Cāmaṟṟu plates of Jayasiṁha I

Metadata

Current Version: draft, 2024-09-02Z

Editor: Dániel Balogh.

DHARMA Identifier: INSVengiCalukya00055

Hand Description:

Halantas: small, tick-mark shaped characters that I interpret as final M are used (l3, l19) apparently as "wildcard" final consonants. The definite final M in l20 phalaM is just a curved stroke like an opening parenthesis, while the definite final T in l22 [va]seT is a full-sized and only slightly simplified ta without a headmark.

Other palaeographic observations. The text is on the whole very clumsily written, with many characters awkwardly executed. In addition to many inconsistently misshapen characters, there are some systematically unusual forms such as the Central Indian-style la (e.g. l10, vallabha) and especially the cursive lo (l10, l29); and multiple instances of a glyph that must have been meant for ddhya, but looks clearly like ndhya (unambiguous instances in l1, l5 and l9); the initial A with a highly simplified body that on the whole looks like gra (and was misread as such three times in line 18 by its previous editor). However, "proper" initial Ā occurs in line 21, and "proper" A in line 28.

Additional Metadata

No metadata were provided in the table for this inscription

Edition

Seal

¹śrī-sarvvasiddhi

Plates

¹svasti śrīmat-piṣṭapurā⟨T⟩[.] svām¿(ī)?⟨i⟩-m¿ā?⟨a⟩hāsena-pādānu(d)dhyātānā⟨ṁ⟩
²◯h¿a?⟨ā⟩rītī-putrāṇā⟨ṁ⟩ mānavya-sagotrāṇā⟨ṁ⟩ kura-
³mara◯-sv¿a?⟨ā⟩mi-vara-la¿(ph)?⟨b⟩(dha)-r¿a?⟨ā⟩jyānā⟨ṁ⟩ ¡śrīmaM-c(aḷkī)!nā⟨ṁ⟩ Aśvame-
⁴dha-yājinā¿vā?⟨m a⟩nvaya-mahodadh¿o?⟨eḥ⟩ Amr̥ta ¡yi!⟨I⟩va bhūta-trāṇā-
^{⎘ plate 1v}⁵ ya sambhūta⟨ḥ⟩ kī(r)t(t)iva(r)mmā[.] tasya putras t¿i?⟨a⟩t-pādānu(d)dhyāta⟨ḥ⟩ śakti-traya-sa-
⁶mpādi◯ta-mahā-dhanaugha-vi¿c?⟨bh⟩avo jagati sa¿th?⟨t⟩-kī(r)ty-abhilak¿s?⟨ṣ⟩ito nānā-
⁷-yuddha◯-vijay¿i?⟨ī⟩ p¡ri!⟨r̥⟩¿d?⟨th⟩i¿ś?⟨v⟩īpati-makuṭa-maṇi-⟨ma⟩yūkha-dhauta-pā-
⁸dāravin¿t?⟨d⟩a-¿j?⟨y⟩ugala⟨ḥ⟩ śrīmā¿na?⟨N⟩ makaradhvajo viṣṇur ivāparo viṣṇu-
⁹vardhana-m¿ā?⟨a⟩hār¿a?⟨ā⟩j¿(e)?⟨aḥ⟩[.] tasya putras tat-p¿a?⟨ā⟩dānu(d)dhyāto ¿maho(śva)?-
^{⎘ plate 2r}¹⁰ ¿losaddhipayyatha-ma(d)dhya? siṅgha ¡yi!⟨I⟩va vikr¿a?⟨ā⟩nta⟨ḥ⟩ śrī-ja⟨ya⟩siṅgha-valla-
¹¹bha-mahār¿a?⟨ā⟩j¡ā!⟨o⟩ mātā-pitr̥-¡puṇya-vividuye!⟨puṇyābhivr̥ddhaye⟩ Intra⟨⟨pu⟩⟩ra-v¿a?⟨ā⟩stavyā-
¹²ya bhū◯tisv¿a?⟨ā⟩mi-catu(r)v(v)eda-p¿o?⟨au⟩trāya ¿(pa)dagā(d)dhyāyino? bodasvā-
¹³mi-pu◯trāya k¿o?⟨au⟩tsa-sagotr¿a?⟨ā⟩ya dvivedāya svāmiśarmmaṇ(e?) kr̥-
¹⁴ṣṇa-biṇṇāyā Uttara-taṭe nātāvāḍi-viṣaye viḷetti nāma
^{⎘ plate 2v}¹⁵ grā⟨ma⟩m āgrahārī-kr̥tya sarvva-bādhā-parih¿a?⟨ā⟩reṇa Uda(ka)-pūrvveṇa
¹⁶pratta⟨M⟩◯

viditam astu sarvva-viṣaya-vāsi(nā?)⟨ṁ⟩ As(m)ad-bhr̥tyānāñ ca[.]
¹⁷sa◯rvva(th?)¿a?⟨ā⟩s¿th?⟨m⟩a⟨d⟩-dharmm¿ā?⟨o⟩ rakṣaṇ¿i?⟨ī⟩ya⟨ḥ⟩[.] sarvva-dharmma-śāstra-vid ¿o?⟨ā⟩jñ¿(ā)?⟨a⟩pt¿a?⟨i⟩⟨ḥ⟩-
¹⁸Atra śrī-Ammā[.] Api cokta⟨M⟩

I. Anuṣṭubh

¿p?⟨ṣ⟩a¿p?⟨ṣ⟩ṭi-var¿p?⟨ṣ⟩a-saha¿p?⟨s⟩rāṇi

svargge modati bhūmi¹⁹-da⟨ḥ⟩

¿A?⟨Ā⟩kṣ(e)ptā cānumantā ca

⟨tāva⟩n¿n?⟨t⟩i narake vase¿(M)?⟨T⟩

II. Anuṣṭubh

¿l?⟨b⟩ahubhi⟨r⟩ vvasudhā da^{⎘ plate 3r}²⁰ ttā

bahu(bh)iś cānupālit(ā)

⟦(sya)⟧⟨⟨ya⟩⟩sya yasya yadā bhūmi⟨ḥ⟩

tasya tasya tadā phala(M)

III. Anuṣṭubh

²¹ṣaṣṭ¿ī?⟨i⟩◯-va¿riṣa?⟨rṣa⟩-sahasrāṇi

sva⟨r⟩gge modati bhūmi-daḥ

Ākṣeptā cā²²numant(ā) ◯ ca

t¿a?⟨ā⟩van¿n?⟨t⟩i narake ⟨va⟩seT

IV. Anuṣṭubh

bahubhi¿vvi?⟨r vva⟩sudhā dattā

bahubhiś cānupāli²³tā

ya◯sya yasya yadā bh¿u?⟨ū⟩mis

tasya tasya tadā phala⟨M⟩

V. Anuṣṭubh

(sva-dat)¿a?⟨ā⟩⟨ṁ⟩ para-datt(ā)⟨ṁ⟩²⁴vā

yat(n)ād rakṣa yudhiṣṭhira

mahī(ṁ) mahīmatā⟨ṁ⟩ śr¿a?⟨e⟩ṣṭha

d¿a?⟨ā⟩nāT śr¿a?⟨e⟩y¿ā?⟨o⟩ [’]nup(ā)lana⟨M⟩

VI. Indravajrā

d(ā)nā²⁵ni da¿n?⟨t⟩āni purā narendrai^{⎘ plate 3v}²⁶ {ndrepuṇa}⟨⟨r⟩⟩

⟨⟨ddā⟩⟩⟨nā⟩ni dharmmā¿tthi?⟨rttha⟩-yaśas-k¿ā?⟨a⟩rāṇi

nirmmā¡(la)!⟨lya⟩-(v)ānta-pratimāni tā²⁷ni

ko nā◯ma sādhu⟨ḥ⟩ punar ādadāti¿ḥ?⟨|⟩

VII. Indravajrā

dha¿mmi?⟨rmmā⟩śraya⟨ḥ⟩ kalpa-taru(ḥ) prajānā⟨ṁ⟩

śr¿i?⟨ī⟩-v¿i?⟨ī⟩²⁸ya◯mā sādhu-ja{va}nāvagam(y)a⟨ḥ⟩

¿a?⟨Ā⟩jñaptir asmin kaḍu-rāja kāti

²⁹nītyā ◯ samulla(ṁ?)ghita-loka-netraḥ

Apparatus

Seal

Plates

^2–3 kura/mara◯-sv¿a?⟨ā⟩mi- ◇ ku{ra}/māra-svāmi-vara- KPS • While emendation to kumāra-svāmi is attractive, that name is not attested in any cognate grant, and the acquisition of a kingdom is never connected to Kumāra, while kauśikī-vara-prasāda-labdha-rājyānāṁ is quite ubiquitous. Sanction by Kumāra may of course be connected to the likewise ubiquitous phrase svāmi-mahāsena-pādānuddhyātānāṁ. I wonder if kurumara-svāmi is rather a local deity, perhaps connected to the locality kurumarathyā° mentioned in the Sātārā plates of Viṣṇuvardhana I. For the acquisition of a kingdom through what may be a local deity, compare svāmi-bhaṭṭāraka-pāda-padma-prasādāvāptarājyānāṁ in the Guḍivāḍa plates (set 1) of Jayasiṁha I.
³ ¡śrīmaM-c(aḷkī)!nā⟨ṁ⟩ ◇ śrī-¿(vīravakhkhaṇ)?⟨vīra-lakṣṇa⟩ KPS • KPS’s readingis not satisfactory, and their emendation makes no sense in the context even assuming that their intent was vīra-lakṣaṇa. What they read as vī is clearly ma. The tick-mark shaped glyph they read as ra is in my opinion a (rather late-seeming) final M, presumably intended for T. Their va is ca, possibly corrected to or from cā. The next character might conceivably be khka (though not khkha), but I think it was in fact meant to be ḷkī, although the execution of the ḷ component is very poor. Compare the attested forms caḷikyānāṁ and calikyānāṁ.
⁴ -yājinā¿vā?⟨m a⟩nvaya-mahodadh¿o?⟨eḥ⟩ ◇ -y¿a?⟨ā⟩jiṇā ¿cātraya?⟨kṣatriya⟩-mahodadh¿o?⟨ā⟩ KPS • The intent may also have been -yājinām anvaye mahodadhau, but a compound seems more likely in such an expression.
⁵ sambhūta⟨ḥ⟩ kī(r)t(t)iva(r)mmā[.] tasya putras ◇ saṁbhūta-kīrttivarmm¿ā?⟨a⟩ṇasya p¿u?⟨au⟩tras KPS
⁶ -mahā-dhanaugha-vi¿c?⟨bh⟩avo ◇ mahā-dāha¿no?⟨nā⟩ya-deva vo- KPS
⁷ -⟨ma⟩yūkha-dhauta- ◇ -⟨ma⟩yūkh¿e?⟨a⟩-¿cota?⟨c-ot⟩- KPS — ⁷ viṣṇ¿o?⟨u⟩r ivāparo ◇ viṣṇor ivāpar¿o?⟨a⟩- KPS
^9–10 ¿maho(śva)? /¿losaddhipayyatha-ma(d)dhya? ◇ mah¿o?⟨e⟩śva/¿l?⟨r⟩a-siddhi-paryya⟨nta⟩-dha⟨r⟩bhvavya KPS • In spite of the ungainly execution of most characters, this nonsensical string is quite clearly legible. At the end of line 9, śva may have been meant for, corrected to, or corrected from jva. In line 10, lo might on its own be interpreted as pha, but the glyph is exactly identical to the cursive lo in line 29; it cannot be la as read by KPS (nor can the next character be si). ddhi may be dvi. yya might perhaps be yu and seems to have been corrected, probably from ya or yā, when the next line had already been engraved, as its subscript component stays to the right of the intervening jā there. tha may perhaps be rtha; out of context, it could also be interpreted as a clumsy ḻa. The ligature I read as ddhya could be taken for ndhya or bhvya (which is probably what KPS had read and misprinted bhvavya), but is the same glyph as that in several instances of the word pādānuddhyāta (ll 1, 5, 9; see also the palaeographic description). All in all, I am unable to offer a plausible correction. The composer’s intent may have involved mahojvalodadhi-paryyanta, but the word expected after this would be yaśāḥ or kīrttiḥ, while madhya is the only directly intelligible word recognisable in the received reading.
¹¹ -mahār¿a?⟨ā⟩j¡ā!⟨o⟩ ◇ -mahār¿a?⟨ā⟩j¿e?⟨a⟩⟨sya⟩ KPS — ¹¹ -¡puṇya-vividuye!⟨puṇyābhivr̥ddhaye⟩ ◇ -puṇyā¿v?⟨bh⟩ivr̥ddhaye KPS • The du engraved instead of ddha is in all probability a scribal mistake, but the rest of the strangeness here may reflect vernacularised usage. — ¹¹ Intra⟨⟨pu⟩⟩ra- ◇ guntapura KPS • pu is probably a correction from ra. KPS’s Guntapura is impossible; the principal stroke of the first character does resemble ga, but definitely not gu, and with the two dashes below it, it can only have been meant for initial I. Thus, KPS’s identification with modern Guntur must also be dismissed. The intended name may, however, be Indrapura.
¹² -p¿o?⟨au⟩trāya ◇ -hotrāya KPS — ¹² ¿(pa)dagā(d)dhyāyino? ◇ ¿go?⟨kā⟩nvāyine KPS • I am unable to interpret the beginning of this string or to explain why KPS do not read the first two characters. The akṣara I read as pa begins with a loop rather than a headmark and thus bears some resemblance to the Central Indian la used in this inscription, but it lacks the extended tail which I believe would be required in absence of a superscript vowel marker. There is an oblique stroke attached to the bottom right of this glyph, which is much too small to be a subscript r and the wrong shape to be an u marker, so I assume that it is an irrelevant slip of the chisel. The character I read as ddhyā is the same as that in several instances of anuddhyāta (see also the palaeographic description), so the latter part of the segment is secure. Throughout the corpus, when the term adhyāyin occurs in the description of a Brahmin, the expression is veda-dvayādhyāyin or an equivalent, but this cannot have been meant here. Could the intent have been pada-Adhyāyino or pr̥thag-adhyāyino? Or could padagādhyāyino be correct and mean a religious student who is a footsoldier? — ^12–13 bodasvā/mi- ◇ poḷasvā/mi- KPS
¹⁴ -biṇṇāyā ◇ -be{r}ṇṇāyā(ṁ) KPS • The i is unequivocal and may be a rendering of a short e sound. — ¹⁴ viḷetti ◇ viḷeṣṭi KPS • The name of the village was correctly read for ARIE. KPS’s incorrect reading is repeated in their discussion, so it is not a typo in the edition.
¹⁵ grā⟨ma⟩m āgrahārī-kr̥tya ◇ grāmāgrahārī kr̥tvā KPS
¹⁶ pratta⟨M⟩ ◇ pr¿e?⟨o⟩kta⟨M⟩| KPS — ¹⁶ -vās¿ī?⟨i⟩(nāṁ?) ◇ -vā¿sī?⟨si⟩¿ṇā?⟨ne⟩ KPS • KPR’s text is vāsī(si)ṇ(ne) with a macron over the opening parenthesis of (ne). I assume that their reading is ṇā.
¹⁷ sa◯rvva(th?)¿a?⟨ā⟩s¿th?⟨m⟩a⟨d⟩-dharmm¿ā?⟨o⟩ ◇ sarvv¿i?⟨a⟩-¿da?⟨vīdha⟩ sva-dharmmmā KPS — ¹⁷ sva-dharmm¿ā?⟨o⟩ rakṣaṇ¿i?⟨ī⟩ya⟨ḥ⟩ ◇ sva-dharmmā rakṣaṇ{ṇ}¿i?⟨ī⟩ya KPS • I emend tentatively, not being fully satisfied with my reconstruction of the sentence. — ^17–18 -vid ¿o?⟨ā⟩jñ¿(ā)?⟨a⟩pt¿a?⟨i⟩⟨ḥ⟩/Atra ◇ -vid¿o?⟨ā⟩jñ¿e?⟨ā⟩pta/gratpa KPS • KPS emend in the body of their edition to -vidājñāpta (which is not intelligible to me), and then apparently re-emend to in a footnote attached to ‘gratpa’ in the next line, which says, ‘The word is unnecessary. Read as ājñaptirasya.’. The reading of Atra is unambiguous.
¹⁸ śrī-Ammā[.] Api ◇ śrī-¿grammāgraṣi?⟨dharmmarakṣitā⟩ KPS
¹⁹ ⟨tāva⟩n¿n?⟨t⟩i narake ◇ [tāny eva] n¿i?⟨a⟩rake KPS • For the justification of my restoration, compare the less corrupt iteration of the same locus in line 22. — ¹⁹ vase¿(M)?⟨T⟩ ◇ va[sed iti] KPS
²¹ ṣaṣṭ¿ī?⟨i⟩ • What I (and KPS) read as ī is represented by a dot in the circle of i. The intent may instead be ṣaṣṭiṁ.
²² t¿a?⟨ā⟩van¿n?⟨t⟩i ◇ tāny eva KPS — ²² ⟨va⟩seT ◇ vased ¿a?⟨i⟩⟨ti⟩ KPS
²³ (sva-dat)¿a?⟨ā⟩ • The dharacters datta may be a correction over something else. — ²³ d¿a?⟨ā⟩nāT śr¿a?⟨e⟩y¿ā?⟨o⟩ ◇ dāna¿ś?⟨c⟩ chreyo KPS
^25–26 da¿n?⟨t⟩āni purā narendrai/{ndrepuṇa}⟨⟨r ddā⟩⟩⟨nā⟩ni ◇ da¿nt?⟨tv⟩eva narendra / {nadre}puṇa¿r?⟨n⟩ā KPS • The superfluous ndre in line 26 is obviously a repetition of ndrai in the previous line and one or the other was meant to be ignored. I have no explanation for the superfluous puṇa. I am quite certain that rddāni is a corruption of rddānāni, which produces a correct continuation of the stanza except for the fact that dānāni is repeated (as if yānīha had been inscribed instead of in the first quarter dānāni). In this segment, pu may be a correction, and rddā has definitely been re-engraved, but apparently over another (slightly larger and clearer) rendition of the same character.
^27–28 śr¿i?⟨ī⟩-v¿i?⟨ī⟩ /ya◯mā sādhu-ja{va}nāvagam(y)a⟨ḥ⟩ ◇ śrīma/yaṁ-āsādhu ja vanāvagamya KPS • The executor’s name looks rather like Dhīyamā here, but compare stanza 1 of the Niḍupaṟu grant of Jayasiṁha I, where the name of (probably) the same person is Vīyamā (or possibly Cīyamā). The i of this name must be long for the metre to be correct. After nāvaga, this line dips to avoid the descender of mmi in the previous line, and there are several dots that seem to form a semicircle around that descender, as if to demarcate the space where the next line can be engraved. The character read as mya has a misshapen subscript component that looks rather like ṭ, but the intent is quite certain.
²⁸ ¿a?⟨Ā⟩jñaptir asmin kaḍu-rāja kāti ◇ Ājñaptir asya ¿kuṭku?⟨kaṭaka⟩-rāja kaṇḍi KPS • The term kaḍu-rāja is clear, although I know of no other attestations. However, compare kaḍa-eṟeya in the Jaḷayūru grant of Viṣṇuvardhana III and kaḍeya-rāja in the Bezvāḍa plates and Moga grant of Bhīma I, noting also that in the Bezvāḍa plates, kaḍeya is used in place of two syllables of an anuṣṭubh stanza. The reading of kāti is also clear and unambiguous, but I cannot interpret this string in any other way than as another name of this person.
²⁹ nītyā ◯ samulla(ṁ?)ghita-loka-netraḥ ◇ ¿nitya?⟨tavya⟩ samullayati lokanetraḥ KPS • KPS believe that the engraver of the grant was named Lokanetra. They may have understood their ‘samullayati’ (probably a misprint of samullayita) to stand for samullikhita or a similar word. Although I am not certain of the correct interpretation (see my translation), the reading as established by me is certain. What I read as an anusvāra in samullaṁghita is rather a horizontal stroke attached to the left top of gh, and given the almost complete absence of anusvāras in the inscription, this may be just a slip of the chisel; nonetheless, an anusvāra is then to be supplied.

Translation by Dániel Balogh

Seal

Plates

^1-16Greetings from majestic Piṣṭapura. From the great ocean that is the lineage of the majestic ¿Caḷkis?, who were deliberately appointed (to kingship) by the Lord Mahāsena, who are the sons of Hārītī, who are of the Mānavya gotra, who have attained kingship through the boon of Lord ¿Kuramara?,^↓1 who perform the Aśvamedha sacrifice, there arose Kīrtivarman, like nectar (amr̥ta) {arising from the great ocean} for the salvation of living beings. His son, deliberately appointed (as successor) by him, was King (mahārāja) Viṣṇuvardhana, the majestic Crocodile-bannered (love god) (makaradhvaja), [resembling] another Viṣṇu, whose opulence was a great mass of wealth achieved by means of his three powers (śakti-traya), who was recognised in the world for by just reputation, victorious in diverse battles, whose two lotus feet were washed by rays from the gemstones on the crowns of kings. His son, deliberately appointed (as successor) by him, His Majesty King (mahārāja) Jayasiṁha Vallabha, ... ^↓2 who is courageous like a lion (siṁha), in order to increase his mother’s and father’s merit, has granted the village named Viḷetti, [located] in Nātavāḍi district (viṣaya) on the northern bank of the (river) Kr̥ṣṇa-biṇṇā, converted into a rent-free holding (agrahāra) by a remission of all burdens, to the grandson of the caturvedin Bhūtisvāmin, the son of Bodasvāmin who was a student of the padaga,^↓3 [namely] to the dvivedin Svāmiśarman of the Kautsa gotra, a resident of Intrapura, [the donation being] sanctified by (a libation of) water.

^16-18Let [this] be known to all residents of the district and to our (Jayasiṁha’s) retainers (bhr̥tya). Our ruling (dharma) is to be preserved by all means. The executor in this [matter], conversant with all legal treatises (dharma-śāstra), is His Highness Ammā. Moreover, it is said:

A donor of land rejoices in heaven for sixty millennia, [while] a seizer [of granted land] and a condoner [of such seizure] shall reside in hell for as many.

II.

Many [kings] have granted land, and many have preserved [former grants]. Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit/reward [accrued of granting it] belongs to him at that time.

III.

A donor of land rejoices in heaven for sixty millennia, [while] a seizer [of granted land] and a condoner [of such seizure] shall reside in hell for as many.

IV.

Many [kings] have granted land, and many have preserved [former grants]. Whosoever at any time owns the land, the fruit/reward [accrued of granting it] belongs to him at that time.

O Yudhiṣṭhira, diligently preserve land that has been donated, whether by yourself or another. O best of land-possessors, preserving [a grant] is superior to making a grant.

VI.

The donations given by kings in the past—donations conducive to merit (dharma), wealth (artha) and fame—are [now] comparable to discarded garlands or vomit. What decent man would ever partake of them again?

VII.

The executor (ājñapti) in [the matter of] this (ruling) is His Highness Vīyamā, the Castellan (kaḍu-rāja) Kāti, a foundation of proper order (dharma), a wishing-tree for subjects, approachable by virtuous men, who ¿has risen above the common purview? through his political skill (nīti).

Commentary

Very unusually, both sides of each plate are inscribed. Katti and Padmanabha Sastry (1995: 100) incorrectly report that the verso of the third plate is not inscribed; their edition shows the last four lines of the text as being on 3 recto.

Bibliography

Reported in ARIE 1990-1991: page 23, appendix A/1990–91, № 8 with some further details at ARIE 1990-1991: 3–4. Edited from inked impressions by Madhav N. Katti and C. A. Padmanabha Sastry (1995), without facsimiles and without translation. The present edition by Dániel Balogh is based on photographs taken by myself in 2023 at the ASI Museum, Amaravati, collated with the above edition.^↓6

Primary

Katti, Madhav N. & C. A. Padmanabha Sastry. 1995. “An Eastern Chālukya Copper Plate Charter from Chāmaṟṟu.” Journal of the Epigraphical Society of India (Bharatiya Purabhilekha Patrika) 21: 100–103.

[siglum KPS]

Secondary

ARIE 1990-1991. Page 23, appendix A/1990–91, № 8.

ARIE 1990-1991. 3–4.

Notes

↑1. See the apparatus to line 2.
↑2. I am unable to interpret the text here. It may meant to say something about Jayasiṁha’s fame extending to the oceans. See the apparatus to line 9.
↑3. I cannot interpret this word. See the apparatus to line 12 for the associated problems.
↑4. Stanzas III and IV are repetitions of stanzas I and II, for no clear reason.
↑5. I am not sure if Kāti is another name of the executor or a description that I fail to understand.
↑6. Katti and Padmanabha Sastry’s edition contains an inordinate number of typographic (or other) mistakes. Divergence from my readings is only shown in the apparatus where it is meaningful and potentially significant.