सामग्री पर जाएँ

पृष्ठम्:मथुराविजयम्.djvu/२३

विकिस्रोतः तः
एतत् पृष्ठम् परिष्कृतम् अस्ति

12 obedience and vassalage, but never as having met with his end. We do not know if the authoress of the Madhuravijaya bas represented the opponent of her hero as having been killed, either through an inadvertance or as a conscious artifice in- tended to heighten the poetic effect of the narrativo. If Rajanarayana Sambuvaraya, the contemporary of Kampans, were really killed and dead, the Champuraya who is said to have accompanied and helped Jini Gundayadeva against the Sultan of the South should have been the son of the deceased Sambuvarayar; but it appears probable that Rajanarayana- Sambuvarayar did not saffer death on the occasion of his vanquishment by Kampara. Having conquered the Dravida king Sambuvarayar and reduced him to the position of a tributary, it was easy for Kampana to make Conjeevaram his residence. The occupation of Conjeevaram by Kampana should have taken place in the year S' 1283. It was while he was sojourning at Marakata- nagara as his capital that he is said to have been visited by a mysterious lady who presented him with the divine sword. The town of Marakatanagarat has not yet been identified. It continued to be the seat of a Governor of the Vijayanagara Empire who was generally chosen from the members of the royal family. Virupaksha or Viruppanna was ruling here and after him, Sigiribhupala, brother of Pratapa Devaraya II.* After receiving the divine sword from the unknown lady Kampana had to wait patiently for a long time to strike a well-timed blow at the Turushkas holding Srirangam and Madura. The Srirangam-Koyilolugu gives an account of the events that took place since the occupation of Kanchi by the representative of the Vijayanagara Empire. From this quasi-historical temple chronicle we learn that Goppanarya, the Brahmana general of Kampana, was placed by his master in charge of the province of Senji (Gingi). He was a Srivaishnava by persuasion, and belonged to the Bharadvaja

  • Ep. Ind., Vol. VIII., pp. 308-312.

Can this be Virinchipuram itself? G. H.