________________
OCTOBER, 1904.] NOTES ON INDIAN HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY.
according to the method of expression of Atisayadhavala." This statement is the one in respect of which the editor, who recognised the identity of Atisayadhavala with Nripatunga, has said (Introd. p. 2) that it cannot be so satisfactorily explained" as the colophons, which admittedly are apt to "lead one into the belief that Nripatunga may not have been the real author of the work," can, according to him, be explained away. And he has said that this passage " is calculated to give one "the impression that the writer of the work was different from Nripatuiga." In reality, of course; it contains an unmistakable intimation that the author of the work was not Atiśayadhavala, but was someone else who was endorsing and presenting views attributed by him to Atisayadhavala. However, all the various allusions to the method, style, opinions, and teaching of Nripatunga, Atisayadhavala, &c., have, of course, to be interpreted in accordance with any specific information that we can find elsewhere. And, in the colophons, we have the plainest possible intimation that the author of the work was at any rate not Nripatunga. And the colophous explain; in the clearest manner, the real nature of the various references in the body of the work to the method, style, opinions, and teaching of Nripatunga, Atisayadhavala, &c.
267
Not in any of the above-mentioned passages is there any statement that Nripatunga, Atisayadhavala, and Amôghavarsha were one and the same person. The similar nature of the complimentary allusions made by the author of the work in connection with the three names, may be suggestive that those allusions all refe: to one individual. But it is not conclusive on that point. We note, however, that Nripatunga is indicated as a king, by the mention of sabhásadar or members of his assembly or court.' We also note that, in addition to being indicated as a king in that same way, Atisayadhavala is expressly marked as a king, by the words urvipa and dharadhipa. And we note that Amoghavareha is expressly marked as a king by the epithets akhiladharavallabha and nṛipéndra. Now, like various other secondary names, the appellations Nripatunga and Amôghavarsha were by no means confined to one person. We know, from the epigraphic records, that they both belonged to Kakka II., the last Rashtrakuta king of Malkhêḍ. He had also the appellation Vîranârâyana. And, if we were guided by simply these three indications, we might seleet him as the patron of the author of the Kavirajamarga. The name, however, which determines the individualisation of the author's patron, is Atibayadhavala. This appellation has been established in connection with only the Rashtrakuta king Amoghavarsha I.; and it is established by, among published records, the Sirûr and Nilgund inscriptions of A. D. 866, without which the identity of the author's patron could not have been determined.16 These two records of the time of this king himself establish for him the appellations Nripatunga, Amoghavarsha, and Atisayadhavala, and also Lakshmivallabha. Later records allot to him the appellation Viranarayana.17 He had a long and famous reign. And his kingdom included that part of Western India to which belonged the language, Kanarese, in a suitably archaic form of which the Kavirajamarga was written. And thus, though the work does not include a date, and though there is not anything in it specifying the dynasty or family to which the author's patron belonged, we do not hesitate to decide, on the basis of the allusions to Atisayadhavala, that the patron of the author of the Kavirajamarga was the Rashtrakuta king NripatungaAtisayadhavala-Amoghavarsha I., and that the work was composed in the period A. D. 814-15 to 877-78. The work shews that Amôghavarsha I. actually had, during his life, the appellation Viranârâyana, which at present has been found connected with him in only records of later times. And it tends to establish for him the other formal appellations of certainly Nitinirantara and Kritakrityamalla, a.id most probably Naralókachandra and Nityamallavallabha. None of these last four appellations, however, has as yet been found in epigraphic records. And it is practically cer sin that one of them, Kritakrityamalla, was simply an invention of the author, made in the manuer indicated on page 273 below. As such, perhaps it may have been confined, and the others like it, to this particular work.
16 For the Sirûr record, see Vol. XII. above, p. 218, and the revised version in Ep. Ind. Vol. VII. p. 22. For the Nilgund record, see Ep. Ind. Vol. VI. p. 102.
IT On this and the preceding point, see Ep. Ind. Vol. VI. p. 174 f.
