________________
282
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
August, 1891.
is placed just before the entrance of Vikramaditya VI. into his capital of Kalyano (ibid. l. 21). Subsequently to this, the Cholas were attacked only once more : after a long time of peace, they again became proud and insolent; Vikramaditya's army marched on Kanchi, and took the city; and Vikramaditya amused himself there for some time, before returning to his capital (p. 323 6, 1. 6 ff. from the bottom). Here the expression “the Cholas" seems to donote really "the Eastern Chalukyas."
Such is the story given in the poem. Doubtless, in its general outlines it is correct. But the inscriptions shew that it requires adjustment in several points, in order to bring it into accordance with the historical sequence of facts. And most notably is this the case in connection with Rajiga, who, fortunately, is a person of very definite identity. The poem stamps him upmistakably as an Eastern Chalukya, by calling him "the lord of Voigi." It also shews that he was the Eastern Chalukya who first seizeil the Chôla sovereignty. This, we know, was done by Kulottunga-Chodadova I. And the name by which he is mentioned in the poem is easily accounted for; because we know that he received the name of Kulôttungadêva only when he was anointed in the Chola sovereignty, — of course, after his seizure of it; consequently, at the time when he came in conflict with Vikramaditya VI., he was only known as Rajendra-Choda, of the first part of which name RÂjiga is plainly a more familiar form.2 Here, bowever, we are brought face to face with a very marked anachronism in the account given in the poem. We know (sce page 277 above) that Kulôttunga-Chôdadôva I. annexed the Chola empire in A. D. 1063. In the poem, on the other hand, this event is placed, pot only after the death of Snośvara I., for whom we have dates ranging up to A. D. 1068-69, but some considerable time after that occurrence, and apparently only just before the time when Vikramaditya VI. had himself proclaimed ruler of the Dekhan. Here there must be an error of at least five years, and probably of much more. The fact, however, remains clear, from the poem, that Kulottunga-Chôdadêva I. was enabled to seize the Chola crown through internal disturbances in the Chola kingdom, which culminated iu the death of the last Chôla king.
29. – Vikrama-Choda.
Fifteen years; A. D. 1112 to 1127. He was the eldest son, and the successor, of No. 28, Kulôttunga-Chodadêva I. X. states that he reigned for fifteen yoars. The Godavari grant and the Pittapuram inscription, which have been noticed above in connection with Bêta-Vijayaditya V., scem to imply that, like two at least of his brothers, he held at some time the office of viceroy of Vengi; for they state that he went to govern the Chola mandala, leaving Veigi without a ruler or king of its own. If this was really the case, his term of office as viceroy must doubtless be placed after the latest date that can be obtained for Vira-Chôdadêva. The point, however, requires further investigation.
We may compare Gojjiga' as a more familiar form of Govinda' (ante, Vol. XII. p. 249). - Dr. Bühler (ante Vol. V. p. 321, note t, identified Rajiga with Rajaraja II., son of Kulottuiga-Chodadeva I.; and, from that identification, he deduced that the brother-in-law of Vikramiditya VI. was a brother of Rajarfja II., and that his father. in-law was Kulôttunga-Chöjadova I. himself. But the grounds for this, quoted by Dr. Bühler from Sir Walter Elliot, are simply altogether wrong.
18 It is not apparent, from the poem, when tho pattabandha or coronation of VikramAclitya VI. took place; whether at the time whon he first had himself proclaimed ruler of the Dekhun; or at the later time when, after once more extinguishing the Cloola, he entered his capital of Kalyana. I should be inclined to connect the pattabandha with the ontranoe into Kalyana, which would then be referable to A. D. 1075 or 1076 (Heo pago 278 above, note 33 ). Dr. Bühler has said (ante, Vol. V. p. 331, note ) that, according to the inscriptions, the battle with Rajiga and Som ivara II. took place in A. D. 1076. This would make a discrepancy of thirteen years. But this dato can only have boen deduced from the assumption that the pattabandha took place at the timo of the proclamation as ruler of tho Dekhap. And, as a matter of fact, the presago in Sir Walter Elliot's writings, referred to by Dr. Bühler, does not mention the battle at all; simply because there is, as far as I counseertain, no mention of it in any of the Western Chalukya inscriptions.
