general background the problem -...
TRANSCRIPT
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.
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.
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 .