to be understood as situating the field relative to each landmark, but because the present charter employs the standard sequence of directions and does not use the ablative case for the landmarks, I think this is unlikely, and the demarcations are to be interpreted in the same way as those in the overwhelming majority of related grants, in spite of the syntactical difficulty involved.

Another possible complication in the boundary list ist that the word vālmīka is graphically quite similar to Elūru, and it is therefore not impossible that one or more of the many vālmīkas in the text are scribal mistakes for Elūru. This may, in particular, be the case for the vālmīka to the west of the first field (in line 17, inscribed only as vālmī), since this field lies to the east of Elūru.

Not noted by Krishna Rao, the recto of plate 3 is a palimpsest. No traces of earlier writing can be made out on any other page. On 3r, there were probably 4 lines of writing in larger characters than the present inscription, so that all of the fourth earlier line is below the last presently inscribed line, but there is still blank space below where there was probably no earlier writing. In this fourth line, the text varāha-lāñchanānāṁ Aśvamedhāvabhr̥tha-snāna can be made out without much difficulty, so this page had once been inscribed with the opening passage of Eastern Cālukya grants. Further legible bits of the earlier writing include (māna-mānavya-sa) in line 1 (slightly above the level of the present first line on this page), and (paripā)litānāṁ bhagava in line 3 (slightly above the level of the present inscription’s last line).

Bibliography

Reported in Krishnamacharlu 1942, p. 7, appendices A/1937-38, № 6 with description at Krishnamacharlu 1942, pp. 80–81, § 41. Edited from the original by B. V. Krishna Rao (1938–1939), with a summary of the contents, followed immediately by a slight revision (1938–1939) accompanied by facsimiles.6 The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs of the original taken by myself in February 2023 at the Rallabandi Subba Rao Archaeological Museum, Rajahmundry, collated with Krishna Rao’s editions and his facsimiles. Minor typographic mistakes and oversights in either of the previous editions are not shown in the apparatus here.

Primary

[KR1] Krishna Rao, Bhavaraju Venkata. 1938–1939. “Eluru grant of Sarvalokasraya.” JAHRS 12 (1), pp. 49–53.

[KR2] Krishna Rao, Bhavaraju Venkata. 1938–1939. “A note on the Eluru grant of Sarvalokasraya.” JAHRS 12 (2), pp. 109–110.

Secondary

Krishnamacharlu, C. R. 1942. Annual report on South Indian epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1938. Delhi: Government of India. Page 7, appendixes A/1937-38, item 6.

Krishnamacharlu, C. R. 1942. Annual report on South Indian epigraphy for the year ending 31st March 1938. Delhi: Government of India. Pages 80–81, section 41.

Notes

  1. 1. The standard phrase “who are sons of Hāritī” was probably omitted by the scribe here.
  2. 2. See the apparatus to line 17 about this word.
  3. 3. Or perhaps “the pond in Mūla” if this word ends in a Telugu locative rather than the Sanskrit word ambu.
  4. 4. The stem form of this name may be Colivinnu.
  5. 5. The text ends abruptly here.
  6. 6. The inscription has also been published in Bhārati, Vol. XVI, pp. 613 ff., not traced.