________________
134
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(August, 1916
Muttu Virappa and Tanjore. The war is illustrative of the mutual animosity of the Naiks of Madura and Tanjore. Till 1614 the great Achyutappa Naik had ruled the latter kingdom and then installed his son Raghunathaca and retired into private life with a view to spend his days in pious seclusion at Srirangam. The imperial war of succession seems to have broken out just before Achyutappa's abdication, so that the actual share in it fell to his successor. Raghunatha Naik was, like his father, a great patron and votary of literature and a pious and generoug63 builder ; but his reign began under gloomy auspices. For the armies of Muttu Virappa and his Pandyan Vassal were victorious over the Tanjore and imperial forces, and destroyed the Kåveri dam, and occupied the southern part of the kingdom. "A lasting testimony to their occupation is found in the name of the seaport Adirampatnam, which is clearly called after the great Pandyan king Ativira Rama (1565-1610)." The war, however, ultimately ended in favour of Rama Raya, the claimant for whom Tanjore stood; and Raghunatha Naik seems to have eagerly listened to the peaceful overtures of the southern power, and married a Pandyan princess with a view to cement the new alliance. Unfortunately we are not able to say distinctly who was the Påndyan monarch that took part in these affairs. The latest date for Ativira Râma is about 1610 and yet A saaport is named after him years after this. A colleague or subordinate of his was Varatunga Râma, and he is said in the Pudukkottai plates to have fought in the great war, but the date is inconsistent, and no inscription of his later than 1589 has been found. Above all an inscription of 1616 says that the then Pandyan king was Varagunarâma"4 Kulasekhara, who had also the honour of performing a yåga and so obtaining the title of Sômayaji.
Muttu Virappa and Mysore. It is extremely curious that Barrados is silent about the Mysore chief in this important war. From his silence, we cannot infer that Raj Udayar did not join in it. Such an inference would not be warranted by the condition of the times. By the year 1610 he succeeded 65 in capturing Srirangapatņam itself and thus putting an end to the imperial e The Tanjore Garr., p. 39, based on Mr. Kuppusami Sastri's pamphlet.
See Chapter XI. of Trav. Arch. Serice, p. 59 and 148. Varatunga's latest inscription is that at Karivalam Vanda nallar, dated 1689. See Antiquities, I, 308.
# Wilks' Myaore, I, 27. The story of Raja Udaydr's refusing to appear in the Brirangapatnam court with the same music and paraphernalia as the Kembala chief shows his general aim even before his acquisition of the viceregal capital. Ibid, p. 24. One of the Mack. MSS. gives a curious version of the events which preceded Raja Udaykr's seizure of Srirangapatnam and in which Muttu Virappa also is said to have been involved. It says that in S. 1512 Srf Ranga Ray, died at Penukonda and was succeeded by his son Venkatapati. While he was ruling Virappa Naik of Madura went with a large army against.Tirumal Raya, the Viceroy of Brfrangapatnam. The latter with his Daļavâi (Venkata by name) marched to meet him. A battle took place at Palni. Virappa was defeated and his provinc. invaded and plundered. Unable to gain in the field Virappa resorted to diplomacy or rather the method of corruption. He bribed the Dajavli and induced him to betray his master, proceed to Brfrangapatnam and usurp the viceregal dignity. Tirumal Raya, however, got soon his freedom; bat when he went to Brirangapatnam Venkata refused to hand over the power. Civil war followed, and Tirumala had to retire. But at Venkata's instigation even the village in which he resided was attached by the Polygare. At thus crisis, we are told, Raja Udayar took the cause of Tirumal, beat the Polygars who opposed him and proceeding to Srirangapatnam, made himself by intrigue the master of the place in 8. 1631, Saumya, i. ., 1609 A, D Rest. Mack. MSS., II, 72-3. This story is unique and needs confirmation from other sources.
