Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagara, Vol. I v1.c30: Chapter XXIV. Family Affairs, Death of Venkata II

The Aravidu Dynasty of Vijayanagara, Vol. I v1.c30

Language
English

Chapter XXIV. Family Affairs, Death of Venkata II

v1.c30.1

SUMMARY.—1. The wives of Venkata II.—2. The King gives a garden party to his wives.—3. Oba Raya's influence at Venkata's court.—4. Great power of Queen Pedobamamba.—5. Story of the putative son of Venkata.—6. Relations between the King and his two nephews Tirumala and Ranga.—7. Venkata's last illness. Appointment of Ranga as his successor.—8. Death of Venkata II.—9. Venkata judged by his contemporaries.—10. Final criticism of this sovereign.

v1.c30.2

CONTEMPORARY SOURCES.—1. Hindu inscriptions and grants.—2. Jesuit letters.—3. Letters to the E. I. C.—4. Du Jarric, Guerreiro, Queyroz.—5. Anquetil du Perron, Floris.—6. Ramarajiyamu.

v1.c30.3

Venkata II's family life was far from pleasant, and the private affairs of his relations hastened the downfall of the Empire itself. This chapter is a narrative of those unfortunate events which precipitated the civil war related in the following volume.

v1.c30.4

Considerable discussion has arisen concerning the wives of Venkata II, because the contemporary sources agree neither as to their number or their names. Our own opinion is that such differences spring from the obvious fact that these contemporary sources give the number of Venkata's wives at the time of their composition, and could by no means give the names of all the wives of this monarch. In the light of this fact there is really no discrepancy among the different documents; and indeed there is a perfect agreement between the indigenous and the foreign sources.

v1.c30.5

According to one of Venkata's grants of 1586 he had four wives: Venkatamba, Raghavamba, Pedobamamba and Pinavobamamba ¹. But in the Dalavay Agraharam plates, which were issued the same year, the name of Pinavobamamba is replaced by that of Krishnamba ². This would mean that Pinavobamamba had died the same year, and that a new wife called Krishnamba filled her place ¹. These four names, viz. Venkatamba, Raghavamba, Pedobamamba and Krishnamba are again mentioned both in the Vellangudi plates ² and in the Padmaneri grant of the same Venkata II ³, both issued in 1598. But in 1601 the Vilapaka grant mentions five wives: the four just spoken of, plus Kondambika ⁴, thus showing that between 1598 and 1601 Venkata married another wife named Kondambika. Raghavamba however did not live long. The Ramarajiyamu, which seems to have been written towards the close of Venkata’s reign, gives only four names: Venkatamma, (Venkatamba), Obamma (Pedobamamba), Krishnamma (Krishnamba), and Kondamma (Kondambika) ⁵. The same four names are repeated in a grant of 1633 ⁶. One of them however must have died early; for when the death of Venkata occurred at the end of the following year, 1614, only three wives committed sati, according to both Fr. Barradas and Floris, who will be quoted later on. We cannot ascertain which of these four consorts of Venkata died previous to his death; but we may affirm that the question lies between Krishnamba and Kondambika. This we shall discuss while narrating Venkata’s demise.

v1.c30.6

¹ *Ep. Ind.*, XIII, p. 231, note 7.

v1.c30.7

² Ibid., XII, p. 186, vv. 27-39.

v1.c30.8

¹ There are, however, two grants of Venkata inconsistent with this opinion: one is of 1587, *Ep. Carn.*, VII, Sh, 83; the other of 1589, Ibid., XII, Ck, 39. In both documents the names of Venkata’s Queens are the following: Venkatamba, Raghavamba, Ped-Obamamba, and Pin-Obamamba. Is this simply a mistake on the part of the engraver, or perhaps Krishnamba and Pin-Obamamba (Pinavobamamba) are two different names of the same person? In the latter supposition Venkata’s wives would have been in all only five in number.

v1.c30.9

² *Ep. Ind.*, XVI, p. 319, vv. 31-35.

v1.c30.10

³ Ibid., p. 297, v. 30.

v1.c30.11

⁴ Ibid., IV, p. 270.

v1.c30.12

⁵ S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, *Sources*, p. 243.

v1.c30.13

⁶ *Ep. Ind.*, XIII, p. 231.

v1.c30.14

According to this explanation Venkata had altogether six wives. Of them Obamma or Pedobamamba was the daughter of Jillella Ranga Raja; Krishnamma or Krishnamba was the daughter of Jillella Krishna Raju; and Kondamma or Kondammbika was the daughter of Gobburi Oba ¹. This Gobburi Oba or Oba Raya had, moreover, another daughter who was married to Venkata. We are inclined to believe that she was Raghavamba. This information comes from the Jesuit sources of 1598-9, when the first Jesuits visited Venkata’s court: “The King”, says du Jarric, “had married two of his (Oba Raya’s) daughters” ²; and the same author says later on that Oba Raya had “two daughters married to the King” ³. Now we know the names of the fathers of the other three of Venkata’s wives at that time. Raghavamba’s father is unknown to us. It is true that the first mention of Kondambika is found in 1601; but she might have been married to Venkata a little earlier. Thus the explanation holds good that when the Jesuits first visited Venkta’s court two of Venkata’s wives were daughters of Oba Raya.

v1.c30.15

¹ Ramarajiyamu, S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Sources, p. 243.

v1.c30.16

² Du Jarric, I, p. 654.

v1.c30.17

³ Ibid., p. 674.

v1.c30.18

The Ramarajiyamu makes no reference to the family of Venkatamba. She is the only one whose father is not mentioned. Hence she must be the one spoken of by Fr. Barradas as the daughter of Jaga Raya, by the name of Bayamma, ⁴ ‘as any lady could be called Bayamma in Telugu’, to quote Dr. S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar ⁵. She appears to have been the first Queen, as she is always mentioned first, and may be identified with the one said by Barradas to be ‘of the same age as the King’ ⁶.

v1.c30.19

⁴ Sewell, p. 223.

v1.c30.20

⁵ S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, o. c., p. 20.

v1.c30.21

⁶ Sewell, p. 224.

v1.c30.22

2. Fr. du Jarric, relying invariably on the contemporary Jesuit letters, gives interesting details of a feast prepared by Venkata for his Queens in 1698.

v1.c30.23

“One of those days (during the Jesuits’ first stay at Chandragiri) the King invited the Queens to a garden outside the city to enjoy themselves there... The retinue which accompanied them proceeded as follows: in the van there was a good cavalry detachment headed by a captain, who was a Muhammadan, surrounded by four or five knights; there were several silk standards in this company; after this there came a flute and a vinaband; the players rode several camels; many foot soldiers were also to be seen. Then the Delenais (Dalavays), or chief captains followed; they proceeded on foot and were fully armed; in their rear walked one of the royal elephants, over which the imperial standard was carried: there were several court nobles around. Next, a huge iron gong was carried by four porters, and four soldiers were continuously striking it ¹; the King himself then advanced on a gold sedan-chair, with many courtiers and servants around, who carried four very handsome umbrellas; then the royal insignia were to be seen on the top of picks; the hairy tail of a white wild cow, which is very much appreciated in the East; a big representation of a fish and another of a lion and finally another standard. After this there came the chief Delevay (Dalavay) of the kingdom, and at last the Prince (Ranga) with the King's wives, accompanied by very many women carried in silver and gold sedan-chairs, with great pomp; the Queens were carried in shinning gold litters, covered with rich golden drapery adorned with precious stones; next to every litter two umbrelas were carried to keep off the glare of the sun; there were besides many handmaids, moving their fans to and fro on each side of their mistresses. Such was the order of his state procession when the King went to the garden in the suburbs of the city to spend a holiday. He came back on the same day after sunset; so many torches illuminated his way that it seemed day in spite of the hour ².

v1.c30.24

¹ This gong was 'longitudine duorum doliorum', according to du Jarric. I cannot estimate its size, since the name doliorum means quite a different thing in Latin. It is possibly a mistake.

v1.c30.25

² Du Jarric, I, p. 673-4.

v1.c30.26

3. Up to the year 1606 the influence exerted by Oba Raya and his family at the court of Venkata may be seen both from the Hindu inscriptions and from the Jesuit sources. An inscription of Venkata at Narasingapuram mentions Gobburi Oba Raya and the gifts of sixty-five gold pieces called Venkataraya-varahans. Oba Raya seems to have regulated the festivals and daily services in the temple of Alagiyasingar at Kuvam Tyagasamudranallur ¹. In another inscription at Kuvam, Chingleput, he is styled Mahamandalesvara Gobburi Obarajayadeva Maharaja, and is said to have provided for special worship in the Margaly month, in the temple of Tiruvirkolesvara ². Another inscription of 1547 mentions the gift of 120 varahas by Narasammangaru, 'wife of the Mahamandalesvara Gobburi Obayadeva Maharaja of the Kasyapa gotra, for providing offerings to the god Ahobalesvara during his installation ceremonies in the *vasantamandapa* which he had constructed on the North side of the temple at Diguva Tirupati ³.

v1.c30.27

¹ 243 of 1910.

v1.c30.28

² 332 of 1909.

v1.c30.29

³ 63 of 1915.

v1.c30.30

That this chief was the father-in-law of Venkata II is recorded in the *Ramarajiyamu* ⁴, in the Jesuit letters ⁵ and in du Jarric ⁶. Now Fr. Barradas speaks of one Obo Raya (*sic*) brother-in-law of Venkata ⁷. Is this statement inconsistent with the above mentioned sources? Not necessarily. Oba Raya had at least two sons, as we shall soon see; one of them might easily have been called Oba Raya after his father. The custom of a son being named after his father was not unusual in those days. An inscription of 1557 at Lower Ahobalam, mentions one Obalraju, son of another Obalraju of the Pochiraju family ⁸.

v1.c30.31

⁴ S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, o. c., p. 243.

v1.c30.32

⁵ From Fr. F. Ricio to Fr. C. Aquaviva, Chandragiri, October 20th, 1601, Ap. C, No. I; *Litterae Annuae* of the Province of Malabar, Ap. C, No. XXII.

v1.c30.33

⁶ Du Jarric, I, p. 654 and 674.

v1.c30.34

⁷ Sewell, p. 223.

v1.c30.35

⁸ 69 of 1915. Cf. No. 5, infra.

v1.c30.36

As to the sons of Oba Raya, Fr. du Jarric informs us that two of them paid a visit to the Jesuits shortly after the latter's first arrival at Chandragiri; they went there accompanied by much cavalry. "The Fathers received them with great kindness and showed them several paintings. They liked them so much that they asked to be allowed to take them home to show them to their wives. They also saw a hydrographical map showing the great Oceans and their gulfs and bays and the innumerable islands all over the world. It was for them a matter of pleasure and instruction as well" ¹. At about the same time one of Oba Raya's sons, different apparently from the two just mentioned, was received among the *gurupus*. The same author relates the ceremony as follows: "The boy was brought over to the temple and placed over the capital of a pillar. His father with his hands clasped before his chest bowed before him; the same ceremony was performed by the rest of those present. Then the boy was invested as *gurupu*, seated on a golden sedan-chair and carried around the city surrounded by numberless people" ².

v1.c30.37

¹ Du Jarric, I, p. 689.

v1.c30.38

² Ibid., p. 673.

v1.c30.39

Oba Raya's influence at Venkata's court is thus recorded by du Jarric: "He (Oba Raya) was one of the highest nobles in the whole kingdom and his authority before the King was very great" ³. While journeying from St. Thome to Chandragiri, Frs. de Sa and Ricio were given a free passport over any road and river merely by showing the letters patent of this Oba Raya. "A refusal of any officer would have been equivalent to signing his death sentence; such was Oba Raya's power," says du Jarric ⁴. When the same Fathers were received by Venkata they found Oba Raya seated on the same mat as the King and Prince Ranga ⁵. This favour at Venkata's court was resented in some quarters. Naturally Oba's power was envied by the Dalavay or chief minister; du Jarric describes them as enemies ⁶. Now as both enjoyed such great power, they were no doubt the central figures round whom all the courtiers assembled. Thus they became the heads of the parties at Venkata's court.

v1.c30.40

³ "Ille e maximis regni proceribus erat, et permagnae apud regem autoritatis". Ibid., p. 654.

v1.c30.41

⁴ Ibid., p. 658.

v1.c30.42

⁵ Cf. Ch. XXII, No. 2.

v1.c30.43

⁶ Du Jarric, I, p. 680.

v1.c30.44

4. For many years Oba Raya's favour and party remained triumphant; but after the first two years of the Jesuit’s stay at Chandragiri, Oba Raya’s name is no longer mentioned in Jesuit sources. The cause of this change of fortune was perhaps the death of Raghavamba, which must have taken place at this time: she was probably the favourite wife of the sovereign, and for that reason Oba Raya, her father, had acquired such great power in the Empire and such considerable influence at the court.

v1.c30.45

Kondambika, however, did not replace her sister Raghavamba in Venkata’s affection. The new favourite Queen, who is sometimes simply called ‘the Queen’, is often mentioned in the Jesuit letters from 1606 onwards. In November of this year Fr. Coutinho wrote that ‘the Queen,’ owing to our sins, has the supreme power in this country’, and describes Venkata’s total subservience to this consort of his as follows: “He (Venkata) shows such great subjection to the black Queen that she governs every thing. He would rather break the bonds of friendship with everbody than thwart her wishes. She was the cause of our estrangement from the King and will continue hostile till she receives from St. Thome the money and presents she expects, as a satisfaction for their deeds” ¹. In another letter of Fr. Coutinho of the same date it is recorded that the complaints of the inhabitants of Mylapore against the Portuguese of St. Thome were sent to Venkata through the Queen ². In November of the following year, Fontebona received, during his illness at St. Thome ³, a prescription from the same sovereign, but it did not reach his own hands before passing through those of the Queen ⁴. In January 1608, after the serious defeat suffered by Krishnappa Nayaka of Jinji, terms of peace between Venkata and this chief were arranged through the influence of the Queen, who received on this occasion the fortress of Canaripatan ¹. In 1611, a letter of Fr. Laerzio sheds more light on the power of this Queen at court: "The King", says he, "has handed over the government to one of his wives and a brother of hers. These two are by no means friendly towards the Fathers, and even less friendly to the Portuguese" ². This shows that the favour of this Queen was shared by her brother. The influence of this man, indeed, makes itself felt at the court of Venkata at the same time as that of his sister. Fr. Coutinho, in the letter quoted above of November, 1606, relates that when the Archbishop-Governor of Goa, Fr. Alexio de Menezes, sent a horse to Venkata, the Queen's brother had obtained it from the King even before it had reached the capital ³. Philip III, writing to Dom Jeronymo d'Azevedo, on January 31st, 1614, recommends to him "to be on good terms with the brother-in-law of the King of Bisnaga (Vijayanagara)" ⁴. Another letter of Fr. Coutinho, of 1608, shows that several other relatives of this Queen were elevated to power by her; when speaking of her favour at the court, he says that 'everybody is complaining of her relatives' ⁵.

v1.c30.46

¹ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, St. Thome, November 4th, 1606, Ap. C, No. XIV.

v1.c30.47

² From Fr. C. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, St. Thome November 4th, 1606, Ap. C, No. XIII.

v1.c30.48

³ From Bro. B. Fontebona to Fr. J. Alvarez, Vellore, November 11th, 1607, Ap. C, No. XX.

v1.c30.49

⁴ Cf. Ch. XXIII, No. 6.

v1.c30.50

¹ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, Vellore. October, 11th, 1608, Ap. C, No. XXIII. Cf. Ch. XVIII, No. 11.

v1.c30.51

² From Fr. Laerzio to Fr. Aquaviva, Cochin, November 25th, 1611, Ap. C, No. XXXII.

v1.c30.52

³ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, St. Thome, November 4th, 1606, Ap. C, No. XIV.

v1.c30.53

⁴ From Philip III to the Viceroy Dom Jeronymo d'Azevedo, Lisbon, January 31st, 1614, Bulhao Pato, *Documentos*, III, p. 31.

v1.c30.54

⁵ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, Vellore, October 11th, 1608, Ap. C, No. XXII.

v1.c30.55

The Jesuits never mentioned the name of this woman; but fortunately two other European sources give us a clue to it. For in August, 1611, the English Captain, Anthony Hippon, writing to the East India Company on the result of his expedition to Pulicat ⁶, simply said: Pellacata (Pulicat) do belong unto the Queen and is given unto her for a dowry by the King, and so she at her own pleasure sets a governor or governess as she pleaseth" 1. The Queen referred to by Captain Hippon seems no doubt the same as that spoken of by the Jesuits in their letters: she is called 'the Queen' who 'at her own pleasure' manages the Government affairs. But the Dutch traveller Floris, the other European authority, gives us the name of this Queen to whom Pulicat belonged. He says that the Queen of Pulicat was Obiama 2. She must then be the same as the person called Obamma by the *Ramarajiyamu* and Pedobamamba in Venkata's grants. Consequently the daughter of Jillella Ranga Raja obtained supreme power in the government of Vijayanagara after the death of Raghavamba, Oba Raya's daughter.

v1.c30.56

⁶ Cf. Ch. XXI, No. 16.

v1.c30.57

5. None of these six wives gave a successor to Venkata. Naturally the first wife, Venkatamba, was the most assiduous in trying to secure the succession. Hence when she saw that there were no hopes of a legitimate heir, she managed to deceive the King by passing off on him a son, who was neither hers nor his. The story of this event is narrated in detail by Barradas: "A Brahman woman of the household of the Queen's father", says he, "knowing how strong was the Queen's desire to have a son, and seeing that God had not granted her one, told her that she herself was pregnant for a month; and she advised her to tell the King, and to publish it abroad, that she (the Queen) had been pregnant for a month, and to feign to be in that state, and said that after she (the Brahman woman) had been delivered she would secretly send the child to the palace by some confidant, upon which the Queen could announce that this boy was her own son. The advice seemed good to the Queen, and she pretended that she was pregnant; and no sooner was the Brahman woman delivered of a son than she sent it to the palace, and the news was spread abroad that Queen Bayama (Venkatamba) had brought forth a son. The King, knowing all this, yet for the love he bore the Queen, and so that the matter should not come to light, dissembled and made feasts, giving the name ‘Chica Raya’ to the boy, which is the name always given to the heir to the throne ” 1.

v1.c30.58

¹ From Captain Anthony Hippon to the E. I. C., August, 1611, *Letters Received by the E. I. C.*, I, p. 134. As a matter of fact when Hippon was at Pulicat the governorship was in the hands of a woman.

v1.c30.59

² Purchas, *His Pilgrimes*, III, p. 336. Floris gives two different spellings: Objama and obyama.

v1.c30.60

Barradas does not give the date of this boy’s birth. According to Queyroz it took place in 1611, during the siege of St. Thome by Venkata 2; but this date is not consistent with the fact that the boy was married at fourteen years of age, during Venkata’s life-time, as Barradas narrates 3. This should take us back to 1600 at the least, when we remember that Venkata died in 1614. But we have reason to believe that his birth actually took place some years earlier than 1600, since the Jesuit letters (excepting this one of Barradas, written during the civil war after Venkata’s death), never mentioned such a boy. This silence may mean that the memory of this boy’s birth was not fresh when the Jesuits reached Venkata’s court in 1599. Consequently, we have sufficient reason to locate this event in the first years of Venkata’s reign, most likely when the capital was still at Penukonda.

v1.c30.61

Venkata’s conduct towards this putative son of his was most strange. Though he bestowed upon him after his birth the title of Chikka Raya, “yet”, says Barradas, “he (Venkata) never treated him as a son, but on the contrary kept him always shut up in the palace of Chandigri (Chandragiri); nor ever allowed him to go out of it without his especial permission, which indeed he never granted except when in company of the Queen. Withal”, continues Barradas, “the boy arriving at the age of fourteen years, he married him to a niece of his, doing him much honour so as to satisfy Obo Raya, his brother-in-law” 4.

v1.c30.62

This suspicious conduct of Venkata towards this boy naturally roused, no doubt, many suspicions among the nobles and the royal relatives. This explains Fr. Coutinho’s information that Venkata had ‘many nephews who claimed the right of succession¹. And King Philip III of Spain was informed before 1610 that there were three candidates to the crown of Venkata². Hence even the supposed mother of the boy, Queen Venkatamba, "realized that her son would not be acknowledged as a king (by the nobles)", to quote Fr. Queyroz, "and persuaded him (Venkata) to resign the kingdom in favour of his nephew Chica Raj, son of Rama Raju" ³.

v1.c30.63

¹ Sewell, p. 223.

v1.c30.64

² Queyroz, Conquista de Ceylao, p. 309.

v1.c30.65

³ Sewell, l. c.

v1.c30.66

¹ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. J. Alvarez, Vellore, November 11th, 1607, Ap. C, No. XVIII.

v1.c30.67

² From Philip III to the Viceroy Ruy Lourenco de Tavora, Lisbon, February 21st, 1610, Bulhao Pato, *Documentos*, I, p. 359.

v1.c30.68

³ Queyroz, o.c., p. 309.

v1.c30.69

6. We know of the existence of three nephews of Venkata. One was called Ramana. He was the son of one of the sisters of the King, and was living at court, at least in 1604-1606⁴. The other two were the sons of Rama, the Viceroy of Seringapatam, of whom we have often spoken before. Queen Venkatamba ceased to champion the cause of the boy, apparently in 1599. In this year, according to Anquetil du Perron, "Venkata's nephew, Chima Ragion (Ranga,) was the heir-apparent to the crown", in spite of the more grounded rights of his elder brother Tirumala⁵. Ranga therefore was the Prince who, in the same year, was sitting on the same mat as Venkata, when the Jesuit Fathers were received at his court⁶. And du Jarric relates that after this audience with the King, the Jesuits received several visits of the grandees; and among these visitors one was "a nephew of the king, called Chimaragu (Ranga), who is the first after the King and his heir" ⁷. "He was a very handsome and prudent man", says Queyroz⁸.

v1.c30.70

⁴ *Litterae Annuae* of the Province of Malabar, 1604-1606, Ap. C, No XXII.

v1.c30.71

⁵ Anquetil du Perron, l. c., p. 167.

v1.c30.72

⁶ Du Jarric, I, p. 688. Cf. Ch. XXII, No. 2.

v1.c30.73

⁷ Ibid., p. 689.

v1.c30.74

⁸ Queyroz, l. c.

v1.c30.75

Nevertheless at this time Ranga was not yet appointed Chikka Raya or crown prince. Anquetil du Perron tells us that the trouble about the succession began in 1600, and was caused by the two brothers Tirumala and Ranga¹. Most likely both had partisans at court. But the chief cause of this trouble was the King himself. Fr. Coutinho, in his letter of the 17th July of same year, 1600, says: "Although the King prefers the younger brother (Ranga) who is being brought up in his very palace, nevertheless people say the elder one (Tirumala) will be the King, because he is liked by more numerous and powerful chiefs" ². Ranga then had only the King's predilection in his favour; while the right of birth and the esteem of the subjects were on the side of Tirumala.

v1.c30.76

¹ Anquetil du Perron, l. c., p. 170.

v1.c30.77

² From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. N. Pimenta, Chandragiri, July 17th, 1600, Ap. C, No. V.

v1.c30.78

As a mater of fact, Fr. Countinho in the same letter calls Tirumala 'the heir of this kingdom' ³. Again Tirumala is called 'the crown prince' by Fr. Guerreiro in 1604 ⁴; and Fr. Coutinho once more calls him 'the Prince', in a letter of 1608 ⁵, although in the same letter he states that Venkata 'does not want either to name or to hear anybody talk of Tirumala' ⁶. Such was the hatred of the sovereign for the elder of his two nephews. Thereupon prince Tirumala retired from Seringapatam, as already narrated, according to the wishes of Venkata himself.

v1.c30.79

³ Ibid.

v1.c30.80

⁴ Guerrero (sic), Relacion Anual...en los anos de 600 y 601, p. 137

v1.c30.81

⁵ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, Vellore, October 11th, 1608, Ap. C, No. XXIII.

v1.c30.82

⁶ Ibid.

v1.c30.83

Tirumala, being thus disgraced in the eyes of the nobles on account of his shameful retreat from Seringapatam, was no longer supported by the nobility against the designs of Venkata. It was most probably then that Ranga was publicly adopted by his uncle, and became consequently the heir-apparent, according to the Ramarajiyamu ⁷.

v1.c30.84

⁷ S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Sources, p. 213-4. It is very strange that Rice, Mysore and Coorg, p. 122, calls Rama Deva the grandson of Venkata, naturally supposing that Ranga II was his son.

v1.c30.85

7. In the meantime Venkata II was getting too old to rule over turbulent feudatory chiefs such as the Nayak of Vellore; especially when family intrigues were contributing to the work of subverting the kingdom. In a letter of 1607 Fr. Coutinho tells us that 'the King is very old and is apparently at the end of his life'¹. Laerzio in 1608 also says that Venkata is very old², and again makes the same statement in 1611³. Another Jesuit letter of 1611 states that "the King is too old and dotes at times; hence those who govern the kingdom do always what they like"⁴. In 1610 Philip III of Spain wrote to Ruy Lourenco de Tavora: "I have been informed that the King of Bisnaga (Vijayanagara) is very old"⁵. Three years later, the same Viceroy, Ruy Lourenco de Tavora, wrote to Philip III that Venkata "is so old that every body expects his death at any moment, and naturally dissensions will ensue"⁶.

v1.c30.86

¹ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. J. Alvarez, Vellore, November 11th, 1607, Ap. C, No. XVIII.

v1.c30.87

² From Fr. A. Laerzio to Fr. C. Aquaviva, Cochin, December 30th, 1608, Ap. C, No. XXV.

v1.c30.88

³ From the same to the same, Cochin, November 25th, 1611, Ap. C, No. XXXII.

v1.c30.89

⁴ *Litterae Annuae* of Province of Malabar, 1611, Ap. C, No. XXXV.

v1.c30.90

⁵ From Philip III to the Viceroy Ruy Lourenco de Tavora, Lisbon, February 21st, 1610, Bulhao Pato, *Documentos*, I, p. 359.

v1.c30.91

⁶ From Philip III to the Viceroy Dom Jeronymo d' Azevedo, Lisbon, March 7th, 1613, Ap. B, No. XIII.

v1.c30.92

His death however did not occur till the end of the following year. Venkata, when his end drew near, renewed the appointment of prince Ranga as his successor. This scene is marvellously described by Fr. Barradas, as follows:—

v1.c30.93

"Three days before his death, the King, putting aside, as

v1.c30.94

Perhaps this pedigree is founded on the adoption of Ranga by his uncle. We think however that this mistake of Rice is based on a grant of Venkata III, 1639, according to which Rama Deva is the grandson of Venkata II. Cf. *Ep. Carn.*, III, Nj, 198. Mr. S. V. Visvanatha also seems to believe that Tirumala and Ranga, the sons of Rama of Seringapatam, were sons of Venkata II. Viswanatha, *The Jambukesvaram Grant*, *Ep. Ind.*, XVI, p. 91.

v1.c30.95

I say, this putative son, called for his nephew Chica Raya (Ranga), in presence of several of the nobles of the kingdom, and extended towards him his right hand on which was the ring of state, and put it close to him, so that he should take it and should become his successor in the kingdom. With this the nephew, bursting into tears, begged the King to give it to whom he would, and that for himself he did not desire to be king, and he bent low, weeping at the feet of the old man. The King made a sign to those around him that they should raise the prince up, and they did so; and they then placed him on the King's right hand, and the King extended his own hand so that he might take the ring. But the prince lifted his hands above his head, as if he already had divined how much ill fortune the ring would bring him, and begged the King to pardon him if he wished not to take it. The old man then took the ring and held it on the point of his finger, offering it the second time to Chica Raya, who by the advice of the captains present took it, and placed it on his head and then on his finger, shedding many tears. Then the King sent for his robe, valued at 200,000 cruzados, the great diamond which was in his ear, and was worth more than 600,000 cruzados, his earrings, valued at more than 200,000, and his great pearls, which are of the highest price. All these royal insignia he gave to his nephew Chica Raya as being his successor, and as such he was at once proclaimed¹.

v1.c30.96

¹ Sewell, p. 223-4.

v1.c30.97

8. Barradas says that Venkata died six days after the proclamation of Ranga. But there is nothing in his narrative to show the exact date of his death. We may however aproximately calculate it with the aid of other sources referring to this event.

v1.c30.98

The Viceroy of Goa, Dom Jeronymo d' Azevedo, first announced the death of Venkata II to his sovereign on December 31st, 1614²; but the traveller Floris heard of it whilst at Masulipatam on October 25th, 1614: "On the five and twentieth (of October)," says he, "came newes of the death of Wencata-drapa" ¹. Anquetil du Perron says that news of Venkata's end was received on October 28th, but he does not say where such information was received ². Consequently we may safely affirm that Venkata II died about the middle of October, 1614. He died most likely in his palace of Vellore, where he resided. John Gourney, a servant of the East India Company, in a letter of July 18th, 1614, calls him 'the King of Vellour' ³. Floris also, while speaking of his death, refers to him as 'King of Velur' ⁴. According to Barradas he was then sixty-seven years old ⁵.

v1.c30.99

² From the Viceroy Dom Jeronymo d' Azevedo to Philip III, Ilhas, December 31st, 1614, Ap. B, No. XVII. Again on January 21st, 1615, the same news is communicated to the King by Dom Jeronymo. Cf. Ap. B, No. XIII.

v1.c30.100

¹ Purchas, *His Pilgrimes*, III, p. 338.

v1.c30.101

² Anquetil du Perron, l. c., p. 168.

v1.c30.102

³ From John Gourney to the E. I. C., Patania, July 28th, 1614, *Letters Received by the E. I. C.*, II, p. 83.

v1.c30.103

⁴ Purchas, l. c.

v1.c30.104

⁵ Sewell p. 224.

v1.c30.105

"His body", continues Barradas, "was burned in his own garden with sweet-scented woods, sandal, aloes, and such like; and immediately afterwards three Queens burned themselves, one of whom was of the same age as the King, and the other two aged thirty-five years. They showed great courage. They went forth richly dressed with many jewels and gold ornaments and precious stones, and arriving at the funeral pyre they divided these, giving some to their relatives, some to the Brahmans to offer prayers for them, and throwing some to be scrambled for by the people. Then they took leave of all, mounted on to a lofty place, and threw themselves into the middle of the fire, which was very great. Thus they passed into eternity" ⁶. Floris confirms the whole of this account, and adds that one of the three wives burned with Venkata's corpse was 'Obyama, (Pedobamamba), Queene of Paleacatte (Pulicat)' ⁷.

v1.c30.106

⁶ Ibid.

v1.c30.107

⁷ Purchas, l.c.

v1.c30.108

9. Venkata II's character was exceedingly attractive, if we are to believe his contemporaries. Du Jarric says that he was a ‘most affectionate King’ ¹. Coutinho testifies that ‘his character was sweet and meek’ ². Laerzio mentions ‘his natural goodness and great qualities’ ³; Fontebona states that he was ‘a lord of great authority, prudence and understanding, as much as any European’ ⁴. Finally his Mangalampad grant records that he was ‘indifferent to other men’s wives’ ⁵.

v1.c30.109

¹ Du Jarric, I, p. 665.

v1.c30.110

² From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. N. Pimenta, Chandragiri, July 17th, 1600, Ap. C, No. V.

v1.c30.111

³ From Fr. A. Laerzio to Fr. C. Aquaviva, Cochin, December 30th, 1608, Ap. C, No. XXV.

v1.c30.112

⁴ From Br. B. Fontebona to Fr. J. Alvarez, Vellore, November 11th, 1607, Ap. C, No. XIX.

v1.c30.113

⁵ Butterworth, I, p. 33, v. 37.

v1.c30.114

These great personal qualities made him an exceptionally great monarch. All the Hindu sources of his time or posterior to his death unanimously praise him as one of the greatest sovereigns of the Vijaynagara Empire, ‘a great and pious sovereign’, as recorded in the Prapannamrtam ⁶. According to the Kuniyur plates of Venkata III ‘the wise glorious Venkatapatidevaraya ruled the earth, illumining the ten regions by (his) fame’ ⁷. The Utsur grant of Ranga III calls him ‘brilliant in polity’ ⁸. Another grant of Venkata III styles Venkata a King ‘of brilliant policy, his fame illumining the ten cardinal points’ ⁹. A grant of Krishnappa Nayaka of Madura records that Venkata ruled ‘in wisdom’ ¹⁰, and the Vellangudi plates of Venkata himself state that ‘he ruled the earth with justice’, and that, ‘as Rama governed the world, he ruled the earth’ ¹¹. The Dalavay Agraharam plates (of the same Venkata) describe him as a good ruler both in peace and in war: “He was a wishing tree to the poor”, they say, “he was like the central gem of the necklace (which is) the city of Aravidu...; he was the best of (the) kings, the foremost of the kings of the race of Atri,...a munificent giver like Kubera....was broad-armed like Kubera, . . a Ramabhadra in battle”¹. The Mangalampad grant describes the liberality of this monarch even more poetically. It runs: “Behaving like a grand-father to friends and foes, intent on giving refuge to enemies who bowed to him, his splendour was eulogized by all men”². Venkata’s generosity was one of his outstanding features; as Fr. Coutinho remarks, ‘he was very liberal’³.

v1.c30.115

⁶ S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Sources, p. 251.

v1.c30.116

⁷ Ep. Ind., III, p. 252, v. 20.

v1.c30.117

⁸ Butterworth, I, p. 46, v. 23.

v1.c30.118

⁹ Ep. Carn., X, Mb, 60.

v1.c30.119

¹⁰ Ibid., VI, Cm, 79.

v1.c30.120

¹ Ibid., XII, p. 186-7., vv. 27-39.

v1.c30.121

² Butterworth, I, p. 32, v. 27.

v1.c30.122

³ From Fr. B. Coutinho to Fr. C. Aquaviva, Vellore, October 11th, 1608, Ap. C, No. XXII.

v1.c30.123

As regards the territory ruled over by Venkata exaggerations too obviously poetic to be misleading are found in these and similar sources. According to the Vellangudi plates ‘he ruled the earth from the Himalayas to Setu’⁴; or ‘he defeated his enemies from the bridge (Rameswaram) to the Himalayas’, according to the Mangalampad grant⁵. If we are to believe the Vilapaka grant, the whole of India was under him⁶; and consequently, he boasts of having had as vassals the Rattas, the Magadas, the Kambojas, the Bhojas, the Kalingas; and the Kings of these countries ‘were his doorkeepers’ and ‘used to praise him’. Such are the extravagant expressions of the contemporary grants⁷; these boastful phrases are copied from the old grants of Venkata’s predecessors. Truth is stated once in the Vilapaka grant, where Venkata is said to have ‘ruled over the country of Karnata’⁸.

v1.c30.124

⁴ Ep. Ind., XVI, p. 300.

v1.c30.125

⁵ Butterworth, I, p. 34, v. 40.

v1.c30.126

⁶ Ind. Ant., II, p. 371.

v1.c30.127

⁷ Vilapaka grant, Ep. Ind., IV, p. 270; Vellangudi plates, Ibid., XVI, p. 319, v. 31; Mangalampad grant, Butterworth, I, p. 34, v. 39; Kondyata grant of Venkata III, Ind. Ant., XIII, p. 125.

v1.c30.128

10. Impartial history however must admit that Venkata-pati Raya II was by far the most illustrious, and beyond doubt the most powerful King of the Aravidu dynasty. He checked with an iron hand the adventurous expeditions of the Golkonda Sultan, and recovered extensive territories which had been lost in the reigns of both his father and his brother Ranga. Bijapur, agitated with internal dissensions, and the Portuguese Viceroy, mistrusting the friendship with Akbar, formed an alliance with Venkata against the imperialistic plans of that Mughal sovereign. Both events imply great success in foreign policy.

v1.c30.129

As to the internal welfare of the country, the twenty-nine years of Venkata’s reign¹ were years of prosperity and comparative peace. Certainly he had to subdue many chiefs, not only in the beginning of his reign but even in his last years, but it was necessary to proceed in this matter without hesitation : had he done otherwise, the Empire would have come to an end fifty years earlier. Venkata’s action in these sad affairs was always crowned with the greatest success. The country immediately subject to him is described by the Jesuits passing through or living at his court, as prosperous and well administered, except during the last years of his reign, when he took very little direct part in the government. His broadmindedness is evident both in his admission of the Jesuits to his court, and in his friendly diplomatic relations with foreign nations. The privileges enjoyed by the citizens of St. Thome and Negapatam and the concession made to the Dutch of the port of Pulicat were the best measures for fostering industry and commerce in the country. They may be considered as the preliminary steps towards the concession of a spot near the city of Madarasa to the English traders by one of his successors, Ranga III.

v1.c30.130

¹ The Pandyan Chronicle erroneously assigns 39 years to the reign of Venkata II. See Taylor, O. H. MSS., I, p. 32.

v1.c30.131

Moreover Venkata was a great patron of literature, as we shall see in the following chapter. Fine arts were likewise fostered by him, a fact which gives an aesthetic side-light on his interesting character.

v1.c30.132

Three flaws however stand out conspicuously in the long and glorious life of Venkata. The first is the part he took in the extinction of the Tuluva dynasty. There is now little doubt, that the murder of Sadasiva was committed by him. The imprisonment of this unfortunate sovereign by Rama Raya might be in some way justified, but his assassination cannot be vindicated by either private rivalry or public policy.

v1.c30.133

The second blot in his public character is his retirement from government during the last years of his life. The rule of his favourite wife and her relatives was fatal to the Empire, if we are to believe the Jesuit letters. The discontent of the nobles sprang from this uxorious helplessness, as is recorded by these same witnesses; it most likely prepared the ground for the outbreak of the civil war that followed the death of the sovereign.

v1.c30.134

But the greatest defect of Venkata as ruler of the Empire of Vijayanagara was his predilection for his second nephew Ranga. The love which actuated the Emperor when he appointed Ranga his successor in spite of the latter's protestations, was no doubt the immediate cause of the subsequent civil war. Its purpose was indeed to place the putative son of Venkata on the throne; but most likely Jaga Raya would not then have found supporters among the nobles for his enterprise in favour of his so-called grandson. Venkata alienated the good will of many grandees and feudatory chiefs of the Empire by the repudiation of Tirumala. This prince was loved by more and stronger chieftains, as stated in the Jesuit letters; and when they saw Tirumala displaced by his younger brother, they naturally showed their disgust of the appointment made by Venkata by joining the rival party. Barradas himself, after recounting Venkata's death-bed appointment of Ranga, adds: "While some rejoiced, others were displeased"¹. That was the first cry of rebellion against the newly appointed Emperor, Ranga II. It is for this reason that Floris says that, after receiving the news of the death of Venkata, "great troubles are feared; the Hollanders are afraid of their Castle now built in Palecatte"². The subsequent civil war was evidently a foregone conclusion.

v1.c30.135

¹ Sewell, p. 224.

v1.c30.136

² According to Sewell, II, p. 251.

v1.c30.137

Venkata II ought no doubt to be credited with the temporary restoration of the old glory of Vijayanagara; but as the unconscious cause of the civil war that followed his demise, he must be said to have weakened the imperial authority and hastened the ruin of the Empire.

Linked texts (10)