Peravali plates of Viṣṇuvardhana IV

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

Identifier: DHARMA_INSVengiCalukya00083.

Hand description:

Halantas. Final M (l27, l32) is usually a simplified ma, but in l37 (twice) it seems to be the later form, a tiny circle with a single sinuous tail. Final T (l27) is a reduced ta with a short vertical tail instead of a headmark.

Original punctuation marks.

Other palaeographic observations. Anusvāra is normally above and to the right of the character to which it belongs. Long dependent ī is barely distinguishable from short (but occasionally conspicuous, e.g. l8 kīrtteḥ); I read most instances with the benefit of doubt. Rare initial Au occurs in line 22; the curved stroke at its top right, distinguishing it from O, is not clear in the estampage, but distinct in the original.

Language: Sanskrit.

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

Version: (0f7aa42), last modified (e18436c).

Edition

Seal

⟨1⟩ (śrī-viṣa?)[masiddhi]

Plates

⟨Page 1r⟩

⟨Page 1v⟩ ⟨1⟩ sv⟦i⟧⟨⟨a⟩⟩sti⟨.⟩ śrīmatāṁ sakala-bhuvana-saṁstūyamāna-mānavya-sagotrāṇāṁ hāriti-pu⟨2⟩trāṇāṁ kauś¿ī?⟨i⟩k¿i?⟨ī⟩-vara-prasāda-labdha-r¿a?⟨ā⟩jyānāṁ mātr̥-gaṇa-paripālitānā⟨ṁ⟩ ⟨3⟩ svāmi-mahāsena-pādānudhyātānāṁ bhagavan-n¿a?⟨ā⟩rāyaṇa-prasā(da)-s¿ā?⟨a⟩⟨4⟩m¿a?⟨ā⟩sādita-vara-varāha-lāñ¿c?⟨ch⟩anekṣaṇa-kṣaṇa-vaśīkr̥tārāti-maṇḍalā(nām aśvame)⟨5⟩dhāvabhr̥¿t?⟨th⟩a-sn¿a?⟨ā⟩na-pavitr¿i?⟨ī⟩kr̥ta-vapuṣāṁ caḷukyānāṁ kulam alaṁkariṣṇoḥ svāsi-dhārā-prabh¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨vā⟩⟨6⟩varjjit¿a?⟨ā⟩śeṣa-bhūpāla-makuṭa-koṭi-m(ā)ṇi¡k(k)!⟨ky⟩a-śāṇa-kaṣaṇa-masr̥ṇa-nakha-maṇi-kiraṇa-k(e)⟨7⟩sarodbhāsita-pāda-padma-yuga¡ḷ!⟨l⟩asyānavarata-tulā-dhr̥ta-śātakumbha-viśr(ā)⟨Page 2r⟩⟨8⟩ṇana-va⟨r⟩ddhitāvadāta-kīrtteḥ sarvva-lokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇuvarddhana-mahārājasya pautra⟨ḥ⟩ ni⟨9⟩ja-bhu⟨⟨ja⟩⟩-niśitāsi-dhārā-pra⟨⟨¿s?⟨ś⟩a⟩⟩mita-para-ca¡kk!ra-vikramasyāneka-sāmanta-mauli-m(ā)⟨10⟩lā-makaranda-rajaḥ-puñja-piñjarita-caraṇāravinda-dvayasyāneka-tulā-dhr̥ta⟨11⟩-svarṇṇa-dā⟨⟨na⟩⟩-vidhūta-pāpmana⟨ḥ⟩ niravadyodāra-guṇa-⟨⟨gaṇā⟩⟩laṁkr̥tasya śrī-vijayādi⟨12⟩tya-mahārājasya priya-tanayaḥ sva-pratāpa-śravaṇa-tat-kāla-vilīya(mā)na-para⟨13⟩-narapati-vikramaś cakrava⟨⟨r⟩⟩tti-lakṣaṇopetaś śār¿g?⟨ṅ⟩gāyudha Iva la(kṣ)m¿i?⟨ī⟩-vallabha⟨ḥ⟩ (kṣī)rā⟨Page 2v⟩⟨14⟩rṇṇava Ivātig¿ā?⟨a⟩mbhīra-sa¡t!vaḥ Anavarata-la¡ḷ!⟨l⟩ita-mada-mudita-vibhrama-bhramita⟨15⟩-laṭaha-kaṭākṣekṣaṇālakṣiteṣu makaradhvajaḥ Ari-timira-nika⟨⟨ra⟩⟩-vidhvaṁsano⟨16⟩dayeṣu pra¡ḷ!⟨l⟩ayādityaḥ subhaṭa-prakaṭāṭopa-kṣubhita-kolāhalā{ha}⟨17⟩{la}sanna-yuddheṣu viṣamasiddhi⟨ḥ⟩ d¿i?⟨ī⟩nānātha-suhr̥{r}j-jana-dvija-bandhu⟨18⟩-¡b!⟨v⟩r̥ndāraka-mitra-bhr̥tya-kā(ṁ)kṣita-vara-pradāneṣu kāmadh(e)n(u)⟨ḥ⟩ deva-dvija-guru-caraṇ¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨19⟩nudhy¿a?⟨ā⟩tas sarvvalokāśraya-śrī-viṣṇ(u)varddhana-mahārāj(ā)dhirā⟨⟨(ja)⟩⟩-parameśvara-bhaṭṭā⟨Page 3r⟩⟨20⟩rakaḥ✤ gudrahāra-viṣaya-nivāsino rāṣ(ṭr)ak¿u?⟨ū⟩(ṭa)-p(ramu)kh¿a?⟨ān⟩ kuṭ¡i!⟨u⟩ṁbina⟨ḥ⟩ sarvv¿a?⟨ā⟩n i⟨21⟩t¿t?⟨th⟩(am ā)¿ña?⟨jñā⟩payati

vi¿dh?⟨d⟩itam astu vo ⟨’⟩smā(bhi)[ḥ] [ca. 3×]-(vā)stavy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya kauśi¿khi?⟨ka⟩-go⟨22⟩tr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya tait⟨t⟩ir¿i?⟨ī⟩ya-sa⟨bra⟩hmacāri¿n?⟨ṇ⟩e Aul¿a?⟨u⟩(p)e[ya]-(s)ūtr(ā)ya veda-ved¿a?⟨ā⟩ṁgeti{(h)iti}⟨23⟩hāsa-purā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-vid¿e?⟨o⟩ viṣṇuś{ś}armma¿(na)?⟨ṇaḥ⟩ (pau)tr¿aḥ?⟨āya⟩ (sa)rvva-śāstra-vid¿(e)?⟨o⟩ yaj(ñ)aśa(rm)m(aṇa)⟨ḥ⟩ ⟨24⟩ putrāy¿ā?⟨a⟩ pada-vākya{ta}-¿pramana?⟨pramāṇa⟩-prabhava-cā(ru)-bh¿u?⟨ū⟩ri-kīrtt¿e?⟨aye⟩ ṣaṭ-karmma-niratāya tr¿ai?⟨ayī⟩⟨25⟩-m(ā)rgg¿a?⟨ā⟩¿ṇ?⟨n⟩u¿ś?⟨s⟩āri¿n?⟨ṇ⟩e Āyu¡-m!⟨r⟩-ārogy¿a?⟨ā⟩bhiv¿i?⟨r̥⟩ddhaye bhavvaś{ś}a⟨r⟩ma¿(na)?⟨ṇe⟩ s(o)ma-graha⟨Page 3v⟩⟨26⟩(ṇa)-nimitte ⟨⟨ra⟩⟩ndubaḷḷi nāma grāma⟨ḥ⟩ sarvva-k¿ā?⟨a⟩ra-parih¿a?⟨ā⟩re¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a Udaka-p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvva⟨ṁ⟩ k¡ri!⟨r̥⟩⟨⟨tvā⟩⟩ ⟨27⟩ dattaM

tasya Avadhaya⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ p¿u?⟨ū⟩rvvataḥ kalpaṭṭanabu Avadhi¿T?⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ dakṣi¿n?⟨ṇ⟩ata⟨⟨ḥ⟩⟩ tāḻka⟨28⟩ṭuru Avadhi¿T?⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ paścimataḥ niḍu(ṁ)gāḍu Avadhi¿T?⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ Uttarat{t}a⟨ḥ⟩ ja(kka)⟨29⟩naceṟuvu Avadhi¿T?⟨ḥ⟩⟨.⟩ ¡ye!⟨E⟩teṣ¿a?⟨āṁ⟩ catur-avadhayaḥ⟨.⟩ Asyopari (bā?)⟨30⟩dhā na kenacit karaṇ¿(i)?⟨ī⟩y{y}ā⟨.⟩ karoti yas sa pañca-mah¿a?⟨ā⟩-pātaka-saṁy{y}ukto bhava(ti)⟨.⟩ ⟨31⟩ vyāsenāpy ukta⟨M⟩

I. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhir vvasudhā dattā

a

bahubhiś cānupālitā

b

yasya yasya ⟨Page 4r⟩ ⟨32⟩ yadā bhūmi⟨s⟩

c

tasya tasya tadā ¿p?⟨ph⟩alaM

d
II. Anuṣṭubh

sva-dattām para-dattāṁ vā

a

yo haret¿i?⟨a⟩ vasu⟨33⟩ndharā⟨ṁ⟩

b

ṣaṣṭiṁ varṣa-sahasrāṇi

c

viṣ¿ṭ?⟨ṭh⟩āy¿a?⟨āṁ⟩ jā⟨ya⟩t{t}e kr̥mi⟨ḥ⟩

d
III. Anuṣṭubh

bhūmi-dānāt paraṁ dāna⟨34⟩n

a

na bhūtan na bhaviṣyati

b

tasyaiva haraṇāt pāpan

c

na bhūtan na bhaviṣya⟨35⟩ti

d
IV. Anuṣṭubh

bh¿u?⟨ū⟩miṁ ya¿p?⟨ḫ⟩ prati¿dh?⟨g⟩r̥¡ṇh!⟨hṇ⟩āti

a

yaś ca bhūmi⟨ṁ⟩ prayacchati

b

Ubh(au) tau p(u)⟨36⟩ṇya-karmmāṇ(au)

c

niyat¿au?⟨aṁ⟩ svargga-vāsi¿(ṇ)?⟨n⟩(au)

d
V. Anuṣṭubh

svan dātu⟨ṁ⟩ sumahac chakya⟨ṁ⟩

a

(duḥkha)⟨37⟩m anyatra pālanaM

b

dānaṁ vā pālana⟨ṁ⟩ veti

c

dānāc chreyo ⟨’⟩nupālanaM

d
VI. Anuṣṭubh

¿A?⟨Ā⟩jña⟨Page 4v⟩⟨38⟩ptir asya dharmmasya

a

nirmmalo dha⟨r⟩mma-sa⟨ṁ⟩graha⟨ḥ⟩

b

Eṟeyamma Iti khy¿a?⟨ā⟩ta(ḥ)

c

ś(ū)⟨39⟩ro vinaya-va¡ccha!⟨tsa⟩¡ḷ!⟨l⟩aḥ

d

kautam¿a?⟨ā⟩cāryyeṇa likhitaM

⟨Page 5r⟩ ⟨Page 5v⟩

Apparatus

Seal

⟨1⟩ (śrī-viṣa?)[masiddhi] • The seal is completely effaced. Faint vestiges are compatible with the reading shown here and seem less compatible with the most likely alternative śrī-tribhuvanāṁkuśa, but the reading and restoration are far from confident.

Plates

⟨5⟩ -prabh¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨vā⟩⟨6⟩varjjit¿a?⟨ā⟩śeṣa- ⬦ -pra(bhā)⟨6⟩(vā)rjjit¿a?⟨ā⟩śeṣa- RM • RM cites the Pr̥thivipallavapaṭṭana grant of Viṣṇuvardhana IV as also reading -prabhāvārjjitāśeṣa-, but this may be an oversight. His point is not to corroborate this reading but to indicate that the title is simpler there. It is quite certain on the basis of several cognate plates that the intended expression was prabhāvāvarjjitāśeṣa-.

⟨6⟩ -k(e)⟨7⟩sarodbhāsita- ⬦ -ka⟨7⟩rodbhāsita- RM • The reading is quite clear in the original plate (sa is to the left of the descender of rjji in the previous line), and confirmed by the Zulakallu plates of Vijayāditya I.

⟨8⟩ -kīrtteḥ • The surface of the plate, elsewhere pristine, is a little uneven around these two characters. They are also a little narrower than usual, and the vowel marker for e us squeezed poorly into the scant space between these two characters. They, and perhaps the preceding two and the next one, may be a correction over carefully deleted earlier text.

⟨13⟩ cakrava⟨⟨r⟩⟩tti- • The repha has been written as a separate stroke (resembling a J in shape) to the right of the i marker. It is probably a subsequent addition, though it is also possible that it was written this way in order to avoid having to reduce the size of the i marker. — ⟨13⟩ (kṣī)rā⟨Page 2v⟩⟨14⟩(r)ṇṇava Ivātig¿ā?⟨a⟩mbhīra- ⬦ kṣīrā⟨Page 2v⟩⟨14⟩rṇṇavair atig¿ā?⟨a⟩mbhīra- RM • The reading is clear, so this must be some kind of weird typo in RM.

⟨15⟩ -nika⟨⟨ra⟩⟩- • RM’s note about the ra being added below the line is wrongly anchored next to the preceding word, timira.

⟨16⟩ -kolāhalā{ha}⟨17⟩{la}sa◯nna- ⬦ -kolāhalāha⟨17⟩{la} sanna- RM • I do not know why RM considers only la to be superfluous. In addition to the dittography, there is yet another la inscribed above the first in line 17, and then deleted. It seems that the engraver first started the line too high, then decided to delete the first character and start again lower down.

⟨19⟩ -mahārāj(ā)dhirā⟨⟨(ja)⟩⟩- • A kākapada in the shape of a small cross is inscribed to the right of the vowel marker of rā, and the added ja is below this mark, to the right of the lower body of rā. — ⟨19⟩ -parameśvara- • The characters rame are narrower and more closely spaced than usual, while śvara are extremely narrow and close, as well as fainter than the rest of the writing. It seems very likemy that only parama had been first inscribed, then rama was deleted and rameśvara reinscribed in the resulting space..

⟨20⟩ -p(ramu)kh¿a?⟨ān⟩ ⬦ -p(ra)mu(kha)- RM • My emendation is not essential for the text’s intelligibility, but the formula is ubiquitous in the corpus.

⟨21⟩ -(vā)stavy¿a?⟨ā⟩ya • Here, ya is very narrow and its left limb is barely present. It is possible that this character is a subsequent insertion, utilising the left-hand stroke of au on the next character for its right limb (and re-inscribing the au stroke in smaller size) and inserting the rest of ya in the space after vya.

⟨23⟩ -purā¿n?⟨ṇ⟩a-vid¿e?⟨o⟩ ⬦ -purāṇa-vide RM • Although the preceding words, in the dative, qualify the donee, I still think this particular compound at least was intended to qualify his grandfather. Note that the specification of residence and affiliation likewise applies to the donee’s grandfather, rather than the donee himself, in many related grants. — ⟨23⟩ viṣṇuś{ś}armma¿(na)?⟨ṇaḥ⟩ ⬦ viṣṇuśarmmaṇaḥ RM. — ⟨23⟩ -śāstra-vid¿(e)?⟨o⟩ ⬦ -śāstra-vide RM • Here too, I believe this term was meant to apply to the donee’s father, not to the donee.

⟨24⟩ pada-vākya{ta}-¿pramana?⟨pramāṇa⟩- RM • I accept RM’s emendation because of the strong collocation of these three words and the attestation of their combination in the Uṟuvuṭūru grant of Vijayāditya III. I do wonder, however, if vākyata (possibly vākyāta, with a minuscule hook at the end of the subscript y stroke) was rather meant for vākyārtha.

⟨25⟩ Āyu¡-m!⟨r⟩-ārogy(ā) • I believe this m is not an unwitting mistake but non-standard sandhi involving an epenthetic m.

⟨26⟩ ⟨⟨ra⟩⟩ndubaḷḷi ⬦ reṇḍubaḷḷi RM • The name was read as Raṇḍubaḷḷi for the ARIE report, while RM asserts that it is correctly Reṇḍubaḷḷi. In RM’s estampage, the first character does look rather like re, but there are also two conspicuous dots placed symmetrically on either side of its body. Because of these, I was inclined to read it as a long initial Ī when I first edited this text. Having in the meantime had the opportunity to look at and photograph the original plates, I am now certain that ra (and nothing else) is inscribed here, but this character is a correction over some earlier writing. What looks like an e marker in the estampage is part of the curved outline of the pre-correction character, and what look like two dots are probably the lower ends of its body, which may have been ga. I hazard the conjecture (without showing it in my edition) that the engraver may have written grā for grāmahere, then realised that he had omitted the name of the village. There is, however, no trace of a subscript r, and the right limb of grā further on in this line continues seamlessly into the subscript r, lacking a hook that might have resulted in the dot present at this locus. Thus, gā is perhaps more likely for the pre-correction character, and it too is very far from certain. The second character of the name is beyond doubt ndu, not ṇḍu. The reason why previous editors thought otherwise is probably a small and slightly sinuous horizontal stroke to the left of the headmark, which may have been taken for the left-hand side of the distinctive upper component of ṇ. The right-hand side of the headmark, however, shows neither the rest of this component, nor any sign of damage. The sinuous horizontal stroke is in all probability a remnant of the pre-correction character here; indeed, it looks very similar to the ā of grāma later in this line. The third character, ba, is indistinct in the estampage but clear in the original.

⟨27⟩ tāḻka⟨28⟩ṭuru ⬦ tā(ṟka)⟨28⟩ṭ¿u?⟨ū⟩ru RM.

⟨28⟩ niḍu(ṁ)gāḍu ⬦ niḍugāḍu RM • A dot above gā, to the left of its centre, is visible in the estampage and clear in the original. It is in all probability an anusvāra.

⟨29⟩ ¡ye!⟨ye⟩teṣ¿a?⟨āṁ⟩ ⬦ ¿yeteṣa?⟨ete⟩ RM • RM’s emendation is of course perfectly appropriate to the immediate context, but seems to be an unlikely scribal error, and the forumlation ete catur-avadhayaḥ does not occur anywhere else in the corpus that I am aware of. I believe the text is garbled from expressions involving Eteṣāṁ catur-avadhi-madhya-varti (cf. the Nemmaḷūru and Dinakādu grants of Vijayāditya I).

⟨32⟩ haret¿i?⟨a⟩ ⬦ h¿e?⟨a⟩ret¿i?⟨a⟩ RM • What looks like an e marker is an ornamental extension to the tail of ha.

⟨33⟩ ṣaṣṭiṁ ⬦ ṣaṣṭi(r) RM.

⟨35⟩ Ubh(au) tau ⬦ tau RM • The vowel marker on bh consists only of a humped right-hand stroke; the left-hand stroke completing au was omitted by the scribe.

⟨37⟩ anyatra • This word does not fit the context well and is probably a scribal mistake for anyārtha. The only other occurrence of this stanza in the Eastern Cālukya corpus that I am aware of is in the Koṇḍakaṟipḻola grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III, where the variant of this word is anyasya.

⟨39⟩ kautam¿a?⟨ā⟩cāryyeṇa • RM emends the to gautamācāryyeṇa, which is probably correct, but I prefer not to interfere.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

(1–21) Greetings. The grandson of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana (III), the shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya) whose pair of feet is illuminated by a nimbus of rays from the jewels that are his toenails, which have been rubbed smooth by the grindstones that are rubies at the tips of the crowns of the totality of kings bowed down by the prowess of the blade of his sword, whose clear reputation was enhanced by the ceaseless distribution of gold weighed on balance scales, 1 and who was eager to adorn the lineage of the majestic Caḷukyas—who are of the Mānavya gotra which is praised by the entire world, who are sons of Hāriti, 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 the realms of adversaries 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—; the dear son of His Majesty King (mahārāja) Vijayāditya (I), who repressed the onslaught of enemy armies (para-cakra-vikrama) by the sharp swordblade [wielded by his] own arm, whose pair of lotus feet were engilded by a mass of stamen dust (i.e. pollen) from the garlands on the brows of many peripheral rulers (sāmanta), whose sins were washed off by the donation of gold weighed in many a balance scale and who was adorned by a host of irreproachable (niravadya) and noble virtues: [namely] His Majesty the Supreme Lord (parameśvara) of Emperors (mahārājādhirāja) and Sovereign (bhaṭṭāraka) Viṣṇuvardhana (IV), shelter of all the world (sarva-lokāśraya), upon hearing of whose ferocity the bravery of enemy kings (para-narapati-vikrama) instantly vanishes, who possesses the bodily marks of a universal sovereign (cakravartin), who is the beloved of Royal Fortune (lakṣmī) as (Viṣṇu) the Wielder of the Śārṅga (bow) {is the beloved of Lakṣmī}, who is very profound by nature, like the ocean, who is a very Crocodile-bannered (love god) among (men) at whom (women) glance with flirtatious eyes (made all the more) appealing by a flurry of gestures delighting in ceaseless playful desire, who is a doomsday sun inasmuch as his rising dispels the dense darkness of enemies, who prevails over adversity (viṣama-siddhi) in battles thick with agitated clamour and the swaggering displays of great warriors, who is a cow of plenty (kāmadhenu) inasmuch as he grants the boons coveted by the destitute, the helpless, his friends, Brahmins (dvija), kinsmen, reputable persons,2 allies and underlings (bhr̥tya), and who defers to3 the honoured presence (pāda) of gods, Brahmins and his elders (guru)—[this Viṣṇuvardhana] commands all householders (kuṭumbin)—including foremost the territorial overseers (rāṣṭrakūṭa)—who reside in Gudrahāra district (viṣaya) as follows.

(21–27) Let it be known to you that on the occasion of an eclipse of the moon, for the augmentation of [our] vitality and health, we have given the village named Randubaḷḷi with an exemption from all taxes, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water, to Bhavvaśarman, a resident of [ca. 3×] belonging to the Kauśika gotra and the Taittirīya school, of the Aulupeya sūtra, whose great good reputation arises from (his mastery of) words (grammatics, pada), sentences (linguistic analysis, vākya) and the means of knowledge (epistemology, pramāṇa), who is engaged in the six duties (of a Brahmin) and follows the path of the Veda, the grandson of Viṣṇuśarman, a scholar of the Veda, Vedāṅga, Itihāsa and Purāṇa, and the son of Yajñaśarman, a scholar of all treatises (śāstra).

(27–31) Its boundaries [are as follows]. To the east, the boundary is Kalpaṭṭanabu. To the south, the boundary is Tāḻkaṭuru. To the west, the boundary is Niḍuṁgāḍu. To the north, the boundary is Jakkanaceṟuvu. [It is located in the midst] of these four boundaries. Let no-one pose an obstacle (to the enjoyment of rights) over it. He who does so shall be conjoined with the five great sins. Vyāsa too has said:

I
Many (kings) have granted land, and many have preserved it (as formerly granted). Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit {reward (accrued of granting it)} belongs to him at that time.
II
He who would seize land, whether given by himself or by another, shall be born as a worm in faeces for sixty thousand years.
III
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.
IV
He who accepts (granted) land and he who offers land: both of these doers of meritorious deeds are guaranteed to dwell in heaven.
V
It is possible (i.e. easy) to give away what is yours, [even if it is] a great thing; [but] it is hard to preserve the property of another.4 [When it comes to] the question, “donation or preservation [of previous grants]?”—[the answer is that] preservation is superior to donation.
VI
The executor (ājñapti) of this provision (dharma) is the impeccable (superintendent of justice?) (dharma-saṁgraha)5 known as Eṟeyamma, who is valiant and fond of discipline.

(39) Written (likhita) by Kautamācārya.6

Commentary

The name of the donated village was read as Raṇḍubaḷḷi for the ARIE report, while RM asserts that it is correctly Reṇḍubaḷḷi. The latter seems unlikely; however, the name may perhaps be Īṇḍubaḷḷi, which is compatible with RM’s proposed identification with the (or a) modern village Eṇḍapalle. Nonetheless, Raṇḍubaḷḷi seems to be most likely.

The grant has usually been attributed to Viṣṇuvardhana V. On the basis of circumstantial evidence (to be discussed elsewhere), I believe Viṣṇuvardhana IV is the most likely issuer, though Viṣṇuvardhana V cannot be excluded confidently, and the plates may also be a later reissue of an original grant by Viṣṇuvardhana IV.

Bibliography

Reported in Krishna Sastri 1915, p. 8, appendices A/1914-15, № 2 with discussion at Krishna Sastri 1915, p. 90, § 10. Edited from estampages by S. S. Ramachandra Murthy (1986, № A), with facsimiles and a summary of the contents. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs taken by myself in February 2023 at the Government Museum, Chennai, collated with Ramachandra Murthy’s edition and estampages.

Primary

[RM] Ramachandra Murthy, S. S. 1986. “Two copper-plate charters of Eastern Chālukya Vishnuvardhana V.” EI 40, pp. 37–46. Item A.

Secondary

Krishna Sastri, H. 1915. G.O. No. 1260, 25th August 1915. Epigraphy. Recording, with remarks, the progress report of the Assistant Archaeological Superintendent for epigraphy, Southern Circle, for the year 1914-1915. No place. Page 8, appendixes A/1914-15, item 2.

Krishna Sastri, H. 1915. G.O. No. 1260, 25th August 1915. Epigraphy. Recording, with remarks, the progress report of the Assistant Archaeological Superintendent for epigraphy, Southern Circle, for the year 1914-1915. No place. Page 90, section 10.

Notes

  1. 1. That is, gold weighed on a scale against his body, the tulāpuruṣa mahādāna.
  2. 2. Or perhaps gods? (vr̥ndāraka)
  3. 3. While I consistently translate the phrase (pāda+)anudhyāta, occurring in almost all Cālukya plates in the description of kings as “deliberately appointed by,” in this case it seems clear that the expression caraṇānudhyāta means that it is the king who pays respectful attention to the persons mentioned.
  4. 4. I translate the emendation suggested in the apparatus to line 37, but not included in the body of the edition.
  5. 5. I assume that dharma-saṁgraha is synonymous to dharmādhyakṣa or dharmādhikaraṇika, but it may be the title of a different official, or it may be used in a non-technical figurative sense as “storehouse of justice”.
  6. 6. The name may be a mistake for Gautamācārya.