|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
KUNIYUR PLATES OF VENKATA II. Madhurâ (vv. 49 to 54) ; and IV. the information that the previously mentioned village was granted by Veṅkaṭa II. at the request of Tirumala to a number of Brâhmaṇas, and a list of their names, etc. (vv. 55-118). The inscription ends with some additional clauses regarding the grant, three verses (124-126) referring to Veṅkaṭa II., the composer and the engraver, five of the usual imprecatory verses, and the name of the god Śrî-Veṁkaṭêśa.1 ......The first part of the inscription opens with invocations of the god Veṅkaṭêśa (line 1), the feet of Râma (verse 1), and the god Vishvaksêna (verse 2). The genealogy begins with the Moon (verse 3) and some of his mythical descendants (verse 4). The next verse contains a number of royal names which the composer appears to have introduced in order to connect his patron with certain well-known ancient dynasties. Thus Nanda is the representative of the dynasty which was subverted by the Mauryas ; Chaḷikka and Râjanarêndra, of the Chalukyas ; and Bijjaḷêndra, of the Kaḷachuris. Vîra-Hemmâḷirâya, the lord of Mâyâpuri, is probably identical with the Kaḷachuri king Permâḍi (Śaka-Saṁvat 1050).2 The fourth after Hemmâḷi is reported to have been Tâta-Pinnam (verse 6), with whom the regular genealogy begins. The only difficult point in this long list of kings is the relation of Raṅga, the father of Veṅkaṭa II., to his predecessors. Dr. Hultzsch has conclusively shown3 that the word pûrvam, ‘formerly,’ in verse 24 of the subjoined inscription refers to Râma II., and that Dr. Oppert’s arrangement of the third Vijayanagara dynasty4 is opposed to facts. One alteration has to be made in Dr. Hultzsch’s table ;5 as recognised by Dr. Oppert,6 Raṅga VI. was not the son of Gôpâla, but the son of China-or Pina-Veṅkaṭa, and the adopted son of Gôpâla.7 In the annexed genealogical table, the Arabic figures prefixed to names show the order in which the latter are mentioned in the copper-plate grants.
......The second of the kings of the accompanying table, Sômidêva, is said to have taken seven
forts in a single day from an unnamed enemy ( verse 6 ). Pinnama II. is styled the “lord of the
city of Âravîṭi” (verse 7 ). His son, Bukka, is said to have “firmly established even the kingdom of Sâḷuva-Nṛisiṁha.” From this statement we may conclude that he was the minister of
the third king of the second vijayanagara dynasty, Nṛisiṁha or Narasiṁha, whose inscrip-
tions are dated in Śaka-Saṁvat 1404 and 1418,8 and who bore the surname Sâḷuva.9 Regarding
Bukka’s son, Râma I., we learn from two other grants10 that he took the fort of Avanigiri from
Sapâda or Sapâta, whose army consisted of seventy thousand horse, drove away Kâsappoḍaya or
Kâsapuḍaya, and captured the fort of Kandanavôli. Both Muḥammadan historians and European
travellers inform us that Râma II. was the powerful minister of the puppet king Sadâśiva, the
last representative of the second Vijayanagara dynasty, whose sister he took in marriage as we
learn from an inscription of Sadâśiva.11 Râma II. and his youngest brother Veṅkaṭâdri lost
their lives in the famous battle of Tâlikôṭa on the 23rd January, A.D. 1565. The second
brother, Tirumala I., continues to acknowledge the nominal authority of Sadâśiva in four
inscriptions near Vêlûr in the North Arcot district, which are dated on the 5th February, A.D.
1567.12 He is said to have transferred the seat of government to Pennakoṇḍa in that very ......1 This is the name of the image of Vishṇu on the bill of Tirumalai near Tirupati in the
Chandragiri tâlukâ of
the North Arcot district.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
in Ind. Ant. Vol. XIII. p. 158, plate iii. b, f. must be written as one.| > |
|
>
|