काव्यमीमांसा (महाकवि राजशेखर - कवि-रहस्य एवं देश-विभाग सटीक)

NINTH ADHYĀYA 187
Karṇa and the serpent Aśvasena. Aśvasena who was an enemy
of Arjuna entered the quiver of Karṇa without his knowledge in
the form of a serpent-mouthed arrow. When once Karṇa failed
to slay Arjuna with that arrow, the serpent Aśvasena requested
Karṇa to charge his bow with the same arrow again. But Karṇa
refused. This last part of the episode is stated in this verse. For
further details see Mahābhārata Karṇa-Parva. 90. Out of the two
words आर्द्रावले and अपकर्ण used as epithets of the serpent, the signifi-
cance of the first word is unknown, while the second अपकर्ण denotes
that the serpents are devoid of ears. हरशिष्य is Bhārgava Paraśu-
rāma and Karṇa is his disciple.
मर्त्यैः । This shows that the arrows of the earth also are capable
of achieving the same object as those of the nether regions.

Page. 44.
l. 1. इहापि etc. The four sub-divisions of the दिव्यमानुष group
referred to on page 42. l. 9 are said to be applicable in the case of
the मर्त्यपातालीय group also.
ll. 7–10. In this verse, events connected with persons belonging
to the three worlds are described. For the story of Āstīka, the
sage who protected the serpents Takṣaka and others from being
destroyed in the sacrificial fire of king Janamejaya, see the Āstīka-
parva, a sub-section in the Ādiparva of the Mahābhārata.
उद्वेल्लत्=shaking or moving.
*[l. 13. विचारितसुस्थः cf. तत्र दशविधश्चमत्कारः अविचारितरमणीयः विचार्यमाण-
रमणीयश्च (कविकण्ठाभरण. Sandhi III.)]
ll. 12–14. Followers of Udbhaṭa classify the subject matter of
literature under two varieties : विचारितसुस्थ and अविचारितरमणीय and
hold that the Śāstric literature deals with the former, while the
latter is the subject of kāvya. Probably Udbhaṭa must have
expressed this view in his commentary on Bhāmaha's theory as
recorded by him in the two verses quoted below :
तज्ज्ञैः काव्यप्रयोगेषु तत्रादुष्कृतमन्यथा ।
तत्र लोकाश्नयं काव्यमागमाः तत्त्वदर्शिनः ॥
असिसंकाशमाकाशं शब्दो दूरादुपैत्ययम् ।
तदेव वापी(रि)सिन्धूनामहो स्थेमा महर्चिषः ॥
Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaṅkāra 5, 33–34.
*[l. 17. त ·आकाशमसिस्त्यामं ( कुमार. VI. 36 ).]

188 EXPLANATORY NOTES
ll. 15-19. Three examples are given here to illustrate Ud-
bhaṭa's theory of काव्यार्थ but not of शास्त्रार्थ. In the first two verses
the colour of ether is described as blue like a blue lotus and like
that of a sword, though really ether is devoid of any colour.
सदैव वारि सिन्धूनाम् । etc. The second half of Bhāmaha's verse
(5-34) is quoted here as the third example. The readings वापीसिन्धूनां
or वापिसिन्धूनां as found in the editions of the Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaṅkāra
may be read as वारि सिन्धूनां which seems to be the correct reading.
Here it is said that the water of all rivers is always the same and
that the heavenly lights such as the moon and the stars are wonder-
fully fixed in their proper places. Followers of Udbhaṭa hold that
these descriptions are अविचारितरमणीय because in reality ether has no
colour and water of all rivers is not the same at all times and the
heavenly bodies also are not fixed in one place, and also because on
scientific examination ether is found to be without any colour while
the stars are also found moving from place to place.
ll. 20-25. Yāyāvarīya does not agree with the view of Aud-
bhaṭas because they hold that the Kāvyas only describe unreal
aspects of things, and this means that the Kāvyas are valueless.
He holds, therefore, that the authors of both S'āstras and Kāvyas
describe objects as observed by them.
Page. 45.
ll. 1-2. Following the rules of Vyākaraṇa and Alaṅkāra śāstras
here the simile between the moon and swan, stars and Kumudas, sky
and water, cloud and mud, is given. This is a description of the
moon which shines on a clear sky with stars but appears as a swan
moving on the surface of a lake where there are many lotuses.
*[l. 8. यस्तु सरिदद्रि. Quoted in Hemacandra's काव्यानुशासन. under
लोल्लट:—“तथा च लोल्लटः—
यस्तु सरिदद्रिसागरनगतुरगपुरादिवर्णने यत्नः ।
कविशक्तिख्यातिफलो विततधियां नो मतः प्रबन्धेषु ॥
यमकानुलोमतदितरचक्रादिभिदोऽतिरसविरोधिन्यः ।
अभिमानमात्रमेतद्गड्डरिकादिप्रवाहो वा ॥” p. 215.]
ll. 3-9. Āparājiti who seems, in all probability, to be a follower
of the Rasa school of Bharata advises poets not to indulge in a
lengthy description of the rising sun or the moon etc. because it
is likely to obstruct a natural outflow of Rasas in the minds of the

NINTH ADHYĀYA 189
audience or readers. Evidently this view of Aparājiti is to be
applied only to the drama, because the best poets such as Kālidāsa,
Bhāravi, Māgha and others, are found devoting some chapters in
their Kāvyas for the lengthy descriptions of such things, and also
because the earlier writers on poetics such as Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin
have laid down rules on the same lines for Mahākāvyas. The word
इह occuring in the two verses of Āparājiti also denotes the
lengthy description of मज्जनपुष्पावचय etc. is disallowed only in a
particular class of poetry, namely the drama, and not in the Kāvya
as a whole. In fact, Āparājiti is to be identified with लोल्लट as
Hemacandra attributes the second of these two citations definitely
to लोल्लट. (see Kāvyānuśāsana p. 215) Lollaṭa belonged to the
Rasa school and a commentary on the Nāṭyaśāstra is also attributed
to him. (see Saṅgītaratnākara 1-1. 19. and Abhinavabhāratī.
G.O.S. ed. pp. 266 and 274).
ll. 10-12. Yāyāvarīya agrees with Āparājiti and adduces
another reason in support of the same view that it is the method of
presentation only which is responsible in rousing up the different
Rasas, and not the actual things that are so presented in the poetry.
In order to prove this dictum he cites some verses where the
authors of high poetical skill are able to rouse up the different
Rasas by means of excellent presentation of common-place happen-
ings; whereas, inferior poets are unable to do so even though they
may handle very sublime topics.
*[l. 23. धत्ते यत्किलकिञ्चितंकगुरुतामेणीदृशां (बालरामायण 10-44).]
ll. 13-26. Here the method adopted in describing the river
Tāmraparṇī is such that the Rasa of S'ṛṅgāra becomes immediately
roused through the उद्दीपनविभाव of the same Rasa. In the next two
verses, similarly the Rasas S'ṛṅgāra and Adbhuta are aroused with
the help of the उद्दीपनविभाव.
रोधोभुवः=shores.
पीततमाः=moon.
Page. 46.
ll. 1.-7. All Mss read: अतिरसवत्ता which ought to be read as
अरसवत्ता. This latter reading is more suited to the context and
more in harmony with the subject matter of the verse cited below
than the former. Rājaśekhara here makes an attempt to prove on

the principle of अन्वयव्यतिरेक that the methods of poetical representation
of things alone are responsible for rousing or obstructing the Rasas,
but not the atcual topics described. He cites, in support, three
verses and shows on the principle of अन्वय, that an able delineation
of commonplace things such as mountain, river etc. is capable of
rousing the Rasas. Again, on the principle of व्यतिरेक he wants
to show that an inexperienced poet is unable to rouse the desired
Rasa even by handling such delicate subject as the विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार. This
context will not be supported by any other reading than विप्रलम्भेऽप्य-
रसवत्ता as shown above. It will be evident that the reading
अरसवत्ता is meant by the author himself when he concludes his
arguments, saying: कुकविर्विप्रलम्भेऽपि रसवत्तां निरस्यति । l. 6.
The poet, in this verse विधर्माणो भावाः etc. describes the plight.
of a lover consequent on the separation of his beloved and attempts
to delineate the विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार. But he failed to achieve his object as
his poetical skill was not up to the mark. This is explained in the
verse कुकविः etc. where the author concludes his arguments. The
following explanation of the stanza विधर्माणो भावाः etc. will evidently
show how the poet's method of representation of विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार failed
to rouse the same Rasa.
"Where can my mind tormented by the separation of my
beloved ( Nāyikā ) find happiness ? Objects both similar and dissi-
milar to her, have failed to make it happy. The former failed
because they could not give complete satisfaction, and the latter
because my mind is always attached to nothing except her."
*[ l. 10. For पाल्यकीर्ति, a Jain grammarian,
cf. कुतस्त्या तस्य सा शक्तिः पाल्यकीर्तेर्महौजसः ।
श्रीपदश्रवणं यस्य शाब्दिकान् कुरुते जनान् ॥ वादीभसिंह—पार्श्वनाथचरित्र.
मुनीन्द्रमभिवन्द्याहं पाल्यकीर्तिं जिनेश्वरम् ।
मन्दबुद्ध्यनुरोधेन प्रक्रियासङ्ग्रहं ब्रुवे ॥ अभयचन्द्र-प्रक्रियासङ्ग्रह I.
This पाल्यकीर्ति is identical with the Jain grammarian शाकटायन.
The śloka येषां वल्लभया is found in भोजप्रबन्ध and प्रबन्धचिन्तामणि. ]
ll. 8–14. Āparājitī seems to think that poets should make use
of such things alone as are रसवत् which help in rousing the Rasa,
and not those that are entirely devoid of Rasa. (see. p. 45. ll. 3, 4.)
Rājaśekhara's view is somewhat modified when he says that there
are things both suited and unsuited to the Rasa but they have

NINTH ADHYĀYA 191
nothing to do with the enjoyment of Rasa in the poetry, because
the poet's skill in presentation alone is responsible for that enjoy-
ment. The contentions of Rājaśekhara and Āparājiti are objected
to by the followers of स्याद्वाद or अनेकान्तवाद of Jainism. According to
this theory there is no entity which is endowed with only one form
or quality. On this point, however, there is quite a great deal of
controversy among the philosophers of different schools. For
details see Tattvasaṅgraha (G.O.S. Nos. 30 and 31), Syādvāda-
parīkṣā pp. 486-503. The Buddhists hold that one entity cannot
have two qualities or forms. Brahmins attribute two or even more
qualities while the Jains hold that an entity can have as many as
seven of them (सप्तभङ्ग). Pālyakīrti, the Jain Grammarian, there-
fore, objects to the view of Rājaśekhara and Āparājiti, saying that
the quality of an entity cannot be fixed as रसवत् or otherwise;
because the same thing my be रसवत् in one, while it will be नीरस or
उदासीन in another. This is illustrated by the example of the moon
in the verse येषां वल्लभया etc.
ll. 15-21. Avantisundarī follows in the foot-steps of Pālya-
kīrti, and thinks that especially in Kāvya the nature of things is not
fixed; because, if the poet is clever he is able to present the same
thing in different forms to suit different contexts. For instance,
the same moon is described by poets at one time as अमृतांशु and at
others as दोषाकर. Rājaśekhara, however, ultimately agrees with
the views of both Pālyakīrti and Avanatisundarī.
ll. 22-26. For the sub-divisions of Kāvya see Dhvanyāloka
3, 7. Ancient writers on Alaṅkāra such as Bhāmaha and Vāmana,
divide Kāvyas into two either as अनिबद्ध, and निबद्ध or as मुक्तक and
प्रबन्ध respectively. See Bhāmaha 1-18 and Vāmana 1-3-27.
Daṇḍin, however, mentions several kinds of Kāvya as मुक्तक etc; but
he does not attempt to define them, as these do not possess any
appreciable difference from the सर्गबन्ध. see Kāvyādarśa 1-13. The
अनिबद्ध or मुक्तक is only illustrated by Bhāmaha thus:
अनिबद्धं पुनर्गाथाश्लोकमात्रादि तत्पुनः (1-30.)
But Gopendraṭippabhūpāla in his Kāmadhenu while commen-
ting upon Vāmana's Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra (1-3-27) quoted a verse
defining मुक्तक and attributes the same to Bhāmaha. This verse,
however, is not found in the present editions of Bhāmaha's Kāvyā-
laṅkāra. The verse in question is quoted below :—

192 EXPLANATORY NOTES
मुक्तकलक्षणमुक्तं भामहेन—
प्रथमं मुक्तादीनामृजु लक्षणमुच्यते ।
यदेव गांभीर्यौदार्यशौर्यनीतिमतिस्पृशा ॥
भवेन्मुक्तकमेकेन द्विकं द्वाभ्यां त्रिकं त्रिभिः ।
Abhinavagupta in his commentary on Dhvani (3-7,) however,
gives a definition of मुक्तक in the following words:—
मुक्तमन्येन नालिङ्गितम् । तस्य संज्ञायां कन् । तेन स्वतन्त्रतया परिसमाप्तनिराकाङ्क्षार्थमपि
प्रबन्धमध्यवर्ति मुक्तकमित्युच्यते ॥
The same idea is also expressed by Rājaśekhara when he
says:—मुक्तेतिवृत्तः शुद्धः ।
Page. 47.
*[ ll. 1-4. सा पत्युः (अमरु 29) ].
ll. 1-4. Here is described the behaviour of a मुग्धानायिका when
she finds fault with the conduct of her lover for the first time.
*[ l. 5. दूरादुत्सुकमागते (अमरु. 49) attributed to रतिपाल in कवीन्द्रवचन-
समुच्चय.
*[ ll. 9-12. दत्वा रुद्धगतिः records a historical incident. ध्रुवस्वामिनी
or ध्रुवदेवी was the queen of चन्द्रगुप्तविक्रमादित्य and mother of कुमारगुप्त I ]
ll. 9-12. The subject matter of this verse is styled by Rājaśe-
khara as कथोत्थः वृत्तेतिवृत्तः । The word Kathā is controversial in the
sense that it may either denote an actual historical fact or may
record mere tradition. But the incident alluded to in this verse
may be taken as an historical fact. Evidently, it refers to the
event connected with king S'rīśarmagupta, his queen Dhruvasvā-
minī and one Khasādhipati who was hostile to S'rīśarmagupta.
All these persons excepting Dhruvadevī or Dhruvasvāminī who
was the queen of Candragupta II and the mother of Kumāragupta
I of the Gupta dynasty are unknown to history. But the literary
evidence culled from such ancient works as Harṣacarita of Bāṇa,
(अरि(अलि)पुरे च परकलत्रकामुकं कामिनीवेशगुप्तो गुप्तः चन्द्रगुप्तः शकपतिं प्रशशास । 6th
Uccvāsa); Devicandragupta of Viśākhadatta (fragments of which
are available from the S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhoja and the Nāṭyadar-
paṇa of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra. (G.O.S. No. 48); and Sañjan
copperplates of king Amoghavarṣa I dated S'aka 795 (E. I.
Vol. XVIII p. 248) points to all these being names of historical
personages. From the information obtained from different sources
it appears that there was a king Rāmagupta by name who had

NINTH ADHYĀYA 193
contracted a humiliating treaty when he was attacked and defeated
by a S'aka invader. By this treaty he was compelled to surrender
his crowned queen Dhruvadevi. When the king consented to
sacrifice his queen in order to save himself and his subjects, Chan-
dragupta his younger brother to save the honour of his family
volunteered to go to the enemies' camp under the guise of queen
Dhruvadevī and killed the S'aka king. For further information
refer to the Nāṭyadarpaṇa; pp. 223–253, of the Journal of the
B. O. R. S. 1928 and the Journal Asiatique for Octo.–Dec. 1923.
In the verse quoted by Rājaśekhara, however, the king
is named as S'rīśarmagupta or S'rīsenagupta and the invading
king is reported as Khasādhipati instead of S'rīrāmagupta and
S'akādhipati respectively. On the strength of the evidences
adduced above the readings as खस and शर्मगुप्त here may be taken as
scribe's errors for शक and रामगुप्त respectively which seem to be the
correct names. It is also suggested in the above mentioned journals
on the evidence of the Devīcandragupta, Sañjan copper-plates, and
some coins of Candragupta and Dhruvadevī, that Candragupta II
must have married Dhruvadevī the queen of his brother Rāmagupta
after killing him. But the verse quoted by Rājaśekhara, however,
has no direct connection with the incident referred to above.
But this verse certainly makes valuable contribution to the
controversy regarding Rāmagupta's history by clearing two points:
namely, the identification of the particular S'aka king who invaded
Rāmagupta's territory and the identification of Candragupta. The
words खसाधिपति, यस्मात् and तस्मिन्नेव हिमालये in this verse undoubtedly show
that खस king as spelt in the Mss of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā may be
better identified with one of the Kuṣāṇa kings of the Western
Punjab and not with the S'aka Kṣatrapas either of Mathura or
Malwa and that the war between the खस king and Rāmagupta
or S'armagupta took place exactly in the portion of the Himālayas
lying between the two kingdoms. In this case the word शक in the
Harṣacarita and Devīcandragupta may be taken to denote the खस
or Kuṣāṇa king as the term शक is often loosely used to denote even
the non-S'aka foreign tribes.
The word कार्तिकेय also in this verse may refer to Skanda-
gupta of the Gupta dynasty who is addressed in this verse and is
२५

194 EXPLANATORY NOTES
known to be the grandson of Candragupta II. This leads us
to believe that Candragupta II who was styled as S'akārāti
was the hero of the drama Devīcandraguptam. In this verse the
reign of Skandagupta is described to be so prosperous as to
permit even the society ladies of the town freely to sing his
fame without any danger coming from even the interior parts of
the Himalayas where once king S'armagupta being defeated by
the Khasa king was forced to give up even his queen Dhruvadevī.
It may be remembered here that Skandagupta also bore the title
Vikramāditya and inflicted a crushing defeat on the barbarous
Huns. In this case the word कार्त्तिकेय should be taken in vocative.
This interpretation should be abandoned if the word कार्त्तिकेयनगर
is taken as a compound and identified with the कार्त्तिकेयपुर mentioned
in Pāndukesvar copper plate and Talesvara charters. This कार्त्तिकेय-
पुर is also reported to be the modern village of Baijnath or
Vaidyanath in Kumaun. (See Ind. Ant. Vol. XXV. p. 178. and
Ep. Ind. Vol. XIII pp. 115 and 118.)
There is also another plausible solution ragarding the identity
of the Khasādhipati.
The Rājatarangiṇī of Kalhaṇa, mentions the Khasas as a
foreign tribe settled in widely diffused parts of the Himalayan regions
even previous to the accession of king Mihirakula, the despotic
ruler of Kashmir (cir. 6th century A. D.). Thus the readings
as शकपति in the MSS of the Harṣacarita, S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa and
Nāṭyadarpaṇa may be ascribed to scribe's error for खसपति. Because
it is clearly known from the verse quoted here that the Gupta
king returned from the Himalayan regions after promising his
queen to the Khasādhipati. Rājatarangiṇī also states that the
kings of the Khasas were known as the rulers of राजपुरी or खसालय or
खसालि. These names indeed, bear a striking resemblance to the names
denoting the head-quarters of Khasas such as खसाधि(लि)पतये quoted
in this verse or अरिपुर, अलिपुर and अलिस्कन्धावार as found in the MSS of
the Harṣacarita and the S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa. (स्त्रीवेषनिन्हुतश्चन्द्रगुप्तः शत्रोः
स्कन्धावारमलिपुरे शकपतिवधायागमत् ।) (For further information regarding
the tribes Khasas who settled in the Himalayan regions, and once
usurped the throne of Kashmir and whose descendants are known
to-day as Khakhas in Kashmir, see notes by M. A. Stein in vol. I.
317 of the Rājatarangiṇī translation.)

NINTH ADHYĀYA 195
Some scholars, however, maintain that the war between
Rāmagupta and the S'aka king took place not in the Himālayas as
stated above but near the city of Girnar or Girinagara in Saurāṣṭra,
on the strength of the readings अरिपुरे or अलिपुरे in the Harṣacarita
and the S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa, emended as गिरिपुरे. In addition to this
emendation of Aripura into Giripura ( Girnar ) they propose
further to change this verse in the following manner :—
दातुं रुद्धगतिः शकाधिपतये देवीं ध्रुवोपायिकां यस्मात्खण्डितसाहसो निववृते श्रीरामगुप्तो नृपः ।
तस्मिन्नेव हि रैवते गुरुगुहाकोणक्वणत्कीचके गीयन्ते बत ते कुमार शबरस्त्रीणां गणैः कीर्तयः ॥
These emendations lose much value since there is no MS
material in their support. Also, the word स्कन्धावार in the passage of
the S'ṛṅgāraprakāsa as quoted above denotes that Candragupta
went only to the camp of the enemy and not to his capital in
Saurāṣṭra. These emendations, therefore, have to be accepted with
caution.
*[ l. 14. दृष्टैकासनसंस्थिते ( अमरु. 19 ).
Page. 48.
*[l. 1. स्तिमित ( मालतीमाधव I ).
l. 5. अलसवलित. Ibid. I.
l. 9. अभिलाष. ( कुमार. IV 41. )
l. 13. क्रोधं प्रभो. Ibid. III 72.
l. 17. पत्युः शिरश्चन्द्रकला. Ibid. VII 19. ]
ll. 21–23. Here poets are advised to acquaint themselves
with the manifold subjects which find expression through the
medium of Prākṛta dialects according to their ability and energy.
ll. 25–26. Here it is said that there are certain ideas which
can best be expressed only in certain languages, while there are
others which are capable of being well expressed in several languages.
The poet should realise what things are suitable for a particular
dialect for the purpose of expression, and he should be thoroughly
conversant with the nature of things and the medium through
which it finds its best expression.
Page. 49.
l. 3. घनैः=weighty or full because of many sub-divisions.

196 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Adhyāya. X.
*[ ll. 8-10. गृहीतविद्योपविद्यः Cf. गृहीतविद्यः (वा. काम. सू. 1-4-1.) अभिधान-
कोशः. cf. अभिधानकोशः छन्दोज्ञानम्. Ibid. 1-3-16. ]
ll. 8-10. For the other branches of Kāvyavidyā cf. लोको विद्या
प्रकीर्णञ्च काव्याङ्गानि ( १ ) लोकवृत्तं लोकः ( २ ) शब्दस्मृत्यभिधानकोशच्छन्दोविचितिकला-
कामशास्त्रदण्डनीतिपूर्वा विद्याः ( ३ ) लक्ष्यज्ञत्वमभियोगो वृद्धसेवाऽवेक्षणं प्रतिभानमवधानं च
प्रकीर्णकम् ॥ ११ ॥ वामनकाव्यालङ्कारसूत्र. 1-3.
नामधातुपारायण is the same as शब्दस्मृति or grammar. The works
of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa, Vāmana, Ānanda and Rudraṭa
are meant by the word अलङ्कारतन्त्रम् । Vāmana uses the word शास्त्र
( 1-1-4 ) with reference to works dealing with poetics. These
four Vidyās are the most important branches of knowledge for
poets. The other branches required for them are enumerated by
Rājaśekhara in the eighth chapter of this work. Sixty four Kalās
as mentioned by Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra ( 1-3. 16 ) are here
considered as Upavidyās. Vāmana includes Kalās among the
principal Vidyās. Another set of sixty four Kalās and 104 Upakalās
are enumerated by Gopendraṭippabhūpāla in his commentary
on Vāmana's Sūtra ( 1-3. 7) on the authority of Bhāmaha's
verses. Cf. कलाः—नृत्तगीतादयश्चतुःषष्टिः । उपकलास्तुःशतम् । कलानामुद्देशः कृतो भाम-
हेन—नृत्तं गीतं तथा वाद्यमालेख्यं मणिभूमिकाः । etc. Kāmadhenu on Vāmana's
Sūtra 1-3. 7.
This list of Kalās is similar to that of Vātsyāyana. The editions
of the Kāvyālaṅkāra of Bhāmaha, as at present available, however,
do not contain these verses.
l. 10. सुजनोपजीव्यकविसन्निधिः=acquaintance with the poet who is
patronized by good men. For other equipments of a poet see
Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, sandhi-2.
*[ ll. 15-24. अपिच नित्यं शुचिः स्यात् etc. cf. नागरकवृत्त(वा. काम. सू. 1-4.) ]
ll. 15-24. The duties and behaviour of a poet are enumerated
in this chapter in the same way as the Nāgarakavṛtta and Rāja-
vṛtta have been described in the Kāmaśāstra ( 1-4 ) and Artha-
śāstra ( 1-19 ) respectively.
Page. 50.
l. 6. समागध। All MSS read समागध. It may be read as मागधभाषा-

TENTH ADHYĀYA 197
भिनिवेशिन्यः । The word समागधभाषा may be taken to mean a language
along with the Māgadhī language.
l. 10. अतिरात्रादिषु=overnights.
l. 14. तृतीयवर्जम्=excepting the letter स, which is the third of
ऊष्म letters शषसह.
l. 15. Construe as परुषाक्षर and संयोगाक्षर.
*[ l. 17. कुन्तलेषु सातवाहनः Cf. कर्त्तर्या कुन्तलः शातकर्णिः शातवाहनो ( वा. काम.
सू. 2. 7. 28 ). Cf. राएण विरइए कुन्तलजणवयवइणेण हालेण. ] ( Introduction
of the Gāthāsaptas'atī ).
l. 17. सातवाहन seems to be another name of हाल who is the
author of the गाथासप्तशती and ruled the Kuntala country. The
compilation of this Mahārāṣṭrī Prākṛta Kośa itself stands as a
proof of his love for that Prākṛta language. S'rīpālita was his
court-poet and several Gāthās of his are incorporated in the Gāthā-
Kośa by Hāla S'ātavāhana. Here the word प्राकृतभाषा denotes
महाराष्ट्रीप्राकृत because the Kuntala country is included in Māhārāṣṭra,
and also because the other two Prākṛtas S'aurasenī and Māgadhī
are already mentioned. Regarding the king Hāla and the poet
S'rīpālita see infra.
*[ l. 19. श्रूयते चोज्जयिन्यां.
cf. केऽभूवन्नाढ्यराजस्य राज्ये प्राकृतभाषिणः ।
काले श्रीसाहसाङ्कस्य के न संस्कृतवादिनः ॥
सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. II. 15 ].
l. 19. There were, however, several Vikramādityas in ancient
times, and the word Vikramāditya being an epithet, the most power-
ful kings could always assume that title. There is a verse in the
Gāthāsaptaśatī (cir. 1st century A. D.) where the author mentions
the name of a king Vikramāditya.
cf. संवाहणसुहरसतोसिएण देन्तेण तुह करे लक्खम् ।
चलणेण विक्कमाइत्तचरिअं अणुसिक्खियं तिस्सा ॥ (5. 64)
Sāhasāṅka here seems to be the same as Candragupta
Vikramāditya II of the Gupta dynasty, who also assumed the
title of Vikramāṅka which appears on his coins. The name
Sāhasāṅka is further justified by the story of the Devīcandra-
gupta and the Sanjan Copperplates where the daring actions of
Candragupta II are recorded. Rājaśekhara makes it clear on

198 EXPLANATORY NOTES
p. 55-7 that Sāhasāṅka or Candragupta II was a patron of Sans-
krit learning and encouraged men of letters. The fact that the
king Sāhasāṅka was also a poet will be evident by the following
verses :—
भासो रामिलसोमिलौ वररुचिः श्रीसाहसाङ्कः कविः etc. and
शूरः शास्त्रविधेर्ज्ञाता साहसांकः स भूपतिः।
सेव्यं सकललोकस्य विदधे गन्धमादनम्॥
Sūktimuktāvali 4, 57, 111.
*[ l. 23. सुसम्मृष्टा भित्तयः=well-cleaned walls or well rubbed plates.
In ancient times they used to write as well as paint on walls.
Brass plates are still being used by shop-keepers for writing daily
accounts. ]
ll. 21-25. सम्पुटिका=a box. सफ़लकखटिका=a piece of chalk fixed
to a wooden piece. समुद्गकः=a box.
All these materials are to be kept always near a poet as he is
required to write down whatever verses he may compose mentally
at any time. Yāyāvarīya thinks that the collection of materials
mentioned above is not the real requisite for the composition of
poetry as suggested by the Ācāryas, but the poetical genius
or प्रतिभा alone is its chief necessity. see Vāmana's sūtra 'कवित्वबीजं
प्रतिभानम्' । 1-3-16.
l. 26. कल्पयेत्=make himself equipped.
l. 27. परिवृढः=king or patron.
Page. 51.
l. 2. Yāyāvarīya thinks that the above instructions of the
Ācāryas hold good in the case of poets who are not competent to
compose in more than one dialect.
l. 7. भूतभाषा=पैशाची।
l. 8. For the definition and boundaries of Madhyadeśa see
page 94 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
l. 13. अतिक्रान्ते=after the poet's demise.
l. 21. लेशस्वादु=excellent in parts. This may be construed
thus:—लेशस्वादपि काव्यं कौतुकात् बालस्त्रीहीनजातीनां मुखान्मुखं याति।
l. 23. कार्यावसरसज् l=those who make the best use of a
favourable opportunity. This is not necessarily to be taken as an
adjective to परिम्राजाम् महीभुजाम् and सद्यःकवीनाम्।

TENTH ADHYĀYA 199

The word सद्यःकवीनाम् may be taken as one word meaning आशुकवि.
l. 25. पितुः etc. may be construed respectively with सुत etc.
Page. 52.
l. 5. यदुदासीनः etc. Others can judge their actions better than
the doers themselves.
l. 7. विप्लवेत्=fall into disorder or confusion. This has been
explained in the passage स्वकाव्यबन्धेन विनाश्यत्यपि।
ll. 12-28. Cf. Arthaśāstra 1-19 for the sub-divisions of
the day and night and the routine of daily duties the king is
required to follow. Also Kāmaśāstra. 1-4-16.
For प्रश्नोत्तरभेदन cf.
किं करोति कियत्कालं वेश्यावेश्मनि कामुकः। कीदृशं वदनं वीक्ष्य तस्याः कर्णायते क्षणम्॥
(p. 57. of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā).
Daṇḍin also introduces similar methods of प्रहेलिका in the third
chapter of his Kāvyādarśa. In the 18th line read काव्यसमस्या, धारणा-
मातृकाभ्यास instead of काव्यसमस्याधारणा, मातृकाभ्यासः।
These two functions are included by Vātsyāyana as two
distinct fine-arts or कलाs in the list of 64 Kalās (काम-सू. 1-3-16).
Jayamaṅgala comments upon the word धारणमातृका as follows:—
“धारणमातृकेति—श्रुतस्य ग्रन्थस्य धारणार्थं शास्त्रम्। यथोक्तम्—
‘वस्तु कोशस्तथा द्रव्यं लक्षणं हेतुरेव च।
इत्येते धारणादेव्याः पञ्चाङ्गरुचिरं वपुः॥’ इति॥
In the list of Kalās quoted by Gopendratippabhūpāla from
Bhāmaha's work, this word धारणामातृका also occurs, (see Vāmana
1-3-7) and the verse there should be read as:
धारणामातृका यन्त्रमातृका काव्यलक्षणम्। instead of
धोरणा मातृकायन्त्रं मातृकाकाव्यलक्षणम्। as printed there.
For an explanation of यन्त्रमातृका see Jayamaṅgala's commentary
on Kāmaśāstra 1-3-16.
चित्रा योगाः are those that are mentioned exhaustively by
Daṇḍin in the third chapter of his Kāvyādarśa, and by Rudraṭa
in the fifth chapter of his Kāvyālaṅkāra. Rājaśekhara also
proposes to treat this subject चित्र in the sixth Adhikaraṇa of
his Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
यावदार्ति क्रियमभिमन्येत। Here the word आर्ति denotes राग or इन्द्रियदौर्बल्य.

200 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Rājaśekhara instructs poets not to indulge in sexual excesses and
advises them to have recourse to women only to remove their आर्ति
or mental weakness. Similar usage can be found in the Mahābhāṣya
of Patañjali (1-1-1) where the word खेद is used instead of आर्ति.
Cf. खेदात् स्त्रीषु प्रवृत्तिर्भवति । समानश्च खेदविगमो गम्यायां चागम्यायाञ्च ।
The word खेद is explained by Kaiyaṭa while commenting on
the Mahābhāṣya Paspaśāhnika as below :—
खेदादिति । खेदयतीति खेदः रागः । इन्द्रियनियमासामर्थ्यं वा खेदः।
Page. 53.
l. 7. व्यवायः=Sexual intercourse.
*[ l. 15. श्रूयन्ते दृश्यन्ते च cf. सन्त्यपि खलु शास्त्रप्रहतबुद्धयो गणिका राजपुत्र्यो महा-
मात्रदुहितरश्च (वा. काम. सू. 1-3-12).
Read in the text महामात्रदुहितरो and शास्त्रप्रहतबुद्धयः. Rājaśekhara
(quoted in the Sūktimuktāvali) praises four such poetesses.
(1) शीलाभट्टारिका (2) विकटनितम्बा (3) विजयाङ्का (4) प्रभुदेवी.
शब्दार्थयोः समो गुम्फः पाञ्चाली रीतिरुच्यते ।
शीलाभट्टारिकावाचि बाणोक्तिषु च सा यदि ॥
के वैकटनितम्बेन गिरां गुम्फेन रञ्जिताः ।
निन्दन्ति निजकान्तानां न मौग्ध्यमधुरं वचः ॥
सरस्वतीय कर्णाटी विजयाङ्का जयत्यसौ ।
या वैदर्भंगिरां वासः कालिदासादनन्तरम् ॥
सूक्तीनां स्मरकेलीनां कलानां च विलासभूः ।
प्रभुदेवी कविर्लाटी गतापि हृदि तिष्ठति ॥
also नीलोत्पलदलश्यामां विजकां तामजानता ।
वृथैव दण्डिनाप्युक्तं सर्वशुक्ला सरस्वती ॥ ]
ll. 14–16. Avantisundarī, the wife of Rājaśekhara was a cul-
tured lady, a poetess and a critic. Rājaśekhara also introduces in
his dramas many female characters who are adepts in composing
verses in different dialects. The word दृश्यन्ते in addition to श्रूयन्ते
clearly shows that ladies gifted with poetic skill and culture
were found in abundance during Rājaśekhara's life-time. In
addition to four poetesses शीलाभट्टारिका, विकटनितम्बा, विजयाङ्का, and प्रभुदेवी
one more poetess सुभद्रा also is praised by Rājaśekhara in one of his
verses quoted in the Sūktimuktāvali p. 47 :
पार्थस्य मनसि स्थानं लेभे लघु सुभद्रया ।
कवीनां च वचोवृत्तिश्चातुर्येण सुभद्रया ॥

TENTH ADHYĀYA 201
l. 17. आदर्शः=copy. A poet should prepare several copies of
his composition.
l. 25. एकावली=a single string of pearls.
Page. 54.
l. 3. For the definitions of मुक्तक, see notes on page 46, l. 22.
सङ्घातः । The definitions of सङ्घात are given as:—
एकप्रघट्टकेनैव निबद्धो वाक्यविस्तरः ।
स संघातो भवेत्
Bhāvaprakāśana. p. 151–16.
and यत्र श्लोककृतो युक्तिसमुदायो रसान्वितः ।
एकप्रघट्टके सोऽयं सङ्घात इति कथ्यते ॥
Ibid. p. 282–20.
Daṇḍin mentions सङ्घात as a sub-division of सर्गबन्ध and his com-
mentator Taruṇavācaspati defines it as follows:—
सङ्घातः एकार्थविषयः एककर्तृकः पद्यसंघातः । शरत्सङ्घातद्रविडसंघातादिवत् ॥
Kāvyādarśa. 1–13.
Mahāprabandha has been defined by all earlier writers on
poetics, but Abhinavagupta's definition, as given below, seems to
be the best: महाकाव्यरूपः पुरुषार्थफलः समस्तवस्तुवर्णनाप्रबन्धः सर्गबन्धः संस्कृत एव ॥
(Locana on 3, 7 of the Dhvani)
*[ l. 5. बह्वपि स्वेच्छया ( माघ II. 73 ) ]
ll. 5–6. This is a verse quoted from the second canto of the
Śiśupālavadha where Uddhava gives counsel to Kṛṣṇa and differs
from the views expressed by Baladeva. It may also be suggested
here, as Rājaśekhara interprets, that Māgha, the author of the
Kāvya, being proud of his composition or प्रबन्ध, criticises in this
verse the attempts of other poets in order to humiliate them.
ll. 7–10. The fundamental principles of poetry are recorded
here on the lines indicated by Vāmana. Vāmana thinks that Rītis,
Guṇas and Sūktimudrās only are the most important factors for
the composition of poetry, but he does not consider the Alaṅkāras
to be so important. See Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra 3, 1, 1–3 and the
verses quoted there:—
२६

202 EXPLANATORY NOTES
युवतीरिव रूपमङ्ग काव्यं स्वदते शुद्धगुणं तदप्यतीव ।
विहितप्रणयं निरन्तराभिः सदलङ्कारविकल्पकल्पनाभिः ॥
यदि भवति वचश्च्युतं गुणेभ्यो वपुरिव यौवनवन्ध्यमङ्गनायाः ।
अपि जनदयितानि दुर्भगत्त्वं नियतमलङ्करणानि संश्रयन्ते ॥
Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin consider both Guṇa and Alaṅkāra equ-
ally important in poetry.
cf. न कान्तमपि निर्भूषं विभाति वनितामुखम् ॥ (Bhāmaha. 1–13.)
काश्चिन्मार्गविभागार्थमुक्ताः प्रागप्यलङ्क्रियाः । साधारणमलङ्कारजातमद्य प्रदर्श्यते ॥
(Daṇḍin. 2. 3)
Bharata, Ānanda and Rudraṭa observe that a poet should princi-
pally make an attempt to develop the Rasas in his composition.
Though Rājaśekhara is acquainted with the views of these writers,
he does not point out here the importance of Alaṅkāra, Rasa and
Dhvani in poetry, and his silence in this respect is due, very proba-
bly, to the fact that his professed object was to impart lessons on
elementary matters in this verse, rather than to waste his time in
scholastic discussions.
l. 11. अभिधा=word. अभिधोपनिषत्=grammar.
l. 16. एकपत्नीव्रतम् । see काम. सू. 4–1 for एकचारिणीवृत्त.
एकचारिणी attends to the त्रिवर्ग i. e. Dharma, Artha and Kāma of
the husband. Sarasvatī also does the same to a poet who follows
the above mentioned methods.
l. 18. Construe as :—
यस्याः (सिद्धेः) मूलच्छायां सः गिरां गुरुरपि न जानाति ।
मूलच्छाया=beauty of the foundation.
l. 21. अष्टभिर्मत्तवारणीभिः=with eight verandas or pavilions. It
is also called कपोतपालिका and is defined as गजदन्तैः कृता शाला विज्ञेया मत्तवारणी ।
l. 22. मणिभूमिका=bejewelled floor.
l. 23. The word संस्कृत denotes here a poet of sanskrit
language by its secondary capacity or लक्षणा.
l. 25. वेदविद्या=the Vedas and their six Aṅgas शिक्षा etc.
l. 26. Pramāṇas are Mīmāṁsā and Tarkas as described in the
eighth chapter (see page 36). The word स्मार्ताः here denotes those
who are conversant with स्मृतिs and Dharmaśāstras.

TENTH ADHYĀYA 203

*[ l. 26. मौहूर्तिका: cf. मौहूर्तिकपौराणिकसूतमागधाः (अर्थशास्त्र. p. 245) ].
l. 26 अन्येऽपि तथाविधाः refers to specialists in मन्त्र and तन्त्र Śāstras.
*[ l. 27. नटनर्तक. cf. नटनर्तकगायकवादकवाग्जीवनकुशीलवप्लवकसौभिकचारणानां
सर्वतालावचराणाञ्च (अर्थशास्त्र. p. 125.) also नटनर्तकवादकवाग्जीवनकुशीलवाः
Ibid. p. 48. ]
l. 27. The word Prākṛta also refers to poets in Prākṛta
language by its secondary capacity.
नट=a professional actor. Naṭa is defined in the Bhāvapra-
kāśana thus:—
अतीतं लोकवृत्तान्तं रसभावसमन्वितम् ।
स्वभाववन्नाटयति यतस्तस्मान्नटः स्मृतः ॥ p. 288, 5-6.
नर्तकः=professional actor in the minor dramas such as डोम्बी
श्रीगदित etc. He performs नृत्त or नृत्य in these Uparūpakas which are
18 or 20 in number. For detailed information regarding नृत्त and
नृत्य and 20 minor kinds of dramas see Bhāvaprakāśana chapters
7, 8 and 10.
Page. 55.
l. 1. वादनम्=instrumental music. It must be construed with जीवन.
कुशीलव=singers behind a dancing girl when she dances, or
singers in general. तालावचर=dancers.
l. 3. वैकटिकाः=jewellers. वर्धकि=carpenters.
l. 4. प्लवक=rope-dancers. शौभिक=juggler. जम्भक=magicians or
मायावी. For जम्भकविद्या see Arthaśāstra p. 245–16.
*[ l. 7. वासुदेव. There are two such names in ancient history:
(1) Vāsudeva Kāṇva, the Brāhmaṇa minister of Devabhūti of the
solar race, who usurped the throne made vacant by the murder of
Devabhūti and reigned about 73. B. C. (2) Vāsudeva I, the
Kushān king who reigned from 140–178 A. D.
सातवाहन, the author of गाथाकोश and the patron of poets. His
गाथाकोश contains Gāthās of many poets.
For the derivation of the word, cf.
सातेन यस्माद्वोढोऽभूत् तस्मात्तं सातवाहनम् ।
नाम्ना चकार कालेन राज्ये चैनं न्यवेशयत् ॥ कथासरित्सागर.

204 EXPLANATORY NOTES
सातं दत्तसुखं वाहनमस्य सातवाहनः सालवाहनोऽपि। अभिधानचिन्तामणिटीका. III. 375.
जगत्यां प्रथिता गाथा सातवाहनभूभुजा ।
व्यधुर्वृत्तेस्तु विस्तारमहो चित्रपरम्परा ॥
सूक्तिमुक्तावल्यां राजशेखरः ।
अविनाशिनमग्राम्यमकरोत्सातवाहनः ।
विशुद्धजातिभिः कोशं रत्नेरिव सुभाषितैः ॥ हर्षचरित्र. 5.
नमः श्रीहारवर्षाय येन हालादनन्तरम् ।
स्वकोपः कविकोषणामाविर्भावाय सम्भृतः ॥ रामचरित. VI. 93.
हालेनोत्तमपूजया कविदृषः श्रीपालितो लालितः
ख्यातिं कामपि कालिदासकवयो नीताः शकारातिना ।
श्रीहर्षो विततार गद्यकवये बाणाय वाणीफलं
सद्यः सत्क्रिययाऽभिनन्दमपि च श्रीहारवर्षोऽग्रहीत् ॥
Ibid XXII. 100.
cf. तत्थ वि । पालित्तयगालाहणछप्पणयसीहनायसद्देण ।
संखुद्धमुद्धसारङ्गउ व्व कह ता पयं देमि ॥
निम्मलगुणेण गुणगुरुएण परमत्थसयणसारेण ।
पालित्तयेण हालो हारेण व सहइ गोट्ठीसु ॥
चक्कायुजुवलसुहया रंमन्तपरायहंसगयहंरिसा ।
जस्स कुलपव्वयस्स व वियरइ गङ्गा तरङ्गमई ॥
भणियविलासवलन्तचोक्किले जो करेइ हालिए वि ।
कव्वेण किं पडत्थे हाले हालावियारे व्व ॥
पणईहिं कइएणेण य भमरेहिं व जस्स जायपणएहिं ।
कमलायरो व्व कोसो विल्लुप्पमाणे वि हु न झीणे ॥
कुवलयमाला of इन्द्रसूरि (दाक्षिण्यचिह्नसूरि) 778 A. D.
References to other old poets are also interesting.
सयलकलागमनिलया सिक्खावियकवियणा समुहयंदा ।
कमलासण गुण्ड्ढा सरस्सई जस्स वट्ठकहा ॥
जे भारहरामायणदलियमहागिरिसुगम्ममग्गेण ।
लंघेइ दिसाकरिणो कइणो को वासवंमीए ॥
छप्पन्नयाण किं वा भज्जइ कयकूंकंजराण भुवर्णसि ।
अन्ने वि छेयभणिओ अज वि उवमिजए जेहिं ॥
लावण्णवयणुसुहया सुवञ्चरयणुज्जला य बाणस्स ।
चन्द्रावीणस्स वणे जाया कादंबरी जस्स ॥
जारिसयं विमलंको विमलं को तारिसं लहइ अत्थं ।
अमयमइयं व सरसं सरसं चिय पाइयं जस्स ॥
तिउरिसचरियपसिद्धो सुपुरिसचरिएण पायडो लोए ।
सो जयइ देवगुत्तो वंसे गुत्ताण रायरिसी ॥

TENTH ADHYĀYA 205
बुहयणसहस्ससद्दइयं हरिवंसुप्पत्तिकारयं पढमम् ।
वंदामि वंदियं पि हु हरिवंसं चेय विमलपयम् ॥
सन्निहियजिणवरिंदा धम्मकहा बंधदिक्खियनरिंदा ।
कहिया जेण सुकहिया सुलोयणा समवसरणं वा ॥
सत्तूण जो जसहरो जसहरचरिएहिं जणवए पयडो ।
कलिमलपभंजणो च्चिय पहुंजणो आसि रायरिसी ॥
जेहिं कए रमणिज्जे वरंगपउमाण चरियवित्थारे ।
कह व न सलाहणिज्जे ते कइणो जडियरविसेणो ॥
जो इच्छइ भवविरहं भवविरहंको न बंधए सुयणो ।
समयसयसत्थगहणो समरमिमंका कहा जस्स ॥
साहसाङ्क is विक्रमादित्य. ]
l. 7. सातवाहन । Sātavāhana or S'ālivāhana is a family name.
Several princes belonging to the Āndhrabhṛtya dynasty ruled the
Mahārāṣṭra country and bore the title of Sātavāhana. There
are several literary traditions connected with the Sātavāhana kings
who were recognized patrons of poets in Prākṛta languages,
such as Paiśācī, Mahārāṣṭrī etc. The Bṛhatkathā of Guṇāḍhya,
Kātantra grammar of Sarvavarman, and Gāthāsaptaśatī of Hāla-
Sātavāhana, were composed under the patronage of Sātavāhana
kings. For further information regarding the Sātavāhanas see
Dr. R. G. Bhandarkar's ‘The Early history of the Deccan’ and
Vols. XVI and XVIII of the J. B. O. R. S.
शूद्रक । S'ūdraka is well known as a king and the author of the
drama Mṛcchakaṭika. Several stories are recorded in the Bṛhat-
kathā where S'ūdraka plays an important part. The शूद्रककथा or the
biography of S'ūdraka has been written by two authors रामिल and
सौमिल conjointly. This fact is known only from a verse occurring in
the Sūktimuktāvalī, where it is attributed to Rājaśekhara. This
verse is given below:—
तौ शूद्रककथाकारौ रम्यौ रामिलसौमिलौ ।
काव्यं ययोर्द्वयोरासीदर्धनारीश्वरोपमम् ॥
Sūktimuktāvalī. p. 43.
One सौमिल is also mentioned by Kālidāsa in his Mālavikāgni-
mitra along with Bhāsa and Kaviputra and very probably he may
be the author of the शूद्रककथा । From the remark शूद्रकादिरचितेषु
प्रबन्धेषु occurring in Vāmana's Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra-Vṛtti (3-2-4,)
it appears that S'ūdraka had composed several other works in

206 EXPLANATORY NOTES
addition to the Mṛcchakaṭika. Kṣīrasvāmin in his commentary on
the Amarakośa (2. 8. 2) quotes a set of anonymous verses where
the word S'ūdraka is mentioned as the name of a Cakravarti king,
who is identified with Agnimitra. The verse in question is
as follows:—
विक्रमादित्यः साहसाङ्कः शकान्तकः ।
शूद्रकस्त्वग्निमित्रो वा हालः स्यात्सातवाहनः ॥
Now, it is well known that Agnimitra was the son of the
S'uṅga conqueror Puṣyamitra who flourished in the second century
B. C. That S'ūdraka was a very noble and highly respected king
like Harṣa and Udayana, is known from a reference found in the
Hṛdayaṅgamā, a commentary on the Kāvyādarśa, (1-15) which
runs as: सदाश्रयम्–हर्षशूद्रकोदयनादिसत्पुरुषाश्रयम् ।
The prologue of the Mṛcchakaṭika mentions that S'ūdraka
performed a horse-sacrifice or Aśvamedha, saw his son ruling the
country and entered the fire after having lived for 100 years and
ten days. The above leads us to infer that the hero of the Māla-
vikāgnimitra was probably identical with king S'ūdraka the author
of the Mṛcchakaṭika. The fact that Agnimitra also was a great
poet and was as far-famed as Bhāsa and others, is borne out by
Vākpatirāja in his verse:
भासम्मि जलणमित्ते कुन्तीदेवे अ जस्स रहुआरे । गउडवहो—800.
Here ज्वलनमित्र is no other than Agnimitra.
The introduction of a Buddhist monk to save the life of
Vasantasenā in the Mṛcchakaṭika, and the part played by Paṇḍita
Parivrājikā, presumably a Buddhist nun, as the adviser of queen
Dhāriṇī in the Mālavikāgnimitra, also show that during the reign
of Agnimitra or S'ūdraka, Buddhism was held in high esteem.
The following facts, mentioned in the prologue of the Mṛcchakaṭika,
(1) द्विजमुख्यतम (2) ऋग्वेदं सामवेदम् (3) राजानं वीक्ष्य पुत्रं परमसमुदयेनाश्वमेधेन चेष्ट्वा
लब्ध्वा चायुः शताब्दं दशदिनसहितं शूद्रकोऽग्निं प्रविष्टः । tally in principal details with
the historical facts known about the S'uṅgas. We know from
history that Puṣyamitra and his son Agnimitra were the Brahmins
of the S'uṅgagotra and belonged to the Sāma Veda, and that
Puṣyamitra performed an Aśvamedha sacrifice in order to assume
the title of Cakravartin. It is worthy of note that the same facts
are recorded in the Mṛcchakaṭika. If the proposed identity of