________________
- 140
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(AUGUST, 1919
a strong fever which owing to unbearable pain culminated in his tragic death the very next year 11 (A.D. 1068). Under these ciroumstances was it not an unmerited slur on the fair name of Ahavamyatla, the wrestler in war, that he should thus have been ridiculed and too readily assumed to be a liar and a coward by the Chola on the eve of a truly great career?
Let us, then, examine why Vikramaditya went to Vêngi and Chakrakota as Bilhaņa has it. Here again the inscriptions oonfirming Bilhara's statement give us fuller details. It vas pointed out already 13 how Virarajendra in his second year (A.D. 1063-4) defeated the army which Vikramaditya had despatched into Vôngin&du and out off the head of his general Chivundaraya. What was the cause of the despatch of armies by Vikramaditya and the defeat of the same by Virarajendra ? A brief survey of the affairs at Vêngi is but necessary before we can shrewdly hit at the right reasons that led to their intervention. It was noticed already how the long period of anarchy and interregnum at Vêngi had been broken by the
சிந்தையுமுகமுந் திருப்புயமிரண்டும் - ஏந்தெழிலு வகையோ டிருமடக்கு பொலியப் போந்தப் போர்க்களம் புகுந்து காந்தையில் வல்லவர் கோனை வரவுகாணாது சொல்லிய நாளின்மேலு மோர் திங்கள் பார்த்திருந்த பின்னைப் பொய்த்தவன் கால்கெடவோடி மேல் கடலொளித்தலும் . . . . . . . . . .
துங்கபத்திரைக்கரை ஜயபத்திரத் தூண் நாநிலம் பரசநாட்டி, மேநாள்வந்த புரட்டனை வல்லவனாக்கிச் சுந்தரகண்டிகை கட்டி புரசையானை புழைக்கையிற் பிழைத்திவ் வுலகமறிய வோடிய பரிசொரு பலகையிற் பழுதற வெழுதிய பின்னைசார்த்தின
வுறையுஞ்சளுக்கி பதம் பெற்ற பூத்தின மார்வோடும் பூட்டி Dr. Hultzsch understands the expresssion 'மோாள்வ ர்த புரட்ட ன் ' as * the liar who came one rubonguen day:' But ' மோாள்' hero cannot mean the subsequent day but only the previous day. That this is the corroot meaning is very well emphasizodin Puranindru, 279 and Kambavamlyana. Noto also the use of the won'முன்ன ம்' in the same inscription. The term 'புரட்ட ன் ' can only apply to thavamalla who failed to keep his appointment at Kadal, as is evident from another reference to him as 'பொய்த்த வன் , in the same inscription. Dr. Hultzsch has, owing to the wrong understanding of the single phrase " மேதாள், totally mistaken the drift of the inscription. He mistakes the epression 'மேதாள் வந்த புரட்ட ன்' to .refer to Vikramaditya. Vikramaditya cannot by mere stretch of imagination be stigmatised as a liar simply because he was the son of Ahavamalla, who did not keep his appointment. Thus the reference can only be to Ahavamalla who fought on a previous or former occasion though. in vain at Kajal, but who, in spite of his autograph letter, failed to meet Virarájendra on the second oocasion there and was therefore called the liar. The details of the latter part of the inscription are nothing but a piece of mockery or farce (not uncommon in ancient and even in modern times) and do not allude to any historical events with reference to Vikramaditya, as Dr. Hultaach has supposed, such as that he came on a subsequerst day, negotiated with Virardjandra to make him Vallabha or Chafukya king in spite of his elder brother, and was focognised by him as such. Vide infra Pyirt III. In the light of the above criticism the inscription stands in need of rovinod editing. --
13 Epi. Corn., VIL, C. 136. Vids infra, p. 145. ' 1 Vids wpra, p. 138. 1 Vids rupra, PartL
