« السابقةمتابعة »
an unnamed younger brother 19. Coraganga alias Gangēçvara
iv. Lakşmi Ahirāma
Sadgama or Mazkuņa
20. Kāmārņava VII alias 21. Rāghava 22. Rājarāja II = Suramā
23. Aniyankabhīma alias Anaŋgabbīma II
24. Rājarāja II
26. Nșsimha Dēva I
(9. 1160-86) 27. Vira Bhānu Döva I
Jākalla Dāvi (Cálukya family)
28. Nșsimha alias Nara- Cora Dēvi
nārasimha Dāva II
(G. 1200-1-1227-8) 29. Vīra Bhānu Dēva II Lakşmi Dēvi
(g. 1227-8-1249-50) | 30. Nisimba alias
i. Kāmala Dēvī Naranarasimha
ii. Gaŋgā Dēvi (f. 1249-50-1274-5) iii. Kõmmi Dövi
Sitā Dāvi 31. Vīra Bhānu Dāva III
Hira Devi (g. 1274-5-1300-1)
32. Nrsimha Dāva IV
(reigning in Q. 1324,
and probably in 9. 1346)
THE DATE OF ĒKĀVALI.
The Ēkāvali was first described at length in Dr. Bhaņdārkar's
Report on the Search for Sanskrit MSS. in The Work.
the Bombay Presidency during the years 1887-1891, pages lxv.-lxxi. Last year (1903) it was printed in the Bombay Sanskrit series, as No. 63, under the editorship of Mr. Kamalāçaykara Prāņaçankara Trivedi, with an introduction, Mallivātha's sikā Taralā, lengthy notes in English, and several indices, making up a fairly big volume of 780 pages. The Ekāválī is divided into eight Unmēşas or openings (i.e., chap
ters). The Text consists of kārikās or the Its Contents.
rules of Poetic art (in verse), and Vșttis or comments (in prose), with udāharanas or examples (in verse). Most of these udāharanas are the author's own, composed in praise of the king Nrsimha Dēva, as the author himself says in kārikā 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 udaharanas:
Examples in praise of
: : : : : : :
et seq., and his supplementary note in the Its date.
Introduction to the Ekāvali, pp. xxxiii-
commented upon by Mallinātha, both of the Depends upon
latter half of the 14th century, Ēkāvali identification of the panegyrised king.
cannot be put later than that century. The verses in praise of Nrsimha Dēva, king
of Utkala and Kaliŋga, can therefore reasonably apply only to Nșsim ha
king with Nșsimha Dēva II, mainly on the
following grounds :tifying him with Nșsis
Firstly, Ēkāvali refers to certain ha Dēva II.
“Hammīra,” in Hammīra-kṣitipāla-cētasi (p. 176 ), vikşya Hammīram (p. 177), Hammira-māna-mardana (pp. 257, 260). This Hammira whose pride is humbled is identified with the Cõhāna prince of Çākambhari (A.D. 1283-1301) [vide “Report,” pp. lxvii-viii; Introd., p. xxiii].
Secondly, in kārikā 11 (p. 19), the poet Haribara 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 Nșsimha Dēva IV, Nșsimha Dēva II is described as kavi-priyaḥ, and kavi-kumuda-candraḥ, epithets given him probably for patronising poets like Vidyādhara. A somewhat similar expression, I find, is applied to the Ēkāvali's Nșsiṁha, Kavi-kula-kunuda-vyūha-nakşatra-nāthaḥ (p. 160).
To these I would add one more ground, seemingly the strongest, deduced from the date of Mahima Bhatta, whom Vidyadhara criticises in p. 32, and apparently follows in pp., 173-177. Mahima Bhatta's date is not yet ascertained, and his Alaŋkāra 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 Bhānu Dēva (presumably I). The passages in the Sahitya-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 Vitti
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 Vștti to kārikās 25, and 257, with the following comments .
“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 Kşattriya 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 Umā" being applied by denotation to the queen named Umā 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 Bhānudēva the beloved of the queen named Umā, may not (apparently) be connected with the description of (Çiva) the beloved of Pārvati, 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 (upaměya). Hence here (this) Umā-beloved (Blānudēva) is like (that) Umā-beloved (Civa), 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 Déva, and the Nșsisha Dāva he eulogises was presumably Bhānu Döva's son Nșsimha Dāva 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 Nșsisha Dāva 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-ādhiçuara [p. 326] and Hammira. The title Hammāra 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 bad 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, Ganga-taranga
dhavalāni [p. 136] apparently speak of Nysimha's fight with the Bengal Viceroys of the Delhi Sultang.
Not a single record has yet been found in which Nțsimha 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 Nộsimha Dēva I. is that his army invaded Bengal up to Gausa, and fought several times successfully with the Bengal Mahomedans.
Secondly, Nysiṁha 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 Nșsimha 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 Bhānu Dāva I., aud 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 Umā-vallabha is some prince different from Bhānu Dēva I. Vidyādhara mentions only the name Mahima Bhatta and not the work ; and so, too, in the para of the Sāhitya-darpana as quoted above.
Fourthly, in Kārika 11 [p. 18] the poet Çrīharşa is praised very highly as one who "gained world-wide fame by making the poem, Evidently Vidyādhara knew Criharşa’s poem well. If so, was the Țikā on Naişadha-Caritam, known as Sähitya-vidyadhara, made by him ? This Țikā is certainly older than the Vikrama year 1353 (A.D. 1296) in which year Paņdit Cāņdu completed his Țikā, Naişadha-Dipikā at Ahmedabad ; cf. his verse beginning with
Pikām yady-api sõpapatiracanām vidyādharā nirmamē,
[see Nirņaya-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 Ēkāvali.
If this identification holds good, then between the Țika of Vidyādhara in Orissa and a Tīkā at Ahmedabad, a sufficiently long time should be allowed, a longer time ordinarily in the case of a sīkā than in the case of say, an original poem or Alaŋkāra work. If 30 or 35 years be
J. 1. 19.