(crowned Çaka 960, N. plates)

19. Cōraganga alias Gangēçvara

(9.998-1069)

21. Raghava 22. Rājarāja II = Suramā
(9. 1078-1092)

(Ç. 1092-1112)、

Svapnēçvara

23. Aniyankabhīma alias Anangabhīma II

24. Rājarāja II

(C. 1120

(Ç. 1120-1133)

(Ç. 1133-1160)

25. Anangabhīma Dēva

Sadguņa or Mankuna

Kasturā Dēvī

Mālacandra

APPENDIX II.

THE DATE OF ĒKĀVALĪ.

The Ēkāvali was first described at length in Dr. Bhandarkar's

Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in the Bombay Presidency during the years

The Work. 1887-1891, pages lxv.-lxxi. Last year (1903) it was printed in the Bombay Sanskrit series, as No. 63, under the editorship of Mr. Kamalāçankara Prāņaçankara Trivedi, with an introduction, Mallinātha's Tikā Taralā, lengthy notes in English, and several indices, making up a fairly big volume of 780 pages.

τ

Its Contents.

The Ēkāvali is divided into eight Unmēsas or openings (i.e., chapters). The Text consists of kārikās or the rules of Poetic art (in verse), and Vrttis or comments (in prose), with udāharaņas or examples (in verse). Most of these udāharaņas are the author's own, composed in praise of the king Nrsimha Deva, as the author himself says in kärikā 7 of the 1st Chapter (p. 15). I say 'most' advisedly, and not 'all' as Mr. Trivedi says (Introd. p., xii), as will appear from the following analysis of the udāharanas :

Ēkāvali's date is discussed in Dr. Bhandarkar's "report," p. lxvi.

Its date.

et seq., and his supplementary note in the Introduction to the Ekāvalī, pp. xxxiii

xxxvii; and this is practically followed by Mr. Trivedi in his own Introduction, pp. xvi-xxiii.

of Utkala and Kalinga, can therefore reasonably apply only to Nrsimha Dēva I (Çaka 1160-1186), or to Nrsimha Dēva II (Çaka 1200-1-1227-8). Both Dr. Bhandarkar and Mr. Trivedi identify the panegyrised king with Nrsimha Dēva II, mainly on the following grounds :

The Reasons for identifying him with Nrsimha Dēva II.

Firstly, Ēkāvalī refers to certain "Hammira," in Hammīra-kșitipāla-cētasi

(p. 176), vikşya Hammīram (p. 177), Hammira-māna-mardana (pp. 257, 260). This Hammira whose pride is humbled is identified with the Cōhāna prince of Çākambhari (A.D. 1283-1301) [vide "Report," pp. lxvii-viii; Introd., p. xxiii].

Secondly, in kārikā 11 (p. 19), the poet Harihara is said to have got amazing wealth from Arjuna (the king of Malwa). The latest known date of this Paramāra prince is 9th September A.D. 1215, and Harihara thus "flourished during the early decades of the 13th century" ["Report," p. lxvi; Introd., p. xxi]. A sufficiently long time should be allowed to pass the news on from Malwa to Orissa, and the later the date the better.

Thirdly, in the copperplate Inscriptions of Nrsimha Dēva IV, Nrsimha Dēva II is described as kavi-priyah, and kavi-kumuda-candrah, epithets given him probably for patronising poets like Vidyādhara. A somewhat similar expression, I find, is applied to the Ekavali's Nrsimha,

Kavi-kula-kumuda-vyūha-naksatra-nāthah (p. 160).

To these I would add one more ground, seemingly the strongest, deduced from the date of Mahima Bhatta, whom Vidyādhara criticises in p. 32, and apparently follows in pp., 173-177. Mahima Bhatta's date is not yet ascertained, and his Alankara work vyakti-vivēka is not yet published. But from certain passages in the Sahitya-darpana, he would seem to be not earlier than Candraçēkhara, who composed a stanza in praise of Bhanu Déva (presumably I). The passages in the Sāhitya-darpana run as follows:

While criticising the opinion in the Vyakti-viveka that from inference (anumāna) one is capable of perceiving the suggested meanings of sentiments (Kārikā 270), Viçvanātha goes on to say in the last part of his Vrtti

"Regarding the verse beginning with 'by his forts impassable &c,' the allegation of Mahima Bhatta that no second meaning exists in it, that is verily an elephantine wink to deny what is established by (actual) perception."

This verse is of Chandraçēkhara, father of Viçvanātha, and is quoted in the latter's Vrtti to kārikās 25, and 257, with the following comments.

1

"By his forts impassable in battle, excelling Cupid by his splendour,

waited upon by prosperous kings, venerable, surrounded on all sides by nobles, not (even) looking at the Ksattriya chiefs (so high he is), with deep devotion to him whose father-in-law is the Mountain (Çiva), holding the earth in possession, with a form adorned with dignity, shines (the king) the beloved of Umā." [The other meaning is in connection with Çiva].

Comments on this in the Vrtti to Kār. 25 :

"In this case (the words) "the beloved of Uma" being applied by denotation to the queen named Uma and her beloved the king Bhānudēva, are to be understood as applicable by suggestion to the beloved of Gauri (Çiva)."

Again in the Vrtti to Kār. 257 :

"Here in this case, lest the description of the king Bhanudova the beloved of the queen named Umā, may not (apparently) be connected with the description of (Çiva) the beloved of Parvati, as indicated in the second meaning, what is hinted at is that Bhānudēva and Içvara stand to each other as the compared (upamāna) with what it is compared to (upamēya). Hence here (this) Uma-beloved (Bhānudēva) is like (that) Umā-beloved (Çiva), that is, the suggested sense is a figure of speechthe figure of speech of simile."

According to Viçvanātha, therefore, the above stanza of his father was made in praise of the king Bhānu Dēva (presumably I), and therefore Mahima Bhatta who criticised the same cannot be put earlier. As Vidyādhara refers to Mahima Bhatta he cannot be earlier than this Bhānu Deva, and the Nrsimha Dēva he eulogises was presumably Bhānu Deva's son Nrsimha Dēva II.

These arguments are, however, open to several objections which may be mentioned here seratim.

Objections.

The strongest objection is that in the Ekāvali the king Nrsimha Dēva is described to have fought with the Mahomedans, and to have fought in Bengal on the banks of the Ganges. The battles with the Mahomedans are indicated in the examples having the words,-Yavan-āvani-vallabha [p. 202], Çak-ādhīçvara [p. 326] and Hammira. The title Hammīra should preferably be taken as that of the Mahomedans, having been in coins and inscriptions specially applied to the early Mahomedan rulers of India and Ghazni [see references, supra p. 124, and Cat., Ind. Mus. Coins, Part I, pp. 2-36]. This title had begun to be used before A. D. 1187 [Ind. Ant. Vol. xv, p. 11] and continued to be used by the Sultans of Delhi till the time of Balban [A.D. 12651287]. Then again, the fight with the Bengalis, Banga-sangara-sīmani [p. 203], and the reference to the waves of the Ganges, Gangā-taranga

dhavalāni [p. 136] apparently speak of Nrsimha's fight with the Bengal Viceroys of the Delhi Sultans.

Not a single record has yet been found in which Nrsimha Dēva II. is credited with any war against the Mahomedans, or with any invasion of Bengal; on the other hand the most prominent historical fact regarding Nrsimha Dēva I. is that his army invaded Bengal up to Gaura, and fought several times successfully with the Bengal Mahomedans.

Secondly, Nrsimha Dēva I. ruled from A.D. 1238-1264; so the latter part of his rule is fairly well removed from the time of the poet Harihara and the king Arjuna to permit the story of Arjuna's liberal gifts to pass on from Malwa to Orissa. Furthermore, the copperplate epithets of Nrsimha Dēva II. being vague and merely complimentary can hardly be relied upon; the Sanskrit poets in their praçastis generally without discrimination pile one epithet upon the other in praise of their patrons.

Thirdly, the deduction from the date of Mahima Bhatta and his vyakti-vivēka would be almost unassailable if it can be shown beyond doubt that the criticism on Candraçēkhara's stanza was made in the vyakti-vivēka, that the stanza referred to Bhanu Deva I., and that this work Vidyādhara criticised. Otherwise, it is possible to argue that the criticism of Candraçēkhara's verse was made in a later work, or that Vidyādhara criticised some work of Mahima Bhatta other than the vyakti-vivēka, or that Uma-vallabha is some prince different from Bhānu Deva I. Vidyādhara mentions only the name Mahima Bhatta and not the work; and so, too, in the para of the Sahitya-darpana as quoted above.

2

Fourthly, in Kārikā 11 [p. 18] the poet Criharsa is praised very highly as one who "gained world-wide fame by making the poem." Evidently Vidyādhara knew Criharsa's poem well. If so, was the Tikā on Naisadha-Caritam, known as Sahitya-vidyādhara, made by him? This Tikā is certainly older than the Vikrama year 1353 (A.D. 1296) in which year Pandit Candu completed his Tikā, Naisadha-Dipikā at Ahmedabad; cf. his verse beginning with

Tikām yady-api sōpapatiracanāṁ vidyādharō nirmamē,

[see Nirnaya-sāgara Press Edition, Introd, p. 7,]. From the extracts given at the footnote of the N.P. edition, the comments in Sahityavidyādhara would appear to be more or less rhetorical, which would be natural with such an Alankarist as the author of the Ekavali.

If this identification holds good, then between the Tika of Vidyādhara in Orissa and a Tikā at Ahmedabad, a sufficiently long time should be allowed, a longer time ordinarily in the case of a Tika than in the case of say, an original poem or Alankara work. If 30 or 35 years be

J. 1. 19.