|
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA
One is an inscription at Kûragallu :[1] it mentions him, as the ruling prince, under the appellation
of Permanaḍi ; but it goes on to give his name in the form of Bûtuga ; and it further mentions
his wife Paramabbe (or Saramabbe) as “ governing ” the village of Kurgal, and Ereyappa as
“ governing ” the Koṅgaḷnâḍ eight-thousand. And the other is an inscription at Kaṭṭemanuganahaḷḷi,[2] which mentions Nîtimârga-Ereyapparasa as “ governing ” the Nugunâḍ and
Navalenâḍ provinces or districts, of which the former appears to be the country on the banks
of the Nugu or Nûgu river, a tributary of the Kabbani, in the Heggaḍadêvankôṭe and
Nañjangûḍ tâlukas of the Mysore district. These two records do not contain any dates, Śaka or
regnal. But they may be placed somewhere towards the end of the rule of Bûtuga I., because
of the advance that they shew in the status of Ereyappa, as compared with the Iggali and
Kyâtanahalli records.[3] Next, then, after Satyavâkya-Râjamalla, we have Satyavâkya-Bûtarasa-Bûtuga I., with fixed dates ranging from A.D. 870-71 to 906-907.[4]
Next after Satyavâkya-Bûtuga I. came the Nîtimârga, whom we may unhesitatingly
identify with the Ereyappa of the Iggali, Kyâtanahaḷḷi, and Kûragallu records, and the
Nîtimârga-Ereyappa of the Kaṭṭemanuganahaḷḷi record, of the time of his predecessor. As
regards the period of his own rule, we have as yet no record that actually gives a Śaka date
for him under the name of Ereyappa ; but the Kûlagere inscription[5] gives for him, under the
appellation of Nîtimârga, the date of Śaka-Saṁvat 831 (expired), = A.D. 909-910, without
any details of the month, etc., and without any specification of the regnal year ; and we may
provisionally fix his initial date in A.D. 908. The relationship of Ereyappa to Bûtuga I., and
the circumstances under which he succeeded, have not been ascertained yet. We shall probably
___________________________________________________
[1] Ep. Carn. Vol. IV., Hs. 92.─ The name of his wife is given as Paramabbe in the text in Roman characters,
and as Saramabbe in the Kanarese text. Both the texts give “ Ireyappa ;” but this is, no doubt, a mistake for
“ Ereyappa.”─ Mr. Rice (ibid. Introd. p. 12, and the Classified List of Inscriptions) has referred this record to the
period of the rule of Ereyappa, and appears to treat Paramabbe (or Saramabbe) as a wife of Bûtuga II. But it
is only in his predecessor’s time that Ereyappa could be “ governing ” simply a province ; and it is impossible to
find here, correctly, any reference to Bûtuga II., who came after Ereyappa.
[2] Ep. Carn. Vol. IV., Hg. 103.─ This record is, in my opinion, sufficient in itself to shew that Ereyappa was
a Nîtimârga, not a Satyavâkya ; it mentions him as Nîtimârga in line 1 in the first set of epithets, and as Erepperasa
(according to the published texts) in line 5 in the second set of epithets. The published translation, indeed,
has separated the appellation Nîtimârga from the name Ereyappa, and has made them two distinct persons, by
introducing the words “ was ruling the kingdom of the world ” in line 3, after the word Permmânaḍigaḷ ;
and the result of this would be that the ruling prince was a Nîtimârga, and that Ereyappa was a governor under
him. But that addition to the text is neither necessary nor justifiable. The second Svasti, in line 3, introduces only
a second set of epithets. The ruling prince is mentioned only as Permânaḍi, in line 10, which tells us that he and
Ereyappa were convened together when the grant registered in this record was made.
[3] The Malligere inscription, after introducing the ruling prince as Satyavâkya-Permânaḍi, perhaps goes on to
introduce someone else, to whom it applies the epithets that are applied in the Kyâtanahaḷḷi inscription to
Satyavâkya-(Bûtuga I.) and in the Bêgûr inscription to Ereyappa ; and, if so, that other person must be Ereyappa,
by that time entrusted with still greater powers and invested with still higher dignities. But the rest of the record
is described as out of sight or illegible.
[4] I did not on the previous occasion, and I do not now, overlook the point that this arrangement places
a Satyavâkya next in succession after a Satyavâkya, whereas it might perhaps be urged that we should expect a
Nîtimârga to follow a Satyavâkya, a Satyavâkya to follow a Nîtimârga, and so on. But the Śaka dates prove
conclusively that this was not the case at this point. And we have plainly three Satyavâkyas in succession later on
in the case of Mârasiṁha II., Pañchaladêva, and Râchamalla II. We do not know at present exactly how the
appellations Satyavâkya and Nîtimârga were determined. But, if a conjecture may be hazarded, it is that
Satyavâkya was the customary appellation of the eldest son. We do not know that Mârasiṁha II. was not the
eldest son of Bûtuga II. : it seems probable, in fact, that he was so, because it is unlikely that he should abdicate
after ruling for his half-brother Maruḷadêva was the son of a king’s daughter, would easily account for the
succession going first to Maruḷadêva’s son Rachcha-Gaṅga. The Satyavâkya of the Doḍḍahuṇḍi inscription, i.e.
Râjamalla, is distinctly specified (see page 45 above) as the eldest son of the Nîtimârga, i.e. Raṇavikrama, of that
record. And Nîtimârga-Raṇavikrama was a younger son, if we accept the existence of Śivamâra II.
[5] Ep. Carn. Vol. III., Ml. 30.
|
