The Colas c16.s2.96

c16.s2.96

Krishna Sastri holds that the Parakēsarivarman, a record (*śilālēkhai*) of whose 22nd year is quoted in ll. 28-29, was Vijayālaya (*SII.* iii p. 267 and n. 2), and that 'the statement in our grant that a stone inscription of his 22nd year did provide for permanent income to a temple at Kaccippēḍu is proof enough to show that though he was the first of the new line, Vijayālaya had a peaceful, long and prosperous rule like any of his powerful successors.' This view derives support from the express mention of 'Maduraiyum Īḻamum Koṇḍa Parakēsari' in l. 96, which might naturally lead to the supposition that the Parakēsari of ll. 28-29 must be a different king. There is, however, another mention of Parakēsari (year 16) in ll. 72-3, which Krishna Sastri takes to be a reference to Uttama Cōḷa himself; but it is possible to hold that ll. 72-98 record one continuous transaction by which, in the 18th year of Parāntaka I, the Nagarattār of Kaccippēḍu regulated the expenditure to be met from endowments made in the sixteenth year of Parakēsari (note in particular *enru ippariśu* in l. 96). If this view is accepted, the Parakēsari of l. 72 would be not Uttamma, but Parāntaka I, and the same may be true of ll. 28-9. Again, Uttama Cōḷa is mentioned by name with the Parakēsari title in l. 12; we have only the Parakēsari title in l. 72. By assigning the latter to Uttama Cōḷa, K. Sastri grants that the same king may be mentioned in two different ways in the same record. If that is so, it is easier to assume that Parakēsari of ll. 28-9 and 72 is the same as Maduraiyum Īḻamum Koṇḍa Parakēsari of l. 96, than to equate one of them with Vijayālaya and the other with Uttama. I wish also to add that Karikāla-teṟṟi might have got its name as much by association with Āditya II Karikāla as after 'the ancient Cōḷa king Karikāla.' (Krishna Sastri *ibid*, p. 268).