South Indian Inscriptions

EPIGRAPHIA INDICA

It then mentions Bûtuga II. as governing,–– the Gaṅgavâḍi ninety-six-thousand province being understood. It then introduces a follower of Bûtuga II. named Maṇalera,^[1] who belonged to the Sagaravaṁśa or race of the Sagaras and had the hereditary title of “ lord of Valabhî the best of towns,” and whose prowess in battle is described in the verses in lines 15 to 19. Bûtuga II., it tells us, being pleased with the prowess displayed by Maṇalera, gave him his favourite hound Kâḷi. The hound was pitted against a great boar at the village of Beḷatûr, in the Kelale district.^[2] And the hound and the boar killed each other. And, in commemoration of that, the stone was set up in front of the temple of the god Challêśvara at Âtukûr, and a grant land was made to the temple.

The subsidiary record round the top of the stone belong also to the time of Bûtuga II., who, it says, was governing the ninety-six-thousand province after killing Râchamalla, the son of Ereyappa. It discloses the fact that it was Bûtuga II. himself who actually killed the Chôḷa king Râjâditya, whom, it says, without mincing matters, he slew treacherously. And in return for this service, it tells us, Kṛishṇa III. gave to Bûtuga II. the Banavâsi twelve-thousand, province, and the districts known as the Beḷvola three-hundred, the Purigere three- hundred, the Kisukâḍ seventy, and the Bâgenâḍ seventy.^[3] It further tells us that, in recognition of the valour displayed in battle by Maṇalera, Bûtuga II. gave to Maṇalera the circle of villages known as the Âtukûr twelve and also a village named Kâdiyûr or Kâḍiyûr in the Beḷvola district. This last grant is called in the record a bâḷgachchu or “ sword-washing ” grant, meaning, no doubt, that it was accompanied by the ceremony of laving Maṇalera’s sword^[4]

of the Sanskṛit vijaya, ‘ victory,’ and that bija and biya are to be treated as corruptions of it. I would render the full expression dig-vijayaṁ-gey, not by “ to conquer the regions, to make the subjugation of various countries in all directions, to make universal conquest,” but by “ to go in triumph, to make a state progress, through the dominions.” ─ [In modern Tamil], vijayañ=jey, if applied to princes and high officials, means “ to visit ” a locality.─ E. H.]

______________________________________________________
^[1] The same Maṇalera is probably mentioned again in the Kûlagere inscription of Nîtimârga-(Ereyappa) of A.D. 909-910 (Ep. Carn. Vol. III, MI. 30 ; the text in Roman characters gives Maṇaleyâra, and the text in Kanarese characters gives Maṇaluyâra). An earlier person of same name seems to be mentioned in the Taggalûru inscription of Śrîpurusha-(Muttarasa) (id. Vol. IV., Gu, 87 ; the texts here both give Maṇaleyara). And an Irmadi-Vîra-Maṇalera appears to be mentioned in an inscription of uncertain date at Hebbaḷu (id. Vol. III., Md. 45 ; here, the Roman text given Maṇalera, and the Kanarese text gives Manâlera).–– The Sagaravaṁśa is mentioned again in the Jinnahaḷḷi inscription of the time of Noḷambântaka Mârasimha II. (id. Vol. IV., Hg. 110) ─The title Vaḷabhîpuravarêśvara, “ lord of Vaḷabhî the best of towns,” occurs again in a fragmentary inscription of uncertain date at Muttatti (id. Vol. III., TN. 102).
^[2] In a similar manner to the present record, an inscription of the sixteenth century A.D. at Têkal or Tyâkal in Mysore (P. S. O. -C. Inscrs. No. 228, and see Mysore Inscr. p. 208) mentions a fight between a hound and a tiger, and the fight is represented on the stone. The name of the hound in that case is perhaps given as Sampage ; but the word may possibly mean only a champaka-tree.
^[3] The necessity for granting the Beḷvola, Purigere, Kisukâḍ, and Bâgonâḍ districts to Bûtuga II. on this occasion, is not altogether apparent ; because we know from the Hebbâḷ inscription that they had already been given to him by Amôghavarsha-Vaddiga, the father of Kṛishṇa III., as the dowry of Rêvakanimmaḍi (see above, Vol. IV. p. 354). But it would seem that Bûtuga II. must have been deprived of them,─ together, probably with the rightful succession to the leadership of the Western Gaṅga,─ by Ereyappa and Râchamalla.
^[4] Bâḷgachchu is from bâḷ, bâḷu, ‘ a knife, a sword,’ and kachchu, karchu, kalchu, ‘ washing ; to wash.’─ The expression, in line 22-23, is bâḷgachchu-goṭṭaṁ, “ he gave (as) a bâḷgachchu.” Originally,─ the word bâḷgachchu not being then known,─ I read bâḷga[ṁ] [me]chchu-goṭṭaṁ, which, as Reeve and Sanderson’s Canarese Dictionary does not shew the difference between bâḷ, ‘ sword,’ and bâḷ, ‘ living, life, subsisting, livelihood, etc., I rendered by “ gave, in taken of approbation, for subsistence.” But, in giving that reading and rendering, I had to remark that I could not find the syllable me in the original, and that it seemed to have been omitted altogether. By a curious coincidence, Mr. Rice’s text gives the reading as bâḷge mechchu goṭṭa ; and his translation renders this by “ gave for his sword ;” and not only so, but his lithograph actually introduces the required syllable me, as if it really stood in the original,─ making room for it chiefly by cramping the ṅge of the Bûtugaṅge of line 21. The syllable me, however, does not stand, and never did stand, in the original at all. And it is not wanted, from any point of view. The true rending, bâḷgachchu-goṭṭaṁ, is quite unmistakable, and is, now, quite intelligible. The