________________
NOVEMBER, 1904.)
NOTES ON INDIAN HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY
279.
us that his own work was the work of Srivijaya in a new guise. We can see how, in certain places, he fashioned that new guise, by adapting verses of Srivijaya with the introduction of certain alterations to suit the patronage under which he wrote. And, if Srivijaya's Kavindrga is ever recovered, we shall probably find that practically the wbole of Kavisvara's Kavirajamárga is simply an adaptation of it, and that it was Srivijaya, and not either Kavigvara or Amoghavarsha I., who made the translations from the Sanskrit writer Dandin which underlie so much of the Kavirajamdrga.
The conclusions to be formed regarding the nature of the edition of Kavibvara's Kavirajamarga under the name of Nfipatunga's Kavirajamarga are neither so simple to arrive at, nor so pleasant to express. The book possesses, indeed, one good feature, in presenting, in addition to the text in Kanarese charseters which is of course requisite for Native students, the transliterated text which makes it so much easier for others to investigate its contents without an unprofitable waste of time, and it would be a material enhancement of the value of all the publications of the series in which this book has found a place, if every one of them, without exception, were cast on the same lines in that respect. Also, it gives us, we presume, a reliable version of the text, as far as it could be settled by the manuscripts which were available. Beyond that, however, is does not place before us anything that can be taken as a topic of commendation. The editor has given us but few, if substantially any, of the explanatory and illustrativo notes which are an essential part of an up-to-date edition of any ancient work, and particularly of such a work as the one under notice. He has not given us any index, either to the text or even to his own Introduction. He has not furnished any such general account of the scheme of the work and the arrangement of its contents, as would have been of use to anyone wishing to explore any particular part of it. He has not even taken the trouble to mark or arrange the text in such a way as to distinguish between the principal parts of it and those which are simply of the nature of examples. And his aim seems to have been simply to spend a short time on the compilation of the text, which is a brief one, and in the settlement of which only three manuscripts had to be consulted, and then to devote a long time to the elaboration of a treatise, published by way of an Introduction, which advertises him as anxious to try his hand at anything rather than the proper work of an editor. We can hardly attribute to him inability to understand the meaning of the work. Still, it must be remarked that in another essay, in composing which he ought to have been more than ngually careful to be correct, 50 be has shown himself unable to recognise the real import of a very simple Kanarese verse, which does not say that Srutakirti-Traividya composed a Raghav apdndaviya which was to be read both forwards and backwards and would give sense when read in either direction, but does say that he performed the feat of reciting both forwards and backwards an ordinary work of that name (composed by someone else). And thus it is, perhaps, in some similar failure that we may find the reason for which he has dealt in so misleading a manner with the question as to who was the author of the Kawirdjamdrga. But, whatever may be the explanation of that detail, his results are anything but
On this mattersee Kavirdjamdrga, Intred. pp. 18-20. - In conneation with the question of the age of Dandin, the editor (Introd. p. 20, and note 1) has sited the riddle násleya-madhya parital, fo., given by Dandin in his Kapyddaria, 3, 134; and, rejecting the solution Katch and Chodar je given by the commentator Vijay Ananda, ha adopted the solution Kapcht and the kings whose name was Pundraka which is given by the editor of the Kavydaria (Bibliotheca Indios edition, p. 899). But he has not attempted to shew what connection, if any, the Papdrakes over had with KAßcht.
By way of an answer to the riddle, an eight-etter word is regnised, to denote the kinge of KAñoh, if that is the city intended. And the Dominative plural Pallavdk would answer the requirement better than the base Pundraka, in addition to connecting with Kiboht a line of kings who really did rule that city in the time to which Dandin is sometimes referred, the 6tk oentary 4. D. But it may be remarked that, if the riddle is bahirlapia, and not antarldpin, that is to say, if for the city we are not restricted to K Aichf by the words kachit-part in the verso, then an equally good answer is Vengt And Chalenky ah. No doubt, other answers also could be found with
little thought. And it would be possible that adeilya-madhya has a double meaning, and indfontes secondarily some town in the Naik country.
# Namely, in his artiolo published in the Jour, Bo. Br. R. As. Soc. Vol. XXI. PP. I to 8, to which he gave the Bolomn title "On the Jain Poem RaghavapAndalys: Reply to Prof. Max Moller."
