صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

zing in its stead the Apabhraíba or Kasmiri form, as well as he could. There are in fact a few instances in which we have indications of such a metamorphosis. Thus we find the same local name spelt either Bhuleruka or Baleruka in the Chronicle, and a village which Kalhaņa calls Ghoramülaka, referred to by Abhinanda, the author of the Kādambarikathāsāra (first half of 9th century), as Gauramülaka. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that we have here varying attempts to reproduce in a Sanskritic garb original Apabhramśa names. But these cases are very rare indeed, and even in them other explanations of the different spellings are possible.

These observations apply with nearly the same force also to other local names recorded in the Chronicle, such as those of mountains, streams, passes, etc. The great majority of these dames must have very early found their place in official documents or, as we shall see below, in the Savskrit legendaries or Mābātmyas of the numerous Tirthas. If any of them are in reality adaptations of Prakrit or Apabhraṁsa forms, their quasi-official use is yet likely to have originated a long time before the date of Kalhaņa.

Even to the present day the local nomenclature of Kaśmir, whether in the Valley or in the mountains, shows throughout an unmistakeably Sanskritic character. This is most clearly illustrated by the constant recurrence of such terms as -pür or por (< pura), -mar (< matha), thom (< asrama), -koth (< koçta), -gām or gom (< grāma), -kundel (< kundala), -võr (< vāța), in village names; of -sar ( saras), -nambal (< nadvalā), nag (< nāga) in names of lakes, marshes, etc.; of -van (< vana), -nor, (< nāļa), -marg (< mathikā), -gul (< galika), brar (< bhattārika), -vath ( <patha) in designations of alpine localities, peaks, passes, etc.; -kul (< kulyā), -khan (< khani) in names of streams and canals.

The Sanskrit etymology of the specific names preceding these terms, is even in their modern phonetio form very often equally transparent. At an earlier stage of the language the Apabhramśa names must have approached the corresponding Sanskrit forms much more closely. The reproduction of the popular names in a Sanskrit form could have then but rarely been attended with much difficulty or doubt. hence safely assume that the Sanskrit forms recorded by Kalhaņa represent in most cases correctly the original local names, and in the remainder cannot differ much from them. 23. The later Sanskrit Chronicles which were composed with the

distinct object of continuing Kalhaņa's work, Later Sanskrit

furnish valuable supplements to the topograChronicles.

phical information contained in the latter. | Compare notes piii. 1861, and vii. 1239; viii. 2410.

We may

These Chronicles are the Rājatarangini of Jonarāja who continued the narrative down to the reign of Sultan Zainu-l-‘ābidin and died over his work, A.D. 1459;! the Jaina-Rājaturangiņi composed by Jonarāja's pupil Srivara which deals in four Books with the period A.D. 1459–86;8 and finally, the Fonrth Chronicle which was begun under the name Rājāvalipatā by Prājyabhatta and completed by his pupil Suka some years after the annexation of Kaśmir hy Akbar, A.D. 1586.3

It will be seen from the above dates that the narrative of the last two works falls entirely beyond the period of Hindu rule to which our enquiry is limited, and which may be considered to close finally with the usurpation of Shāh Mir, A.D. 1339. The same holds good of the greater portion of Jonnrāja's Chronicle. The reigns of the late Hindu rulers, from Jayasiṁha to Queen Koțā, are there disposed of with a brevity corresponding more to their own insignificance than to the intrinsic historical interest of the epoch. Notwithstanding this difference in date the materials supplied by these later Chronicles bave often proved of great use in clearing up points of the old topography of Kaśmir. For the mass of localities mentioned in them goes back to the Hindu period, and the names by which they are referred to, are also still mostly the old ones.

Yet on the whole the inferiority of these later Chronicles when compared with Kalhaņa's work, is as marked in the matter of topographical information as it is in other respects. In the first place it must be noted that the whole text of these three distinct works does pot amount to more than about one-half of Kalhaņa's work. For references to sacred sites and buildings and other places of religious interest the account of Muhammadan reigns offers naturally but little opportunity. The incidental notices of other localities are also in proportion less numerous and instructive. For these later authors allow considerably more room to episodic descriptions and do by no means show that care for accuracy in topographical statements which we have noticed in Kalbaņa.

It is curious to note how the gradual decline of Hindu learning in Kaśmir during the period of troubles and oppression which lasted with short interruptions for two and a half centuries previous to Akbar's conquest, is marked also in the character and contents of these later Chronicles. JONARĀJA was a scholar of considerable attainments, but apparently without any originality. He shows himself yet well. acquainted with the old local nomenclature of the Valley, though outside it he too commits himself to forms like Puruşavira (for Peshawar, recte Puruşapura), etc.

I See Sriv, i. 6.
% See Fourth Chron. 6.

s Compare Fourth Chron. 8 899. Prājyabhatta's composition ended with the year A.D. 1513-14 and the reign of Fatah Shāh (verses 14-64).

4 The narrative of the period 1149-1339 A.D. fills only 305 rerses in Jonarāja's Chronicle (347 according to the Bombay edition).

J. I. 6

Srivara is a slavish imitator of Kalhaņa, not above reproducing whole verses of his predecessor. His text looks often more like a cento from the Rājatarangiņi than an original composition. Notwithstanding the thorough study of Kalhaņa's work which this kind of exploitation presupposes, we find Srivara more than once betraying ignorance of the old names for well-known Kasmir localities. Thus we have the name of the Mahāsarit stream transformed into Māri, an evident adaptation of the modern Mār;l Siddhapatha, the modern Sidau, represented as Siddhādeśa ;a the Tirtha of Mārtāņņa regularly referred to by its modern name Bhavana (Bavan), etc.3

The work of PRĀJYABHAȚȚA and Suka is inferior in composition even to Srivara's Chronicle, and by the increased number of modern local names proves its authors' scant familiarity with the old topography of Kaśmir. Thus the ancient Kștyāśrama, the scene of Kalhaņa's Buddhist legend, i. 131 sqq., figures repeatedly in their narrative as Kicāśrama, i.e., by its modern name Kitshom. Even the well-known Rājapuri is metamorphosed into Rājavīra (!), a queer reproduction of the modern Rajaur7.5 The old castle of Lohara reappears as Luhara, an evident approach to the present Lohorin ; 6 the ancient site of Cakradhara is turned into Cakrādhāra, etc.?

It is evident that when Sanskrit ceased to be the language used for official purposes, the knowledge of the ancient names of localities and of the traditions connected with the latter must have become gradually more and more restricted. In view of this decrease of traditional knowledge we have to exercise some caution when utilizing the evidence of the later historical texts for the elucidation of the old topographical data. At the same time it is easy to realize that their help is often of considerable value when connecting links have to be traced between those earlier data and the facts of modern topography.

I See Sriv. i. 440 ; iji. 278; comp. note on Rājat. iii. 339.
% Sriv. iii. 354; iv. 203, 661.
$ Sriv. i. 376 ; iii. 372.
* See Fourth Chron. 234, 240, 384; compare also note on Rajat. j. 147.
6 Foarth Chron. 542, 899.
6 Ib., 134, 143, 899.
7 Ib., 330.

24. It is convenient to refer here briefly to the Persian Tărikhs

of Kaśmir which to some extent may be looked Persian Tārikhs.

upon as continuing the works of Kalhaņa and his Pandit successors. Unfortunately they furnish no material assistance for the study of the old topography of the country.

All these works give in their initial portion an account of the Hindu dynasties which pretends to be translated from the Rājatarangiņi. Yet the abstract so given is in each case very brief and chiefly devoted to a reproduction of the legendary and anecdotal parts of Kalhaņa's narrative. We thus look in vain in these abstracts for the modern equivalents of those local names, the identification of which is attended with any difficulty.

In illustration of this it may be mentioned that even the Tārikh of Haidar Malik Cādura (Tsadar),which is the earliest work of this class accessible to me and the fullest in its account of the Hindu period, compresses the narrative of Jayasimha's reign, filling about two thousand verses in the Rājatarangiņi, into two quarto pages. Of the localities mentioned in the original account of this reign not a single one is indicated by the Muhammadan Chronicler.

The later works which all belong to the 18th or the present century, are still more reticent on the Hindu period and seem to have largely copied ħaidar Malik's abstract. Taking into account the endless corruptions to which local names written in Persian characters are exposed, it will be readily understood why reference to these texts on points of topographical interest yields only in the rarest cases some tangible result. 25. It is a fortunate circumstance that several of the older Kaśmir

poets whose works have been preserved for us, Kasmir poets.

have had the good sense to let us know something about their own persons and homes. The topographical details which can be gleaned from these authors, though comparatively few in number, are yet of distinct value. They enable us to check by independ. ent evidence Kalhaņa’s lucal nomenclature, and in some instances acquaint us with localities of which we find no notice in the Chronicles.

The first and most helpful of these Kaśmirian authors is the wellknown polyhistor KșEMENDRA. His works, composed in the second and third quarter of the 11th century, form important landmarks in various fields of Indian literature. Kşemendra seems to have felt a genuine interest, rare enough among Indian scholars, for the realities of his country and the life around him. He does not content himself with informing us of his family, the date of his works and the places where he wrote them. l

1 Written A.H. 1027, i.e., A.D. 1617, in the twelfth year of Jahāngir's reign. Haidar Malik takes his epithet Cadura, recte Tsądur, from the Kaśmir village of that name situated in the Nāgām Pargana, some 10 miles south of Srīnagar, close to the village of Vah4tor.

In the Samayamāt, one of his most original poems, which is intended to describe the snares of courtezans, he gives among other stories an amusing account of the wanderings of his chief heroine, Kaikāli, through the length and breadth of Kasmir. The numerous places which form the scene of her exploits, can all easily enough be traced on the map. More than once curious touches of true local colour impart additional interest to these references. To Kşemendra's poem we owe, e.g., the earliest mention of the Pir Pantsāl Pass (Pañcāladhārā) and its hospice (mat ha). There too we get a glimpse of the ancient salt trade which still follows that route with preference. Elsewhere we see the heroine smuggling herself as a Buddhist nun into the ancient Vihāra of Kętyāśrama, etc.4

A different sketch of topographical interest we owe to the poet BILHAŅA. He left his native land early in the reign of King Kalasa (1063-89 A.D.), and after long wanderings became famous as the court poet of the Cālukya king Tribhuvanamalla Parmāļi in the Dekhan. In the last canto of his historical poem, the Vikramāåkadevacarita, Bilhaņa gives us a glowing picture of the beauties of the Kasmir capital. Notwithstanding its panegyrical character, this account is laudably exact in its local details. In another passage the poet describes to us his rural home and its surroundings at the village of Khonamuşa, south-east of Srinagar. His touching verses attest as much his yearning for his distant home as the faithfulness of his local recollections. 6

1 Compare the colophons of the various works first discovered and noticed by Prof. Böhler, Report, pp. 45 sqq. and Appendix.

% This humorous peregrination fills the ij. Samaya of the work; see Kävyamala edition, pp. 6–16. The abundance of curious local details makes a commentated translation of the little Kavya very desirable, notwithstanding the risky natare of part of its contents. A personal knowledge of Kaśmir would certainly be required for the task.

8 See Samayam. ii. 90 sqq. The matha on the pass corresponds to the present 'Aliābåd Sarai, a short distance below the top of the pass on the Kaśmir side ;, see below, § 44.

4 Samayam. ii. 61 $99.

6 Prof. BÜHLER to whom we owe the discovery of Bilhaņa's chief work, has given in his Introduction an admirable analysis of the contents of Sarga xviii. as illustrating the poet's biography. For his description of contemporary Srinagara, see pp. 7 899

6 See Vikram. xviii. 70 sqq. Prof. Bühler during his Kaśmir tour, 1875, had the satisfaction of visiting the poet's native place, the present village of Khungmoh.

« السابقةمتابعة »