صور الصفحة

(crowned Qaka 960, N. plates) &
(33 years or 30 years) | * Děva

W., Q. 1003, W., Q. 1040.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

| Sitā Dāvī
31, Wira Bhānu Dāva III S- Hirā Dévi
(Q, 1274-5–1300-1)
32. Nrsimha Dāva IV
(reigning in Q. 1324,
and probably in Q. 1346)


The Ekävali was first described at length in Dr. Bhandārkar'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. Kamalăçamkara Pränagankara Trivedi, with an introduction, Mallinătha’s Tikā Tarală, lengthy notes in English, and several indices, making up a fairly big volume of 780 pages. The Ekāvāli is divided into eight Unmesas 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 udāharanas or examples (in verse). Most of these walāharawas are the author's own, composed in praise of the king Nrsimha Déva, 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 uddharanas: - *

Its Contents.

Examples in praise of

[ocr errors]

Ekävali's date is discussed in Dr. Bhandārkar's “report,” p. lxvi.

et seq., and his supplementary note in the

Its date. Introduction to the Ekävali, pp. xxxiii

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

Having been quoted in Singabhupala's Rasārnavasudhākara and

commented upon by Mallinătha, both of the

i d.o.o.on”; : latter half of the 14th century, Ekävali

panegyrised king. cannot be put later than that century. The

verses in praise of Nrsimha Déva, king of Utkala and Kalinga, can therefore reasonably apply only to Nrsimha Dāva I (Qaka 1160–1186), or to Nrsimha Déva II (Qaka 1200-1–1227-8). Both Dr. Bhandārkar and Mr. Trivedi identify the panegyrised king with Nrsimha Déva II, mainly on the following grounds:— Firstly, Ekävali refers to certain “Hammira,” in Hammira-ksitipāla-cétasi (p. 176), viksya Hammiram (p. 177), Hammira-măna-mardana (pp. 257, 260). This Hammira whose pride is humbled is identified with the Cöhāna prince of Qākambhari (A.D. 1283–1301) [vide “Report,” pp. lxvii-viii; Introd., p. xxiii). Secondly, in kārikā ll (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” I “Report,” p. lxvi; Introd., p. xxil. A sufficiently long time should be allowed to pass the news on from Makwa to Orissa, and the later the date the better. Thirdly, in the copperplate Inscriptions of Nrsimha Déva IV, Nrsimha Dāva 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 Ekävali's Nrsimha, Kavi-kula-kumuda-vyūha-naksatra-nāthah (p. 160). i 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 Alamkāra work vyakti-viveka is not yet published. But from certain passages in the Sãhitya-darpana, he would seem to be not earlier than Candraçěkhara, who composed a stanza in praise of Bhānu Déva (presumably I). The passages in the Sãhitya-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 Chandraçãkhara, father of Viçvanātha, and is quoted in the latter's Vrtti to kārikās 25, and 257, with the following comments —

The Reasons for identifying him with Nrsionha Léva II.

“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 Qiva.].

Comments on this in the Vrtti to Kär. 25 :—

“In this case (the words) “the beloved of Umā’’ being applied by denotation to the queen named Umā and her beloved the king Bhānudéva, are to be understood as applicable by suggestion to the beloved of Gauri (Çiva).”

Again in the Vrtti to Kär. 257:—

“Here in this case, lest the description of the king Bhānudava the beloved of the queen named Umā, may not (apparently) be connected with the description of (Qiva) the beloved of Pârvati, as indicated in the second meaning, what is hinted at is that Bhānuděva and Tovara stand to each other as the compared (upamāna) with what it is compared to (upamāya). Hence here (this) Umā-beloved (Bhānuděva) is like (that) Umā-beloved (Qiva), that is, the suggested sense is a figure of speech— the figure of speech of simile.”

According to Viçvanātha, therefore, the above stanza of his father was made in praise of the king Bhānu Déva (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 Nrsimha Dāva he eulogises was presumably Bhānu Dāva's son Nrsimha Déva II.

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

The strongest objection is that in the Ekävali the king Nrsimha 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-āvanī-vallabha [p. 202], Qak-ādhāgvara [p. 326] and Hammāra. 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 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, Bagga-saggara-simani [p. 203], and the reference to the waves of the Ganges, Gaggå-tarayga


dhavalani [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 Déva 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 Déva I. is that his army invaded Bengal up to Gaura, and fought several times successfully with the Bengal Mahomedans. Secondly, Nrsimha Dăva 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 Déva 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-vivéka would be almost unassailable if it can be shown beyond doubt that the criticism on Candraçökhara's stanza was made in the vyakti-vivéka, that the stanza referred to Bhānu Dâva I., and that this work Vidyādhara criticised. Otherwise, it is possible to argue that the criticism of Candraçěkhara's verse was made in a later work, or that Vidyādhara criticised some work of Mahima Bhatta other than the vyakti-vivéka, or that Umā-vallabha is some prince different from Bhānu Dāva I. Vidyādhara mentions only the name Mahima Bhatta and not the work; and so, too, in the para of the Sãhitya-darpaza as quoted above. Fourthly, in Kārikā 11 [p. 181 the poet Çriharsa is praised very highly as one who “gained world-wide fame by making the poem.” Evidently Vidyādhara knew Øriharsa’s poem well. If so, was the Tikā on Naisadha-Caritam, known as Sāhitya-vidyādhara, made by him P This Tikä is certainly older than the Vikrama year 1353 (A.D. 1296) in which year Pandit Cându completed his Tikā, Naisadha-Dipikā at Ahmedabad; cf. his verse beginning with— Tikäm yady-api sãpapatiracanãriv vidyādharð nirmamé, [see Nirmaya-săgara Press Edition, Introd, p. 7,1. From the extracts given at the footnote of the N.P. edition, the comments in Sãhityavidyādhara would appear to be more or less rhetorical, which would be natural with such an Alankarist as the author of the Ekāvali. 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 Tikā than in the case of say, an original poem or Alankâra work. If 30 or 35 years be J. I. 19.

« السابقةمتابعة »