________________
DECEMBER, 1898.]
To return to the names of Râmarajabhûshapa. Some say that Mûrti and Râmarâjabhushana are the names of two different poets, and that the former was the author of the Narasabhupaliya, while the latter wrote the Vasucharitra and Harischandra-Nalópákhyana. Others maintain that Mûrti was the real name and that Râmarajabhushana was an honorific title given to him for holding the leadership of the court of Râmarâja, and that he was the son of Sûraparaja and the adopted son of Venkatarajabhushana. Those who maintain the latter. view say that the colophons in the Vasucharitra, Narasabhipáliya, and HarischandraNalopákhyana vary, and that in the colophons of the last two works there is a variation in the names of the father of the poet. Virêsalingam Pantulu says that though at the first reading of the works under reference we are led to believe that the writers are different, further reflection will make us feel that we must receive that opinion with a little caution.
THE TELUGU LITERATURE.
333
In the beginning of each of these works, there is a slight difference in the adjuncts used, but as these are not contradictory, we have no reason to infer that the poets are two different people. As both the writers are bhaktas of Hanumân, as their style is not different, as it has been generally admitted till lately that Baṭṭamurti was the author of the Vasucharitra, and as the commentators of the Vasucharitra, who flourished very soon after him, say that he wrote the Narasabhupaliya illustrative of the figures of speech used in the former work, we are forced at least to doubt that these works are due to two different authors.
There can be no gainsaying the fact that Mûrti was the author of the Narasalhúpaliya. 'Battu' and other adjuncts must be either family names or honorary titles. In the work under consideration, there is an adjunct Subha' attached to the word 'Mûrti.' How came this word to be there, and to whom ought it to be properly applied? From the colophon to the Harischandra-Nalôpakhyana, we learn that this adjunct 'Subha' was conferred by Ramaraja on the poet Râmarâjabhushana. All this tends to shew the identity of the writers of the Vasucharitra and Harischandra-Nalepakhydna. Were Râmarâjabhûshana' a mere title, there would be no occasion at all to doubt the identity of the writers. But were the word used to express the name and not the title of a person, then there would be no occasion for using 'Râmarâjabhushana' in one place, Ramanṛipabhushana' in another, and 'Râmabhushana' in a third. In his preface to the Harischandra-Nalopakhyana Poondla Ramakrishniah says that this is a fact of trivial importance, and that he is at a loss to know how Viŕêśalingam Pantulu drew that inference. For, says he, had the expression 'Râmarâjabhushana' been a mere mark of honour, the poet would not have curtailed it, but assuming it to be the poet's own name he was at liberty to deal in whatever way he pleased with it as suited his own convenience. If, as that writer maintains, Ramarajabhushana' is a mere title, what means have we, asks Poondla Ramakrishniah, to learn the genuine name of the poet A book does not go by the mere title of the writer, and what has Virêsalingan. Pantalu to say for the word 'Venkatarayabhashana'? If he explains Râmarâjabhûshana in the way he does, he must also explain Venkatarayabhushana' in just the same way. And as the latter appellation seems to be an anonymous one, it follows, says Poondla Râmakrishniah, that the word Bhushana' is a common appellation for all the members of the poet's family. It is said in the last of the works, the Harischandra-Nalopakhyana, that the poet had written previously the l'asucharitra, and other works, and that he had dedicated them to many of the greatest kings.
We learn two facts from the foregoing statements, viz., that the poet must have written at least one more work than the Vasucharitra, i. e., the Narasabhúpaliya, and that he must have. dedicated these. to more than two, at least three, kings, viz., Râmaraja, Tirumalaraya and Narasaraya. I leave the credibility of this explanation to the reader.
2 Biographies of Telugu Poets, Vol. II. p. 91.
