Part 1 of 2
No. 36. The Ghagrahati (Kotwalipara) Grant and Three other Copper-Plate Grants.
by F.E. Pargiter, M.A.
Journal & Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal
Vol. VII, p. 475-502
1911
Babu Rakhal Das Banerji has published in this Journal (Vol. VI, No. 8 for 1910, p. 429) an interesting description and reading of a copper-plate grant, which is dated in the reign of a king named Samacaradeva, and which was found in mauza Ghagrahati in the south-west corner of the Faridpur district in 1908. Dr. Bloch brought the grant to the notice of Dr. Hoernle and me towards the end of that year, when I was at Dr. Hoernle’s request editing three copper-plate grants found in the same district some years previously; and we were informed that it would be published in the Indian Archaeological Report. A photograph of it was sent me by the kindness of a friend in 1909, and I read it then for the purpose of obtaining information that might elucidate the three earlier grants. My article on those grants was published in 1910.1 [Indian Antiquary, vol. XXXIX, 1910, p. 193.] The fourth grant has now been published in a fine copy and has been edited by Babu R.D. Banerji in this Journal as mentioned above2 [It has also bee published subsequently in the Rep. A.S.I. for 1907-8; see postscript.] – an event that I have awaited with much interest, as it enables me to comply with the Society’s desire that I should write a paper dealing with these grants. The three other grants are marked A, B and C in my article and will be cited by those marks in this paper. I may express my regret that this grant has been styled the “Kotwalipara Grant,” because Kotwalipara is some two or three miles distant from where it was found. It is better to name it the “Ghagrahati Grant,” because it was found in Ghagrahati, and presumably relates to land there as will appear further on.
I may begin by giving my reading and a translation of this fourth grant, because he has marked several words in his transcript as doubtful, and has not given us the benefit of a translation of it as he reads it. The plate published with his article and his reading of it have enabled me to correct my reading in three words, Pavittruko (1.5), caru (1.10) and krtya (1.16), and the plate has enabled me to reconsider three difficult words, vothya° (1.3), and samsimriya and bhavya° (1.13); but in all other respects the reading that I made two years ago has not needed alteration, because the photograph sent me was an excellent one. As he makes no reference to my article on the three other grants, it seems he had not seen it when he published his article on this fourth grant. I had the advantage of seeing the photograph of this grant before I published my article, and a comparison of all the grants is almost essential to an understanding of this grant.
It will be most convenient then, if I first give my reading of this grant with remarks explanatory of my reading, and a translation of the grant with notes explaining its meaning and object, and afterwards consider the validity of this grant with reference to the scrutiny which he has made of it, comparing throughout all matters in the four grants that bear upon and elucidate one another. I will give my transliteration of this grant in Roman characters, because they are more convenient than Devanagari letters, inasmuch as they permit of the words being separated and thus exhibited more clearly than is possible with the latter. Letters and marks enclosed in round brackets in the transcript are particulars, that have been omitted in the grant and should be added to make it correct.
TEXT
First Side.
1. Svasty=Asyam=prthivyam=apratirathe Nrga-Nahusa-Yayaty-Amvarisa-sama-
2 dhrtau Maharaj-adhiraja-Sri-Samacaradeve prata-paty=etac-carana-karala-1 [Read kamala.]
3 yugal-aradhan-opatta-Navyavakasikayam suvarnna-vothy-adhikrt-antara-
4 nga Uparika-Jivadattas Tad-anumoditaka-Varaka-mandale visaya-
5 pati-Pavittruko Yato (‘)sya vyavaharatah Suprati-kasvamina jyesth-adhi-
6 karanika-Damuka-pramukham-adhikaranam=visaya-mahattara-Vatsa-
7 kunda-mahattara-Sucipalita-mahattara-Vihitaghosa-svarada(?)-
8 mahattara-Priyadatta2 [Read Priyadatta.] –mahattara-Janarddanakund-adayah anye ca
9 vahavah pradhana vyavaha(ri)nas=ca vijnapta3 [Read vijnapta.] Iccha-my=aham bhavata(m) prasa-
10 dac=cirovasanna4 [Read probably cir-avasanna.] –khila-bhu-khandalakam vali-caru-sattra-pravarttaniya5 [Read pravarttaniya.]
11 vrahman-opayogaya ca tamra-patti-krtya taqd=arhatha prasada(m) ka(r)ttu-
12 m=iti Yata enad=abhyarthanam=upalabhya Samth-oparilikhit-a6 [Or perhaps ° likhit-o.] ….7 [Some aksaras are obliterated here, probably two.]
Second Side.
13 nyair=vyavaharibhih samsmrtya Sa sata svapadair=justa rajno bhavy-artha-nisphala
14 vatsa bhogyi-krta bhumir=nrpasy-aiv-artha-dharm-ma-kr(t) Tad=asmai vrahmana(ya) dayatam1 [Read diyatam.] =i-
15 ty=avadhrtya karanika-Nayanaga-Kesav-adin=kula-varan=prakalpya prak=tamra-patti-
16 krtya2 [Krta- would make better grammar, but the meaning is clear.] ksettra-kulya-vapa-ttrayamm3 [Read ttrayam.]=apasya Vya-ghra-corako4 [Read corake.] yac=chesam tac=catuh-sima-
17 linga5 [Read linga-.] –nirddistam krtv-asya Supratikasvaminah tamra-patti-krtya pratipadita(m)
18 Sima-lingani c-attrah6 [Read c-attra.] Purvvasyam pisaca-parkkatti Daksinena Vidya-
19 dhara-jotika Pascimayam Candracampa-kota-kenah Uttarena7 [Read uttarena.] Go-
20 pendra-coraka8 [Read corako.] grama-sima c-eti // Bhavanti c-attra slokah Sastim=varsa-saha-
21 srani svarge modati bhumi-dah Aksepta c-anumanta ca9 [Read ca, or perhaps va.] tany=eva narake vaset /
22 Sva-da(t)tam=para-dattam=va yo hareta vasundha-ram sva-visthaya(m) krmi(r} bhutva pitrbhi(h)
23 saha pacyate // Samvatsa 10 4 Kartti di 1
Remarks on the reading of the Text.
I will now discuss the points in which my reading differs from Babu R.D. Banerji’s.
In the first place, this inscription makes no distinction between b and v, but has v in every case. He transcribes the v sometimes as b and sometimes as v; thus for instance, he transcribes the word vahavah (1.9) as bahavah as it should be in correct Sanskrit. It is always desirable that a transcript should be accurate, but apart from that, this point is of some importance. The use of the character for v in all cases (whether the proper sound should be b or whether it should be v in correct Sanskrit), even in the word vrahmana (11.11 and 14) shews that (subject to the qualification mentioned below) no distinction was ordinarily observed between these two letters, and that Sanskrit b’s and v’s were uniformly pronounced as b and written as v, in this part of the country when this inscription was composed. Hense it appears that two opposite changes had taken place, namely, the sound of v disappeared and was replaced by b, and the character for b disappeared and was replaced by that for v. These changes characterize Bengali at the present day, for it has not got the sound of v nor the character for b, and the sound of b is expressed by the character for v. This peculiarity then must be observed in transcribing this inscription; but this conclusion must be qualified by considering the value of the character for v when it is the last member of a compound consonant in a single word. I do not refer to cases, where v beginning a word follows a word ending in m and the two appear as mv in the plate, as in adhikaranamvisaya (1.6), because there the conclusion would not be affected. Where v is compounded with a labial or r, as in Amvarisa (1.1), purvvasyam (1.18) and samvatsa (1.23), it had no doubt the sound of b; but when compounded with a dental, as in krtva (1.17), or with a sibilant, as in svamin (11.5 and 17) and svapadair (I.13), it could hardly have been pronounced as b and had probably the sound of w as in Sanskrit, for it could not have then acquired the indistinct sound which it has now in such compounds in Bengali. Thus it appears that in no position did the character for v have the sound of v, but was always pronounced as b except in certain compounds where it had the sound of w probably.
The other grants differ in this respect. The character for b is used in grant A in labdha° (1.2), bappa (1.6) and Brahman-asya (1.8); and in grant B in Ambarisa (II. 1-2), brahmane (I. 11) and brahmana (I.20). In grant C very much has been destroyed by corrosion, yet perhaps b occurs in labdha° (1.2). The letter b was therefore distinguished in grants A and B, and perhaps in C; yet the above changes were developing then, because v is substituted for b in grant A in Amvarisa (I.1) and pravandhena (I.12); and in grant C in Amvarisa (I.1). They had become completely established at the time of this grant.
In the next place it may be mentioned that Babu R.D. Banerji does not always transcribe as double the letters that are doubled in the inscription, for instance, the words Pavittruko (I. 5), sattra (I. 10), ksettra and ttrayam (I. 16), and cattrah (I.18) appear in his transcript with the t single. In this connexion I may notice suvarnna in I. 3. He transcribes it as suvarna, but reads it really as suvarnda (p. 431), remarking there that da (that is, da) has two forms when occurring in the compound nda, namely, one form in suvarnda and mandale (I. 4), and the other in (Vatsa-)kunda (I.7) and Janarddana-kunda1 [He writes Janarddaka; probably a clerical error.] (I.8). This seems to me to be a mistake, for the d in the last three words is the same (though not exactly identical, because no two written letters are ever exactly alike, and even the n is not identical in those three words), whereas in the first word there are unmistakable traces of a second n written under the main n, so that the letter is really rnna. He rightly conjectures that this is what is meant (p. 434).
Some remarks may be made regarding the vowel signs in connexion with the word dhrtau (I.2), for that is the word as clearly shown in grants A and B. Babu R.D. Banerji writes it dhrtam, but there is a stroke to the left above the letter t, and as it is no part of dh or t it must be meant for a vowel mark, being written flat because there was hardly room to write it in its proper shape without running into the letter stya above it. The whole aksara then looks like to with a dot over it, and the dot is not, I think, anusvara but represents the third stroke which goes to form the vowel au, for the following reasons. There is much laxity in the way in which vowel marks are written in this plate. The sign which denotes a is written in various ways, and its chief modifications may be seen by comparing it in the words svadatam (I.22), ja in raja (I.2), sima (I.20), °opatta (I.3), kundadayah (I.8), purvvasyam (I.18), navya° (I.3), and varan (I.15); but in one instance dacciro° (I.10) it is reduced to what is practically a dot. There is a tendency, where a vowel sign consists of more than one stroke, to reduce one of the strokes to a dot. Accordingly the a stroke which constitutes part of the vowel sign o is reduced practically to a dot in Pavittruko (I. 5), corako (I. 16) and kota (I. 19). Similarly the curl of the vowel sign I is replaced by a dot in almost every case, as is clearly seen in Supratika (I. 5), sima (I. 20) and Kesavadin (I. 15). It would be quite in accordance with this tendency then to turn one of the three strokes of au into a dot, and especially in dhrtau since there was hardly room to make the middle stroke properly because of the closeness of the letter stya above it.
I will now notice the other differences between my reading and Babu R.D. Banerji’s line by line.
Line 1. He writes prthivyam pratirathe, but the text has prthivyam apartirathe clearly.
Line 3. He reads vasya°, but the vowel sign over v consists of two strokes and cannot be a. It seems to be meant for o, the stroke which should be turned to the left being turned here to the right, because there was hardly room to write it properly because of the closeness of the letter tye above it. The main part of the second aksara is th and not s, as will be seen by a comparison of th in prthivyam (I.1), artha (I.15), etc., with s in Sri (I.2), kasikayam (I. 3), etc. The word appears therefore to be vothya°. At the end of the line he has omitted ra.
Line 4. The letter ka between anumodita and Varaka is the termination of the former word. Many instances in which ka is added to verbal participles will be found in inscriptions, and Varaka is the province; see p. 487 below.
Line 5. He reads vyavaharatah, but the h has no vowel mark a and the word is vyavaharatah. It is however probably a mistake for vyavaharatah.
Line 7. He reads surada; the first letter however is not su which occurs in Sucipatita in this line, but is sva as is seen in svapadair (I. 13); though perhaps it may be intended for sca which we find in vyavaha(ri)nas-ca (I.9) and pascimayam (I.19). The second letter resembles ra, but appears to have two dots on its left which suggest that it may be some other consonant unfinished; and further it seems to have some indistinct vowel marks above it. The third letter is much blurred; so much as is clear suggests da, but it may be some other consonant and seems to have r or m written over it. I transcripbe it as svarada, but feel certain it is really something different, though I cannot suggest any emendation.
Line 8. Babu R.D. Banerji reads Priyadatta, but the d has the vowel a, and the word is really Priyadatta, though it should no doubt be Priyadatta. He reads kundadaya, but there is a visarga after it, and the reading is kundadayah.
Line 9. I agree with him that vyavahanas is a mistake for vyavaharinas. It is merely a clerical error such as is common in grants.
Line 10. The reading is not khandalaka but khandalakam, because there is an anusvara above and a little to the right of the k. He reads pravarttaniya, but the word written is pravarttaniya, for the n is dental and its vowel is I and not I as will be seen on comparing these vowels in other words. The word should be pravarttaniya.
Line 11. The reading is not brahmanopaya gayaca but vrahmanopayogaya ca, for the first y has clearly above it a leftward stroke which with the a stroke forms o, though its significance is somewhat marred in that it joins the bottom of the letter nna in the line above. He reads tad arham [ya]tha, but the words are tad arhatha, for the h has only a superscript r and not an anusvara in addition, and the th has no vowel a. Arhatha is the second person plural of the present tense of arh. He reads the last word as katra, but it is kattu. The difference between conjunct r and the vowel u is seen on comparing sattra (I. 10) with anumoditaka (I. 4) and catuh (I. 16), but the full curve of the u in kattu is marred because it is on the edge of the plate. The whole word (If we complete it by reading on into I. 12) is kattum iti, which is an error for karttum iti. There must be an infinitive here after the verb arhatha.
Line 12. The reading is not yata dhanad but yata enad, dh and e being much alike. Enad is the accusative case singular of etad in the neuter. He reads sam tho, but the word is samtho°, the sibilant being clearly s. This must be read with the following letters as samthoparilikhita°, that is, samtha + uparilikhita°. At the end of the line came some word, which began with a (so as to produce °likhita° by Sandhi), and had probably two aksaras which have been obliterated, and finished with nyair in I. 13.
Line 13. This is the most difficult of all the lines as Babu R.D. Banerji has noted. The first two aksaras are more than nya vya° as he reads, for the nya has vowel marks above it and the vya appears to have a superscript r. The reading must be nyair vya°; and nyair is the final syllable of the word which has become obliterated at the end of I. 12, and which is in the instrumental case plural agreeing with vyavaharibhih. Still if we read nya, it would be compounded with vyavaharibhih, and the meaning would be the same.
Next comes a difficult word which he reads as samantya, but the main portion of the second aksara in it is the same as the first, that is s in both cases. The third aksara is either tya or nya but has not enough strokes to be ntya. It appears to be tya if we compare it with tya at the beginning of line 15 and the shape of t in tac ca° (I. 16). These inferences combined give sasatya. It will be seen from the subsequent remarks on the grammatical construction of II. 13 and 14, that this word must be an indeclinable past participle, and the termination ya shews that the root must be a compound one. The only preposition possible in this word is sam. Now the right limb of the first s is continued above the top of the ltter into a small knob, which appears to represent anusvara; hence the first aksara is sam. In the middle of the second s is a thin perpendicular line which suggests that a compound consonant is intended, and if so, that can only be sm, and we may conjecture that the engraver erroneously incised only s instead of sm, and the mistake was corrected afterwards by inserting that middle line in order to make the character look as nearly like sm as was possible. Further under this sm there seem to be a faint trace as of the vowel r; but, whether that is real or not, there can be little doubt that the word intended was samsmrtya. In support of this rendering it may be pointed out that no other indeclinable past participle (as far as I am aware) can be suggested which will satisfy both the script and the sense of this passage.
The remainder of this line and the greater part of I. 14 contain many difficulties, and the key to unlock them is found in the fact that the words between samsmrtya (I. 13) and tad asmai (I. 14) compose a sloka.
He reads the first three aksaras of the sloka as sapati, but the last is ta, and the form of ti is seen in patti (II. 11, 15 and 17). The second dis not like any p in this inscription, for it has a bar along the whole of its top, whereas the general form of p is shown in the next word svapadair. This aksara must, it seems, be meant for sa, the middle horizontal bar of which has been carelessly blended with the wedge-shaped top and so gives the appearance of a continuous though not clean-cut line along the top. Something of such carelessness may be seen in visaya (I. 6) and especially in chesam (I. 16). I read these three aksaras then as sa sata, and in explanation of sata would suggest that it is an irregular instrumental case of the numeral sas, ‘six,’ declined in the singular after the analogy of the higher numerals. The correct instrumental sadbhih would suit the metre perfectly, but might have been beyond the learning of the person who composed this grant, for the Sanskrit contains many errors. This suggestion has its difficulties, yet in support of it I may add that no other reading of the second character yields any sense. I may also point out that a similar irregular formation occurs in grant A in anaih (I.22), which is probably meant for ebhih; and, as the correct word was apparently beyond the composer’s learning, he coined anaih from anena after the analogy of sivena and sivaih.
The next three words are clearly svapadair justa rajno. The remainder of this line consists of three words of which the last two are certainly artha-nisphala, though the last two aksaras are somewhat blurred. The first word which consists of two aksaras is difficult. The first letter is certainly a soft consonant (because rajnah has become rajno before it) and appears to be dh or bh with a faint indication of the vowel a. The second is a double consonant, but peculiar. Babu R.D. Banerji read it as rmma, but it is not like m and there is no a; yet if so taken it can only be rmma. It seems to me however to be vya; compare it with the v in °vartha (I. 14). The two aksaras would therefore be dharma as his reading would stand then, or bhavya as I take them. This word and the next then read dharmmartha or bhavy-artha. In favour of his reading it may be noted that dharmmartha (or rather dharmmartha, as it would have to be amended, and as he amends it) would correspond to arthadharmma in the second half of the sloka in I. 14; but against it are the arguments (1) that the first aksara has traces of a and the second has none, and (2) that there is no instance here in which m as the second member of a compound consonant is written incompletely as a subscribed character, for its right limb is always carried up to the top as in dharma and asmai (I. 14). On the other hand bhavy-artha satisfies the conditions, for it has a in the first aksara, and y as the second member of a compound consonant is sometimes written wholly as a subscript character; compare samsmrtya (I. 13), bhogyi (I. 14) and prakalpya (I. 15), in all which words he agrees that there is a subscript y; and further it is not necessary there should be precise parallelism regarding dharma and artha in lines 13 and 14. The reading therefore appears to be bhavy-artha-nisphala.
Lin 14. He reads the first six aksaras as icchato vya(?)-krta. The first is puzzling, but the others are tsa-bhogyi-krta, for the second has no c in it but is t with a subscript s; the third is bho, the rounded left limb being characteristic of bh as in bhavata(m) (I.9) vyavaharibhih (I. 13), etc.; and the fourth is gyi, as shewn by comparing g in nrga (I. 1), °yogaya (I. 11), naga (I. 15), etc., and the vowel I in Kesavadin (I. 15), sima (I. 20), etc. The first aksara is not I nor I, for it is different from I in icchami (I. 10), and neither of those vowels can with tsa form an intelligible word; and the word must be intelligible because it occurs in a sloka quoted. It resembles no particular letter, and the letters which it suggests, namely, p, l and s, produce no intelligible word. We must therefore see what word is possible in this sloka, which contrasts well-cultivated land with land infested by wild animals. Now there are only two letters which with tsa make a word, namely, ma and va. Matsa is inadmissible; it is a rare form of matsya and makes nonsense of this passage. Vatsa therefore is the only possible word, and it yields a good and striking meaning. It must be admitted that the character is not va not even ba, and I can only suggest that the engraver has bungled the letter. Bungled letters will be found in grant B; see my Article, p. 199.
The next word is bhumir and not bhumim, for there is no anusvara over the mi, and there is an r above the following nr. The succeeding words are nrpasyaivartha-dharmma-kr. Here the sloka ends, and the following words tad asmai, etc., introduce a new sentence. Kr cannot end a word, and it is obvious that the word intended is krt, and that the final t has been forgotten coming as it does in connexion with the following tad.
The sloka then stands thus: --
Sa sata svapadair justa rajno bhavy-artha-nisphala
Vatsa-bhogyi-krta bhumir nrpasyaivartha-dharma-krt.
where (as I conjecture) sata stands for an original sadbhih.
In the remainder of this line vrahmana is a mistake for vrahmanaya, and dayatam for diyatam. The declension of brahmana appears to have puzzled some of the local scholars, for in grant B the dative is brahmana in I. 20, as it is here, and brahmane in I. 11. This suggests that in ordinary parlance the final a had disappeared, and the word was pronounced Brahman and was sometimes treated as a base ending in an. The suggestion is supported by a converse process that we find, Sanskrit bases ending in in are treated sometimes as if they had a final a, thus grant A has svaminasya and adhyayinasya (I. 19) as genitives. Hence it seems a fair inference that the final Sanskrit a was generally dropped in the ordinary language, as it is at the present day.
Line 15. The reading is not kulacaran but kula-varan, the third letter being a v as in the preceding Kesavadin.
Line 16. The second word is not ksitra but ksettra, the vowel being an e. The third word is rightly read as kulya. The next words are vapa-ttrayamm apasya, the t being doubled with the r as is generally done here and in the other grants, and a superfluous anusvara being wrongly placed over the ya. The remaining letters are not vyaghracora koyacchi patacca bhuhsima but vyaghra-corako yac chesam tac catuh-sima-; the vowel over the cch is e and not I; the next letter is a badly formed sa and not pa, for p has no bar at the top of its right limb; and over this sa is an anusvara which is slightly displaced to the left because the aksara lpya in the preceding line prevents its being placed in its proper position. What he reads as bhu is tu formed rather carelessly, for the left limb has the curve that t always has in this inscription (see for instance the t in tac ca immediately preceding), whereas that limb in bh is always curved the other way (see remarks above on I. 14). His conjecture therefore about patacca (p. 434) is unnecessary.
Line 17. The reading is Supratika-svaminah, and not Supratika-svaminah, though this is probably a printer’s error.
Line 19. He reads jogika, but the word is jotika for the second letter has not the bar at the bottom of its left limb that g always has; and similarly his reading koga further on should be kota. He reads candravarmma, but there is no r over the last aksara, and the third aksara seems to be ca, for it is far more like the ca in the preceding candra and in cattrah and pisaca (I. 18) than the va in purvvasyam and Vidya (I. 18), etc. This word is in my opinion Candracampa. His reading uttarena, though correct Sanskrit, is not what the plate has, for it has uttarena plainly.
Line 20. The reading is not candra but cattra; it is the same word as cattrah in I. 18. His reading sasthi should be sasti, for the second aksara is st and not sth, the form of which is shown in visthaya(m) in I. 22.
Line 21. He reads va after canumanta, but it is ca like the ca in that word. It is no doubt a mistake for ca or perhaps va. The last word is vaset and not vaseta, for there is under the t a line which is evidently a virama. At the end the plate shows a single bar clearly, so that a double one has not to be supplied.
Line 22. The first word is not sva-dattam but sva-datam, as the t is not double; this is an error of course. His reading vasundharam should be vasundharam, for the s has not only its right limb extended downwards to denote u, as in Supratika (II. 5 and 17), but also a curve added thereto which makes the long u. This of course is another error. The reading is visthaya(m) and not vistaya(m); see remarks above on I. 20. He places a bar at the end of this line, but there is none in the original, and there can be none because the sloka does not end here.
Line 23. The reading is pacyate and not pacyati, the vowel mark being e rather than i. He reads samvat, but the third aksara is not a single t nor has it a virama, but it contains three well-marked downward strokes which can only denote a doubled t, as in pravarttaniya (I. 10), Jivadattas (I. 4), etc., or the consonants ts. The true reading therefore is either samvatta or samvatsa. The former is inadmissible, hence the word must be samvatsa, and in fact there are traces of lines at the bottom of the aksara which indicate that the word is samvatsa, short for samvatsare, the final syllable being omitted as in Kartti and di. This ts may be compared with ts in vatsa (I. 14).
The first numeral is not 30 as he reads it, but 10 as I take it and as Dr. Hoernle and Dr. Bloch also read it. It is formed like the letter la with a hook (like the vowel sign r) beneath it. The sign for 30, when made like la, has no hook beheath it; whereas the sign for 10 was sometimes made like la or la and then had the hook beneath it. The difference is clearly shown in Buhler’s Indische Paleographie, Table IX, where the various signs for 10 and 30 are given; and this sign for 10 is figured twice in col. xiii, once in col. xvi, and again in col. xix. Precisely the same sign occurs also at the end of grant C. The reading is therefore samvatsa(re) 10 4, that is 14. The word samvatsara shews that the year does not belong to any era, but means the regnal year of Samacaradeva. The date is given similarly in grants A and C.
TRANSLATION.
Welfare! While the supreme king of great kings, Sri-Samacaradeva, who is without rival on this earth and who is equal in steadfastness to Nrga, Nahusa, Yayati and Ambarisa, is glowing in majesty, the Uparika Jivadatta is the privy minister appointed over the suvarna-vothya1 [See remarks, p. 487 below.] in New Avakasika, which he obtained through paying court to the pair of lotus-like feet of this monarch. Pavittruka is the lord of the district in Varaka province, which is caused to rejoice by that Uparika.
Whereas, according to this lord’s practice,2 [I read the emendation vyavaharatah; but vyavaharatah of the text would give the meaning “while he is conducting the business of government.”] Supratika-svamin informed the district government, wherein the oldest official Damuka is the chief, and the leading man of the district Vatsa-kunda, the leading man Suci-palita, the leading man Vihita-ghosa, and the local (?)3 [As regards svarada (?), see p. 488 below.] leading man Priya-datta, the leading man Janardana-kunda and other leading men, and many other principal men of business, thus—“I wish through your honours’ favour for a piece of waste land which has long lain neglected1 [According to the emendation circavasanna.]; and do ye deign to do me that as a favour, after making a copper-plate grant of it to me for my employment as a Brahman to be engaged in offering the bali, the caru, and sacrifices.”
Wherefore the men of business who are the above-mentioned ______________2 [I cannot suggest any word which will fit the blank where the letters are obliterated at the end of line 12. ] of Santha, having entertained this request, and having called to mind the verse—“That land, which is reveled in by the six kinds of wild beasts,3 [Perhaps tigers, leopards, hyenas, bears, wild boar and buffaloes. The verse is a general statement.] is unprofitable as regards the wealth that should accrue to the king: land, when made enjoyable by young animals,4 [The idea is that the land should be so safe that no danger could befall anything young.] produces wealth and righteousness indeed to the king;” and having decided, “hence let it be given to this Brahman”; and having constituted the karanikas Naya-naga, Kesava and others the arbitrators;5 [Or referees. This word kulavara is discussed in my article on the three other grants (p. 205).] and having put aside the three kulya-sowing-areas of cultivated land which have been previously granted away by a copper-plate;6 [This is the literal translation if we read krta instead of krtya at the beginning of I. 16; and if we retain krtya, the meaning is the same, though the construction is less elegant.] and having defined the four boundary-indications of the remaining land which is in the ‘Tiger’s char,’7 [This is the translation if we read corake in I. 16; but, if we retain corako, the translation is “the four boundary-indications of what is the remainder, namely, the ‘Tiger’s char’” – which does not say what it is the remainder of.] have bestowed it on this Supratika-svamin by executing a copper-plate grant.
And the boundary-indications are these. On the east, the goblin-haunted parkatti8 [The waved-leaf fig-tree, Ficus infectoria.] tree; on the south, Vidyadhara’s cultivating-tenure;9 [Jotika. This is not Sanskrit. It is obviously a word formed from jota, and I am inclined to read jota as equivalent to the modern word jot, “the land-tenure belong to a cultivating raiyat,” though the t’s are different. Some such meaning seems obviously required here. Jot, as it is written and pronounced in Bengali (though it is also written yot and pronounced jot), is a word of doubtful derivation. Some derive it from the Sanskrit root yu or yuj, though the connexion in meaning is difficult. The Bengali dictionary, Prakriti-bad Abhidhan, says it is a foreign word (Persian or such like), but this seems erroneous. It is probably an indigenous term; and as an indigenous t wavered between Sanskrit t and t (see Beames’ Comparative Grammar, vol. I, p. 219; Hoernle’s Grammar of the Gaudian languages, pp. 8-10) the original word might appear as jota when Sanskritized here or as jot in modern Bengali. Indeed I have heard the word jot pronounced with a t sound intermediate between t and t.] on the west, Candracampa’s hut-tent;10 [Kota means a ‘hut.’ There is no Sanskrit word kena, but there is a word kenika, a ‘tent,’ and it is an obvious formation from a simpler word such as kena. Kota-kena therefore means a ‘hut-like tent’ or ‘tent-like hut,’ such as is used to this day by low wandering castes.] on the north, Gopendra’s char and the boundary of the village.
And here apply the verses 1 [Plural, but only one verse is cited.] – “Whoever confiscates land that has been granted away by himself or granted away by another, he becoming a worm in his own2 [The more usual reading is sa or sva- instead of sva-. With sa the meaning is—“he becoming a worm in ordure”; and with sva- -- “he becoming a worm in a dog’s ordure.”] ordure rots along with his ancestors.”
In the regnal year 14; the first day of Karttika.