________________
172
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
the disturbed period in question, A. D. 1486-1509, which seems to have included two usurpations.
There is general agreement that the First Dynasty came to an end at some date between July 29, A. D. 1485 and November 1, 1486, that is to say in A. D. 1485-6, when the first usurper', Nrisimha or Narasimha I., the Sâļuva, dethroned the last member of the First Dynastya person about whose identity there is some doubt -and himself seized the throne, thus establishing the Second Dynasty, consisting of two generations only.
It seems also to be certain that the reign of Nrisimha the usurper came to an end at the close of A. D. 1492, prior to Jan. 27, 1493, after lasting more than seven years. His son Immaḍi. otherwise called Narasimha II., succeeded. He is also known by the title of Tammaya-Râya, the Tamarao of Nuniz, the Portuguese chronicler.
The questions controverted by the specialists chiefly concern the manner in which the reign of Immadi (Narasimha II. or Tammaya-Râya) came to an end, and the date of its close.
Mr. Sewell, following Nuniz, holds that king Immați was killed by the contrivance of Narasa Nayak (Narsenayque) the minister, who was thereupon raised to bo king over all the land of Narsymga (scil. Kingdom of Vijayanagar). Ho I further holds that Narasa died shortly after his usurpation and was succeeded by his son, Vira Narasimha. All these threo events, according to Mr. Sewell, occurred between February 28 and either July 16 or August 14, A. D. 1505 (Inscrip. tions Nos. 67 and 70 in the author's list).
Mr. Krishnaswamy discredits the narrative of Nuniz, and thinks that the death of Immaji followed that of Narasa, who never usurped the throne himself, being content to exercise power de facto, without assuming the royal style. Our author agrees with Mr. Sewell that Narasa died in 1505; but is of opinion that the usurpation' of the throne was effected a little later by his son Vira Narasimha.
Thus, according to one authority, the Second Usurpation was carried out by Narasa, while according to the other, it was postponed until the accession of Narasa's son, Vira Narasimha in 1506. The earliest inscription which gives the imperial titles, namely, those of the ruler of Vijayanagar, to Vira is No. 73 of our author's list, with a date equivalent to Dec. 1506.
The authority of Nuniz is not to be disregarded lightly. His chronicle was written about the year 1535, during the reign of Achyuta; he lived at the Hindu capital itself, and he gained his inform
[OCTOBER, 1916
ation from Hindu sources not long subsequent to the events related. Although he is known to have made certain mistakes3, a large part of the history of Vijayanagar rests on his narrative, which is usually deserving of credit.
Mr. Sewell's theory that the death of Narasa Nayaka, the death of Immadi, and the usurpation of the royal title by Narasa shortly before his own death all occurred within the few months between February and either July or August, 1505, is an ingenious attempt to reconcile all the authorities, including Nuniz.
But it cannot be correct, if Immadi survived Narasa Nayak. Our author asserts (p. 70) that he did so, and cites in proof two inscriptions of his list, No. 75, 76, to show that Immadi was still alive in 1507. On referring to the list, however, I find no mention of Immadi in those records which belong to the reign of Vira. If, as appears to be the case, inscriptions Nos. 75 and 76 do not prove that Immadi was alive in 1507, no reason remains for doubting the narrative of Nuniz, or for hesitation in accepting Mr. Sewell's version of the facts, which accordingly I accept.
4
The first usurpation', therefore, was effected in 1485-6 by Nrisinha Sâļuva (Narasimha 1), who was succeeded as king of Vijayanagar at the close of 1492 by his son Immadi (Narasimha II. or Tammaya-Râya), who lived until 1505, when he was killed by the contrivance of his powerful minister Narasa-Nayak, the Tuluva who usurped the throne himself, but survived for only a few. months. That is the second usurpation.' The three events, namely (1) the death of Immadi, (2) the second usurpation' by Narasa Nayak; and (3) the death of Narasa, all occurred in the short interval between February 28 and either July 16 or August 14, 1505. Narasa was succeeded by his son Vira. But revolts at that time occurred, and it seems probable that Vira was not well established on the throne for about a year after his father's decease. His reign should be dated from 1506 rather than from 1505. The author's essay contains other matter of interest, of which the discussion would occupy too much space.
The University of Madras deserves credit for having established a well paid chair of Indian History and Archeology. The essay now reviewed, when considered with the author's earlier publi. cations gives good reason for believing that the first occupant of the chair will continue to justify his appointment by valuable work based on the study of original documents.
VINCENT A. SMITH.
1 A Forgotten Empire, p. 314.
2 A Forgotten Empire, p. 110.
3 Especially the one in his opening sentence, when he writes 1230 for 1330 (ibid., p. 291). But that mistake concerns ancient history. He was not likely to be misinformed about the events of 1505.
