|
The Indian Analyst
|
|
South Indian Inscriptions |
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA Since the term Periyadēvar is applied in inscriptions, not to a ruling monarch, but only to a previous ruler, it will be clear that there were two chiefs of the name Kōpperuñjiṅgadēva. Secondly, Mr. Vaidyanathan takes Śōlakōn as the eldest of the three sons of Kōpperuñjiṅga, through he does not show him as such in the genealogy above. The full name of this officer is Piḷḷai Araśūruḍaiyān Perumāḷ-Piḷḷai alias Śōlakōn. Piḷḷai is here used as a term of endearment and Perumāḷ-piḷḷai is a proper name and should not be construed as the son of Perumāḷ, i.e., chief or prince. It may be noted in this connection that in the inscriptions of Kōpperuñjiṅga, he is always referred to as ‘ dēvar’ only and not as ‘ Perumāḷ ’. There is therefore no justification for taking Śōlakōn as the son of Kōpperuñjiṅga. In literature and inscriptions the term piḷḷai along with magan and kumāran is freely used, not in the sense of ‘ son’ but only as a term of affection and endearment. This term[1] is applied to Bhujabala Siddharasa and Tirukkāḷattidēva in records of Kulōttuṅga-Chōḷa (Nel. Ins. pp. 1406 and 1218), to Rājarāja Śambuvarāya in a record of Vijaya-Gaṇḍagōpāla (No. 302 of 1912), to Gaṇḍagōpāla and Pirudigaṅgar in records of Rājarāja III (Nos. 6 of 1893 and 410 of 1923 and 496 of 1902), to Śēliyakōnār in a record of Rājēndra-Chōḷa III (No. 278 of 1923) and among the Vaishṇava teachers, to Lōkāchārya, Tirumalai-Nambi, etc. Such instances are easily multiplied. Even where nam-magan meaning ‘ our son’ is applied to Śēmappiḷḷai in a record of Rājēndra-Chōḷa III, Mr. K. A. Nilakanta Sastri has rightly taken it as a tern of esteem and not as ‘ son’ (Cōḷas, Vol. II, p. 207). My strong objections against Mr. Vaidyanathan’s interpretation are : (1) Śōlakōn is introduced in inscriptions only as ‘ dēvarmudali’, i.e., an officer of the king, (2) this officer hailed from Araśūr whereas Kōpperuñjiṅga’s native place was Kūḍal, and (3) this person is nowhere called a Pallava, Kāḍava, etc., to indicate his relationship with the Kūḍal family.
Again, Mr. Vaidyanathan confuses the name Vēṇāvuḍaiyān given to Kāḍava-Kumāran in the Tiruvaṇṇāmalai record with that of the younger brother of Sōlakōn mentioned above. This brother is uniformly called in inscriptions as Vēṇāḍuḍaiyān.[2] This Vēṇāḍuḍaiyān is not even called a Piḷḷaiyār and if, as assumed by Mr. Vaidyanathan, he was really the son of Peruñjiṅga and the ‘conqueror of Mallai, Mayilai, Kāñchi, Daṇḍaka-nāḍu, Kōval’, etc., he would not be introduced in inscriptions merely as the younger brother of Śōlakōn, an officer of Kōpperuñjiṅga,[3] even in a record of this chief. He is also not called a Pallava or Kāḍava, and as such, he should not be taken as a son of Kōpperuñjiṅga. Nor is there any justification for taking Nīlagaṅgaraiyan as another son of this chief. On the strength of the title Piḷḷai[4] applied to him, Dr. Hultzsch was inclined to take him as the son of Kōpperuñjiṅga. This interpretation, in the light of later researches, needs modification. Nīlagaṅgaraiyar assumed the surname Bhūpālanōdbhava or Puviāḷappirandān[5] corresponding to Avaniyāḷappirandān of his master Kōpperuñjiṅga, just as the chiefs Vikramaśōla Chēdiyarāyan,[6] _____________________
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|
