Indian Antiquary Vol 60

Author(s): Richard Carnac Temple, Charles E A W Oldham, S Krishnaswami Aiyangar, Devadatta Ramkrishna Bhandarka
Publisher: Swati Publications

Page 228

200
THE INDIAN ANTIQUARY
We are justified in expecting the expression hitakaranam corresponding to priyakaranam.
(9) II. 2. (Com.)-Channd iti sambandhaḥ.The expression is not quite clear. Perhaps the reading should be sahita iti sambandhaḥ. (10) II. 4. (Com.)-Cakárat stribhir anydbhir api.-Perhaps the commentator did not notice that the word stribhih is in the text, and need not be understood from the word ca.
(11) II. 7. (Com.)-Makaralayaḥ should be fined to his own kingdom, spread throughout the
inserted before silákhando.
world. In either case there is no certain clue
(12) II. S. (Com.)-Kamalinilayd ought to be regarding the date of the poem. mahakamalinilayd.
I have no wish to add more, though many more could be found throughout the book.
[ Остовив, 1931
interpretation proves nothing; it solves no difficulties. It simply complicates matters by our having to assume that Kalinga was ruled by a large number of chieftains instead of by one king, as we have the word nṛpdn in the plural. The first alternative is a far more direct one. The general idea will be that the king had great fame in Kalinga, and on account of his magnanimous dealings with the subdued rulers, his fame, instead of being con.
The editor discusses a large number of topics in the Introduction, and I had better make some remarks on some of them in the order in which they occur there. The editor says: "The example of a poem commencing with an déth-prelude is hard to find." Perhaps he is thinking of metrical kdvyas, as "Almost this statement follows the sentence, all the mahakavyas open with a namaskriyd or a vastunirdeda." Both the Ramdyanacampu and the Bharatacampu begin with déia; all the nátakas begin so. In the case of Nalodaya it is difficult to decide. It is neither déis nor namaskriyd, and yet there is a mangala. I may add that nearly all the standard mahdkávyas begin with vastunirdesa, which is only a polite way of saying "without a mangala." It would be rather an interesting study to investigate the problem of the necessity of a mangala at the beginning of a literary work. Neither Panini nor Patanjali, nor even Kasikakara worries about a mangaldcarana. The sutras and bhásyas in the systems of philosophy do not begin with a mangalácarana.
After some discussion regarding the source of the poem and the nature of Yamaka, the editor takes up the question of the authorship of the poem. The poet wrote the poem for the amusement of a king (I. 25). In I. 21 it is said that the fame of the king spread all over the world. In this stenza there is the word kalingataḥ. The editor introduces a discussion on the interpretation of the word. The stanza is : sucânuddharataḥ siddhan nṛpáms tasya kalingataḥ sadhuvadaḥ kṣitim sarvám paribhaya kalin gataḥ. The point is, is the word kalingataḥ in the first half to be taken with gataḥ or with anuddharatah. In the first alternative, the idea will be that the fame of the king, who re-instated on the throne the kings he subdued, spread all over the world from Kalinga, and the king will be the ruler of Kalinga. In the second alternative, the idea will be that the king, who defeated the kings of Kalinga, re-instated them on the throne, and thus his fame spread all over the world. Here the king will be a ruler of a neighbouring country, and not of Kalinga itself. For the second interpretation the editor has the support of Prof. F. W. Thomas. This alternative
The poem is quoted or referred to by many authors. The author's name is not mentioned by any one. The editor's statement that in Sṛngdraprakása Bhoja mentions the name of the author and the work (Introduction, p. xiv) contains a small error. Bhoja does not mention the name of the author. In the Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies, London, vol. IV, pt. ii, p. 282, the editor simply copied what he saw in the report of the working of the peripatetic party of the Madras Government Oriental MSS. Library, and there the reporter introduced the name of Nitivarman, not because Bhoja had given the name, but because he knew from catalogues that Kicakavadha was attributed to him. The commentator of Kicakavadha, both in the beginning and in his commentary on I. 25, says that Nitivarman is the author of the poem. The
colophon in MS. A also attributes the work to Nitivarman. But MS. B does not give the name of the author. The marginal gloss in MS. A also gives the name of Nitivarman as the author of the work. It says: nitivarmanaḥ sakásáj játam, tena kṛtam ity arthaḥ. It is not known from the edition if the Tikákára Sarvananda attributes the authorship to Nitivarman. The stanza, on the basis of which the work is attributed to Nitivarman, is: tasya sambhṛtasatkirter ajahannitivarmaṇaḥ vinodartham idam kavyam pravṛttan nitivarmaṇaḥ 1. 25
It is explained as: tasya vinodártham idam, nitivarmanaḥ kávyam pravṛttam ('this poem of Nitivarman was composed for his amusement '). There is another possible explanation, and I see no reason why I should not suggest that also, though it is against the commentator, inasmuch as the editor has chosen to differ from the commentator in his explanation of I. 21, and to make the patron. of the poet a king of the neighbourhood of Kalinga, who defeated the many kings of Kalinga. The other explanation is: tasya (described above) nitivarmanaḥ vinodártham (for the amusement of Nitivarman) idam kavyam pravṛttam (this poem is composed). This will make Nitivarman the patron of the poet. I leave it at that. Perhaps this clue 'may lead to the determination of the date of the poem. Some Nitivarman prior to Bhoja, either in Kalinga or in the neighbouring country, would solve the problem.
C. KUNHAN RAJA