Indian Antiquary Vol 43

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

Page 72

68
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
[ APRIL, 1914.
minor details. Wilson's views that the Mudra- the first to give us a really critical edition, with rakshasa was written in the eleventh or twelfth full materials. To judge from his review of Telanga century has now only historical interest. It was edition20, his edition was planned more than thirty based on the assumption that the Mlechchhas men years ago, and the Mudrarakshas has evidently tioned in the bharatavákya were the Musalmans. been in his mind during all these years. In 190.5 he
Who the author of the Mudrarakshase was, we published an edition of all the Prakrit versee, 21 and know not. His name was Visakhadatta, and he was now follows the complete edition, with exhaustive the son of the Maharaja Bhaskaradatta, or, accord apparatus criticus and an index of Prakrit words. ing to most manuscripts, Pithu, and the grandson It is an exceedingly careful work Professor of the feudatory (Samanta) Vateśvaradatta.
Hillebrandt has given us. It would have made We do not know any of these persons. Wilson16 the book still more useful if he had added an index thought it possible that Pyithu was identical with of pratikas. It very often happens that we the Chahamâna Pithviraja of Ajmer (12th century), have to identify verses, and such indexes are but that is of course excluded. Hillebrandt seems extremely useful. This is however & minor consi inclined to identify Bhaskaradatta with Harsha's deration, and I prefer to think of all we have got friend king Bhaskaravarman of Kåmarúpa Ac. in this new edition, cording to the Harshacharita, however, Bhaskara. There are of course many minor details where it is varman was the son of Susthiravarman Miganka
possible to have different opinions. Thus I am and the grandson of Sthiravarman. Now this agrees
very doubtful about the restoration of the Prakit with the information derived from the newly dis.
forms required by the rules of the grammarians. covered copper-plate grant of Bhaskaravarman
This is more especially the case with the Magadhi. which has been brought to light by Padmanatha
The Prakrit grammarians are all comparatively lato, Bhattacharya 16 We only here learn that Sthiravar. and their rules about Magadhi are probably to some man and Susthiravarman are misreadings instead of
extent artificial, Professor Hillebrandt has corrected Sthitavarman and Susthitavarman. It is then pro
throughout so as to bring the Prák ita into agree. bable that Susthitavarman, the father of Bhaskara
ment with the grammarians, and he has done so in varman, was the king defeated by Mahasenagupta.
an excellent way. It is perhaps the only possible Dr. Fleet's supposition that Susthitavarman was
thing to do, and in the case of Sauraseni and Maha. & Maukhari has hitherto been generally adopted.
râshtrf our knowledge is so far advanced that we Now that we know of a Susthitavarman whose
can do so with some confidence. But it is more diffi. time suits the case, it will be necessary to change
cult to be confident in the case of Magadhi, about our opinion. We know that Bhaskaravarman was which dialect we are still very unsatisfactorily in the contemporary of Harsha, who again was a formed. The use of a comparatively correct Magachi contemporary of Madhavagupta. Now it was M- in the fragments of plays preserved in later inscripdhavagupta's father who defeated Susthitavarman, tions does not pro ve much for the older plays, now and the Kamarupa king Susthitavarman was the that we know that the Pråkpit grammarians cannot father of Bhaskaravarman. There is then a perfect be so old as some of us were once inclined to think accord in the chronology, and there cannot be It is also possible to find individual cases where one much doubt that Mahasenagupta's adversary was is inclined to disagree with the editor. Thus I would the Kamarupa king Susthitavarman Sri-Mrigkokalread idyddi and not jayadi in the Sauraseni, or else Now it is tempting to assume some connection
I would also read ja nasi instead of jd dsi. I would between the Maukharis and the Kamarupa kings.
substitute å and not a for a when it is short; I Both dynasties use names formed in the same
would not allow Sauraseni in verses, at least not it way. It has already been suggested that Avanti- the Maharashtri forms occur in some of the manu. varman may have sided with Susthitaverman in his
scripts; I would read susiduris instead of suddur, war against Mahasenagupta, and the chronology is p. 13, 1. 10; tissd or idé for tissdé, p. 18, 1. 5, and so in favour of such a supposition. On the other hand
on. It is possible to disagree about such questions, it seems impossible to reconcile the genealogy of and to think that the editor has erred. But the VicAkhadatta with that of the Kamarupa kinge.
principal thing is that he has given the full mateWe cannot therefore say who the author of the rials so that we can judge for ourselves in every Mudrarakshase was though 10 15 nigniy probable case. And his methods are so found that we usually that he belongs to the Ganges country and lived in feel convinced that he is right. Of misprints which the fourth century. We know of no other work by have not been corrected I have only noted Sindhuhim, but the Mudrarakshase itself has long been shans for Sindhusino, p. 140, L. 6, and karaye for known and admired. It has also been published karána, p. 177, 1. 5. several times. Professor Hillebrandt however is
STEN KONow. 16 l. c.; p. 128.
17 ZDMG., Vol. xxxiv, p. 131. 18 See Bijoya, Vol. I, Calcutta 1320, pp. 628 ff., and Radha Govinda Basak, Dacca Review, 1913.June, 19 Gupta Inscriptions, p. 15.
20 ZDMG., Vol. xxxiv, pp. 107 ff. 21 Zur Kritik des Mudrardkrasa, Nachrichten der K. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen Phil.-hist. Klasse 1905, Heft 4.