________________
148
EPIGRAPHIA INDICA.
(VOL. XVIII.
list. Here, however, it has to be observed that Virakorcha, whom Dubreuil selects as the first of the ruling Pallava kings, perhaps from a statement made about him in the Vēlürpāļaiyam plates, was the son of Chatapallava and grandson of Kalabhartri-thus corresponding to No. 23 (5) of the Vayalar list and not to No. 29 (11). Also the three names that succeed this Virakārcha are Chandravarman, Karāļa and Vishņugopa and not Skandasishya, Kumäravishņu and Buddhavarman as Dubreuil puts it down. Again, his presumption that the Chendalür plates must be a copy of some ancient record, suits his purpose very well; since the inconvenient names Skandavarman, Kumäravishnu and Buddhavarman which these plates give, occur in that order in Nos. 30, 31 and 32 (12, 13 and 14) of the Vāyalar list; but here again he forgets that the fourth name that occurs in the Chendalir plates is a second Kumaravishņu and not as is to be expected No. 33 (15) Skandavarman of the Vāyalór list. The partial coincidence in the earlier Pallava names mentioned in the Vāyalur list with those of the Chendalar and the Velárpālaiyam plates serves no practical purpose and the agreement, if any, could be attributed only to an accident by what we may call the kūkataliya-nyāya. It does not, therefore, give to the Vāyalar list any more completeness than what could be claimed for the Kasakudi or the Velúrpaļaiyam accounts. Perhaps Dubreuil also, though he has not expressed himself clearly on this point, meant the same thing when he said "we should not rely too much on the order of succession of the kings given in the Vayalār inscription after Virakūrcha (11)."
Passing on after 32 (14) Buddhavarman to eight other kings and in the interim identifying Vishnugopa 37 (19) with Vishņugopa of Kāñchi, the well-known Pallava (?) contemporary of Samudragupta about the end of the 4th Century A.D., Professor Dubreuil says that from Viravarman 41 (No. 23) the Vayalar inscription becomes trustworthy, evidently again in the sense that it supplies a complete list of kings in the order of succession down to Rajasimha Narasimhavarman II. This is also extremely doubtful. The Sanskrit grants even though we may exclude the Chendalir plates, which according to the Professor must be a copy of an older inscription giving some early names that have to be placed before the time of Viravarman, supply us with the names of only six kings whose succession in the order given below may be taken as certain :
Mahārāja Skandavarman I. Virakärcha or Viravarman.
Skandavarman II.
Simhavarman 1.
Yuvamahārāja Vishnugopa.
Simhavarman II.
Of these, the Yuvamahāraja Vishnugopa may not have ruled. The information obtained from the Udayéndiram and the Churas copper-plates, both of which are decidedly later by reason of their palæography and are otherwise also untrustworthy, cannot be used, as has been done by Professor Dubreuil, for the purpose of obtaining a continuous Pallava succession after Sinhavarman I or Simhavarman II. If this could be done, there is no reason why the names Simhavarman, Nandivarman and Simhavishnu which occur in the Amaravati pillar inscription of about the 12th Century A.D. should not be utilised for a similar purpose. Again, the 188umption, in the first place, of two simultaneously ruling families, one at Kāñchy and the other in the Telugu country, and in the second place, the statement that Simhavarman 43 (25) of the 1 * The Pallavgi," p. 28.
* Ep. Ind., Vol. III, p. 144. • Egigraphical Report (Madras) for 1914, p. 82. . 8. I. I., Vol. I, p. 26.
