________________
NOVEMBER, 1904.)
NOTES ON INDIAN HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY
277
importance, which could easily be accounted for. But the third verse, bari si pradhanaran kullirisi, &c., can hardly be accepted as a quotation of the verse barisi kshiti patiyasi sayt-irisi, fc. The differences go beyond anything in the way of any ordinary various readings. They alter the sense in certain well marked features. The verse in the Kavirajamdrga speaks of a "king" being "summoned (literally, caused to come)" and "made to feel at case;" whereas, the verse in the Sabdamaạidarpana speaks, much more appropriately, of ministers" being summoned " and caused, or allowed, to sit down." It might be said that Kesiraja, not satisfied with having in this verse already three instances of the combination pr after a short vowel, introduced a fourth by adapting the verse of the Kavirajamirga by substituting pradhán arant for kshitipatiyan. But, even so, there was no necessity of any kind for him to substitute kullirisi, baving caused to sit down,' for sayt-irisi, having caused to feel at ease,' nere kéldu, having made full inquires,' for besa-gondus *having demanded or questioned,' and amdrggara, bad style,' for dúshyasi, to be censured.' And, more to the point still, if he so introduced an additional and quite superfluous instance of the.com bination pr after a short vowel, he gratuitously destroyed another instance of bad style, objected to by him, which was to be found in connection with the combination ksk after a short vowel. The explanation is to be found in the following facts. It appears that Kesiraja has not anywhere mentioned the name of any Kavisvara, or any work called Kavirajamárga. He has mentioned Nripatunga ; but only in the illustrative stanza quoted on page 197 above, which does not attribute to him any literary attainments or any counection with literature, and does not tend in any way to connect him with the Kavirdjamarga. On the other hand, in verse 5 of the introduction to his Sabdamanidarpana he has expressly mentioned Srivijaya among the writers whose good style was to be kept in view in his own work. It can hardly be doubted that Kebiraja took the verse barisi pradhdnarak, 80., not from the Kavirdjamdrga, bnt from Srivijaya. We naturally decide that it was from Srivijaya that he took also the verses nudig-ellan, &c., and arasu-kum dranan, 80., and that these verses, again, were taken by Kavisvara into his Kavirdjamarga from Srivijaya's work. And it is tolerably certain that Kavisvara's verse barisi kshitipatiyan, &c., was another case of adaptation, which was probably made because Kavisvara found it easier to compose his next verse with an alliteration of the t of kehitipatiyasa, than with an alliteration of the dh of pradhanarasi.
The editor has further said (Introd. p. 1, note 5) that Isvarakavi, a writer referred both by Dr. Kittel and by Mr. R. Narasimhachar45 to the sixteenth century A.D. -has quoted from Nripatunga" verse 232 of chapter 3 of the Kavirdjamdrga, which is a stanze, commencing arasaro'-ela nin, in illustration of the double prása or alliteration of the second and third syllables of-each pada of a verse. He has, in fact, said that "both Någavarma and Isvarakavi quote it from “Nripatunga." And, as has been indicated on page 272 above, in verse 65 of the Chhandombudki we have that same stanza, with certain unimportant differences in detail. As to what form the verse may present in Isvarakavi's work, I am not able to say anything. But the selection of the verse as an instance of quotation of the Kavirdjamarga by Nagavarma and Isvarakavi, is peculiarly unfortunate. As has already been remarked on page 272 above (see also note 31), Dr. Kittel has rendered it at any rate deubtful whether verse 65 in the Chhandõibudhi belongs to the real version of that work,
He has, perhaps, even mentioned Srivijaya's Kavimdrga ; namely, in sâtrs 193 (Dr. Kittel's edition, p. 281), where he has said that he has to the beat of his ability elasidated the subject of compuands as they occur in kantmarga. The commentary, however, explains this word as meaning kavigala margadalt, in the style or usage of poeta.' And so we may have here only an use of havi-marga, analogous to the montion of kavi-reja-marga in the Kavyavaldkona, regarding which see pare 75 above. • The same stansa bariil pradhanarah, 4., has been given is precisely that same form by Bhatt Alakaoka in the care of his commentary on tra 67 of his Karnatakságbdanuidsana: see Mr. Rice's edition of that work, in which, while the transliterated text (p. 609 prosents baras, the Kanarose text (p. 53) shows barin. Bhattakalanka has introduced the stanga "used as an example (uddhrita) by him (Kobarra);" meaning "by Kesiraja," as is shown by hio inmediately preceding quotation of otra 59 of the Subdamasidarpana. And thus, while not helping us by attributing the stansa to Srivijays, - whom, so far as the Karpfaktabdanud and goon, he seems not to have known at all, he has at any rato plainly implied that he know that it was not composed by Kebiraja. Nagaparma'. Cancrow Prosody, Introd. p. 61.
- Kavydvall kanam, Introd. pp. 19, 38.
