GENERAL BACKGROUND THE PROBLEM

1.1, GENERAL ALIOROUm

The Problmr

No introduction i s needed f o r a wr i t e r l i k e

BSpa who i s t h e master of Sanskr i t gadyp l i t e r a t u r e

a s d l i d i s a is the master of t he world of s ansk r i t .

It i s hardly necessary t o record t h e profound meed of

p r a i s e and appreciation f o r ~a'r)a; f o r , it i s so common

and s e l f evident. H e can r igh t ly be ca l l ed a s the

p r ince of r ansk r i t prose wri ters . As soon a s one

speaks of a p m s e w r i t e r i n sansk r i t , it i s BE?a t h a t

comer t o one's mind; it i s again h i s K6dambarT of t h e

prose-writ ings t h a t dwells i n the mind of the readers

f o r ever. It would not be exagqeration t o say even

t h a t t h e def ic iency from the point of view of t h e extent

of prose wri t ings can ap t ly and adequately be compen~.*ted

by t h e only work ce l l ed ItadambarS.

Right from the emergence of t h i s b r i l l i a n t

l i t e r a r y composition, t h e great Indian minds have

bestowed t h e i r unfa i l ing meed of p ra i se i n so many words.

S t i l l one i s surprised t o no t i ce t h a t sdpa i s

much a neglected w r i t e r who has not y e t drawn

considerable a t t en t ion of the &ern c r i t i c s i n

compa;ison t o ~ l i d ~ s a and others , This statement i n

no way b p l i e s t h a t mcdern c r i t i c s have not taken it

ser ious ly , o r have not commentad upon. We have t h e

views of t h e g rea t c r i t i c s l i k e De, Dasgupta, M.M. Wne,

Keith, Peterson, e t c . , ,: - -,. ' ; -,-. t o

name some se lec ted few. Whet we mean t o propose i s :

a l o t i s t o be done with ragard t o t h e study of Kbdambarr.

No atudy is known t o e x i s t giving a c l o s e r analys is of

t h e r i c h and varied references t o t h e mythological

a l l u s ions i n t h e works of Bana, and Kadarnbari i n

pa r t i cu l a r . It w i l l not be out of p lace t o record here

t h e f a c t t h a t without a thorough grounding of I rd ian

mythologies it i s very d i f f i c u l t t o grasp the sense i n

many a ca se throughout t h e work. That i s p rec i se ly t h e

reason why t h e Wcstern c r i t i c s have a poor view so f a r

a s t h e understanding of Bdqa i s concerned, when he gives

a r i c h wealth of mythological a l l u s ions with t h e i r

b r i l l i ance , p lenty and var ie ty .

Further, no ser ious attempt i s made t o study

t h e ava i l ab le va r i an t s with a view t o g ive the probable

and proper reeding of I(bdambarI.

With thane object ives i n mind, t h e present work

adambar1 s tud ie s on the bas i s o f Bhanucandra is

undertaken.

It may be mentioned here t h a t BhaRuchandrals

(and h i s d i s c i p l e Siddhichandra's? is t h e only complete

commentary avai lable t o us and scholars have a very pod+?

opinion of t h i s commentary. The harsh c r i t i c i s m by <he

learned Pandit Mathura nath s h a s t r i t h a t t h i s comentary

of hin nu. i s almost a useless one not having any merit

whatsoever*, i s t o be reexamined thoroughly. Thus one

of t h e prima concern of t h e present endeavour would be t o

v e r i f y t h e v a l i d i t y and t ru th fu l lness of h i s c r i t i c i sm.

* Vide In tm3uct ion t o the c r i t i c a l ed i t ion of Kadambari,

ed i t ed by K. Pandurang Parab., pp.13-17.

SURVEY OF THE WORKS DONE

1.2. SURVEY OF THE WORl5 DONE:

Before going t o propose t h e plan and t h e nature

of t h e present work, a b r i e f survey of t h e works a l ready

done on d d a . i s i n order . As s t a t e d e a r l i e r , erica i s

much a neglected w r i t e r who has not drawn much a t t e n t i o n

of t h e modem c r i t i c s it deserve8 to . We presen t here

some important and s i g n i f i c a n t works on Iddambad.

I. D r . P, Peterson: m a m b a r I 1 Bombay - Sanskr i t Se r i e s , 1883.

2 . C.M. RilSdi?rg: The ddambarr of Biinat London,

1895.

3. M.M.P.V. Kana: dclamba-~r Bombay.

4. M.R. a l e s iQ8ambarii Moti la l Banarsi Dass,

Baranasi, 1968.

5. V.S. Agrawal: ddambarr ek s a n s k r i t i k

adhyayan, Baranasi, 1958.

6. H.R. Karnik and V.D. Gangal: The &ambari

of Bana; Bombay, 1939.

7. S.V. Dix i t : Bbnabhatta: H i s l i f e and

l i t e r a t u r e 1 Belgaun, 1963.

8. R.D. Wmarka r ; BS?at Dhawar, 1964.

9. Neeta Shanna: A l i t e r a r y study of

Banabhatta; Delhi, 1968.

10. Raja IQvnari T r i k h a ~ Alahk6ras i n the

works of Bb?abhafta; Delhi, 1982.

11. Amarnath Pandcyar BbnabhattakE s l h i t y i k a

anidilana; Baranasi, 1974.

S t i l l more o r l e s s these s tud ie s a r e of a genera l

t ype and t h e study based on ~ h g n u ' s commentary has not

y e t been done. Fur ther , no considerable attempt has

been made s o f a r t o study t h e ava i l ab le va r i an t s on t h e

bas i s of t h e commentaries and c r i t i c a l edi t ions .

Again no study i s done giving a c l o s e r analys is of

t h e r i c h and variad references t o t h e mythological

a l l u s i o n s i n Kidambad.

Amongst t hese works mentioned i n the foregoing

pages, t h e erdeavour made by D r . Peterson, M.M.P.V. Kane,

and few others a re of g rea t importance and a re worth

mentioning.

The in t roduct ion of Peterson and h i s notes

a r e very r i c h from the po in t of view of @ern r e sea rch .

I n h i s exhaustive in t roduct ion t o ~ d a r n b a r L he has

diacuased almost a l l important aspects of t h e s tudy of

Kadambarf i n a general manner. ,

H i s notes a r e very s ign i f i can t f o r t h e study of

v a r i a n t s and from the point of view of t ex tua l c r i t i c i sm.

He has u t i l i s e d t h e corn. of ~ h l n u . , and o the r f o u r

manuscripts t o pzepare the t ex t . For t h e f i r s t t ime

we a r e infonned about t h e exis tence of t h e comen ta r i e s

of divarbma, Balak~sna, MahSdevs, Sukhakara and we p e t

e x t r a c t s from these comen ta r i e s from h i s notes only.*

However, he has not discussed these va r i an t s except

g iving t h e reading of some. From t h e point of view of

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a l so t h i s seems inadequate and incomplete.

The in t roduct ion and t h e exhaustive notes of

M.M. IQne i s a model of excel lent research and study.

It must be admitted honestly t h a t a l l l a t e r researches

a r e based on h i s work alone. In h i s introduction, he has

given a c l e a r p i c tu re of t h e personal h i s to ry of s iqa .

--

*or m r e information on these comen ta r i e s , supra pp. 15-17.

The d a t e of &pa, he proves with arguments, t o be

towards t h e end of 6th and 1 s t half of t h e 7th century

A.D.' On t h e da te of Bins, M.M. Kane comments v ~ b q a l s

d a t e i s one of t h e su res t planks i n t h e t o t t e r i n g

s t r u c t u r e of ancient Indian chronology. He has discussed

f u r t h e r t h e works of Bhp, t he d i s t i n c t i o n between

Ka- and Akhyayikh, t he l i t e r a r y estimation of B6?a,

t h e commentaries on &ambarf i n a g r e a t e r d e t a i l . We

quote here a few l i n e s from h i s estimation, t o po in t ou t

t h e mer i t and de fec t s of Bbna4s writ ings.2

1. For t h e arpuments on the da te of Bdpa, vide P.V. Kane,

op c i t . pp. 6-14; R.D. Wrmarkar, op c i t . pp. 1-21

S.V. Dixi t , Op tit. pp. 12 -24 ; A.N. Pandsya, op tit.

pp. 1-7; Neets Shanna, op c i t . pp. 35-37. For t h e

works of Bana, vide Kane, op c i t . pp. 14-21! Karmarkar,

op c i t . pp. 9-10) Dixi t , op c i t . pp. 36-47? Prof. Pandeya, op c i t . pp.21-591 Neeta Shama, op c i t .

pp. 37-46.

2. For t h e appreciation of B a p , vide D r . Peterson 's

In t roduct ion t o KcidambarI, pp. 36-43.

I. He shows grea t s k i l l and discrimination i n

characterisation. A l l the characters i n I6dambatI

a r e l i f e - l i k e and consistent. The gent le and youthful

Hlrita..., these a r e charact&rs t h a t a re bound t o make

a deep impression on the heart of the reader. BA?a,

however, lavished a l l his s k i l l i n depicting the hero

and the heroine of his mmance.

2. Although Baqa was fet tered by canons of rhetoric

which la id down t h a t long compounds were of t h e essence

of prose he displays considerable variety of s tyle .

His dict ion i s generally smooth and graceful and he

could wri te with force and bravity when it suited his

purpose t o do so,

3 . He seems t o have been a close observer, not only

of courts of kings, but even of the less bright aspects

of human l i f e .

4 . ~ d p a seems t o be have been a great lover of nature.

He is never t i red of using f o r poetic purpntes the f lo ra

and fona of India. His reference t o plants and flowers

though sometimes overdrawn and fanc i fu l a r e generally

charming.

One of t h e g r e a t e s t f laws of Bbpa's wri t ing

is t h a t they abound i n puns on words and recondite

amidst t h e a r r y of double meaning words, bold and

f a n c i f u l a l lus ions , t o grasp t h e exact meaning of t h e

author.'

One of t h e most important po in t t o be mentioned

here is t h a t he has widely u t i l i s e d t h e two unpublished

connnentaries on me., namely, hods and Darpaqa. His

notes i n two p a r t s (pp. 1-124 and 124-237 of Dr.Peterson

e d i t i o n ) a r e very r i c h from t h e po in t of view of

understanding and in t e rp re t a t ion of ads.

Awngat t h e o t h e r works, V.S. Agrawal has made

a d e t a i l e d ana lys i s of KSdambarI from t h e point of view

of cu l tu re . The Indian t r a d i t i o n and cu l tu re a t t h e t ime

of BBga has exhaustively been s tudied as r e f l e t e d i n

ddambarr , i n these books.

~ h s work of Karmarkar, Bans, Neeta Shanna's

A l i t e r a r y study of Bana Bhatta; Prof. Amarnath Pandeya's

The l i t e r a r y study of Banabhatta ( i n Hindi) a r e of genera l

nature.

- --

1. V& h i s in t roduct ion, p. 21-26.

S.V. D i x i t ' s B6qabhatfar His l i f e and l i t e r a t u r e

is an exce l l en t co l l ec t ion af t h e f i nd ings of reaearch

on KbBambarI. He says i n h i s preface "I have t r i o d t o

f u r n i s h them with t h e views of t h e e a r l i e r scholars i n

t h e f i e l d and o f t en giving numerous quotations from

t h e i r works*. It should be mentioned he re t h a t he has

h i s own share of cont r ibut ion while meticulously

present ing t h e essence of t h e e a r l i e r researchea i n t h e

aubj ec t . B6?abha$$a1s biography, h i s da te , h i s worka,

some s tud ie s i n ddambarx, mer i t s and demerits of s d ~ a

and s o c i e t y i n s6qa1s time a r e some of t h e spec i a l f ea tu re s

of d iscuss ion of h i s work.

AlafiktTras i n t h e works of Banabhatta by D r . Trikha

i s f u l l y devoted t o t h e study of Alafikbras. She has

t r i e d t o i d e n t i f y a l l t h e cases of f i g u r e of speech i n

Hda. c l a s s i f i e d them on t h e bas is of t h e d e f i n i t i o n s of

t h e rhe to r i c i ans with examples. I t may be mentioned h e r

approach i s a model of research on a s ing le aspect of

a work o r an author.

SCOPE OF THE PRESENT WORK

1.3. SCOPE OF THE PRESENT WORK:

The present t h e s i s bases i t s s tudy and ana lys i s

on t h e Pusvabhaga of i~~dambar i mainly i n t h e l i g h t of

t h e commentary of Bhanuchandra. It is prerented and

arranged i n s k chapters including t h e In tmduct ion and

Conclusion. In the introduction, i t has been attempted

t o preeent a general estimation of t h e comnentaries on

Kadambarl and allout t h e present commentator.

The secolla chapter i s devoted t o the study of

t h e t e x t u a l c r i t i c i s m of &dambarf (of Bh?a) on t h e

bas i s of Bhanucandra. We have se lected some one hundred

important readings having var iants an8 scope f o r

confurion. The c r i t i c i s m of the e d i t o r agains t t he

reading8 of Bhanu. have been thoroughly examined and

ve r i f i ed . For deciding t h e ac tual reading o r r a the r

t h e probable ones, t h a t might have been intended by t h e

author, we have consulted and made use of t h e following

ed i t ions and comnentaries. Fur ther we have a l s o given

due importance t o the context and t h e symantics of t h e

usage.

m~ e d i t i o n (with t h e corn. of BhanU.

m n e ' s e d i t i o n (Bombay e d i t i o n )

Peterson e d i t i o n (as recorded by b n e )

Ca lcu t t a d it ion

Cheukhamba e d i t ion

ehznu. 's corn.

b;noaa (from t h e notes of Kane)

Darpaga ( -150- )

BSlakfsna, e t c . (from t h e notes of Peterson)

C m1a.

I n t h e t h i r d c h a p t e r attempt has been made t o

unve i l t h e mythological a l l u s i o n s i n Kadambari. Here

t h e occurrence of t h e a l l u s i o n i n KhdambarI is given

wi th r e fe rence and is arranged i n an a lphabe t i ca l order.

Where t h e t a x t cannot be understood and t h e r e is an

a l l u s i o n , wa have given t h e s tory . As f a r as p o s s i b l e

we have t r i e d t o t r a c e t h e source and make a r e fe rence

t o it. Those cases where t h e r e is a mere reference t o

a mythological person, event, e t c . , and no a l lu s ion , a r e

c o l l e c t e d and p resen td l here.

In t h e chap te r of i n t e r p r e t ~ l t i o n , we have

s e l e c t e d some important words having scope f o r c l a r i f i -

c a t i o n and explanation. In IQda., we come ac ross many-

a c a s e where it is d i f f i c a l t t o cons t rue t h e w o d s &

y i e l d a good sense. Some of these cases a re included

here. There a r e in t e rp re t a t ion of words, concepts

and s i tua t ions . mt a l l these a r e not c l a s s i f i e d .

The e n t i r e chapter is arranged i n a lphabet ica l order.

W e have u t i l i s e d c h i e f l y t h e comen ta ry of Bhinu., along

with t h e two unpublished commentaries, namely, hods and Darpaga, from the notas of M.M. Kane.

The f i f t h chapter i s e n t i r e l y devoted t o t h e

exposi t ion of t h e scholarship of ~hbt;lu. We have t r i e d

t o g ive ample references with regard t o h i s knowledge of

grammar; h i s acquaintancy with t h e laxicons; h i s

f a m i l i a r i t y with Indian lores , be l i e f s , e tc . In t h i s

chap te r we w i l l be g iving a de ta i l ed l i s t of de f in i t i ons

of var ious aspects of Bhbnu.

In t h e concluding chapter, we have given the

s p e c i a l f ea tu res of t h e corn., p e c u l i a r i t y of t h e

commentator, BhZnu. 's influence on t h e l a t t e r commentaries

and modern scholars. This w i l l a l s o include some

observations on t h e c r i t i c i s m of Bhsnu.

Along with t h i s wa have appexed t h e following

append i c e s 8

Appendix I r Ci ta t ions

Appendix I11 t Some peculiar words used by ha nu.

Appendix IV a Index t o mythological a l lus ions .

I. 4. A GENERAL ESTIMATION OF THE AVAILABLE C O ~ W T A R I E S ar KADAMBmI:

BhanucMndra and Siddhichandra's is the only

complete conmentary available t o us on the PZirvabhgga

and the uttarabhdga respectively. The commentary has

been publishad by the Nirnaya Sagar Press. We reserve

t h e discuss ion on t h i s comm., t o the l a s t , with regard

t o i t s merits. On the personal l i f e of Bhsnu., we

l e a r n t from the introductory verses and the colophon of

t h e Rirvabhiga t h a t BhLnu. was a Ja ina Paqgit. Even i n

h i s comm. i n many cases it has been reflected. For, he

in te rpre t s q ~ n a as J&, etc.' He was a pupil of

Sriracandra and was honoured by emperor Akbar with the

t i t l e of ~pi idhy&va.~ He has conmented on t h e PiirvabhEga

of fidambarl t o please h i s pupil Siddicandra who a l so

was patronised by We do not know much regarding

1. Vide w e . , p.69, 1. 16, p.427, 1. 6, etc.

2. & su'racandra sainabGt tadrva bisyagran~, e tc .

p.2, a t . 5.

3. 5r i vrcakah s-rat i bhenucand ro hvakbara k & ~ a t i dattaadpak.. . . 4ri siddha c-ro lsti r n ~ i y a d i a y a ~ .

hdambari vr t t i r ivam tadEya manornude tena may& , pratanyate. p.2, $ L . %$0.

t h e personal l i f e of ~hinucandra . It may be mentioned

hare t h a t scholars of very poor view of t h i s c-.l

It is a f a c t t h a t t h e r e a r e many mistakes throughout

t h e comn., which has been thoroughly noticed by many

scholars. ' But it is sad t o note t h a t t h i s corn., has

not been given due c r e d i t s , which it deserves. It may

be regarded here t h a t t h e l a t e r s tud ie s i n KidambarI,

even t h e comnentaries are g r e a t l y been influenced by

t h i s comnentary, which we w i l l po in t o u t i n d e t a i l i n

o u r cone luding chapter.

1. V z Mathura nath s h a s t r i ; The Int rcduct ion t o

lChdambar$ d i t e d - b y K. Pandurang Parab, pp. 13-17s

M.M. Wne; In t roduct ion t o Kadambari (&rvabhlga) I,

p.45.

S r i Krishna mohan Shas t r i r Introduction t o Kadambari,

etd. , with t h e C Kala, p.30.

S.V. Dixi t , Banabhattar His l i f e and l i t e r a t u r e , n.98.

2. It is hardly necessary t o enumerate those cases of

mistakes which have profus$ngly been pointed ou t i n

t h e notes of Parab's edi t ion. M.M. Wne a l s o has

pointed ou t those shortcomings i n h i s notes t o m a .

From t h e notes of D r . Peterson on Kbda., i t

appears t h a t Sivarama Tripathy wrote a corn. on t h e

PCrvabhaga of t h e Kida., c a l l ed Cagaka. Krsnamacaryar

a l s o mention t h e name of t h i s comm. i n h i s H i s t o m of

c l a s s i c a l Sansk r i t ~ i t e r a t u r e . ' We p re sen t here a f e w

examples from t h e ex t r ac t ions from Cagaka, a s quoted

by Peterson.

I. ~ a d e k h a r a i h kara culyedi v a t pras iddhaih

maukharibhih - p.111.

2. Vainyab p r t h u . ~ - p.116.

3. S h a n t a k p a prndravinda, e t c . , p. 112.

4. Anekaguptah vaidya:, p. 112.

5. Bandhure aundare, p. 113.

6. Mahsvirzh dur ih pakse mah8vIrEh makhdanayah, . I -

etc. , p.114.

7. A* nlgarah. naqaravls i vadhu krtolaka- bhafigah kebaiacanl vide!ah l u l u ~ h b iti b h b z ~ r a s i d d h a h . . . . a l fko n h a r e smFa iti v i d v L prakadah. dy4dv~ alTke I ~ l b t e yolaka bhafiqah

bhramaraka bhaii ah p. 114. _qSI

1. M. Wsndmacaryar, HCSL., pr450.

8. ht idvavr advi t ivh - p.115.

9. ds.e narapatava indra nahusaaya

mnnana? ie?atva vivaksZvbm s a s t h l - p.117. . .. Sometimes Q i v a r k a notices va r i an t reading..

The corn. i s not very r i c h and t r i e s t o explain t h e

meaning of the words generally. It i s ye t t o be published.

This i s a l so not published and Peterson has

u t i l i s e d t h i s canm. i n h i s notes t o m a . Sukhlkara

g ives t h e t e x t of t h e #even introductory verses without

any comnent. This corn. i s a l so very scanty and gives

t h e meaning of t h e words only. Here follows e few

ex t r ac t ions fmm the corn.:

r manthare gambhrre - p.113.

r n i ~ r h v a m h 8 svamat prasth8pyam'anh & c - p.113.

r dvijanmanSm hiranvagerbho bratuna s a ca dvijanman8m gatih, em. - p.113.

r mahgvita? - p:114.

The name of the comm. is Vitama pada v i v r t t i .

vaidyanith comnents only on the Wzvabh8~4. It t r i e s

t o explain the important words.' It is not published.

Pmf. Pandey giver the description of the manuscript

Warnbar1 viramapsda v i v r t t i

granthaklira - vaidyanitha

Kramaearikhy6 - 41238

Paik t i rahkhya (every page) - 10

Mqara sarikhyh (every pafikti) - 50

1. avac9let i succakam civacGlakad it1 - dobhang p t i y.CVa. ptg i a t 6 p i p r a k h t i t a - Amarnath

Pandeya, ~ b ~ a b h a f f ; k ~ s ih i ty ike ~ n u d i i s n a , p.28.

2. ibid.p.27.

Bhlakrsnar

We know from D r . Peterson's notes tha t

BSlakp?a has comnented upon the &*a. of &a.

Peterson has referred t o t h i s comm. f o r a i m s t each

and every word. This cornentator has a l so noticed

var ian t readings. Here follows a few extractions

f mm t h e conmentaryr

I Ps> vrk?a videsah - p.122

r 6ma mesddi lomni & c - p. 121

r Keuksevakena kha t~ena - g.121

I C a r e f cCrcikyam & c - p.121

I ~ a h s v l r a h dharmhmmaya - p. 114

r Maukhara ah karaculyiSdivanmahirij a v* p m

t Viruddha j a'timatim v i a a t i j e t i Icusumam - p.124

For f u r t h e r references vide pp. 125. 126, 127, 129,

132, 135, 138, 154-160, etc .

~ahedeva:

D r . Peterson has p r e s e n t 4 and u t i l i s e d the

ex t rac t from t h i s comnentary. Auf recht a l so mention.

t h i s commentary i n h i s c a t a l o g ~ e . It is not published

and has not k e n u t i l i s e d by anybody fu r the r . It

is a very meagre and give8 t h e explanation of words.

Example: Gu~tg; raksita; - p.112

r ~ardudhareva parduh pa radur i t i datda bhedah p.121

r Sa p r a t i h a r i (ac tual ly refer. t o matasga kanyaki) - p.121

r Mndhure ramye unnate v3 - p.113

: Purodadah havidefain - p.113 ._7

: Mahivirdh durih, e tc . - p.114

: Atidvayi advi t fya - p.115

a 0- prsvsha bhagIrathesya rsjnyhh panthlh, e t c . - p.116.

AaFanGrtir

The name of t h e commentary is b o d a . A?fanir t i

was t h e son of Ngriyaga, a brahmin by cas te . ~e was an

inhabi tant of Karala and belonged t o BhWu gotra.'

I. mrve a atam lsct Ksralesu bh o kule v i ro n i a b ~ a ~ rt2-af *-mi +-, o e p m e e a?o ' a m a t e . * ~ w . c i t . 1.28.

In t h e introduction of his corn., he says tha t he

composed h i s cornentary i n matrical fonn, as a thing

is not eas i ly remembered and retained in mind unless

i f be put in a na t r ica l form.' He has comnented upon

the both - the PTirva., and ijttara., ISdambarI.

It is a learned corn., and the comm. seems t o

be wellread and thoroughly acquainted with the works

of poet ics and laxicography. However the corn., i s not

exhaustive and rather meagre. It i s f u l l e r in the

beginning and three-fourth of the comm. i s devoted t o

Piirva. only. The corn. often records variants. It

refefg t o other cornentaries in the worils - kenacit,

warah, etc. We get a reference t o a commentator called

Matsyaketu in The comm. begins with upasmahs,

etc., and ends with ta tva vicara c i ru tarayi drstvaiva ... vikhytipyatinr.

1. Na vina v~tabandhenil vastu privena sugraharh, ibid.

2. A- matsyaketuptithah kutracit upacxra m a t - nadhurun iti. vide para 204 of Kllne. 11. -

3. Yld. IQne, op. c i t . pp.44-45.

We pe t reference t o the following works and

authors I

Ajaya, Anaryharaghava. hmara, K&nandaklyan'iti,

Kalidssa, bmlrilabha$$a, ~edavasvami (the laxicogra~ ?er ) ,

Kautilya, eemendra, Dandin, Dhanafijaya, BBdarayana

(the author of t h e ~rahmasGtra), MiirlrI, Bhzrata, Bhoja,

~ P g h a , y&davaprakh;a, R i j adekhara, ~tirniyagra, VBsavadatts,

v a i j ayantI, $hkafbyana, Saradstanaya hhalSyudha,

Among the o ther works those a r e quoted without

mentioning the name area

Nothing can def in i te ly be said about the time of

t h e comm. However r ince he refera t o the Ichvyaprak~da,

Femendra, etc., he cannot be e a r l i e r than 1200 A.D.

&lambar1 Padirtha Darpana:

It i r by an anonymous wri ter . He has commented

upon both t h e Fiirva and ' ~ t t a r a bhiga. The corn. begins

with a sa lu ta t ion t o lord K y a . ' The corm. seldom

notices variant readings. He gives south Irrdian

equivalents f o r Sanskrit words. The comn. seems t o

be from Ksrala o r a t any case from South India. It is

very meagre comn. He has quoted the following works

and author;

IUm&ra sambhava

W P &lava

IQlutilya

Kircitsrj unIya

Chartdo v i c i t i

D W i

Bhava viveka

Mahimlpira stava.

He ha6 a l so quoted from the following WQas: 1. hara

2. Vaij ayant i

3. ~ a l z p d h a .

1. PraOamya varadam devam ba l lavr j ana vallabhem K&arn~rI pabSrthSn6m krivate darpanarn &.

Xmoda via-a-via Damanas

A care fu l observation of the, extract of t h e

two c6mentar ier reveal t h a t they runarkably coincide

i n t h e i r explanations of ce r ta in words and ghraser.

We give here a few warnplea from both:

A, I\- nirvart isve. Sakala v iaayopabhog~

idrda dapatha traveneva. Tri tvokt is & - t r i s a t g 6 h i devH iti k i l a d m t h - p.105.

A. akunita - bhagatrayasva saRkoce kunitam

caksurisvate - g.210. I

D. b ~ i t 4 1 i t a n n h i l i t a m - p.210.

A. k h a n i v a r o h a n a szdhanabhedah s v a r a h t i n % m

~rah. Srima vikes&hiwaktyarthah s i saran: I

Jnkrr - p.215.

D. StrapK vIng vBdanam - p. 21 5.

A. Pdhiisara cchadohamaa? Kgdambah samGdAh*a? - p.70.

D. KSdambah kalmlda v a y o hamsah -

A. ~ a r j a n v a n ~ q s t a y o r m I n ~ 1 pr&de$am vrurvate

budha? - p.210.

D. ' bgus tha tar1 anibhvhm parirnlta? pradeda?' . A. ' t r ipatIkctvatra punartravividhve var ta te

:amah1 - p.91. - D. 'bripatbkl urdhva rekhf travarn'.

A. 'Yiithabhrasfe dvirade pakaacara! & tathaikacare' - p.84.

D. Paksacarasya ekacarasya yuthabhraste paksacarah . . %St ekacara ~ak_sm?o?.

A. Vhj i d i k s ~ b h y ~ s a bhiiinirb=hyslir kathvate - p. 198.

D. v a h d l I turaga dhxvana paddhati

A. 6ridrumab pippalol$vettho buddhair bodhi

kathyate - p.56.

D. 'dridrumah candana vrksah.

A. Sragbhedo vanam81g ydmllhur va i lavan t l t i - p.74.

D . ~anami l f pus~avis'esah.

Thus ar i ses the question whether the author of A.

know D. o r vice versa. One thing is cer tain t h a t both

the commentatom h a i l from South and it i s probable tha t

e i t h e r of t h e two knew the other. M.M. Kane a m 4 D. ko

be e a r l i e r than g. and a t places he seems t o i n p r 7

on X. 's explanation. But it i s d i f f i c u l t t o say

anything d e f i n i t e l y i n t h i s regard.

~ a r i d ~ a a . ~hana$vima and s i i r acadra :

Krsnamacsryar mentions the names of these t h r e e

commentaries.' It was not poss ible f o r us t o see any

of these f o r reference and use.

~ a t t v a p r 6 k a d i k i :

This commentary i s by M r . M.R. Kale and a modern

one. He has commented upon the Wrva. of &a. only.

It is accepted a s a good and learned comentary. And

needs t h e need of a reader from every aspect. I t g i a a

t h e svnonvma of a l l important words, it breaks t h e long

passages i n t o smaller un i t s , analvses a l l compounds,

shows gremmtical p e c u l i a r i t i e s with ru les , guotes

pmfus ing lv f r o m var ious mAas wherever necessary, quotes

Zreauently from books on poet ics , g ives s imi l a r and

i d e n t i c a l passage8 from o the r sources, g ives t h e na r ra t ion

of e h o l w i c a l a l lu s ions mot ing sources sometimes,

records tha var iant r .

/ He quotes some from t h e following -8

1. Anek'lrtha

2. Abhidhsna cintdmani

3 . h r r a

4. &$a

5. TErapgla

6. ~ e d i n I

7, Ratnakosa

8. Rudra

9. YlSdava

10. viJva

11. va i j ayantI

12. Vij ~gne&ara

13. dabdbrpava

14. k d v o t a

IS. Halsyudha

16. Hemacadra

17. Haima . e tc .

He a l so quotes t h e following important works and

authors :

1. Amadataka 2. Anargha righave 3. eaia ~ l i m a ~ a q a 4. Deiakunhra c a r i t 4

5. 0.h nipaka

6. ~ i t o p a d e d a 7. Icivy&ar$a

8. dvyaprakida

9. Kir&tSrjunIya

10. Mallinatha

11. Manu 12. v c h a k a t i k a

13. Nirukta 14. ~ a d c a ant ra

15. ~aghuvarhda 16. ~ a t n i w l I

17. d ~ k u n t a l a 18. ~aiikhyakdrika 19. S iddhanta K~UIIIU~I 20. Sihi tya Darpa~a

2 1. 6 i sup i la Vadha 22. Tarka Sahqraha

23. ~ t t a r a r h a c d r i t a 24. ~ikramorvamdi~am,

e t a .

It may be mentioned here t h a t M r . Ifale has

widely u t i l i s d t h e corn. of ahiinu. i n h i s corn. I n

many cases he has accepted t h e a u t h o r i t y of ~ h g n u . and

h i s i n t e rp re t a t ion . We a r e g iving he re a se lec ted

l i s t of c i t a t i o n s of t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of ~ h h n u . a s

g iven by Kale with reference.

r a n ~ a a y a pak?inas t a t h l yuctdhe pakaaptlto nHati iti kukkuta grahanam' - ahgnu., p.73, 1.6.

r arabdho v i h i t o yo'mfte c a r u r v a j h odanah iti' - Bhgnu., p.71, 11. 2-3.

: anusvzra; &leqabhaFIsakrnnabhavnti iti priFicah. & Bhinu., p.87, 1.6 .

t &mala mukulakiravoh samyiccaranavoh koda-aimyam. - R

i r n k t a t v a s&nv8d a lk t aka rasena blS-pa itamyam, ifi Bhinu., p.103, 11. 3-4.

: ' ~ f i l i k s ~ r g n t a b h s g a h ' g& - B h ~ n c , p.185, 1.5.

r dhltrvadInhm L&lanbrtharn mukhena dindima dhvanis

t z ian i to tp i id i t a p rT t iwasya ' s, - i h ~ n u . , p. 107,

11. 3-4.

: ' P8~adkhanda 6 l k i n I d ~ k i n l prabhrtlnim prave$a p t a t i - bandhakarmani mantridyausadha prakEroyasmint g -

I 'Putravaty'i grhadv&ropari man imava kaladimpylpa

k r i v a t e x r i l a s t h i t i h ' _iti' - ~ h ~ n u . , p.116, 1. 14.

I Mukh-va viidyam iti - Bhsnu., p.125, 1. 3 .

I donitapuram banasurasya naparam "tat c a 'devikot '

i&i- prasiddham* & - Bhaiiu., p.147, 1. 4.

r st r?n8m przyena daksino myo 'pa dakunam iti

vasantara jadau prasiddham - Bhbnu., p.324, 11.8-9.

A&: On t h e Ut tara e d a .

M.M. Kana r e f e r s t o a corn. by Arjun PayJi t , son

of cakrad8s . l It i s a learned and c r i t i c a l corn. It

d i scusses and records t h e va r i an t readings. He seems t o

be wel l read and acquainted with t h e works of poe t i c s .

He quotea from knara, Manu, ~ i t e end Raghu., n t c . h n g

t h e works and authors quoted a r e Harsa C., H l i d i s a ,

ECa'mandaki~a ni ' t isbra, ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 d a r s ' a . M6gha, Mahabhlrata,

m-rlri, u t t a r a r6ma c a r i t a , v i s P., e t c .

Candrakal t l

I t is a very modern corn. by mishna mohan S h a s t r i ,

published f rm Chaukhamba Lanskr i t Se r i e s , Bcnaras. It

i# based on t h e P.V. Kane an8 Pe te r son ' s e d i t i o n of &a,

1. Vide IQns, op. c i t . . p.47.

It is a good eom. from t h e p o i n t of view d u n d e r s t a n d i w

and not research. It g i v e s synonyms of t h e words, n o t i c e s '

t h e f i g u r e of speech, g i v e s t h e n a r r a t i o n of t h e mytholo-

g i c a l elements, sometimes quoting sources . I t quotes

p m f u s i n g l y from %$as l i k e Amara, vidva, ~ e d i n f , Anekhrtha,

Haimah, e tc . Nonnally he does no t quote p a r a l l e l l i n e s

from o t h e r l i t e r a t u r e s . For def i n i t l o n s , he quotes from

SChitga Darpana nmstly. Rarely he d i s c u s s e a v a r i a n t

reading. i n t h e corn.

1.5. A NOTE ON K A M t

In a work l i k e t h i s t h a t involves t h e study of

a a l i k e wambarx it woulB not be out of p l ace t o

d i s c u s s i n d e t a i l t h e nature and fonn of a H. Khdambarr is accept& a s a & e l a : an idea l a~anipl@

of X P - 4 v a r i e t y of gadye l i t e r a t u r e . Thus it

becomes inev i t ab le t o d iscuss the nature and form Of

a and brings out i t s d i s t i n c t i o n f mm BkhyEyikS.

We have a l o t of d iscuss ion on t h e d e f i n i t i o n of kafha, e t a . To mention a few:

1. M.M. Kane, Op. tit., pp. 21-24.

2. R.D. Kannarkar, op. c i t . , pp. 22-25.

3. A.N. Pandeya, op. c i t . , pp. 47-56.

4 . S.V. D i ~ i t , Op. Ci te , pp, 144-47 .

5. Neeta Sharma, op. c i t . , pp. 17-27; 87-88.

The following discussion i s a mereareappraisal of

what a l ready has been discussed.

Sanskr i t rhe to r i c i ans have divided sane k r i t Kavya

i n t h r e e broad d iv i s ion r , namely, w, padya and & ( C A I . zlre is divided i n t o Wthd and &khydyikS.

Agni RlrSva d e a l s with Wtha a s f o l l w s r

Blokaih svavam6am sankseplt

Kavervatra pra iamsat i

inukhy&rthasvhvat8rSya bhavetyatra kathdntaram

Paricchedo ya t r a sva t bhavet vS lamhhakaih

kvac i t SE kaths . . . Actually Agni PurSna enumerates f i v e v a r i e t i e s

of prose l i t e r a t u r e , namely, Ikhydyiks, e, khan!akatha,

pa r ika tha and kathcnaka,' t h e l a s t t h r e e being t h e minor

sukdivis ions of e. Bhxmaha gives a s i m i l a r d e f i n i t i o n of kathb.? On

t h e b a s i s of d e f i n i t i o n s of and akhyayikd a s given

by Agni P. and Bhkaha, t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e two

may be presented a s followsr

I) In IkhylvikS t h e r e i s a d e t a i l d iscuss ion

of t h e p o e t e s family i n prose while i n

a &a&@ t h e poet b r i e f l y p ra i se s h i s

family i n verse.

2 ) In an ikh lay iks t h e t o p i c s l i k e kidnapping

of a g i r l , b a t t l e s , separa t ion of the hero

a r e described: in a it i s not so.

3 . In an ZkhvLyikl it i s t h e hero who r e l a t e s

h i s o m deeds whereas i n a kathll t he s t o m

i s t o ld by o the r s and not by t h e hero.

4. An 8khvavika i s divided i n ~ c c h ~ t a s and

contents stanzaz i n t h e Vaktrg and t h e

9 a r a v a k t r L metres which a r e suggestive of

f u t u r e events; a katha may not be divided

i n t o sec t ions and i f it i s t h e r e c a l l e d

lambhaka.

5. An Ikhv6yiki i s d is t inguished by possession

of c e r t a i n ca t ch words which t h e poet pu t s in1

i n a it is not so. ,

It may be mentioned t h a t Danqin does not f ind any

d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two.' Prof. Keith observes r

"the d i s t i n c t i o n between katha and akhyavikt.... is

presentad t o ur i n 8 puzzling confusion i n t h e wr i t e r s

on poe t i c s explaining and jus t i fy ing i n lazge major t h e

r e fusa l of D e i n i n h i s ~ v y m a r d a t o have anything t o

do with t h e d i r t i n c t i o n . m2

1. Vide Uvy6. 1. 23-30. 2, Keith, Class ica l Skt, l i t e r a t u r e , p.72.

Thus, according t o D a e i n , t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c

of t h e two aa mentioned a r e not exclusive. M.M. Kane

g ives t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two a f t e r D a g i n thus:

"1. In an akhv6viki it i s t h e hero ldtnself

who t e l l s t h e whole story! while i n w, t h e s t o r y i s t o ld e i t h e r by t h e hero o r by

aomeone e lse .

2. An bkhyhyik/ is divided i n sect ions named

Ucchvasas, e t c . 3. In a w, t op ic s l i k e kidnapping of a g i r l ,

b a t t l e s , separation, t h e r i s e of t h e sun and

moon a r e described. In an Bkhvdvikb it is

not so.

4. A kathh is dis t inguished by possessing

c e r t a i n ca tch worils which t h e author

in t en t iona l ly puts in,*'

I t may be mentioned here t h a t t h e r e is some d i f f e r e n c e

f r v m t h e points given t o us a f t e r Agni P. and Bhhaha.

S.V. Dix i t on t h e sunmery given by M.M. Kane

observes *But about points t h ree and f o u r fmm

M.M. Kane sumnery From D e i n we wonder whether

M.M. Kane has not er red i n summerising.*'

Prin. Ksrnarkar makes add i t iona l points:-

1. A kathll uses the - metre.

2. Also a karhi ib wri t ten e i t h e r i n s a n s k r i t

o r i n priik* (katha h i sarva bhasabhih, c t c . 1'.

Most probably DaHin had some au thor i ty before him f o r

maintaining such view of the non-distinction between t h e

two. H e indeed a noted w r i t e r and might have heard before

him many mom examples of W t h t and 5khyLvikSs than what

we have today and most have noticed t h a t t he re a r e no

s i g n i f i c a n t and s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e two

v a r i e t i e s . A8 one can s e e h i s ~adclkumira c a r i t a ne i the r

f i t s t o t h e stereo-typed de f in i t i ons of e i t h e r kafhb o r

akhyiivikii ~ t r i c t l y .

1. Vide D h i t , op. c i t . , p.145.

2. Vide Ksnnarkar, op. c i t . , p.24.

Insp i te of a l l these, the orthodox dfvlr ion

was acceptad and followed i n l a t e r period by

rhetoricians l i k e Rudrafa, handavadhana,

Abhinaoagupta and others. edna hl,nself has referred

t o t h l s two clashes of l i t e r a t u r e among others. H i s

compliments t o previous AkhvayikAkHras suggert t h a t

before hltn these two l i t e r a t u r e were accepted a s

d i f fe ren t . He himself c a l l s H a r p C. as an akhvhviW

and IQdambari a s a e. The author of Alanklra

sarnpraha makes a fu r ther point on t h e diat inct lon,

namely, lkhyayika s h a l l be based on h i s to r ica l f a c t s and

on a f i c t i t i o u s p lo t s (gadyantu kathitam dvidhl

kathetySkhy&iteti ga, k a l ~ i t a v*tbnta s a t z r t h l +- khysvika m t n ) . Amarakoqa makes a airnilar d i s t inc t ion

(akhvhyikopalubdhdrthI prabandhak~i~anakatha). This nsw

pr inc ip le seems t o be added following Bb~a ' s work.

Rudrafa i n his K&lam. has defined t h e kathH and

i k h ~ a v i k l following Blnals Hda. and Harpa C. a s t h e two

standard specimen of the two kinds of prose ~ o m p o a i t i o n . ~

1. V J Kavlam (Ru) 16. 20-30.

&nandavardhana accepts t h e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n

h i s nhvanyiloka with c e r t a i n reservat ions on t h e use

of long compounds. To hiin long compounds should not

occur i n desc r ip t ion of pathos and love of a e p a r a t d

lovs r r .

Abhinavagupta d is t inguishes between these two

c l a s s e s by pointing out t h a t t h e akhviyikg is possesstxl

of s ec t ions ca l l ed Ucchvasas and stanzaz i n Vaktr i and

egaravaktra metres, whereas t h e kathi i s f r e e from such

c h a r a ~ t e r i s t i c s . ~

The most modern d e f i n i t i o n of kathl and ikhv iy ik i

a r e those given by &vanatha which a r e based on t h e

e a r l i e r ones. "According t o him - A kathi contains

a f i n e p l o t . I n prose with here and the re a s t r a y s tanza

i n t h e a&, vak t r r o r aparavaMri metres. In t h e

beginning the re i s a s a lu t a t ion in verse and a mention

is made on the conduct of wicked, e t c . An &khy&yikE is

-

I. Dhvanyaloka, pp. 143-144.

2. V& Lacma, p.14.

s imi la r t o a k& but i n it we have i n addition an

account of the poet 's family and sometime of o ther

poets. The division of t h e narrat ive a r e styled a r

L$vhsaa, which contains in the beginning stanzas i n

t h e hrpa, vaktrc and aparavaktrli metres t h a t a re

suggestive of future events.

1. S.V. D h i t , p.147. cf. m t h b k aarasirn vastu oadyer eva vininnitam

kvacit a t r a bhavet t i n 6 kvacit vaktra a~akakt rake M a u ~ a d v a i r namas ksrah khaltder v r f ta kxrtanam,

OtC.

- sah Dar. VI .