Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in Cola History and Administration c7: II. Karikāla in History and Legend

Studies in Cōḻa History and Administration c7

Language
English

II. Karikāla in History and Legend

c7.1

The name of Karikāla fills a great place in the early history of the Tamils. Some of the later Cōḷa kings of the line of Vijayālaya are known from their inscriptions to have borne the name. Several ruling families in the Telugu districts claimed descent from Karikāla. Lastly, he is the centre of many stories of a palpably legendary character. The Age of Karikāla has been the subject of many discussions in recent years; it can hardly be said that any conclusive results have yet been reached.

c7.2

The primary sources of our knowledge of Karikāla, the early Tamil Cōḷa king, are literary. We have also secondary literary sources of later times, and equally late epigraphical references of a vague character. It is best to arrange these as far as possible in a chronological order and indicate the information that can be gathered from them. The list that follows is not intended to be exhaustive, but calculated to show the diversity in the nature of the sources we are dealing with by furnishing examples of a representative character.

c7.3

I. *Puranāṉūṟu*.—(a) No. 7. The stanza is said to have been composed by Karuṅguḷal-Ādaṉār on Karikāla. The king's name does not figure in the text, and it is a general praise of the king's prowess in war.

c7.4

(b) No. 65. This is said to be a lament of Kaḷāttalaiyār uttered when a Cēra king, Peruñjēral Ādaṉ, wounded in the back in a fight with Karikāla, resolved to give up his life by starvation * after such an ignominious defeat. The text of the poem mentions the wound in the back of the dying king but gives no names. We learn, however, from the next verse and from *Ahanānūru* 55, that these events happened, exactly as they are given in *Puṟam* 65 and its colophon, at the battle of Veṇṇippaṟandalai.

c7.5

(c) No. 66. A song by Veṇṇi-kkuyattiyār comparing the relative merits of Karikāla and his Cēra foe after the battle of Veṇṇippaṟandalai. This piece is important because it gives the names of Karikāla-vaḷavaṉ and Veṇṇippaṟandalai, and mentions the suicide of the enemy—a striking confirmation of the data furnished by *Puṟam* 65. The author of this poem, whose name means "Potter woman of Veṇṇi" was most probably a native of Veṇṇi and an eyewitness to the battle that took place in its neighbourhood.

c7.6

(d) *Puṟam* 224. In this poem Karuṅaḷal-Adaṉār, the author of *Puṟam* 7 (*ante*, commiscrates the world on the loss it sustained by the death of Karikāla. The text does not give the name of the king which occurs only in the colophon. The king's heroism, his patronage of poets and the Vedic sacrifices performed by him are mentioned at some length.

c7.7

II. *Pattuppāṭṭu* (a) *Porunarāṟṟuppaḍai*.—A poem of 248 lines by Muḍattūma-kkaṇṇiyār. Karikāla is mentioned by name (l. 148) and said to be the son of

c7.8

∗ Mr. P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar apparently understands the expression *Vaḷ-vaḍakkiruttal* as "death by cutting one's throat with a sword"—*History of the Tamils* p. 336. Contra Pandit V. Svaminatha Aiyar's note at p. 135 of his edition of the *Puṟanāṉūṟu*, which I have followed. I may add that the king starved, sword in hand, to indicate the disgrace he had sustained on the field. *Puṟam* 65 purports to be a strictly contemporary reference to events; *Aham* 55 clearly refers to them as in the past, but is very valuable as corroborating the *Puṟam* stanza. Mr. P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar's doubts on this head (*Tamils* p. 337) seem to be somewhat misplaced.

c7.9

KARIKALA

c7.10

Uruvappaḥrēr-iḷanjēṭceṇṇi (l. 130). He inherited the right to his estate while he was in his mother's womb, (l. 132, *tāy vayirrirundu dāyam eydi*)—a statement which the annotator Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar interprets as meaning that Karikāla's birth was delayed by unnatural means, and that he was retained in his mother's womb until the auspicious moment came for his being delivered. The battle of Veṇṇi in which he defeated two great kings (Pāṇḍya and Cēra) on the same field is narrated in some detail (ll. 141-48). For the rest, the poem describes at length the liberality of Karikāla and the fertility of the Kāvēri country and other matters of no immediate concern to this study. The clause *mudiyōr* * avai puku poḷudirram pakai muraṇ śelavum (ll. 187-8) must, however, be noted specially here. It occurs in the general description of Karikāla's rule and is, in itself, simple enough if we understand it to mean that the older men laid aside their differences when they entered the *sabha* of the king, or, if the alternative reading ‘*śolavum*’ of the last word is accepted,—that the older men went to the *sabha* to state their disputes (and get them adjudged). Here again the annotator sees an allusion to the tradition † that a young Cōḻa king, dressed himself as an old man, and surprised by his correct judgment two greyhaired litigants who laid their cause before him. It may be observed in passing that the words in our poem, taken in their context, do not clearly mention any dispute or its settlement by the king; whereas the traditional stanza of the *Paḻamoḻi* and the reference in the *Maṇimēkalai* contain no mention of Karikāla.

c7.11

∗ This word is an antithesis to *Iḷaiyōr* (young folk) of the preceding clause. Pandit Svaminatha Aiyar notes an alternative reading ‘*Śolavum*’ for the last word, in this clause

c7.12

† *Paḻamoḻi* No. 6 (ed. T. Chelvakēśavarāya Mudaliar). Also *Maṇimēkalai* IV ll. 107-8. Neither of these texts gives the name of the king.

c7.13

(b) Paṭṭiṉappālai. A poem of 301 lines by Kaḍiyalūr Uruttiraṅkaṇṇaṉār. It contains gorgeous descriptions of the land of the Kāvēri and of Kāvirip-pūmpaṭṭiṉam in particular, and mentions incidentally some occurrences of the life and rule of Karikāla, here called Tirumāvaḷavaṉ (l. 299). In a vivid passage replete with striking similes (ll. 220-8) the poet tells us how Karikāla in his youth was imprisoned by his enemies and effected his escape after a tough fight with the guards of his prison and thereby made himself master of the kingdom. Besides giving a vague general account of Karikāla’s prowess in war and the devastation of enemy countries that was a marked feature of his work as conqueror, the poet tells us that among those subjugated by Karikāla were the many Oḷiyar, the ancient Aruvāḷar, the Northerners and the Westerners and the Pāṇḍya; while the petty chieftains of the shepherd class and of the line of Iruṅgōvēḷ were stamped out by him. He is believed to have given up Uraiyūr and shifted his capital elsewhere, though he took care to renew and fortify that city afresh (ll. 285-8).

c7.14

(c) Veṇbā No. 3 quoted at end of (a) * Karikāla’s sway failed to measure the three worlds but was confined only to this, as his leg had suffered from fire, an allusion to the Dwarf incarnation of Viṣṇu.

c7.15

III. Ahanāṉūru. This is an anthology of amatory lyrics which contain only passing and often somewhat far-fetched allusions to political events, contemporary or otherwise.

c7.16

(a) No. 55.—A reference to the battle of Veṇṇivāyil as a past event. cf. ante n. on I (b)

c7.17

∗ This verse is not from the Palamoḻi as Dr. S. K. Aiyangar seems to think—See his Ancient India p. 351 n. 2.

c7.18

(b) No. 125.—" Like the cowardly kings who, unable to face the might of Peruvaḷa-kkarikāl, abandoned their nine umbrellas in broad daylight at Vākai-ppaṟandalai."

c7.19

(c) No. 141.—" The famous Karikāl victorious in war who fixed up the Śelkuḍi" (see later)

c7.20

(d) No. 246. " Greater than the uproar in Aḷundūr on the day when at the gates of Veṇṇi the famous Karikāla roused to great fury inflicted a crushing defeat on his enemies in which eleven Vēḷir fell together with (some) kings."

c7.21

(e) No. 376.—Mentions the name of the king.

c7.22

IV. Śilappadikāram :—In the text of this beautiful romantic poem we have three clear references to Karikāla and the annotators discover four others elsewhere in the poem. It would be obviously desirable to keep the text and the annotations apart. First, the relevant passages in the text are :—

c7.23

(a) Canto V, ll. 90-104. Tirumāvaḷavaṇ (Karikāla) who was eager for war and found no match for him in the Tamil land, once upon a time (annāḷ l. 94) undertook an invasion of the northern countries as far as the Himalayas and obtained certain presents from the kings of the Vajra, Magadha and Avanti countries.

c7.24

(b) Canto VI, ll. 159-60. Karikāl-vaḷavaṇ is said to have performed a ceremonial bath in the freshet of the Kāvēri, attended by a great crowd.

c7.25

(c) Canto XXI, ll. 11-ff. The daughter of Karikāla, the Cōḷa king, saw her husband, the ruler of Vanji, being washed away while they were both bathing; and, going after him in the flood, she rescued him miraculously. This story occurs in the midst of a series of legends of chaste women of the past and the miracles effected by them.∗

c7.26

∗ See Pandit Svaminatha Aiyar's note at p. 488 of the *Śilappadikāram* for other references to the story.

c7.27

We may now turn to the statements of the annotators of the *Śilappadikāram* on Karikāla.

c7.28

(d) Canto III. l. 11—means literally "In order to exhibit (Mādavi's dance) to the king with the hero's anklet (*kaḷal*)"; and the earlier of the two commentaries gives the annotation: "desiring to have the first exhibition (of dance) in the *sabha* of the Cōḷa Karikārperuvaḷattāṉ who had the hero's anklet." The later annotator Aḍiyārkkunallār follows this hint not only in this context, but extends it to others e.g., canto i. ll. 65-8; v. 212 and vi. 15. It must be noted, however, that there is nothing in the text to warrant these comments which create the impression that the story of the poem is laid in the period of Karikāla's rule. And this is contrary to the indications furnished by the text of the *Śilappadikāram*.

c7.29

V. *Maṇimēkalai*:—Canto I, l. 39. "As on the day when king Karikāla went forth", apparently on his Northern campaign as related in the *Śilappadikāram* (IV. (a) ante). It must be noticed that this brief reference is also clearly to events in the past.

c7.30

VI. *Paḷamoḷi*.—(a) Verse No. 6.—See *ante* II (a). Only the commentary gives the name of Karikāla, not the Veṇbā.

c7.31

(b) Verse No. 230. The text records that an elephant from Kaḷumalam went and chose a man from Karuvūr for the kingship. The commentary sees in this incident a reference to Karikāla's accession.

c7.32

(c) Verse No. 239. The text has simply: "The Coḷa's son who escaped with his life from a fire got the aid in later life of a man named Piḍarttalai, and held the sceptre with success." The gloss of an anonymous commentator on this verse runs: "Even Karikāla who in his youth, though consigned to flames by his enemies, managed to escape with his life, obtained the aid of his (maternal) uncle, Irumbiḍarttalaiyār by name,* and, later in his life, attained the monarchy which was his by right and ruled as a just king."

c7.33

Before leaving the evidence drawn from early Tamil literature and proceeding to set down that of later literature and epigraphy, it may be desirable to indicate our general position regarding the chronology and the relative value of the sources so far reproduced. The general question of the age of the earliest extant Tamil literature has been so often discussed that it is unnecessary again to pursue the subject here. My view is that this literature belongs to the early centuries of the christian era, and it rests not so much on the Gajabāhu synchronism, which in itself is quite a sound one, † as on general considerations arising out of a comparison of the political and economic conditions in Southern India as reflected in this body of literature with what we learn on the same subject from European classical sources like the *Periplus* and Ptolemy, and from the early Buddhist literature.

c7.34

∗ This seems to be the only evidence of the relation here mentioned between Karikāla and Irumbiḍarttalai. It is strange that a scholar like Mr. K. V. Subramania Aiyar should have used such a statement as evidence of chronology (See his *Ancient Dekkan*, p. 107).

c7.35

† Mr. P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar (*History of the Tamils* p. 38) holds that the reading '*Kaval vendan*' at *Sil.* XXX l. 160 destroys all theories based on the synchronism. I do not think so. The prologue still remains, and it seems to be the earliest account we possess of the coming in of the Pattini cult into Ceylon where it has prevailed to this day. See *Ceylon Antiquary and Literary Register* Vol. X, ii, pp. 114 ff.

c7.36

The question of the internal chronology of the literature of early Tamil has unfortunately not received as much attention as it deserves. But there seems to be no reason to doubt either the priority of much of the *Puranānūru* to the poems preserved in the other anthologies and to the twin epics the *Śilappadikāram* and the *Maṇimēkalai*, or the claim registered in the colophons to most of these poems that they were contemporary compositions of poets dealing with particular situations to which they were eye-witnesses. There is nothing of the conventional about these poems, each of which is a living realistic picture of a genuine human situation. It seems to me that in these poems we have some of the most genuine records of exceptional interest to the historian of Southern India; and these must be treated as a class apart. Hence the poems of the *Puranānūru* bearing on the subject of this study have been placed in the first group. For the rest, I have sought to group the sources, not strictly in their chronological order—we know yet so little of this—but in the order of their importance and trustworthiness. An attempt has been made throughout to keep clear the distinction between data furnished by the originals and by the glosses on them by latter-day commentators.

c7.37

We may now bring together the evidence relating to Karikāla from epigraphy and the later literature of Southern India:

c7.38

VII. The Māḷēpāḍu plates of Puṇyakumāra* (ll. 2-5) say: “*Dinakara-kula-mandarācala-mandāra - pādupasya*

c7.39

∗ *E. I.* XI. No. 35.

c7.40

kavēra-tanayā - velōllaṅghana-praśamana- pramukhā-dyane-kātiśaya - kāriṇaḥ Trairājya - sthiti - mātmasātkr̥tavataḥ karikālasyānvaye”, meaning “ In the family of Karikāla, who was the mandāra tree on the Mandara mountain viz., the solar race; who was the worker of many wonders like that of controlling the daughter of Kavera, overflowing her banks; who obtained for himself the position of (the headship of the) three kingdoms.” These plates have been dated by Mr. Krishna Śāstri in the eighth century. They may well be, however, a century earlier than that. * However that may be, they are interesting for two reasons. This is the earliest mention so far known of the connection of Karikāla with any family in the Telugu country. This is also the earliest reference to the flood banks of the Kāvēri. And there is no mention yet of Triṇētra Pallava.

c7.41

VIII. The genealogy (legendary part) in the Cōḷa Copper-Plates and the Kanyākumārī record (Vijayālaya line) :—

c7.42

(a) The Anbil plates of Sundara Cōḷa give the order Śenni, Kiḷḷi, Karikāla, Kōccengaṇān (verse 13) and mention only the name of Karikāla.

c7.43

(b) The Tiruvālaṅgāḍu plates of Rājēndra I place Karikāla between Peruṇarkkiḷḷi and Kōccengaṇān and furnish two explanations of the king’s name in the words—‘Kālatrāt kariṇām kaleśca,’ besides mentioning his rebuilding of Kāñcī (Kāñcīm yaśca navīcakāra kanakaih) and the construction of the banks of the Kāvēri.

c7.44

[^ *]: See Dr. N. Venkataramanayya—*A note on the Date of the Mālepāḍu plates—Madras Christian College Magazine* 1929 p. 15. Also *Mysore Archaeological Report*, 1925 p. 86 l. 26.

c7.45

(c) The larger Leyden grant (v. 11) gives his name after Panacapa and before Kōccengaṇān; it calls him also Arikāla and mentions the construction of the Kāvērītīra.

c7.46

(d) The Kanyākumārī (stone) inscription of Vīrarājēndra devotes two verses to him, giving his name between Peruṉaṟkkiḷḷi and other famous kings before him, and Vaḷabha immediately after. Verse 48 is a general praise of Karikāla’s prowess, interesting only for the phrase *samutthitaripu-kṣitipāla-kālaḥ*—‘Death to hostile monarchs up in arms (against him).’ The next verse (49) runs:

c7.47

sa kāvērī-ndūrīkṛta-sakala-sasyām vidadhatīm
payaḥ-pūraiḥ-sphārai-ravaṇi-mavinīto-
ddhatiharaḥ |
pratīribhūtābhir-narapati-karāśliṣṭa-piṭaka-
prakīrṇābhir-mṛdbhir-nyaruṇa-daruṇāgrēsara
-samaḥ ||

c7.48

That is to say, * “ (Karikāla) who was as bright as the sun and who curbed the pride of the insubordinate, controlled the Kāvērī—which, by its excessive floods, caused the earth to be deprived of its produce—by means of a bund formed of earth thrown in baskets carried in hand by (enemy) kings.”

c7.49

These records of the 10 and 11th centuries A. D. call for a few remarks in passing. Karikāla’s connection with Kāñcī is first mentioned in (b); and so also (d) first sets forth the story of Karikāla employing enemy kings in the construction of the embankment of the river. But even in the elaborate verse 49 of (d) we find no mention of Pallava Triṇētra.

c7.50

∗ The translation is that of Mr. K. V. Subrahmanya Aiyar, *T. A. S.* III pp. 154-5 slightly altered.

c7.51

IX. *Kalingattupparaṇi*:—A poem describing the conquest of Kaliṅga in the days Kulōttuṅga I. The author Jayaṅgoṇḍār gives in the eighth section of the work the genealogy of the kings, which opens with the statement that when Karikāla had by superhuman exploits won a victory over the Himalayas and subdued them, Nārada appeared before him and ordained that he should write on the mountain the story of his race as revealed to him by the sage (vv. 1-4). We learn from a stray Veṇbā * quoted by Aḍiyārkkunallār that the Śeṇḍu, whatever it was, with which Karikāla managed to spin the Himalaya round and round, was a gift vouchsafed to him by a Śāttan (a guardian deity) of Kāñcīpuram. The narration of Nārada includes the story of Karikāla as well as that of his predecessors and successors up to Jayadhara. Stress should not, however, be laid on the superhuman element in this narration, as it may be only a poetic device of the author suited to the conventions of the *Paraṇi*. But the quaint reference to Karikāla's conquest of the Himalaya recalls the lines of the *Śilappadikāram* on his northern expedition.—IV (*a*). Karikāla's conquest of the Pāṇḍya and the Cēra, an enigmatic statement on the construction of the banks of the Kāvēri by subordinate kings, the conquest of Kurumi and the presentation of 16,00.000 gold pieces to the poet of the *Paṭṭinappālai* occur among the events of his reign (vv 19-21). The next verse (22) on the Cēra and the Pāṇḍya being made alternately torch-bearers in the court is also to be referred apparently to the same reign.

c7.52

Here, the verse on the construction of the embankment of the Kāvēri must be considered somewhat closely. Mr. Kanakasabhai translated the verse thus: * " Mukari was destroyed when he rubbed it out of the map, finding that it did not suit the place prepared for the banks of the Kāvēri which were being constructed by vassal kings." This ingenious translation is open to many objections. It seems to import the details of modern engineering practices such as drawing maps and plans into the days of Karikāla. It does violence to the actual words in the verse which imply that Mukari did not follow up something or somebody (toḍara vandiḍā mukari), and then a picture was asked to be drawn of Mukari (vandiḍā mukariyai ppaḍatte-ḷuḍuka); the action that was taken afterwards consisted in something being wiped out in the picture, most probably an extra eye (idu mikaikkaṇ) which resulted in a similar consequence to the object represented by the picture. † Lastly, Mr. Kanakasabhai’s interpretation ignores the literary tradition on the subject which waxes strong from this time that a three-eyed king lost his superfluous eye in this episode, as will be seen from what follows:—

c7.53

† Cf. Mr. T. G. Aravamuthan: *The Kāvēri, the Maukharis and the Śaṅgam Age.*

c7.54

X The Ulās of Oṭṭakkūttan:—(a) *Vikrama śōḻan ulā* ll. 24-6:

c7.55

teḷḷaruvic-
ceṇṇippuliyēriruttik-kiri tirittup-
poṇṇikkarai-kaṇḍa pūpatiyum—a brief reference to the turning of the Himalayas and the making of the Kāvēri banks.

c7.56

(b) *Kulōttuṅgaśōḻan ulā*—ll. 34-6,

c7.57

talaiyēṟu
maṅkoṇḍa poṇṇikkarai-kaṭṭa vārādāṇ
kaṇ-koṇḍa śeṇṇi karikālaṉ; that is, ‘ the cōḻa Karikāla who took the eye of him who did not come

c7.58

∗ *I. A.* XIX p. 331.

c7.59

to raise the Kāvēri banks which took the earth carried on the heads (of subordinate kings).” *

c7.60

(c) *Rājarājaśōḻan-ulā* ll. 32-4: a statement that a king (Karikāla) branded with his tiger-crest the strong chests of his foes and the slopes of the northern Mēru.

c7.61

These extracts from the triad of *ulās*, specially (*b*), show distinctly that in the stanza from the *Paraṇi* (VIII 20) we have clearly one of the earliest statements, if not the earliest, about the three-eyed foe of Karikāla. He is called Mukari in the *Paraṇi*, and an elaborate attempt † has been made to connect him with the Maukharis of Northern India on the strength of the northern expedition of Karikāla to which the *Śilappadikāram* makes such detailed reference. Great as is the value of some of the results obtained by Mr. T. G. Aravamuthan in the course of his investigation; his conjecture about the identity of Mukari and Maukhari would seem to lack enough support. The weakness of his argument on this head is recognised by the author himself. ‡ We have evidence of a clan of Maukharis in the 3rd and 2nd centuries B. C. and of a line of kings, Maukharis, from the 5th or the 6th century A. D. There is nothing but surmise to guide us in the great stretch of time that intervenes. While the *Śilappadikāram* which gives the earliest detailed account of Karikāla’s northern expedition makes no mention of Mukari though it knows about a king of Magadha who was subjugated by the southern ruler, it is difficult, on the evidence of an obscure stanza in a work of the late 11th century A. D., to take him to have been a Maukhari of the I or II century A. D. On the other hand, there is no lack of other literary evidence from the Tamil and Telugu countries that establishes conclusively the identity of Mukari of the *Paraṇi* with the Mukkaṇṭi or Triṇētra who figures in Telugu epigraphy as the contemporary of Karikāla in the celebrated formula:—

c7.62

∗ Cf. No. 55 of the much later *Rangēśa Veṇbā* quoted by Mr. T. G. Aravamuthan *op. cit* pp. 18-9.

c7.63

† Mr. T. G. Aravamuthan *op. cit.*

c7.64

caraṇa-sarōruha-vihata-vilōcana-Trilōcana
-pramukhā-khila-prthivīśvara-kārita
kāvērī-tīra-karikāla-kula.

c7.65

XI. *Kulōttuṅgaṉ Piḷḷaittamiḻ* is a fine poem on Kulōttuṅga II by Oṭṭakkūttaṉ, a poet of the 12th century and the author of the *ulās* already noticed (X). In this poem we read: *

c7.66

muḷu-kula-nadikkaraśar muḍikoḍu vakutta karai
mukiṟoḍa-vamaitta-darivō-
miru-puṟamu-mokka niṉadoru puli poṟikka
vaḍa-vimagiri tirittaṟivō-
mikal mukari mukkaṇilu-moru kaṇiliya-kkiḷiyi-
leḷudu-kaṇalitta-darivōm

c7.67

"We know of the raising up to the clouds of the banks made for the full family-river by the crowns of (subordinate) kings; we know of the spinning of the snow-mountain of the north for engraving on either side of it your unrivalled tiger-crest; we know of the wiping out of one eye traced on the picture so that the inimical Mukari lost one of his three eyes."

c7.68

This passage which so strikingly recalls the Karikāla legends recorded in the *Kaliṅgattu-pparaṇi* and which is written by a poet laureate of the Cōḻa court, of the generation next to that of the author of

c7.69

∗ The *Tamil-ppoḻil* (Tanjore) Vol. V. p. 39.

c7.70

the *Paraṇi*, furnishes an excellent comment on the earlier work at this point, and settles the true meaning of the verse from the *Paraṇi*.

c7.71

XII. The *Periyapurāṇam* of Śēkkiḷār of the time of Kulōttuṅga II mentions Karikāla's renovation of Kāñcīpuram in the Kaliyuga by fortifying it afresh and encouraging people to immigrate and settle in the new city; see *Tirukkuṛipputtoṇḍa-nāyaṉār Purāṇam* v. 85.

c7.72

XIII. The *Paṇḍitārādhya carita*, a Telugu Śaiva work of perhaps the early 13th century, gives virtually the same story as the *Paraṇi* with slight variations and the relevant passage has been reproduced and translated by Dr. N. Venkata Ramanayya at pp. 88-9 of his *Trilōcana Pallava and Karikāla Cōḷa*.*

c7.73

XIV. Telugu epigraphy — Several inscriptions from various parts of the Telugu country contain the celebrated formula quoted above *Caraṇa sarōruha* etc. The earliest of these inscriptions is dated Ś. 945 (1023 A. D.)†

c7.74

† See Dr. N. V. Ramanayya *op. cit.* pp. 115-6, (item 2). It may be noted that the reference made by the author to the Darsi fragmentary inscription of Vikramāditya I as one referring to Mukkaṇṭi or Triṇētra (No. 1 at pp. 109 and 117) is not warranted by the text of the inscription.

c7.75

As Mr. Krishna Śāstri points out: "Almost all the families of kings and chiefs in the South which trace their origin to the Sun mention Karikāla among their ancestors, and describe him as having constructed banks on either side of the river Kāvēri. The Kākatīyas of Warangal and, in later times, the Matla chiefs of Cuddapah and the Sāḷuva chiefs of Kārvēṭinagar and a number of feudatory families who intermarried with the Vijayanagara kings of the lunar race, mention Karikāla in their genealogy." * Again: "In a (Telugu) record of the 11th century A. D. from the Bastar state, it is stated that a chief named Candrāditya, a feudatory of the Nāgavaṁśi king Jagadēkabhūṣaṇa Mahārāja Dhārāvarṣa, was a descendant of Karikāla Cōḷa of the solar race, belonged to the Kāśyapa gōtra, was the lord of the river Kāvēri and of the (historic) town of Oṟaiyūr and bore the lion-crest." †

c7.76

∗ The learned author considers the Telugu version "as old as the passage in the *Kalingattupparaṇi*." All the Tamil sources under X, XI and XII appear, however, to be earlier than the *Paṇḍitārādhya carita*.

c7.77

An example of the persistence and the growth of Karikāla legends in later times is furnished by the copperplate grant dated 1356 A. D. (śāke munyṛṣinētra-candragaṇite) of the Telugu-Cōḍa chief Bhakti-rāja which contains the following about Karikāla: ‡

c7.78

arikālastatō jātaḥ Karikālastatōbhavat |
aticitraiḥ caritraiḥ svaiḥ pūrvajānatyaśeta yaḥ ||
asnāsīd-gāṅga-tōyai-ranudina-mavanī-pālahasta-kramāttaiḥ
kāvērī-setubandhe-nikhila-narapatī-nagrahi-dagra-vēṣṭyai |
astambhīd-Bhojarāja-prahita-mapacitē-rbhāja-nam b(h)andhavīyyam
pādāṅguṣṭhena bhālē vilasita-mabhidat-pallaven-drasya netram ||

c7.79

We notice here that Arikāla, in the Leyden grant an attribute of Karikāla, has now become the name of a new king, the father of Karikāla, ¶ and the daily bath of the king in the water of the Ganges transmitted by the

c7.80

∗ E. I. XI, p. 340 n. 2. † E. I. XI, p. 338. ‡ Journal of Oriental Research, V. pp. 138 and 334. ¶ Cf. Hultzsch at S. I. I. II 378 n 8.

c7.81

hands of his vassals is a new embellishment of the old *motif* of the vanquished kings working at Karikāla's tasks like common labourers. The story of the loss of the third eye of the Pallava king is repeated. We may, before proceeding to discuss the interesting and difficult questions that arise in connection with Karikāla and his life, mention briefly the data furnished by literary compositions of more recent times.

c7.82

XV. The *Navacōlacarita*.* This work is part of the hagiology of Vīra-Śaivism. Composed originally in Haḷa-kannaḍa, the work was rendered into Telugu verse by Pōseṭṭi Lingaṇṇa-kavi in the fourteenth century. The story of Karikāla which figures first in these ‘Tales of the Nine Cōḷas’ is thus summarised by the editor of the Telugu original in his preface: † “While Karikāla, an ardent devotee of Śiva, was ruling the country with unrivalled power, one day he went out for a hunt in the forest on the banks of the Kāvēri and was resting a while in a lovely spot. Then there occurred a wonderful event which brought home to the king's mind the great merit of the Kāvēri; having witnessed it the king thought that he should raise the banks on either side of the river and dig a tank and earn for himself the religious merit thereof. So he sent for his *Sāmantas* (subordinate chiefs) from the various parts of the realm for carrying out the work and all of them came up, with the exception of Bhāskara-Cōḷa and Mukkaṇṭi Cōḷa and others who held themselves back on account of their noble birth and other like reasons. The king undertook a *daṇḍayātrā* (expedition) against them, conquered them and took them captives and compelled them to work on the construction of the banks of the Kāvēri until the task was completed.” Though sufficient for our purpose, this bald summary does but scant justice to the elaborate and eloquent narration of the original which includes some stories well-known in other connections such as that of Śiva working as a day-labourer for an old woman.*

c7.83

XVI. The *Coḷavamśacaritra* or the *Bṛhadiśvara māhātmya*, a work of the 16th century A.D. or thereabout, narrates at great length the story of Karikāla’s black leprosy being cured by his construction of the celebrated Tanjore temple and even reports the very words of the *Bṛhadiśāṣṭaka*, a hymn of praise uttered by the grateful king at the moment of his miraculous relief from a fell disease. †

c7.84

XVII. The *Śōḷamaṇḍalaśatakam*: Verse 38 of this work mentions the construction of the banks of the Kāvēri and of a stone anicut across the river by a Cōḷa king; and a veṇbā found in some mss. of this work purports to give a date for Karikāla’s construction of the bank. But partly owing to its corrupt readings, this verse can furnish little aid in a discussion of the history of Karikāla. ‡

c7.85

XVIII. The *Śevvandippurāṇam* ¶ —a late seventeenth century work, gives a story which states that Karikāla, the son of Parāntaka, was brought by the state-elephant for being enthroned in the Cōḷa kingdom at a time when Uraiyūr was destroyed in a sandstorm.

c7.86

∗ The familiar Tamil story of Piṭṭukku-maṇ-śumandadu. See *Tiruvilaiyāḍal purāṇam*—any edition. † See *Journal of Oriental Research*: Vol. IV, pp. 324 ff. ‡ See, however, T. G. Aravamuthan *op. cit.* pp. 67 ff. ¶ See the *purāṇam* (ed. Shanmukham Pillai, Madras, 1887) Uraiyūralitta Śarukkam vv. 91-93.

c7.87

One new element in the story is that the elephant found the boy prince too heavy, and that to reduce his weight his mother was advised by a saint to make a mark on the soles of his feet with a piece of charcoal, and then the elephant lifted him up on his back and carried him away without difficulty. A variant of the same story is given by one of the Mackenzie mss. and noticed at some length by Taylor in his *Catalogue Raisonne*. *

c7.88

The data thus brought together from many sources bearing on the subject of this study are calculated to give an idea of the different phases through which the Karikāla legend, so to say, passes in the course of centuries. The figure of Karikāla is to start with thoroughly realistic and historical; there is nothing about it that taxes our credulity or violates our sense of congruity; but soon legend begins its busy work and there comes in much that is not only unhistorical and romantic, but incredible, unnatural and superhuman. The streams of legend flow from many sources, in the Tamil and Telugu countries, till at last the figure of Karikāla is submerged in the sea of religious mythology. The legends are not altogether devoid of interest to the student of folklore and hagiology. For our purpose, however, it is essential that each incident that seeks admission into the history of Karikāla's life and reign must be tested very carefully with reference to the source from which it proceeds and the general probabilities of the case. The performance of this task becomes doubly difficult, if we bear in mind the limitations to our knowledge of the general chronology of South Indian history. Whatever view is held of the age of Śangam literature—our view of it has been stated elsewhere—it should not be allowed to influence unduly the discussion of the evidence relating to particular events of Karikāla's reign on the lines suggested above.

c7.89

∗ Vol. III, pp. 514-5.

c7.90

From the strictly contemporary statements on Karikāla in the sources grouped under I and II above, we learn that Karikāla was the son of Iḷanjētceṇṇi; that, as a young man, he fell into the hands of his enemies who kept him in confinement and that he gained his freedom by his own daring exertions; that he was great alike in war and peace, and in the patronage he gave to learning and poetry; that he performed Vedic sacrifices; that he fought at Veṇṇi where he wounded his Cēra contemporary in the back, and also defeated the Pāṇḍya king; that he renovated the inland city of Uraiyūr, and was master of the sea-port at the mouth of the Kāvēri and that his sway extended over the Oḷiyar, the Aruvāḷar, the Northerners and the Westerners and the Pāṇḍya, as well as the territory of the petty chiefs of the shepherd class and of the line of Iruṅgōvēḷ. Except for the indefinite statement about the Westerners and the Northerners which, on its face, is a mere embellishment and should not be pressed far, there is nothing in this account that is improbable and this picture of the reign may be accepted as true. The Oḷiyar, the Aruvāḷar, the shepherds and the line of Iruṅgōvēḷ, the Pāṇḍya and the Cēra are all well-known tribes and dynasties of the Tamil country, and it is quite possible that an ambitious Cōḷa monarch made the strength of his arm felt by them.

c7.91

The commentator Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar, who wrote in the 14th century or later, says * that Karikāla's mother was a daughter of an Aḷundūr Vēḷ and that

c7.92

∗ Tolkāppiyam Poruḷ Sūtra 30—mannar pāṅgiṟ etc.

c7.93

his wife was another Vēḷir lady from Nāṅgūr. He cites no authority, but considering the contemporary references to the Vēḷs in Karikāla’s time, we may perhaps accept these statements as recording a genuine tradition.

c7.94

Of Karikāla’s children we have little definite knowledge. Mr. Kanakasabhai was clearly wrong in making Naṟcōṇai (the mother of Śeṅguṭṭuvaṉ) the daughter of Karikāla.* Paṇḍit M. Rāghava Aiyaṅgar holds † that both Uṟaiyūr and Puhār were under Karikāla and that after his death, his sons Maṇakkilli and Vēr-pahṟaḍakkai Peru-viṟar-kiḷḷi became rulers respectively of Uṟaiyūr and Puhār. But as he himself admits, there does not appear to be any direct evidence either for the relationship suggested, or for the division of the kingdom.

c7.95

It has been held that the father of Karikāla ‡ died as a crown prince—a view based entirely on his name Iḷanjētceṇṇi. Karikāla’s troubles in early life, his imprisonment by his enemies and his heroic escape and even the great battle of Veṇṇi are often ascribed to his father’s early death. Dr. S. K. Aiyaṅgar observes that there are a number of Karikāla’s predecessors mentioned in the Śaṅgam works; “but in our present state of knowledge of these it would be hazardous to attempt arranging them on any scheme, either genealogical or successional.”¶ Yet he says immediately after this: “Karikāla’s grandfather would appear to be Vērpahṟaḍakkai Peruṇaṟkkiḷḷi”; and on this assumption he writes: “The father died a prince and the grandfather fell in battle and so the grandson was left, when quite a young boy, heir to the throne of a kingdom not in the enjoyment of peace. Nor were causes wanting for civil dissensions. Young Karikāla found himself a fugitive at Karūr after the disastrous battle in which his grandfather fell along with his Cēra enemy. It was from here that he was fetched to ascend the throne by the state elephant from Kaḷumalam (Shiyali)”. Here we have a typical example of the blending of information drawn from history and legend that has played a conspicuous part in the treatment of the reign of this early Cōḷa king. It is difficult to choose between the two assumptions quoted from two writers that Vērpaḥṛadakkai-pperunarkkiḷḷi* was the son of Karikāla and that he was his grandfather. The fact is that his proximity to Karikāla in point of time is attested by the poet Kaḷāttalaiyār having composed songs both about him and the Cēra contemporary of Karikāla who committed suicide in expiation of his cowardice at Veṇṇi. If we accept the suggestion that Perunarkkiḷḷi was of the generation after Karikāla, we have also to accept that the Cōḷa war of the Cēras, of which we have one phase in the battle of Veṇṇi in Karikāla’s reign, was continued in later times; and also that Śeṅguṭṭuvaṇ the son of the opponent of Perunarkkiḷḷi was later than Karikāla by a period of not less than half a century, and perhaps more. If, on the other hand, following Dr. S. K. Aiyangar’s view, we take Perunarkkiḷḷi to be earlier than Karikāla, we are led naturally to the conclusion that Karikāla was much nearer in point of time to Śeṅguṭṭuvaṇ and perhaps his contemporary. But then we get into some new difficulties on

c7.96

∗ See Paṇḍit M. Raghava Aiyaṅgar- *Śeran Śeṅguṭṭuvaṉ* 2nd edn. p. 106 n † *Ibid* p. 101 ‡ Mr. K. V. Subramania Aiyar identifies him with Neydalaṅgānal Iḷanjētceṇṇi (*I. A.* 41 p. 147) who seems to have been a different person altogether. ¶ *Ancient India* p. 92.

c7.97

∗ *Puram* 62, 63 and 368 make it clear that he is the same as Peruvirarkkiḷḷi with the same attribute.

c7.98

KARIKĀLA

c7.99

this assumption. What is the relation between Neḍum-Śēral-Ādan who fell in the same field as Peruṇarkkiḷḷi and Peruṇjēral Ādan the opponent of Karikāla himself at Veṇṇi? How long did the latter rule, if at all, and what is the interval between the battle in which Karikāla’s grandfather fell and that of Veṇṇi? Again what is the relation between Peruṇjēral Ādan and Śēṅguṭṭuvaṇ? Lastly, how are we to account for the fact that the Śilappadikāram which purports to be written in the reign of Śēṅguṭṭuvaṇ mentions the events of the reign of Karikāla as having taken place in some remote past? For it is impossible, in the face of the statements in the Śilappadikāram about Karikāla’s reign analysed under IV above, to accept Dr. S. K. Aiyangar’s plea that Karikāla was ruling in Puhār and was an eyewitness to the early stages in the romance of Kōvalan and Kaṇṇagi.∗ The data from the Śilappadikāram and the poems of Kaḷāttalaiyār on the whole seem to favour the view that Peruṇarkkiḷḷi came later than Karikāla rather than before him

c7.100

∗ See *Ancient India* pp. 350-1 and P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar *Tamils* pp. 375-9. [†]: It may be noted, in passing, that Kaḷumalam may be not Shiyali, but another place of the same name near Karūr.

c7.101

The statements that Karikāla found himself a fugitive at Karūr after the death of his father and grandfather, and that he was fetched from there by the state elephant from Kaḷumalam[†] to ascend the Cōḷa throne, rest solely on the authority of the commentary to Paḷamoḷi No. 230 (VI b). The Paḷamoḷi, though it figures in the traditional lists of the eighteen minor anthologies of Śaṅgam poetry, is, like some others in that group, a work of uncertain age; and its commentary must, in any case, be a late work which can hardly be accepted in the absence of any satisfactory evidence to that effect, as a reliable authority on the events of the reign of Karikāla. Moreover, the choice of a king at critical times by the people setting an elephant at large and trusting to its sagacity, is too common a motif in legends * for us to accept it as a historical fact relating to any particular king. On this view, there is nothing in favour of the supposition that Karikāla was imprisoned at Karūr; in fact, there is no hint in the *Paḻamoḻi* of a man being taken out from a prison in Karūr for being put upon the Cōḻa throne. On the other hand, the *Paṭṭiṉappālai*, while it does not disclose the identity of the enemies of Karikāla's youth, makes it clear that Karikāla not only escaped from the prison, but attained the throne by his own exertions, and in this account there is no room for the elephant story.

c7.102

The evidence from the two poems in the *Paṭṭuppāṭṭu* on the circumstances attending Karikāla's accession to the throne seems at first sight to be somewhat conflicting. One of them says that the war-like child of Uruvappahṟērḷaiyōṉ (the young man with many fine chariots) obtained his right (to the kingdom) from the mother's womb, and carried the burden of the kingdom on his shoulders from the time he learned to crawl as a baby (*Porunar*. ll. 129-38). The other affirms that like the tiger cub growing up in a cage, Karikāla stayed in the prison of his enemies (*pirar*) until his wounded pride roused him to action, and then, like the elephant effecting its escape from the pit into which it had fallen by filling it up with mud brought down by its tusks in order to join its mate, so also Karikāla by means of wisely laid plans effected his escape after fighting the warders of his prison with his sword, and attained royalty which was his by right. (*Paṭṭiṉappālai* ll. 220-227). One statement is common to both the

c7.103

∗ cf. e. g. Mūrtiṉāyaṉār Purāṇam.

c7.104

versions—that the kingdom was Karikāla’s birth-right; for this is how, as it appears to me, the lines, *tāy-vayirirundu tāyam eydi* of the *Porunarārruppaḍai* and “*uru keḷu-tāyam-ūḷineydi*” of the *Paṭṭiṉappālai* must be understood.* One simple way of reconciling the two apparently divergent, but professedly contemporary versions, suggests itself easily. It is that Karikāla inherited his estate as a child; that, for a time, he was kept out of it by the machinations of his elder male relatives perhaps of collateral lines until, aided by his friends, he was able to effect his escape from confinement and make himself king; and that the author of one of these two poems passed over this unhappy incident of the king’s youth, or refused to recognise that he had ceased to be king even while he was in prison. On this assumption the enemies of Karikāla would be, not the Cēras or any others who were strangers to the Cōḷa dynasty, but some relatives of Karikāla himself. The tradition of Karikāla having been helped by Piḍarttalai, who is described as his maternal uncle in the commentary on the *Paḷamoḷi* verse 239, becomes easy to understand and may be a correct tradition.

c7.105

To accept some of the traditions incorporated in the *Paḷamoḷi* while rejecting the rest is, it may be remarked in passing, not so illogical or unsound as it may appear. For one thing, in rejecting the story of the elephant raising Karikāla to the throne we are influenced by the facts (1) that the prince from Karūr is identified with Karikāla, not by the text of the *Palamoḻi* but its commentary; and (2) that the evidence of strictly contemporary writers is clear that Karikāla’s escape from prison and his accession were brought about by his own exertions, aided perhaps by his friends from outside. Here, on the other hand, we have a fact mentioned in the text (not the commentary) of the *Palamoḻi* viz., that Piḍarttalai aided Karikāla in winning the sceptre; and we also find that the identity of the king is indicated unmistakably by the mention of the accident from fire which occurred early in Karikāla’s life. And the new fact supplied by this verse fits in satisfactorily with the rest of the story as given by other, perhaps earlier, writers. Whether, as the annotator says, Piḍarttalai was the maternal uncle of Karikāla, and whether he was the same person as the poet Irumbiḍarttalaiyār of the *Puṟam*, are matters which cannot be settled now and do not have any direct bearing on the history of Karikāla. It should, however, be noticed that this verse from the *Palamoḻi* confirms the oldest explanation we get of the name Kari-kālaṇ, ‘the man with the charred leg,’ by making it the result of an accident from fire in his early life. But there is nothing to support the suggestion sometimes made that the prince met with this accident in his endeavour to get the kingdom.* Later explanations of the name Karikāla such as “Death to elephants,” and “Death to Kali” and the story of the mother making a charcoal mark on the soles of the prince to enable the elephant to lift him up easily are not entitled to any weight, at any rate, with reference to this early king Karikāla.

c7.106

∗ The ingenuity of Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar discovers a common legendary *motif* even here, and he makes the suggestion that Karikāla was made to await in his mother’s womb the arrival of an auspicious hour for his birth. The same story is told in great detail of Kōccaṅgaṇāṉ in the *Periyapurāṇam* and, I believe, of Āditya the son of Parāntaka in the *Sevvaṇḍippurāṇam*. Mr. P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar (*Tamils* p. 338) thinks that “it refers to his (Karikāla’s) being the posthumous child of Iḷaiyōṉ”

c7.107

The results of this discussion of the incidents relating to the early life of Karikāla then seem to be the following. He inherited the Coḷa throne as a boy;

c7.108

illegitimate attempts were made by his relatives, for a time successfully, to keep him out of his birthright; by his own ingenuity and strength, and with the assistance of friends and partisans from outside, among whom may have been a maternal uncle Irumbiḍarttalai, Karikāla, after some years of confinement in a prison, effected his escape from it and succeeded in making himself king. An early accident from fire which maimed him in the leg for life seems to be rather well attested and to furnish the true explanation of his name.

c7.109

We have seen that the strictly contemporary sources do not lead us to suppose that Karikāla's sway extended outside the Tamil country. If we may believe the testimony of the contemporary author of the Paṭṭiṉappālai, Kāñcīpuram with the surrounding district of the Toṇḍaināḍ was ruled in Karikāla's time by a king called Toṇḍaimāṉ Iḷandiraiyan who is praised by him as even superior to the three crowned kings of the Tamil land. * And yet, somehow, this evidence has been either generally ignored, or circumvented by means of fanciful hypotheses. This persistent tendency has, it seems, been the result of some circumstances which have checked the free play of criticism on our sources. First, there has been a general feeling that Karikāla whose name looms so large in later times must have been a great and powerful king. Thus we are assured by one modern author † that Karikāla "was certainly one of the most powerful Cōḷa kings that ruled from the city (of Puhār) and his name is even to the present day known throughout the Tamil country, and even in the Telugu districts (as) that of a great monarch who looked to the welfare of the subjects entrusted to his care and as a patron of letters." Then, it has been the rule for a long time to accept all the statements in the *Śilappadikāram* about Karikāla as a contemporary account of the transactions of his reign. Again, great confusion has resulted from mixing up the origin of the family of the Tiraiyar as given by Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar in his gloss on *Perumbāṉ-āṟṟuppaḍai* l. 31 with another legend in the *Maṇimēkalai* which, while it differs in important respects from the story of Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar, may yet have suggested to him his celebrated comment on the origin of the Tiraiyar. However that may be, the connection between the Tiraiyar and the Cōḷas rests on the sole authority of Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar. There is nothing in the poem *Perumbāṉ* to justify this explanation. And even Nacciṉārkkiṉiyar only talks vaguely of the ‘Cōḷa of Nāgapaṭṭiṇam’ as the progenitor of the Tiraiyar and does not bring either Karikāla or any known relation of his into the story. Lastly, the statements in the Cōḷa charters and inscriptions of the Vijayālaya line and in the Telugu Cōḷa inscriptions of the 12th century and later have had a large share, on account of their persistence and universality, in disarming criticism. It seems necessary, therefore, to examine somewhat more carefully the nature of the evidence for some of the events usually recorded in the history of Karikāla’s reign. This may be done under some convenient heads: his connection with Kāñcīpuram, his Northern Expedition, his contemporaneity with Trilōcana-Pallava and the construction of the embankment of the Kāvēri.

c7.110

∗ *Perumbāṉārruppaḍai* ll. 32-5 † *I. A.* Vol, 41, p. 145.

c7.111

Mr. Kanakasabhai Pillai says:∗ “His (Karikāla’s) kingdom extended beyond Kāñcīpuram, which town he enlarged and beautified,” and even more emphatically, Mr. K. V. Subrāmania Aiyar:† “Karikāla ruled from

c7.112

∗ *The Tamils 1800 years ago* p. 67.

c7.113

† *I. A.* 41 p. 146.

c7.114

Kāñcī which he made new with gold." Neither gives the source on which he bases the statement. Dr S. K. Aiyangar is more cautious on the subject;* apparently inclining to the same view, he does not commit himself to a categorical statement that Karikāla held Kāñcī or renewed that city. Under his successors Kāñcī passed under the Kiḷḷis (Cōḷas) as the Maṇimēkalai testifies; but that is altogether another matter. Mr. P. T. Srinivasa Aiyangar writes:† "Kanakasabhai assumes that Iḷandiraiyan usurped the throne of Kāñcī during Karikāla's boyhood; but as there is absolutely no evidence for the statement, it deserves no consideration." We agree. But he proceeds, "it is but a bad guess and no more. As Iḷandiraiyan was a contemporary of Karikāla, he must have been appointed ruler of Kāñcī after Karikāla's conquest of the place and continued so after Karikāla's death." So the flaw in Mr. Kanakasabhai's position is not that he was guessing, but that he did not guess like some one else. Now all that we know of Iḷandiraiyan is what the Perumbāṇ tells us. We have already remarked in this poem the same poet sings the praise of Iḷandiraiyan with quite as much eclat as he does that of Karikāla in the Paṭṭiṉappālai, and even says that the Tiraiyaṉ was superior to the three crowned kings of the Tamil Country. Surely, the guess that he usurped Kāñcī when Karikāla was a baby is by no means less plausible than the one that he 'must have been appointed ruler of Kāñcī after his conquest of the place.' For our part we have already indicated our position. We prefer to reject both these guesses alike and to treat Iḷandiraiyan and Karikāla as contemporary rulers of neighbouring states, which is the normal conclusion that flows from the facts set forth in the two poems in the *Pattuppāṭṭu* by a single poet.∗

c7.115

∗ *Ancient India* pp. 92-4 and 349 ff. † *Tamils* p. 397.

c7.116

∗ Dr. S. K. Aiyangar, who holds that Iḷandiraiyan was a grandson of Karikāla, says: 'This lucky author lived on to celebrate another patron, Toṇḍamāṉ Iḷandiraiyan of Kāñcī, of a later generation.' *Ancient India* p. 94.

c7.117

If Karikāla conquered Kāñcī, is it not strange that we should hear nothing of it in the whole range of early Tamil literature and have to wait till we come to the late epigraphs of the Tamil and Telugu countries and the vague tradition of his having settled colonists imported from outside into the Toṇḍaināḍ that is narrated by Śēkkilār and other late writers? Except for the lines in the *Śilappadikāram* which give a high-flown account of Karikāla's northern campaign up to the Himalayas and the presents secured by him from the kings of Magadha, Vajra and Avanti, there is nothing whatever in the early literary references to Karikāla to suggest that his conquests extended beyond the area indicated by the lines of the *Paṭṭiṉappālai* summarised above under II*(b)*

First 117 of 188 passages. Read on

Linked texts (16)