Indian Antiquary Vol 41

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarkar
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 146

142
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
(JUNE, 1912.
It seems remarkable that the following statement in the well-known work Dasarkpávaloka has not been noticed.
यथा उपना वालिवधी मायूराजेनोत्तरायवे परित्यक्ता "For example, the unlawful killing of Vali is dropped by Mayaraja in [his] Uaattaraghava."
Thus, by a simple reference to Dasardpdvaloka, we learn that Udáttar. ghava was written by Mâyúrája. So we see that Pandit Durgaprasad was right so far as he went. From the coinmentary on K duydnusdeana of Hemachandra p. 835, Mâyürüja seems to be the author of a Larya also.
Now let us considor some points first about the author Mayaraja, and then about the work itself.
We have already shown that [Ayuraja was a Rajput of the Kalochuri clan. We know that the Kalachari princes ruled the Chedi country. This Chedideśa is at present identified with Berar and the northern part of Central Provinces. The capital of the country was at first Mahishmati or the modern Mabesvar. Afterwards the town named Tripura was made the capital This Tripura is now identified with Tevar near Jabalpore.10 So Mâyûrâja might have been a king of Chedi country with its capital Mahishmati. Unfortunately, the history of the early Kalachuris is a blank in Indian History, and we know nothing about the princes between A. D. 580 and A. D. 875 So one must await future research for additional information about the personal history of our poet king.
Now, as regards the work itself, it will help us in fixing the approximate date of the author, As the work is not found anywhere, we have to rely on the quotations in the Sahityadarpana, Dasarapdraloka, etc. Dajaripůvulolca quotes Udáttardghara in six different places, while the other work sahityadarpaşa has quotations from it in only five different places, which include four of the Dalarúpdraloka. From these quotations we learn that the story of the Ramdyana forms the basis of the plot of the drama. We also learn that the poet did not closely follow it, but changed the original as he pleased. The first deviation is :
चित्रमायः-भगवन् कुलपते रामभद्र परित्रायतां परित्रायताम् (इल्याकुलता नाटयति) चित्रमावः--भृगापं परिश्वग्य विधाय कपटं वपुः।
. नीयते रससा तेन लक्ष्मणो युधि संशयम् ||" - रामः--वत्सस्वाभववारिधेः प्रतिभवं मन्ये कथं राक्षसाचस्तश्शेष मुनिर्विरोति मनसश्चास्त्येव मे संभ्रमः ।
माहासीर्जनकात्मजामिति मुहुः स्नेहादुरुाचते न स्थातुं न च गन्तुमाकुलमतेमूढस्य मे निश्चयः॥2 In the story of the hunt of the mayamriga, Lakshmana is made to go first in pursuit of the game. Then, when Rama was informed by the disguised Rakshasa that Lakshmana was in danger, he went to save his brother, when Sita was carried away by Ravaņa.
Secondly, we have in the Dasarípdraloka :- यथा बचना वालिवधो मायुराजेनोदात्तरापवे परित्यक्तः।
From this we learn that Mâyüraja omitted the story of the unlawful killing of Vali,13 Here the word T (-unlawfully) seems to be nsed for explaining the poet's object in omitting the story. The poet perhaps wished to bring out the character of Rama without any defect.
Now the verse , cto., quoted above, is said in the Dasardpdraloka to belong to Udâttaraghavals and in sahityadarpana to Kulapatyanka 15 It appears, therefore, that the act
• Dasara paka (N. S. Press Edition), p. 68.
• Preface to Karpiramanjari, p. 6. Jo Dr. Bhandarkar's Eurly History of the Dekkan, 2nd Edition, p. 93. 11 This verso is also quoted in Sarasvatikantabharana (Barooh, 2nd Edition), p. 390. 12 Datartpaka, pp. 110, 111. Karyannbasana of Hemachandra, p. 97. 18 This statement is corroborated by Sahityadarfana (p. 275 of the N. S. Press edition). 16 Dasarlparaloka, p. 100.
10 Sahityadarjana p. 323.