________________
Vol. XXXV, 2012
Damayantī-Kathā-Campūḥ
179
25 metrical works and more than 20 dramatic literature and two Campū Kavyas in Sanskrit, some of which are not extant now, some of which are still in manuscriptural forms and remain unpublished till today.
Damayanti-Kathā-Campūh is one such campū - kāvya (other is Damayanti - parinaya based on the Nalakathā) which has a commentary on it by Shri Gunavinayagani and is edited by Mahopadhyāya Vinayasagara, on the basis of the manuscripts from the collection of Rajasthan Prachya Vidya Pratisthana are published works, two of them by Nirnaya Sagar Press, Mumbai, and the third one is by Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Benares. The editor has given the variant readings in an index at the end of the volume.
The title of the book requires some clarification. Damayanti-KathāCampūḥ is the title of the literary work by Trivikrama Bhasta as given by che commentator Shri Gunavinayagani and also naturally accepted by the editor Mahopādhyāya Vinayasagara. But it may be noted that the alternative title of the volume Nalacampū is equally in vogue, if not more popular. But nowhere in the introduction this is clarified by the editor. In fact, to put the records straight, our noted historians of the classical Sanskrit Literature, give more prominence to the Nalacampū title rather than to the Damayantī-KathāCampūh. M. Winternitz avers, 'Probably the most famous work of this type is the Nalacampū or the Damayanti-Kathā of the poet Trivikrama Bhatta.'2 A. B. Keith in his A History of Sanskrit Literature (1928) referring to the Campū Literature writes, “The oldest extant is probably the Damayanti-Kathā or Nalacampū of Trivikrama Bhatta.” M. Krishnamachariar, of course, refers only to the title Damayanti-Kathā. S. K. De writes, 'The earliest known Campū appears to be the Nala-Campū or Damayanti-Kathā.5 The latest history Indian Kavya Literature Vol. V by A. K. Warder also refers to this work in this manner, 'Trivikrama Bhatta.... is evidently the same as the author of the Nalacampū, known also as Damayanti-Kathā. So from these citations it can be seen that most of the historians of the Classical - Sanskrit Literature do refer to the Damayanti-Kathā-campūḥ, but not missing the Nalacampū either.
The editor of this volume under review should have referred to the Nalacampū title also. This omission gives the impression that Damayanti-Kathācampūḥ is a different volume from that of the Nalacampū, which in fact is not the case.
It must be admitted, though, the Nalacampū of the Damayantî-Kathā
