No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 15 March 2011
Considerable difficulty has been experienced by Government epigraphists in dealing with the history of the double usurpations of the kingdom of Vijayanagara in Southern India and the dates of accession and death of the various rulers in the period a.d. 1486–1509; and a note on these matters based on a number of inscriptions may have a beneficial effect in somewhat clearing the ground.
page 383 note 1 I consistently spell his name thus, to distinguish him from, his minister, the second usurper, Narasiṁha, or Narasa, or Narasaṇṇa Nāyaka.
page 384 note 1 I cannot say whether the mistake is in the original or made by the copyist. The weekday is transliterated as Ā, for Ādivāram = Sunday. It should be Su for Sukravāram = Friday, which was the day of the given date.
page 384 note 2 Inscriptions so quoted are those mentioned in the Government Epigraphist's lists published in the official Annual Reports on Epigraphy, Madras. These reports are quoted by me as “ARE.”
page 385 note 1 I do not gather that the inscription definitely accords the rank of sovereign to this son of Mallikhārjuna, so that he may merely have been a prince of the reigning house. The date is said to be “Ś. 1405 expired, Śōbhakṛit”, but it was Ś. 1405 current that was Śōbhakṛit, so that we have a choice of three consecutive years a.d.
page 386 note 1 In what follows it should be observed that if I mention, without further comment, a weekday in connection with the date of an inscription, the meaning is that the original details of the Hindu date state a weekday and that computation proves that the date is quite regular. When no mention is made of any weekday let it be understood that none has been stated in the original, that the a.d. date corresponds to the statement made in the record, but that the given Hindu date is incapable of positive verification.
page 387 note 1 The name of the cyclic year is wrongly given in No. 42, but correctly in No. 54, which otherwise is a counterpart of the former.
page 391 note 1 The original reads, after a damaged and illegible phrase, “…varu Narasaṇṇa Nāyaka,” etc. The termination “… varu” is not one of any royal title.
page 393 note 1 This is the date if its lunar details alone are accepted, but the weekday is given as Thursday when it was Wednesday; and an eclipse is mentioned which did not take place. There was an eclipse of the moon on August 25, but not on October 23 of that year.
page 394 note 1 There were two civil days associated with the quoted tithi “14 Māgha”, that tithi being current at both true and mean sunrise of both Wednesday and Thursday, January 23 and 24.