________________
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY.
[NOVEMBER, 1904.
interpolations in his work. However, the question simply is, whether certain verses which we find in the Chhandômbudhi, whether they are original or interpolated, were taken into that work from the Kavirajamarga.
272
We need not examine verses 29, 31 to 33, and 35 to 41, of chapter 2 of the Kavirajamárga. Two of them, namely, Kavirdjamárga, chapter 2, verses 32, 35, and Chhandômbudhi, verses 53, 55, stand in precisely the same form in the two works, which, however, does not prove that it was from the Kavirajamarga that they were taken into the Chhandimbudhi, whether originally or by interpolation; and, while in the others there are differences, greater or less as the case may be, in the actual readings given in the two works, but without affecting the general meaning of the verses, that fact would not necessarily prove that they were not taken into the Chhandômbudhi from the Kavirájamarga. Nor need we examine verses 231, 232 of chapter 3 of the Kavirajamárga, which stand as verses 64, 65 in the Chhandômbudhi. Here, again, there are certain minor discrepancies, which, however, in this case also, would not necessarily prove that the verses were not taken into the Chhandômbudhi from the Kavirájamarga. But, whereas in one direction Dr. Kittel has rendered it at any rate doubtful whether verses 64, 65 belong to the real version of the Chhandômbudhi,30 in another direction Mr. R. Narasimhachar has told us that the corresponding verses, which stand as verses 231 and 232 of chapter 3, and the three verses which stand next after them, do not belong to the Kavirájamárga at all.31. And neither these two, nor the other verses in respect of which I have said that it is not necessary to examine them, are of any importance, or in any way helpful; because the originals of them did not happen to offer the facilities for adaptation of which Kaviávara availed himself in forming the three verses which are important and instructive. The important verses are the following ones, which I present side by side for the purpose of easy comparison, marking by thick type those portions of them to which particular attention is to be directed:
Kavirajamarga of Kavisvara.
Chhandômbudhi of Nagavarma. Nuta-áabdalamkârado]=
atisayam-adu Kannadakke satatam prâsam I krita-krityam-appud=ellara
matadindadu tappe kavyam-êm sobhipude II p. 17, v. 50.
nata-sakal-ârâtijana-vitânam mattam
Nata-sabdalam kârado]=
atisayam-i Kannadakke satatam prasam I Kritakrityamalla vallabha
matadind-adara prapancham-1 teran= akkum 1 2, 28.
Ativisada-yasô-vṛittam
vitata-sri-sampattam
nata-sakal-ârâtijana-vitânaṁ mattam
satatam 32 Nripat gadevan olavim pottam | 2, 42
Ativiśada-yaso-vrittam
vitata-sri-sampattam
Satamakha-sadris-anubhava-vibhavana bettam 33 11 p. 20, v. 62.
50 See the preceding paragraph.
31 See his Kavyavalo kunam, Introd. p. 13, note 2. And it is at any rate obvious (and it ought to have been so even to the editor of the Kavirajamarga) that, if they do belong to the Kavirajamarga, they do not stand in their right place, which would be somewhere in chapter 2. Mr. Narasimhachar has also told us (ibid.) that verse 233 is a quotation from the Lilavati of Nêmichandra, of the twelfth century A. D. And Dr. Kittel has expressed the opinion that verse 65 of the Chhandômbudhi, Kavirajamarga, verse 232 of chapter 3, was taken from verse 20 of chapter 2 of the Kavijihvabandhana (see his Nagavarma's Canarese Prosody, p. 21; note 4, and Introd. p. 6) of favarakavi (see id. p. 61), whom he has referred to the beginning of the sixteenth century A. D. (ibid.), and who, as he had the title Abhinava-Kêéiraja (see Mr. Rice's Karnatakaśabdânusānam, Introd. p. 41), was at any rate later than the original Késiraja (about A. D. 1225; see page 197 above).
The editor of the Kavirajamarga has said, in respect of verse 65 of the Chhandombudhi, that "this verse which "begins with the words 'arasarol ela' is therefore not a later interpolation in the Chhandômbudhi" (see his Introd. p. 1, note 5); namely, because the Karndṭakasabdanuidsana cites it and appeals to Nripatunga as a standard authority on alamkara on these points (see page 278 below). But there is nothing in that; the Karnatakasabdanulasana mentions Nripatunga, not in connection with the stanza in question, but in a quite separate passage.
32 It would appear, from a footnote, that one of the three manuscripts used in preparing the text of the Kavirajamarga, presents the reading - Satamakha-sadris-ânubhava-padamaṁ vettaṁ.
33 We require pettam, to govern sashpattam; not bettam in composition with the word ending in vibhavath.
—
