PDF Creation and Uploading
by:
Hari Parshad Das (HPD)
on 29 May 2014.
Printed by P. C. Chakravarty,
VIDYODAYA PRESS,
17, Radhanath Bose Liane, (Goabagan), Calcutta
PREFACE.
The information about the Pavcmaduta was first brought
to the notice of scholars by Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasada
S'astrl in his Notices of Sanskrit Manuscripts. 1 It was in the
year 1905 that the text of it was edited for the first time
by the late Manomohan Ohakravarti in the pages of the
Journal and Proceedings of the Asiatic Society of Bengal*.
He edited it from one single manuscript which seems
to have been full of a great many errors and inaccuracies.
There were hopelessly corrupt passages in it as deciphered
by him. And in the absence oO a second manuscript it was
not possible for him to elucidate all of them by way of
suggesting emendations. It is of course true that in many
cases he was able to suggest happy emendations which
are found to agree with the readings of the new manuscript
which I have been able to collate. But I must confess
without meaning any discredit to that learned scholar, th v
the text of the Pavanaduta as published by him contains
a great many corrupt passages which baffle all attempts at
any kind of interpretation. In these circumstances it was
most desirable that a correct edition of this book based on
the collation manuscripts should be published in a separate
book form particulary in view of the fact that, being buried
in the pages of a journal, the already published text of it
is inaccessible and even unknown to many at present.
The Sanskrit Sahitya Parisat, therefore, decided to bring out
an edition of it and I was asked to undertake i-re work
of editing it.
_»
1. Notices of Sanskrit Mss. Vol. I. pp. 221-2%.
' %. J. A. S. B.— 1905— pp. 41 ff.
ii
The first thing required for a new and correct edition
of the book was, of course, the collation of manuscripts.
I therefore tried to procure as many manuscripts of the
book as I could. But to my great regret very few manus-
cripts were available. The C'ltalogm Qatalogornm was not
aware of any manuscript of it except the one noticed by M. M.
S'astri. I enquired in the manuscript libraries of the Govt.
Sanskrit College— Calcutta, Varendra Research Society — Raj
shahi, Vis'vabharatT, Shantiniketan ; but unfortunately no
manuscript of the book existed in any of these places. On
enquiry from Mr. Nagendra Nath Basu, editor of Bengali
Vis'vakosa, we were informed that the manuscripts of the
Pavanaduta that he had were all missing. The only
manuscripts, therefore, I could work upon were one in the
Government collection of the Asiatic Society of Bengal and the
other a small fragment ( viz. only the last leaf ) — in the
Manuscript Library of the Sanskrit Sahitya Parisat.
Of the three Manuscripts of the Pavanaduta viz.
R, A and P,theP manuscript is the earliest and A the latest.
Pwas copied in S'. E. 1644 (or 1722 A. D) 1 , R in S'. E.
1752 (or 1830 A. D.) 2 and A in S'. E 1767 (or 1845 A D) ;
3cT?l I snST^T: \i 8 8 II— Postscript to P.
IWWWUfafirS* im^TT^T: *«>^||Postscript to R.
<tt: ^(^gi: I ST *m I W^t: Postscript to A.
Ill
The Manuscript of the Asiatic Society was of great
help to me as it gave happy readings in the case of most
of the doubtful and corrupt passages of the text as published
by M. Ohakravarti. Explanatory notes which are found
in the margin of this manuscript, though not satisfactory
in all cases, were of great use to me in interpreting
many a difficult portion of the text. It is true that there
still are some passages the exact sense of which is not clear
and some cases where better readings could reasonably be
expected. In some of these latter cases I have tried to
put forth readings which, though not corroborated by
the available manuscripts, still appear to give better senses
and suit the context more satisfactorily. But in all important
places I have marked the readings suggested by me with a
query in order that the attention of scholars may be drawn
to them for what they are worth.
The main object in editing this poem has been to place
before the public as far correct a text of it as could be
made out from a comparison of the published text with the
scanty manuscript material that could be got hold of. I
have therefore been very careful in noting variants to the
extent of putting down as variant readings even those
that appear to be printing mistakes in the already printed
text. This may be going too far, but it has purposely been
dose as it was not always possible or easy to determine
for a particular case whether the apparently wrong reading
was due to the faulty Ms. used by the editor or to *he printer's
devil. Though the printed text was based on a sin^ manus-
cript I have thought it advisable to refer a reading to that
manuscript only where it has been attributed to the same by
the learned editor. The reference to the printed text in those
iv
cases indicates the emendations suggested therein $ in other
cases it indicates the text of the manuscript as read by the
editor.
The Sanskrit notes that have been added are my own.
They are, by no means, exhaustive and can, in no way, serve
the purpose of a running commentary. They are intended
only to help the reader to some extent with respect to the
avowedly difficult portions in averse. In writing these notes
the marginal notes of the Asiatic Society manuscript have
been of much help to me, some of which I have incorporated
in my notes verbatim,
As regards the typographical arrangements adopted in the
text it will not be out of place to note here that the proper
names, mostly of historical and geographical importance, have
been put in thick types— the so-called Great types.
Lastly, I deem it my pleasant duty to express my heartfelt
gratitude to all those scholars who have helped me in any
way in my edition of the book. I am indebted to" my former
teachers Drs. D. R. Bhandarkar, S. K. Chatter ji and H, C.
Roy Chaudhury for various suggestions for the improvement
of the book, and especially to my former teacher Pandit
Kalipada Tarkacharya whose unstinted help in the prepara-
tion of the notes and in many other ways was invaluable
to me.
Sanskrit Sahitya Parisat. }
Chintaharan Chakravarti.
List of Abbreviations.
A Manuscript of the text in the Government
collection in the Asiatic Society of Bengal.
H Text of some of the verses as quoted by
Mahamahopadhyaya Haraprasada S'astri in a
Bengali article on'Dhoyi and his Pavanaduta'
published in the Journal of the Bangiya Sahitya
Parisat vol V.
J, A, S, B. Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal.
M. Text of the poem as published in the pages
of the Journal the Asiatic Society of Bengal—
1905 — pp U tf.
Megha, Meghaduta
P Fragmentary manuscript belonging to the
Sanskrit Sahitya Parisat.
Pavanew Pavanaduta
R. Manuscript belonging to Raghurama Tarka-
ratna, on which was based the text M,
INTRODUCTION.
The place of Pavanaduta in Sanskrit
Dutakavya literature.
The Pavanaduiam is a beautiful and short poem composed
in imitation of tho celebrated Didakiivya the Meghaduta of
Kalidasa. After the prince of Indian poets had produced
this masterpiece many were the imitations that grew up
in course of time round this brilliant prototype. Mono-
mohan Chakravarti gave a list of these imitations in the
introduction to his edition of the Pavanaduta. He could give
there the names of only sixteen such poems I have, however,
been able to collect information of not less than thirty-five
of them. But unfortunately for us no definite date can
be assigned to most of them. However, from the few
dates that are known for certain it S' ems that we have in
the Pavanaduta the earliest available specimen of the
imitation of Kfilid^sa's poem. And there seems to be no
doubt that this is the earliest of Dutakavyas found in
Bengal,
But unlike most other similar poems which had their origin
in Bengal this has to its credit the fact that it does not deal
with the hackneyed story of the love of Radha and Krisna
but takes up an historical person as its hero. This last fact is
also one of the rare characteristics of Dutakavya literature
as a whole. 1
1. The point has been dealt with, in details, in my forthcoming paper on
Origin and development of Dutakavya literature in Sanskrit,
[2]
Dhoyl — The poet—His history and date.
Dhuyi, Dhoyi, Dhoi or Dhoylka as he is differ
ently called in different works and Mss. 1 was a poet
famous at the court of the Sena king Laksmana Sena.
Thus king Kumbha ( 14th century ) in his commentary
Rasikapriya when commenting on I. 4. of the Gltagovinda
records the following tradition.
— "These six scholars viz, Umapatidhara, Jayadeva, Slirana,
Govardhana, Slrutidhara and Dhoyl were famous as the
court-poets of Laksmanasena — so runs the tradition." The
commentary Rasamanjarl also points to the same fact. 7
But curiously enough a couplet , traditionally handed down,
which gives the names of the "five jewels" at the court of
Laksmanasena does not mention the name of Dhoyl. The
verse, in question, runs as follows —
"Govardhana, S'arana, Jayadeva, Umapati and Kaviraja —
these were the jewels at the court of Laksmana".
It is, however, supposed by some scholars that the last
name in the list viz. Kaviraja refers to Dhoyi. This supposi-
1. Pischel — Die Hofdichter Des Laksmanasena — p, 33. Sadukti
karnamrta and verse 101 of the Pavanaduta give the name
Dhoylka.
2. Gitagovinda (Nirnayasagara Press edition.) Also cf. another*
commentator who begins his interpretation of the verse with
the words— c sfcf g^inN^T SUTffaifiT^ 3*ikfa {' — jftcfiftfa^—
LaBsen — p. 72.
t 3 ]
tion is supported by the fact that DhoyI had the title Kaviraja.
Thus Jayadeva in the verse of the Gltagovinda already
mentioned refers to him as ^sffafa^PTfcr. which means
nothing but DhoyI himself refers to this titlt
in the colophon to his Pavanaduta which runs *fci aftqtqWfaxTsi-
fa^fati etc. etc. In verse 101 of his Pavanaduta he calls
himself <sfifgire?rt ^sR^f which is a synonym of ^faTT^sfi^.
The same title also is probably referred to by the word
Kavinarapati in verse 102. Hence it seems reasonable to
conclude that Kaviraja in the above couplet refers to DhoyI
Kaviraja, for the practice of referring to a scholar by his
title alone is not unknown or rare in India. Even great kings
are sometimes found to be referred to not by their proper
names but by their epithets. Thus king As'oka in all his ins-
criptions but one refers to himself as Priyadars'i — his favourite
epithet. And this kind of frequent use of the epithet to the
negligence of the proper names has been responsible, in some
ca-es, for the e # ntire forgetting of the proper name by later day
people. Thus the son of Govinda III of the Rastrakuta
family of Manyakheta is known to us from all documents so
far obtained only by his epithets such as Amogha-varsa etc.
Of scholars known by their titles we may cite the example of
Jaganndtha, author of the Rasnr/aiigixdkara, who is generally
known by his title of Panditaraja. The proper name of the
founder of the Vais'esika system of philosophy is yet unknown
he being generally known by his various epithets Kanada,
Aulukya etc.
Some scholars however are inclined to identify K'viraja
with the celebrated author of the Rnghava-Pandaviya. 1
1. Bhasavttti (Varendra Research Society) — Introduction p. 6,
[ 4 ]
But this identification does not seem to be based on strong
ground* as the author of that poem wrote under the Kadamba
King Virakamadeva and notLaksmanasenat as we come to
know from his own statement. 1
As regards the date of DhoyI it is not possible to ascer-
tain it with any amount of certainty. We only know that he
. . * ,i poet at the court of Laksmanasena, about the time of
vvhose rule there is considerable difference of opinion. This
much is admitted on all hands that ;he came to the throne
in the 12th century either in the first half or second.
Thus our poet also flourished in the 12th century* And we
know the upper limit of the age of our poet as verses
attributed to him are found in the SaduHikarnTmrta { which
was composed in S. E. 1127 or 1205 A. D ), in Mliana's
SubhiisitamiifctrivaYi ( middle of 13bh century ) and also in
the S'dLmgadliarapaddhrti (11th century).
Caste of DhoyI : —
About the personal history of Dhoyi we know that he
was a * court-poet of King Laksmanasena whom he
celebrated in his Pavanaduta. But we know very
little about the place from which he hailed. It is also very
difficult to determine the caste of the poet. Two most diverg-
ent views are held in this matter viz. (l)that he was a Brahmin
(2) that he was a Bengali Vaidya or member of the physician
caste. We have it from the pen of Mahamahopadhyaya
Haraprasada S'astri that "the genealogies point him (i.e.
Dhoyi) out to be a R IclhTya Brahmana of Paladhi gani and
1. stir ^^^^fl^^r^f^rrT^^^^f^^T^mf^Rt^if^fi^f^m-
focfaB TI^^^T^^ — Colophon to Raghavapandaviya.
[ 5 ]
]£as'yapa Gotra.'' 1 The second view that Dhoyi was a Vaidya
is based on the supposed identity of Dhoyi with Duhisena
or Dhnt/isena mentioned in Vaidya genealogical works. 2
No conclusion, also, as regards his caste can possibly be
arrived at from his title of Kaviraja as this cannot be supposed
to have been associated invariably with the names of Vaidyas
even in Bengal. For even Jayadeva who is usually regarded
to have been a Bengali Brahmin is referred to with that
title.* Thus the question concerning the caste of Dhovi must
remain open until some new and definite information about it
is ^brought to light.
Works of Dhoyi —
Only one work of Dhoyi has so far come down to us. It
is his Pavanadufca. We do not know if he composed other
works .is well or it was only this solitary work which earned
for him the enviable ti'le of Kaviraja. It is true that a few
stray verses not found in the Pavanadxita are attributed to
Dhoyi in works of anthology. The number of these verses
already known is twenty and they have all been collected in
one place, 1 In the present book tbey appear in the form
of a supplementary note that follows the introduction.
1. Notices oj Sanskrit Mss. Vol. I. Preface p. XXX J VI/.
3. '^T^T ^raut^qfcT^^ ^snj^RI qrfaT.TSlllf<l«l' — Pischel —
op cit. p. 6.
4 J. A. S. B. (1906)— pp. 18 ff.
[ 6 ]
But no work of DhoyI is referred to in any of these antho-
logies. Neither is ifc possible to determine if the verses
referred to above which are not found in the Pavanadufca did
form part of any other work or works composed by him. But
it is possible that his words viz. stw^h!: ^f^jf^r <i^ci^r^^t
fff'frcug (Pavanaduta, v. 104) has a covert hint to several
works composed by him. In these circumstances we can only
surmise from this statement of the poet and the verses
attributed to him in the anthologies as also from his title of
Kaviraja that he possibly had composed more works than ono
of which only the Pavanaduta is available at present.
Contemporaries of Dhoyi ♦ —
DhoyT flourished among a galaxy of scholars so that
the time when he live 1 is justly regarded as 'the Augustan
period of Sanskrit literature in Bengal.' 1 It has already been
pointed out that he was a poet at the court of king
Laksmanasena who himself was a poet and a great patron
of learning. Several verses ascribed to the king are met
with in the Saduktikarnamrta. His court was frequented by
scholars of all types. Jayadeva in his Gltagovinda refers to some
of these scholars viz.Umapatidhara, Jayadeva himself, S'arana,
Govardhana and DhoyT. We know also that these five formed
the 'five jewels' of his court. King Kumbha in his commentary
on the Gltagovinda is inclined to find reference, in this verse,
to a sixth scholar S'rutidhara.* But the word S'rutidhara
1. Manomohan Chakravarti in his illuminating paper Sanskrit
literature in Bengal during the Sena period (J. A. S. B. — 1906 —
p. 157 ft.) deals with the literary history of a the period in some
details.
2. Vide Kumbha's commentary on Gltagovinda I. 4.
[ ? ]
se^ms to have been used by Jayadeva as an adjective of
Dhoyl. His reputation as S'rutidhara is referred to by
another commentary of the Gitagovinda viz, the Rasamanjari.
The fact is further confirmed by a verse attributed to Dhoyl
in the Saduktikarnamrba the first half of which agrees with
verse 101 of the Pavanaduta. The last half runs as
follows : —
In the face of this it does not seem reasonable and
prudent to conclude that S'rutidhara was a scholar different
from Dhoyl at the court of Laksmanasena.
Besides, these five jewels there were other scholars as
well who adorned King Laksmanasena's court. Some of the
most prominent among these were the three brothers Is'ana,
Pas'upati ancLIIalayudha, all authors of ritual compendiums
the works of the last two of whom are still regarded as author-
itative all over Bengal, and Purusottamadeva, author of
Bhasavritti, a commentary on Panini'a Grammatical aphorisms
excepting those which exclusively pertain to the Vedas. 1
With regard to the works composed by the 'five jewels' we
do nob know much at least in the case of two viz. Umapati-
dhara#and S'arana. Verses attributed to Umapatidhara are
found in the Saduktikurn^mrta of S'ridharadasa. He is
also mentioned ashaveing composed the Chandrachr- hcharita
$!I*nV — HTCtfTilsifaifa: I The name of Purusottama is not
inentioned in the article of M. Chakravarti already referred to.
[8]
under a king Chanakya Chandra who probably was a vassal
of King Laksmanasena 1 . But the s >litary work of this poet
on which we can lay our hands at present is a Pras'asti
viz. the Deopara Inscription of Vijayasena'.We have reference
also to one Uraapati Up.idhyfiya who wrote the P:\rijKtahdrana
under King Hariharadeva Hindupati. He is called Umapati -
dhara Upadhyaya by R.L. Mitra and ideutified with Umapati-
dhara of the court of Laksmanasena. But the colophon of the
book gives the name as Umapati and not Umapatidhara 8 and
when we find reference, in the Catalogus Catalogorum to
several poets of the name of Umapati we do not understand
what led Dr. Mitra to suggest the identity of this particular
Umapati with the court-poet of Laksmanasena.
In the Saduktikarmimrta we meet with verses attribu-
ted to S'arana, S'aranadeva and Chirantana- S'arana. Wc find
mention of a ManfrarTimliyav\at\k,\ in the Catalogue
Gatalogornm by one S'aranakavi. Mr. S. C. Chakravarti
however identifies Sarana with S'aranadeva — ihe author
of Durghatavvi ti} But no strong case seems to have b"on
made out in favour of this particular identification. In fact,
in the present circumstances, it does not seem to be possible
to satisfactorily identify S'arana— the court-poet of
Laksmanasena.
1, Pischel — op. citi p 7. Footnote I.
2. JEjpigtaphia Indica Vol. I. p 305 f£.
WITWl^* WTfl*l— Colophon to P&rij&aharana as quoted by
K. L. Mitra in his Notices 0/ Sanskrit Mss. Vol. V. p. 206.
4. Bhasavrtti — Introduction^ 7.
Govardhana was the author of the well-known
Ary&saptas'atl or a collection of seven hundred verses— all
in the Arya metre. Verse 39* of the book is supposed
to have reference to Laksmanasena. Jayadeva is famous
through his renowned work the Gltagovinda. The identifi-
cation of this Jayadeva with a poet of the same name who
was the author of the drama— Prasannar&gkava has been
proved to be untenable. 3
Style of Dhoyi: —
In one short stanza Jayadeva seeks to give an account of
tho-styles of his contemporaries. It is supposed by the commentary
Rasamanjari of the Gibagovinda to have been composed by
Jayadeva with a view to point out the flaws in the styles
of his contemporary poets and to establish his own superiority
over them. He thus finds fault with Umapatidhara on account
of verbosity in his style. Umapatidhara's poem — technically
known as ChitraJca.vt/a — does not delight the learned, being
devoid of sweet words and of any Guna either pertaining
to a word or its meaning. S'arana is renowned for his power
of swiftly composing poems which are not easily intelligible.
Govardhana has no parallel in erotic compositions. But as
he has no skill in other kinds of compositions he can not
be deemed a great poet. And Dhoyi who is a S'rutidhara
( i. e. he who can remember whatever he hears ) has
his fame on account of this great quality which does not
1. It runs as follows :■ —
2. Peterson — Introduction to his edition of Su6 hast t aval i—
p. S8-9.
2
t w]
indicate his poetic excellence. And as regards his .title
Kaviraja it is due to his excessive vanity and exaggerated
opinion of his own attainments. Bub Jayadeva alone is
skilled in compositions full of Gunas and figures of speech.
This is how the verse has been interpreted in the
Rasamanjari commentary of the Gitagovinda. It is also in
a similar strain that various other commentators explain
the verse 1 and these interpretations have sought to bring out
all conceivable charges against the styles of composition
of the contemporaries of Jayadeva.
We are not, however, sure if the commentator^ • in
question, had any direct and personal acquaintance with the
works of Dhoyi and the opinion recorded by them with
regard to his style was born of a careful study of his works or
they were merely trying to laud to the sky the author of
the w T ork they were commenting upon and thus twist out
the meaning most suited to the purpose from the parti-
cular verse. These interpretations, however, seem to indicate
that the position occupied by our poet in the estimation of
his successors — if not contemporaries— was not very high.
But there is sufficient ground to suppose that he
was not awarded his proper dues by his successors.
We know that he bore the coveted title of Kaviraja
which was conferred upon great poets as is recorded by
Rajas'ekhara in his Kavyamimamsa. 8 There is scarcely any
ground to suppose as has been done by the author of
the Rasamanjari that the title was assumed by him on
account of his self-sufficiency. For it is reasonable
1. *rtfl'Ttfa'51 — Lassen's edition — p. 72.
2. Vide Kavyamimamsa (Gaekwar Series p. 9).
t n ]
to surmise that king Laksmanasena would hardly tolerate
the use of such a dignified and honorofic title by a poet of
his own court without fully deserving it. Further it does not
seem that he had lavished honours and presents in unworthy
hands 1 . And judging from the available remnants of the works
of DhoyT we can safely conclude that he was a poet of no mean
order. £n his Pavanaduta we find him using an elegant and
easy going language interspersed occasionally with beautiful
figures of speech. Though an imitation of Kalidasa's Megha-
duta it still exhibits a good deal of poetic skill and in it we
meat with a good many specimens of really good poetry. At
the limited space at our disposal we can only quote, to
substantiate our statement, the following few verses from
the Pavanaduta which will speak for themselves :-—
^f^n^cTjst^gii^T: w%$t ?m$* i! (v, 37)
^fesF SRTfP. 3TSm rl?;% S^fcfT'rT-
Th« following verses also, attributed to DhoyI in the
Saduhlikarr\?anrta i testify to his uncommon poetic talenta and
amply justify his title.
i. Cf. Pavanaduta verse No, 101.
[ 12 ]
tootqot: *rrqmrawratr *n*rar q<a: git
However, to do justice to ourselves, it ought to be stated
here that DhoyI, not unlike the multitude of Indian poets, is
not free from conventionalism which sometimes seems to mar the
beauty of his composition. In the pathetic description
which we get here of the heroine separated from her lord we
meet with a full display of poetic conventions. We have
here the description of lotus-stems, sandal-paste and all those
usual things which poets have made a rule to describe as objects
intended for the pacification of love-fever. But he is found to
have possessed the not very common power of being able to
create quite a new and beautiful situation with the
help of the most commonplace poetic conventions
which is apt to reveal the poet in him. Hence it is
that the description of the love-pangs of the heorine to which
thirty one verses (viz. verses 64 — 94) are devoted by the poet
oan surely be regarded as one of the finest products of Sanskrit
literature. The description is vivid, life-like and is full of pathos
and does not consist merely of a useless jargon of words. The
following few verses taken at random from this description
will go to prove everything that we say here,
Wm: OTTO «T g5T5ff?f«RT*ra*ft tf3<ftf?f I
[ lS^ME KUPPUSWA^! SAST1T
^SEARCH >r -jrr
^Tite^usfa ^ *n?<n ^fam 5 ^ faSfa 11 (v. 69).
fNfTTOt <5R WSTSnfTT: II (v. 78).
fern *rraif wafirct *t^h TT^fat (v. 89).
smjSUft 3rf*TT fa^rftsfa II (v. 90).
His imitation of Kalidasa goes to the extent of his
incorporating sometimes some of the very expressions used
by the latter. Some such instances are noted below along
with the correspondinog portions from the works of Kalidasa.
Pavana, 15.
Megka I. 19,
Pavana, 34.
[14]
Megha. I. 29.
^TCRSsftc^T JJ^tTftfi TO Sift
Pavana, 42.
fasj^Fsn: nf?i*a?nfoftrTOT: h^tt:
Megha. IL 3.
totot*: ^ufa *f\*sr fafirar
Pavana. 16,
Megha. II. 37.
But it must be said to the credit of DhoyI that he is
by no means a slavish imitator in as much as even in
oases where there are palpable traces of his indebtedness
to Kalidasa he introduces something new and relish-
ing whioh alone can entitle him to the rank of a great poet.
We propose to present below side by side some of the similar
passages found in the works of both these poets to enable
readers to judge for themselves how far DhoyI waa
indebted to Kalidasa and how far he was guided by his own
poetic inspiration.
Megha. II. 36.
Pavana. 96.
t IB ]
Abkijna.na8*akwntala VI. 22.
Pavana. 84.
Wait irt*t: ^3 ^TftT^m h
i/^fl. ii. li.
Pavana 43.
The story 6f the Pavanaduta : —
The Pavanaduta describes how a Gandharva damsel
Kuvalayavati by name living on the Malaya hills fell in love
with king Laksmanasena of Gauda (Bengal) when the latter
had gone to the south on his march of universal conquest
and how the girl unable to bear the pangs of love at the ap-
proach of bright spring made a messenger of the spring wind
which was blowing in a north-easterly direction over Bengal
and requested it to relate to the Bengal king the miserable
condition to which she was reduced owing to Ihe love engender-
ed within her by the king. Thisis the kernel of the story proper
which our poet makes use of for exhibiting his power of poetic
• representation. Thus he goes on to give a description of the
[ 16 ]
route from the Malaya Hills to Bengal not omitting to lavish
his poetic skill on the description of notable objects to be met
with in almost all places between Malaya and Bengal, He des-
cribes at length the capital Vijayapara of Laksmana-
sena at whose court the wind is requested to go. Then he
devotes a good number of verses to the delineation of the love-
stricken condition fo Kuvalayavati— though it is in a more or
less conventional way.
Historical basis of the Pavanadiita : —
The Pavanaduta refers to the mission of 'world conquest*
or digvijaya of King Laksmanasena. (v. 3). The king- is
represented as having gone to the south on the above mission
and have conquered kings of the Deccan ( daL&sinzifyan
Ksilis'an ). We further learn from it that he had marched
as far south as the Malaya range. The question, therefore,
naturally arises how far this information is historically
true. Is it wholly a product of the fertile imagination of
the poet who was actuated by a motive of elulogi&ing his
patron by way of associating with him various heroic deeds —
both historical and imaginary ; or has it some sort of
historical back-ground behind it ?
Epigraphic records so far obtained of the Sena kings,
however, do not supply as with any account of a digvijaya
undertaken by king Laks nanasena. But from scatterred
passages in different copperplates we are in a position to
determine how far the great monarch of Bengal carried
his arms. A passage in the M ac ^hainagara copperplate of
Laksmanasena 1 runs
I. J. A, S. B. — N. S- Vol V. p 473.
[ 17 ]
This passage has been supposed to refer to .Laks mana*
sena's invasion of the Kaliiiga countrv. 1 Another passage*
in the same record refers to his victory over the king of
Kas'i. We get somewhat a more detailed account of his
conquests in a verse of a copperplate of his son Vis'varupasena 1
which runs
On
"By whom were erected pillars of victory along with
sacrificial posts on the coast of the Southern Sea — where
there is the temple containing the images of the god who
bears the mace and the god who has the club in his hand 4 ; at
the place of Vis'ves'vara ( i. e. Benares ) where fall the
i. R. D, Baserji, Bangafar Itihasa — P. 325. Gauda Rajamala, —
p. 66.
3. J. A. S. B. i896. PtI. P. 11.
4. The first line of the verse is generally interpreted as
referring to Puri in C attack where in the temple of
Tuggernath we have images of Balarama Subhadra, and Krsna.
But a| the verse, in question, has no reference to Subhadra" and
bs the language seems to refer to images having musala and
r ada as weapons, and not only to symbolic repress stations
f the gods Balarama and Visnu as we have in Puri it ma} not
ie unreasonable to suppose that the Southern Sea-coast here
robably refers to some place in the Tamil country where there
fas an abundance of Vaisnava images,
S
t 18 3
streams of Asi and Varana into the waves of the Ganga
and on the banks of Trivem ( i. e. Allahabad ) which became
truly sacred and pure t on account of its being the place
where Brahma performed a sacrifice."
The epithet Vikrama-vas'lkrta-K^marupah applied to
king Laksmanasena in his Madhainagara copperplate points
to his arms having been carried as far east as Kamarupa or
Assam.
Thus we find that though none of the epigraphic records
furnish us with any direct or explicit reference to or account of
king Lasmanasena's digvijaya still the account of his invasions
of countries from the coast of the Southern ocean in the south
to Allahabad in the north-west and Kamarupa in the east
gathered from various records may naturally lead one to the
supposition — which is supported by the description of the
contemporary poet DhoyI in the Pavanaduta — that he might
have undertaken some sort of a digvijaya as was natural
with all powerful Indian Kings.
In the light of the inscriptional evidence already advanced
it is easy to explain Laksmanasena's conquest of the kings of
South India as referred to by our poes ; for this may only
be a reference to his invasion of Kalinga and the coast of the
Southern Ocean to which mention is made by epigraphic
records. But it is difficult to accept as historical the state-
ment of Dhoyi that the king marched as far as the
Malaya range on his mission of world conquest, in as much
as no record is found to have a clear reference to his conquest
of any territory in that region. It is only probable that
this description of the king's march to the Malaya hills
is due to the poet's love of exaggeration which served him "
the double purpose of eulogising his patron and finding
t 19 ]
a most suitable abode for the heorine of his poem. 1 But we
are not sure if there is any reference here to a temporary and
not probably very successful inclusion undertaken by the
king either independently or in the company of some prince
of the Chalukya dynasty, a member of which dynasty Laks-
mana's mother wasi
Geographical information from the Pavanaduta : —
The great importance of the Pavanaduta like that of some
other dutakavyas lies in the geographical information, afforded
in the present case by the description it gives of the route
from the Malaya hills to Vij ay apur a the capital of Laksmanasena
in Bengal.
It is true that from this description it is not possible for
us to get any correct idea about the exact route followed by
the people between Southern India and Bengal at the time of the
poet though any information with regard to it would have been
much welcome. The poet does not appear to have been much
eager either to describe and scrupulously follow the course
of that route. Oo the other hand, like other poets under similar
conditions, our poet also seems to have availed himself of this
opportunity to satisfy his love of poetic description and hence
we have here a detailed description of many of the noteworthy
and important places and objects of South India though all of
then}, may not lie on the exact route that may be supposed to
have usually been followed. Thus we find that the poet takes
i. Similar exaggerations are not rare even in cntemporary
epigraphic records as in the Monghyr plute of Dev paladeva
where the king is represented as having been the ruler of the
whole world — {GaudaUkhamala p. 38).
t 26 ]
the wind that is bent for the northeast, from Kanohl in the qast
to the land of the Keralas in the west and avails himself of
this occasion to describe 'the Malyavat hill and Panchapsara
lake none of which can, in any way, be supposed to have
lain on the direct route from the south to Bengal.
The description proper begins from Kanakanagari — the city
of the Oandkarvas — undoubtedly an imaginary one on the
Malaya hills i.e. roughly the southern part of the Western
Ghats. Leaving the Malaya hills the wind is asked to pass
through the Pandya couutry which is represented as having been
at a distance of four miles only from the Malaya range. This
distance seems to be a rough one which only indicates that
Malaya was on the borderland of the Pandya territorry and not
included within it. The capital of the Pandya land is
stated to have been Uragapura on the Tamraparni which is
also mentioned by Kalidasa as such. 1 The name Uragapura
seems, on phonetic grounds, to be identical with Urayur which,
however, is neither on the Tamraparni ( as Uragapura is
abated to be ) nor is known to have been a Pandya capital from
any other source, it is however well-known as having for a
long time been the capital of the Cholas. Of the two
important Pandya capitals known to history — Madura and
Korkai— the latter was at the mouth of the Tamraparni. And
we are not sure if Uragapura has been confounded with this
Korkai, or Urayur was actually a Pandya capital at some time of
which we have got no authentic history. It is also not known if
Uragapura has any connection with Argeirou, a town mentioned
by Ptolemy to have been included within the land of Pandion
or the Pandya country." Leaving Uragapura the wind is
1. Raghuvams'a VI. 59, 60.
2. Mc. Crindle. Aucient India as described by Ptolemy — p. 59.
tHEKUPPUSWAMlSASTR'
[ « J RESEARCH [vr,-rUTF
asl^ed to go to the Adam's Bridge wh^e*aPMr3e^va*fem
it will see the image of the god S'iva.
The next place to be visited hf the wind is Kanchipura-
( mod. Conjeeveram )— - f the ornament of the southern direc-
tion.' — undoutedly for the fact of its having been, at the
time of the poet, the capital of the Chola kings who were in
the ascendancy at the time in the whole of Southern India.
Chola ladies of Kanchi are referred to in verse 14.
From verse 13 it appears that Kanchi was on the banks
of the river Subala. At the present day we find no trace
of any such river existing in or near modern Conjeeveram
which is on the river Palar. We are not sure if Subala can be
identified with the Palar on phonetic grounds. Dravidian langu-
ages having no sonant mute the Dravidian pronunciation of the
Sanskrit word bala would naturally be pala. If that be the case
there may be some connection of Palar with Subala. But in our
opinion Subala may more reasonably be identified with the
Vegavati near the town of modern Conjeeveram 'from the
subterranean springs of which river water is obtained and sup-
plied to the town.' 1 Vegavati may quite naturally be supposed
to be a synonym of the word Subala, 'vega* and 'bala*
in the case of a river meaning the same thing viz. its swiftness.
However, these are mere guesses and cannot be accepted
until strong proofs to support them are forthcoming.
ieaving Kanchi the wind is asked to follow the course
of the river Kaveri. It is however difficult to understand
how the wind on its northerly course from KT.'rhl could
follow the Kaveri which is much to the Sv,uth of the former
town and not to its north. But it seems from his reference
1. Imperial Gasper— Vol. X (1908) p. 378
t 22 ]
to the Keralas that the poet here speaks of the upward course
of the Kaverl so that the wind following its course could reach
the laud of the Keralas though it would be a most roundabout
way for it to take up. The non-mention of the river on the
way to Kanchl from Malaya — where its mention would naturally
be expected — is probably due to an oversight of the poet ; but as
such an important river could not be left out of account it is
mentioned even in an awkward position like the present one.
The wind next has to turn to the east as it is asked to pay
a visit to the Malyavat hill which is identified with the curved
lines of hills in the neighbourhood of Kupal, Mudgal and
Raichur near Bellary. 1 The next place to be visited by the
wind is the Pailchapsara lake. It appears to have been some-
where to the east of Malyavat. Its location, however, is not
certain. The only fact known about it is that it was to the
east of Vidarbha or Rerar.'-
It is curious that of all important places associated with
Rama's exile the poet makes mention of only two— the Malya-
vat hill and the Panchapsara lake — without making any
mention of Janasthana, Dandakaranya, Kiskindh}a, Rnya-
mukha etc.
Passing through the Andhra* country through which flows
the Godavari river the wind is asked to bend its course
1. Journal Royal Asiatic Society — 1894 — p. 256-7.
2. op. cit. p. 246.
3. I read Andhran in place of randhran the reading given
by both the Mss. The region between the Godavari and Krsna
Districts being known as the Andhra territory and the Godavari,
being expressly mentioned here it seema that the Andhra country
is meant.
[23]
towards Kalinganagar! (v. 21) which is said to have been the
capital of the Kalinga country. From verse 22 the town
appears to have been not far away from the sea. The descrip-
tion of the kin*; of Kaliriga as given by Kalidasa 1 also leads
us to infer that it was on the sea-shore.
Its identification with Mukhalingam in the Ganjam District
which is not far from the sea shore seems to have been conclu-
sively proved. It was the capital of the Eastern Ganga kings of
Kaliriga. There seems to be no strong reasons in favour of
upholding the original identification of this capital with Kalinga-
patam simply on the ground that it agrees more faithfully with
the description of poets 2 ; for such descriptions need not be taken
literally.
From Kalinganagarl the wind has to advance direct north
and reach the Vindhyan region presumably somewhere near the
Amarakantaka hill where the river Narmada has its rise.
Thus just after its visit to the Vindhya range, the wind is asked
to go to the Narmada. The Bhillaa are mentioned as inhabiting
the Vindhya region. Their connection with that region is
also attested to by the KatJtkaaritsagara (XIII. 32-42). They
were a wild mountain race, probably the ancestors of the Bhils
who live in the Vindhya hills, in the forests of Malwa,
Mewar, Khandesh etc.
Women of the S'abaras are mentioned in the Vindhyan
regie* in verse 25. They are known to have been wild tribes
dwelling in that region. Bana's Kiidamlarl* refers to them in that
1. R ighiivams'a VI. 53 56, 2. Crista in the ma ^ _B. C,
Majumdar— p. 37-8. Fpigraphia Indica—IY. 1S7-P.
3. wtir«?fiir«Kf«l^»fT«lfUiroraT faereft | Kadambati (Peter
\son's edition), p. 19.
[ 24 ]
locality. The BrhatSamhitB. places them in the South-eastern
division of India which comprised of, among other tracts,
the Vindhyan region. It distinguishes two classess of this
u
people — the nagnas'abaras (naked S'abaras) and the pariia*
s'abaras (leaf-clad or leaf-eating S'abaras). 1
The wind next has to pass through Yayatinagari which
appears from epigraphic records to have been on the river
Mahanadl. It was sought to be identified with Jajpur which
being on the river Vaitarani the identification has been proved to
be untenable. 2 It is now supposed to be identical with Vinita-
pura (modern Binka) a small town in the Sonepur State, Central
Provinces. The name Yayatlnagara was apparently imposed
upon Vinitapura during the reign of Yayati, otherwise known
as Mahas'ivagupta. 3
The Keralis are mentioned as living on the Kaveri {v. 16) as
also in Yayatinagari. According to Prof. Bhandarkar the Keralas
were originally a northern people, who, as is known from the
Aitareya Aranyaka*, were settled not far from Magadha.
These according to him, were probably the Cheros of the
Mirzapor Dt. U. P. And the mention of the Keralas in
Yayatinagar is interpreted by him to refer to one of their
movements to the south before they were settled in Malabar. 6
From Yayatinagari the wind has to reach Suhma or south-
west Bengal. Suhma was oue of the divisions into which Bengal
1. Brhatsamhita XIV. 10.
2. Epigraphia Indica — Vol III, p. 355.
3. Ibid Vol. XI. p. 189. 4. II. 1. 1.
5. As'oka — p. 41. Dr. H. C. Roychoudhury however makes
to me an alternative suggestion according to which the mention of
Keralis in Yayatinagara may only be a reference to a settlement
of Kerali courtezans there.
t 25 ]
was divided j— the other divisions were Pundra including
Varendri, Vaiiga, including Samatata and Uttara-Radha.
In the description of Suhma we b#ve mention of a temple of
Visnu (v. 28). We have also reference to the town of S'iva (v. 29)
and to the temples of the Sun and Ardhanarls'vara (v. 30). It is
very difficult to trace the ruins — if there be any — of these ancient
monuments and to identify them satisfactorily. It is also not
easy to determine whether the town of S'iva refers to an
actual town like Shibpur in modern Howrah district in Bengal.
A bridge constructed probably by Ballalasena is referred to
in verse 31.
The wind next has to go to TrivenI ( in Hugli Dt. )
where the Yumna issues from the Ganges and does
not join the latter as at Allahabad. It is to be
noted that here we have no mention of the famous port
of Saptagrama or Satgaon to which frequent references
are met with in medieval Bengali works in course of
descriptions o£ journeys from Bengal to Ceylone, But we are
not sure if the port had risen to eminence during the time
of Laksmansena.
The wind is next asked to go to Vijayapura — the capital
of Laksmanasena (v. 36). It is represented as having been
both a camp ( 8kandAa.va.ra ) and a capital ( Tajadh%n\ ) of the
king. The identification of this capital town has been the
fruitiul source of a good deal of controversy among scholars.
According to some it has to be identified with Vijayanagara
in Rajshahl, 1 while according to others it is identified with
Nadia. 2
1. Gaudarajamala p. 75.
2. J. A. S. B — 1905 p. 45.
4
[ 26 ]
From the description of the capital as it appears in the
Pavanaduta we can gather that it was probably included' in
Suhma and that it was on, the banks of the Ganges. We also
learn that it was to be reached after visiting Triveni which thus
seems to have been to the south of the capital. All these pieces
evidence combined point to the Nadia region as the probable
of locality which included Vijayapura within it. Muhamudan
historians also mention Nodiah (probably identical with Nadia)
as a capital of Lakhmaniya — probably the same person as our
Laksmanasena. 1 A large mound locally known as the Ballala-
dhibi in the village of Bamanpukur in Nadia is believed to be
the remnant of the palace of Ballalasena and a tank near by
the mound called the Ballaladighi may be identical with the
one referred to in verse 54 of our poem, As to the second
identification put forward by some scholars it should be said
that it does not seem to have anything in its favour except
the similarity of the two names — Vijayanagiira and Vijayapur,
and a local tradition of doubtful credibility. Th« fact of the
former place being near Deopara the find-spot of a stone inscrip-
tion of Vijayasena cannot possibly indicate that this particular
place is the site of: the capital of king Laksmanasena.
"We need not also dismiss as unauthentic the statement of
Dhoyl that Vijayapura was a capital of Laksmanasena. It may
not be improbable that he too, like many other kings, bad several
capitals or rather seats of government e.g. Laksmanlvatl,
Vijayapura, Vikramapura etc. of which the last alone is found
to have been referred to in the epigraphic records so far
available.
I. Tabakat-LNasiri (Raverty's translation) — p. 554.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTE.
Verses attributed to DhoyT in works of anthology
but not found in the Pavanaduta.
^faTrHIZSfKTSTff *fat TOW II fa)
csrft^^ft^rj'hm^n sum ^mi3: i
rf c[ siraifa (?) i 1 ftrafa TOT^ff^f^^ 5
sg: sis fauft? tot tost i
The verses are taken, as already pointed out, from J. A.
S. B. — 1906— pp. i8f£. the text published wherein ( indicated in
the foetnotes by M. ) has been corrected after a fresh and careful
collation of the Asiatic Society and Sanskrit College Manus-
cripts of the Saduktikarnamtta. ( indicated in the footnotes
respectively by S and A )
fa) This has a parallel in Pavana. 75.
This has a parallel in Pavana, 06.
it A, S, M ; but it gives no sense.
[ 28 ]
^^Tfar^ITft^ 1 TOT TO**
u^iTijT ^rrrt tot ^ ctoifg ^ g?r. ii
^^nfgn: ^^TTtrmstm *n w tjcg: s€t
gTOWWrT^T^TT^farTSrh? <JSSlf% II
1. — A. S. — M. The reading here which is hopelesal;
eorrupt gives rise to a fault in the metre.
2. qj^qi— M. — A, S.
C 29 ]
— Tffgfarer i
4 g^^fIT ScN^*T^?ta II
arret *fto^£re3r?resft: ^r^inftremT
1. *tt — A. M. *r — S.
2. <ffT*r — A. S. — M.
3. — snfirs— M. — iifa* ( ? )— A. S.
4. — — A. — — S. M.
5. — — S. — hut — M.
6. ftwrraTTOraU — M. cfMirWWTST. — S.
[ 30 ]
5ft«T5RT5rrq^mgqT^ ^fa^fafiif furore**: n
(^) This has a parallel in Pavana. v. 74.
1. 33\ — M. ^ — S.
2. lira:— A. M. S.
3. — *H&5U<n*Tfa— M.
4. — ^t<ut: — M. — ^a«TTnn: — S.
5. — g*: (?)— A.— S. — — M.
6. WT?J*t — A. ^«n^»t — S. 2(TT^%— M. The reading is hopelessly
corrupt here.
7. tfq q*Q — M. ^ftw*— S. ^fa^sj^-A.
31 ]
f^Tf^T^ai: *Tft3^fa H^^^TT ^T^sT^-
^riai^lfe itaTOnffq 4 ^F*J*T5p^[ *j<^ 5 |
— M. A.— lift S.
— t^;— M. — *T*n— S.
— ^c^— M. — — A, S.
— M. — — A. S.
***** — S. qapra^il — M.
g**r:— S. g^?r — M.
[32]
— 'fit t^fTO* I
fopF* anfutf gfc mwft fifo s*§sr gfc
*k fa wrefwfc *fcr srqft j&qfi vfk i
* fft *rc*Tfa far fasmflt ji*it aftfar. 11
— ^twt: i fa)
(^) Quoted in Sahityadarpana VIII. 15 without the name
of the author.
(H) Peterson's edition— No. 1161. P. 139. Ascribed to
Umapatidhara in the Saduktikartiamrta.
1, _^-M.-^-S.
%T<SlTfa *WW^q T&*$: qf%ctH3n*li fifafaScwitf^fa
faf^?ft*T^3rtrTn i tot ^ wvimix sipiftwjm:
TOt w^tot: tows i ^nj^ ^ ^htt fasraifeara
'*Tta$^ wit ^m^^r wroftr. i
1+ q* TOTOTOfta^Wirai ^fTOifa
fttf^?t if^TI fiTClWfl *ntf^fa^T*n3* OTlWtfWll *11T*-
t WT*fV.— Introduction P. 6.
[34]
^gi 'tft^ ^fawffei'ftfer *rwi ttifanm-
fjft ^fT^T 3€t ^ ft^^M^
fT^T TOT ^TrTT ?W 5RH*TT^ 2TSTT faj *TT*T HttNf
^nn^Tftot *HTf%^ *^ff *r ftormfa tfM tfwq i ^ro
t 35 ]
^*3fa^T5T*=[fi '^rfacrtf-sn^rt ^mfaifim^, *ftf*3T-
^OTfatsffsftrre wtt^Rt faafire ufa*nf?r i ^rw^iS
greT ^R1T%^5TTW TjfaffrTT *T*jf%rfT i
f^raifa: Him: ^T^wrsn^tan vrtgftsi-
t^mf ^t^ito ?9nS ^tftitfT^i i tftsrteifa^iT
sffagrrofcn i *NtomT ^Rmsr: ^faw rwraT-
[36]
^tft?:T5r^T^^^r *m<g%5T*RTOT*[ wl'ipT qtofa^ sqsftn
W?T sfa qpSTRfq f%*3THq^ I *T qT ^T^-
Wqfa qT^fiT^m I rTSTTfqr q^cpfiq^ftrTqufa ^^ftsr-
^qrifW <q *nf !&q ^^l^ srsngq'swmf I ^Rffq^l *q
man 1 ^Wsffk: ^fwif^fe: ^^vfift^t vt5to%
TO€Tf?lt^^fr^TT?i ^gi^^r qT 5Ff rim^^'eft qtf
qtste???* ^tcrpiqTpr^*: %q^i w:sjr nfrowt
gg^?r*TO fV<^ qq ^tqrfd*ro ^t^w^thttt:
W?*q ^3T%g^qT^ fq'qrcfagJTSWfq'qfirT miv
iWH^aUTT *fq I
^rfqrTSJ* q»rf^?T^q^ffH *rq^?T *TT*T qfa* q^ qq q^TT-
C 37 ]
Sta^rK^ai arffirtTOHft: ^fefaf3*famfa faf^Tfa
5**5 *t^tt: ^ttsi^t «ni*«r^r fa^for ^to^i
Staffa^ ?T€TT TOftfarT qfTT€*n«lt fa^H^ \ «f ^
|HTT ^ 3Tf5RT3lfar!ts(IT5T fafaaf R3n^*TT»i ft IT^r^S^W
[88]
^ffo^T 5fT *r frarc^ f*rag: *ffUfa i srfairemT^g
m^flSTsrei rrwuT^mf %i i ^tsft f^aj i*cf-
qrwnpf greq; ^fvrar ^fwnSw' fta faftr?rt ajwro f fir
WTO *JT3W IWTrf *T tfa ^fg ^t%%rf rTT^HTH^I
mii %»nc «r ^araft Pros: i
*r*r*fai ^oit^ft to ?rot fare: i
^5 f sRiftsung* nj mi** i
*TTCt*FR^ flsNlW WWW 3Wli II 3 II
1. $*-M. fw-A.
5Ff I** 1 colt tl^^T ! Jl^StS'TO* ^T^fa i
?ran%* cc?Rt ^ mi BR^<ftsMw^:
m^t fwi mfa fkm*i\ $ ^g*rf%$* ii « ii
f^TTTOT 2 fTOrfagTT OTTO?*! f<ft-
* i sNtftft na: *re*rensrci ^i^fta-
1. Wl' — R. «rvr^l — M and A.
2. **nwt— R. *OTWt— M,A,H.
3. jf^fa— A. ^ft^fqr— M, 4. <ft— A, H. — il— M.'
5. — *qnit— R. — ^Wt- A and M. 6. re*— A. fire*— M.<
irarTOTT ?T^giT^fT^T^§^wOfr II d II
1. —fa — R. —a— A.
2. — ^f^f — R. — ?sptf — M and A.
3. — M. —^7— A.
4. — A. — wh— M.
5. —fa^;— M. — A, *rfon:— H.
8 cm^?m
TOft^m* ^rrofir fire: ^wlto w u ? i
li!^ mfVafafiri^ssrm^ trow: 11 ^ h
U i i ti^wi ct^[^: fan* 1 fa*f%: ^tas^faaN t*am*{ i
1. — ^TOT — R. — f *JT — M, H and A.
2. — I'STS — M and A. — H.
3. — w — M. — w.— A, H.
4* — ^—Omitted in R but is found in A and is supplied
inM
5. — qf^ — R. — — M. — ^ — A.
6. — R. — M and A. 7. — 3ft— R, — — M and A.
8. — UTfa — R. — qTfa— A and M.
9. — — R. — f%ri— M and A.
% sit m^T^^^iito^^ 5 *^
I 'aiTsft fas' ^ W*C ?.fcT 3^3^ I gw^T <W3Pft ^n^tg^filftn?
*T^t «T3|%fa«mTlt ^I^^^UTW ^sinStr.^ra' ^15TM*UW^ft ?f*T ^
1. — — It and A- — M.
2. — fa— R. — # — M and A.
3. — ^ — A . — <n — M.
4. — *nq^r— R. —BqTn€ — M and A
5. — ^r^i— R. — ^t^t^T— M. — r&nfa*
6. fa^t — R. ^f#t— M and A.
7. — — R. — — M and A.
8. — itf — A. tf— M.
4 wif^
fa^Tff^WStStTO tot m$to\ MM
*TT HP ITgifa WTT 5TT^ %*^t«TT
TOtftt^TOOTifrrarat toot n ^ ii
tot ifareftfT to m: ^rfftr ^fr^if
?rt^fT sfe fir^rS ^Tfa^TsiT^rw. 4 i
gan^ra *m faffa: f^^tl: 11 11
fiptfsnrcf 5^fi?TO4r: q*nf ?[T^[5rf
faiHiiT umit ^vnqfl 5 n<ftiT *«tit i 'it*-' q^?r. i
WWI' ^TT^ f^^HT?!. qcTI^ I* (A)
I '^ffc: 'stfar. i *1fa?r$ J 5tfqrqftf«T?t i c q*n$
iw«^iwn»^'.' tfa ssft Rare: i *nairts *r<tf: font "?rct *t<!«9 i
1. ^f— R and A. m — M. The marginal note in A has
2. T?^— R. — M and A.
3. — A. — <stot— M. 4. — w.— A.
5, — ^jfj— -R, — — M and A. 6. — fifocr— R. n^|?f — M and A.
„ , SEARCH rNSTm;rr
^S^qiTff^f^^-f^^^^firT M<£. II
^Tift^g^^«n*mw1q3PI3T:
^fq^5§ qfa qfa rfcf fifa** qfafrTO I
qt^^^iT^qm^TO^HT^
faf^^^rfiraqfa^T: qms: q^rT*ro: u v h
1, -g^-R and A, — M. 2. — A, — sr— M.
3, — — M. — — A. But in the R£mayana\re
read ifTW^ifa' as the name of the Rsi.
4. — a — A. — fa— M. 5. — <gj— -M. — A.
6. ^«t^— M and A. Bat seems to be the -.o-ect
reading,
7. grsifafa^q — R. WIS— A. The portion is marked as
. doubtful (d) in M.
waif* ifom^ ^f^t^mT^s n »
«
^TT^ aj^^TTiai^T^T^R I *R «
I ^rt gram's: '
1. — ^ — R. — "?*lt — M and A.
2. %a — R and A. %^r— M.
3. — <5T — M and A. But -£Fs<\ seems to be happier.
4. — ^it — R. 'slT — M and A.
5. — ^f T ^ — R. — — M and A.
6. — hi— M.
7. — M. — an*— A.
8. — *n%— R. — M and A.
fUfHV^T^ f g H^mcTfl^T^ *f<r *?t$: i 'fw*nft*T: faster.
few:' Tf?1 (A)-*J*N??TqrasqT^T I
*i 1 l t*T g *H^t' tarn*: 1 ^qsifa?nfafci wtj: 1 q3«rraivrat »j?t
1. — ^ — M. — *1— A.
2. A. M. But the word is'missing in R.
3; fa*— M and A. But fc« seems to give a better s*us»
4. if— M. «f A. 5. — M. — **m— A.
6. — fi^—R. — fan? — M and A.
7; — wit:— R. -m:— M. -pit— A.
irarfirowrc $o§ft tooth: ii h
ssn^fag^^smsraV to*t*tt:
v= i ^isra:' (A) ^<sra*3re*n ^twtt: to? sit w mftq^
q«ft«R«i: » '^t^Tfrt ^sronTrct ?rflts*v5TO ««flft?itaY
1. m — M. in — A. But qrafr seems to be happier.
2. — wm— M. A.
3. *mrf— M. g^rs — R. gwT*—A, But in the last it is
corrected into 3 in the margin.
4. — ^ftf — R and A. — — M.
5. jfttf — R. sV— M. — A.
6. — frarorara— -R. — fw'Wr?- A, The portion is marked
as doubtful in M.
7. After anorit, $M»n: is again wrongly found in A.
naiT§ai sr^rfif Ssrfa w^toT
^ %sn^ftr^ fara*f*rff m ftwifti 11^ u
^rt 5 *ftS: wrom^: sarcRftijp vjp: \
1. T*T*f — A and M. *Tt*H—
2. — wf— M. — A. 3. -?mn-A — 1*> "* r -
4. R. -^-M. -*<nr-A. But and no-
in seems to be the correct reading here.
' 5. — fa— M. which gives rise to a faulty metre. — A,
3*i stot^iw eramtara*? ^fiffw: mm
4frr: *Nff iwfir qmmf[ far H^reaft* m m» n
*a i at *igit fwsfaft WT^i: i antw. i 'ftijwt gun***:' i
«*Stfa h^ttst: a^aifcfa hh: i 3^: s*^: faro: i ^reiit *wi^t <t
1. — 314 — tt. — 7lT*W — M and A.
2. *Th— Missing in R, is found in A and is supplied in M.
3. — TT — R ft — M and A.
4. — «?n>— M. — — A.
5. ^ — R and A. In explaining W[, u*, w etc. in the succee-
ding stanzas the word s**T*re is invariably used in the marginal '
notes in A. ^fi— M.
iftn^r^ 2 irerftinra: ^f^g^N i
S^sfwii TCfa*w<nfr( ^*T*mfawt sfasffa'.H^' vnftfa
: — A ; — sit M.
2. — * — M. — A.
3. — .fn^fH— R. — A a^d M.
4. — ^j^— M. — A.
5. — M. — ^fwwm:— A.
fg^n sqfaqrer^' I (A)
*t i **ftttt: wftr^r^ ^ f^«?^tt^ ^wirs w. *fa «n*: i
'ipgnrcriifw: n*s^tn m% nOrer.' (A).
1. — t«lT — R. — TT«ft— A and M.
2. A. ^Tg'— M. 3. — A. — *t — M.
4. — — M. — A.
5. — f%*f — M. — ftra— -A.
6. — m^Sf-— R. — **t*lW— M and A.
7. — ^*t*t — R. W«T^ — A and M.
8. — m— M. — — A. 9. — R and. A. — *T:— M.
wtfT^im: m^sfir^T ^roS^m *rfa:
iTsrapw ^fafe^ i^wm* *ran 8$ h
SRTHWfr^J Kiftfft«i« fastens i g*5TTri^gfnfijsr ^ q^nfo* vfa
*f**w i fas*: wnr. i c fas*ft it jurats*?!' *fa W < ftftwi^Nt
*w wit filar* i
1, mm — A. M. 2. wft — A. curfij— M and A,
3. — jj T — M and A but it is omitted in R.
4. — $ — M. — w — A.
5. — fa— M and A. missing in R.
6. tf-R and A, *V-M. 7. -*i-R and A. - 5 «-M.
fro 9*1: otR? ^ft^? i
I *?W «/it^' i (A) «jqinw^: sftiwai: i ifn
ac i roro i ^tffaTFiwtsfa wfaroftfitur fasragrofipq
tfii hm: i
1. — ffl— M. — fff— A. 2. — *— R. MandA.
3. — w. — M and A. But tbe correct reading appears to be— m\
and in marginal note in A the word is explained as wrf gpfa If I
4. — * tq— M. -— sfa* — A.
*fa nw: 1
S*n»i vs^ifa: 1 R«nf<?stfcr f«rcraretf?i 1 ^t<* fanftn 1
firwrt ^ml^tH^T^ ^ w mrawft ^wftfa r^wVtf
1. *r— M and A but missing in R.
2. s — M and A but missing in R.
3. — R. —3^ — M and A.
4. — *?t— A. — — M.
1 5. — *fa — A , — rifa— M.
I 'wg«lT: *tftw.' sfa (A) TOOT-TOaiTOl I
^ro* »n^*i iff! to: i
i ^^'ftTO^T^w i^q^ftfci to*i i ftH§fts*3t i^rcrewwH
trqinrenftft to: i 'qTfi^JT *«pNt *<*i«nc: i
M i *Tft?r: faftff: i sTftSftfu g 5^t§ra: I
1. — ftsf — M. — faci — A. 2. ^ — R and A. — M.
3. — tt: — R and A. — m: — M. 4. — , gr— M. — ^u— -A.
5. — figft — R. — Tff^— - M and A r
6. *rfc?T— R and A. 5Tfa$— M. 7, — *r— A. — ft— M.
8. — «jfa?f— M. — *fan— A.
w. qronafr5: 8 «f^m: 4 11 i
'ssnr c*fts* f^^^ fTcf ^ ^fcT i ^ire^ ^fa^ms^T^-
^toq^fTT ^nt*TSl JffiTTffeiaisj q^fa I
1. — — R. — T&J — A. — — M.
2. — *TPTt— A. — IHt— M.
3. — ^ : — A. — if— M.
4. — — R. — 1\; — M and A.
5. — — R. —if R — A and M.
6. — ^^n— a. — tfrsn^sri— M. — efr^ri^TT—
7. KTCT — M. ^TTT — A,
8. — A. — T/t\ — M.
9. — isjem — R. -TOU-A and M.
10. — 3m— MandA. — t*T— R.
fn«ki *T^fa ***n: *tttf*rcrar. s^rafNt fa^^g*srcre ^i-tit ifa 1
a* 1 '<fWr *tct f 1 *rfa*T*t ^tf^n itm;
1. — ^9r— M and A. But missing in R.
2. — <aft — A. — 3 — M.
3. — *WST— R. — A. — irn^r— M.
4 — wit — M. — ^qy— A. 5. — -ift— A, — ut—M,
6. — R. — q: — M and A.
7. — ^WfTT^n^ — R. — zf^^RTjj— A and M,
wSfaiH wftr «n9 sn^naf fairer: « «
fafif urn nq*<raft fai 3*: mf*% it h
ftf rran ^T«rq 5 cr^mi^cr m
^Tfawr fasft fangs* ?T H II
<t i ftfaw *Tfa m% *r?r i i
1. qiirofcr — A. M. 2. — »rt — R and A, — M.
3. — A. — fwfiw— M.
4. if— M and A. But in the latter it is cori ooted into * * in
the margin.
5. — tff — R. — n— M and A.
6. «T*4t— M and A, but missing in R.
ft^^rt gfir Ararat: ^Rt^Tffnirimt
n% sfa m i^ra sfa hn *m*w: i qN^fter sqfe i^st q^ff
i €r?f€^r $q<«rq«iT ^T^f^qg ^wyv infac*: *retere?T: t f *n*r%
1. — 3— R, — ^— M. " ~
2. qrf*T?lf< f^T ffwafa— A. fqrf*mfWlf?TC^f?!---M.
3. — itairo — M. — ^ A.
4. — qag^t — M. — q^si^ — A. which has been corrected in
the margin into — qag^ft I
5. — ^rf%?T— A. ^eifarrcT — M. 6. si — M and A. «?— R;
7. — 'ffa'qTfa— A, — g — M. But in R there seems to
have been a lacunae here.
8. — — M. — ^n: — A.
9. — **TSRT — M and A. It ia missing in R.
10. — *T^— M and A. ?r is missing in R.
11. — fa— M and A. — ?r— R.
sitot shtoi* sag: m ^ ^ n ^ „
*fitefi 2 s^rew
1WT gfef^fofHR^T fafrWm II II
1, ^ M and A. — V — R. 2. — qr— M and A. — *
3 # —^^ M. S« A. 4. — M and A. Omitted in R.
5. — ^ Qt<j — M. — ifw— A. 6. *ft-MandA. fa— R.
V. — i^fa — M and A. — Hlfcf— R.
curort ^^Hm^f^wiq
ftp. TftfqTTO^t 8 TCroftPiin*:
to *fa i
1. The reading of the line as given in the text is found in A.
R has WW?' fSfiTS'ftaTsrelt M. has ifrcupq *ij»nifa5: sraici
2. — si — M and A. Omitted in R.
3. -ft-Mand A. — =ft — R. 4. — g?r — A. — fa* — M.
5. — .sq; — M. — <w: — A. 6. — sift — M and A. —gift— -R.
7. — M and A. Omitttd in R.
r ^ Search (NSTfTM
vim ^i 7 *tfsmfo g^w^faiftenm i
V**a*r ^qmfa: i
1. *TT*TT — R. — M. — A.
2. — ?t — M. — ?fr— A.
3. — ft**: — R. — tts:— -A. ' — frs:— M 4
4. — ^ — M and A. — R.
5. — M. — ^ — A. 6. — *ifar?ST — A. -Tf^-M,
7. — jf — M and A. — K — R.
^^rat ^n" figw^ firoi^ro 3 wren
1. fa — M and A. fa— R.
2. sit — A. where it has been corrected into in the margin,
sit — M.
3. — fiq — M and A. But n|T is the grammatically correct
reading.
4. — vj\ — M and A. — ^it— R. 5. — f^cr:— M. — A.
6\ — fa— M. — fa: — R and A.
7. — — M and A. — sg^t — R.
8. — ire — M and A, — *sn:4— -R.
%?ite(ir. w^h ftpr^T fro*r:
iffi W OTft HfTff 7 ^ftmWCiTO II *° «
ran TTgr^ww^ 8 ^T^r^^Tw€t^
nam: ^pwftfft %?tst «ri wwr.
«4 i f«*fta* ^ «i q^ats^T afire* imforifei-
1. hww-A. -^WT-M. where a sign of query was put
after « indicating the obscurity of the passage.
2. * T -M. t — A. where it has been corrected into *T in the
T^t-AandK. tt— A and E.
6. vK^-A. ipW-B. ^-M-
7 . tfft-M and A.
■r q — w— -M and A. — <?u— - L «'-
rf^ETT: 5REi2f Knwwaw: II M
i f**HT ^*rctft quit: «^?ut^ ^r^r^f^^T^^T ^ircfinqfismwi
1. — — A and M. — sg?— R. 2. q — M and A. 3 — R.
3. — ^t3*jsb?t:— M and A. — ht^btt: — R.
4. — at — A. — — R. — — M.
5. — — A. — — M.
6. — ii— M and A. — *tt — R.
7. — n — A. — ^ — M.
wwwiOTTOTfiranr ^mn ^ ram
fare §fe fawfiwit srl fafa^
?T^m(5TT'irt fsprrftr *r^*nr ^w^c# fafo'sr
fffas^ I *itfS«IWHiar. *Tf*WWnfi?5n ^twfWTWfca ^ f\ft'
warn tirm^^tit a^tonpumt ipi*^* Wl 1 ^jwr^
1. —tit: — A. — tit— M. 2. ^— A.
3. — qrtf— M. — jit*— R and A.
4. — snut— M and A. — «n«rt— R.
5. ^5— a. qpfr — R. tn— M.
1. — ^l^NTf^l^— M and A. — ^^N*^ — R.
2. ^l€t— A qt^t— M .
3. _^__a and R. — ^ufa— M. 4. M. A.
5. — ^ — A and M. — «r — R.
6. — ^cfl — R — *TT— M and A.
7. — iff — A. — qfafw — M. where the reading is marked
as doubtful.
8. — M and A. gw— R.
9. ftraT—M and A which form, however, is grammatically
wrong, the ^ here being a semivowel, and not a labial mute. The
two grammatically correct forms are f%s^T and fafaT | But in verses
94 and 100 also, which follow, we get the reading farm both in
M and A.
I HE KUPPUSWyi^A"
RESEARCH i . «J t
mn^w. mgqfa<ft Tip^g: n t \ n
Wot ^*t, *rcfa«i?T * ^ts iffl I
3. _ftf-A. -ftl-M. — 5— M. it A.
5. s:firont— M. ^T^- AandR '
6. — f*— A and M. fa— R.
irarwig jphst^'t inOTTfarefa cam i
*iT*rrcftsfa ugrfrTSTs: far jpf^n^sft g: n q 11
to: s*^t faiOT^fcr *jfaf fafe^
^ff^tS^t T^fa VT^rTT JT^fiRT Atonal: I
mipii f% u^fafa fii^ii ^ifasrnfsr 11 <>$ ii
1. — A and R. ^ — M. The marginal note in A explains
*t*T *fa wifl: I <?3T ^^tt^^f^sfq " mUflt *TW: mfk W% W ?fa
qftq*^ *TH?fa ^ *fa wis: I
1. — tftaT— M and A. — tftaT— R.
2. _*, T _M. — *rt — A.
3. — — M. — A and R.
4. ^ — M. ^— A.
5. <ft — M. «1 — A.
6. — M and A. — g — R.
38 rpR^H
^K^rTftT^ 8 W^TtT«sRri ; 55Rl^ (off) II II
1. — — A. — w^—M.
2. ttct — A. — M j a lacunae here in R.
(^0 This verse, in an altered form, occurs in the Sadukti-
karriamrta where the first half shows little difference from tha
reading as given above, the only difference being 3i*T^3Tfa?T in
place of ^T^Tslfa^Tl^ atl d % in place of | The second half
as it occurs in the above work runs as follows —
( J. A. S. B— 1906 — P. 15)
^ft ^ffirqreTshJ ijj^rf %
1. A. ^«r^i— M.
2. 5T — M and A. R.
3. — 5tt — M, A, P. — sit-R.
4. _f„£_A, R, P. — wit— M. In A— fast is eor-eoted u.
the margin.
5. — gff — A. — 3 — P. — <3^f — M.
6. -— *;<qt — M. — ^t- A and P.
aft s^ai wafts: WTfqr ^^ftrari?
wi: i
1. felt— A, P. «4t— M.
2. MandA. at— P.
3. M. Omitted in A and P.
4. ittifo— M. — A and P.
5. — T^f — M and P. — qtf— A.
6. — A aud P. Omitted in M.
fa) This verse, also, is quoted in the Saduktikarnmrta where
the only variants are ft for ^fa, for wzwreT and *<jftq
for iqfa— J. A. S. B— 1906— P. 15.
INDEX I.
»
Index to the first lines of the verses of the Pavanaduta.
( The numeral figures refer to the number of verses )
<t
ST
*t*i:
f|fl H|*1^q H1 1 ^ 1 ^ » >
1 TOT *T3!ITg«Wn
1 tot *faT«fat w it:
( * )
nfw*l 3*u^ ?mfer«iT ^ c
<*m: rt<ht: ^f^Tcjt »
!
ffiTmiqr. ufag^fq co ',
T
HIT. ^ISfW'J'Tfl
( < )
<^
SJ^I <£^T faiqT^
•I'd
m ^aTufa^ewfei:
-a-
'i
\
T7S t ~K T T f S 3i 31 9Tt
INDEX II.
Index to proper names of historical or geographical
importance in the Pafranaduta.
(The numeral figures refer to the number of verm)
Andhra, country ... ••• 21
Ballala, king ••• ... 31
Bhilla, tribe ... ... 24
Chandanadri, Malaya hill ... 1
Chola, nation ••• ... 14
Daksinatya, tract ••• ••• 17, 63
Dhoylka, poet ••• 101
Gariga, river ••• 32
Gaudades'a ... ... 6
Godavari, river ... ... 21
Kalinganagara, town, ••• ••• 21
Kanchi, town ... ... 12, 15
Kaverl, river ••• ••• 15
Kerall, women of the Kerala tribe ... 16, 26
Laksmana, king, and hero of the poem ••• 2
Lanka, island ••• ... 10
Malyavant, hill range ... ... 18
Panchapsara, lake ... ... 19
Pandyades'a , country ... ••• 8
Re va, river Narmada ... ... 25
S'abari, women of the S'abara tribe <•• 25
S'rikhandadri, Malaya hill ••• 8, 62
Subala, river ... 13
Suhma, country .» ~ 27, 28, 33
Senanvaya, the Sena dynasty 28, 57
Tamraparnl, river ••• ... 8
Tapana-tanaya, river Yumna ... 33
Uragapura, town ••• ... 8, cf. 10
Vijayapura, capital town ••• 86
Vindhya, a hill range ... 23, 24
Yayatinagara, town ... 6 •
ERRATA.
Page
Line
Incorrect
Correct.
3
9
verse 102
verse 103
4
3
not Laksmanasenat
not Laksmana-
sena
7
AO
H o TTQivi re
lid VtJlIlg
lid V 1UL*
19
1 1
here
in frip Pn vnnsirJrf a.
ill tiiu 1 aVailaUulc*
14
9
Pavana 16
Pavana 61
16
11
v. 3
v. 2
26
5
pieces
pieces of
7
of locality
locality.
4
zttVtt
$
X OUuIlUtU
o -fsr^T?, -^t-M and
A -fsrerT-R
-^^II-M and A.
< *
r
— *f3t
— ws:
9 3
— fig?W
— ft?w
Footnote 1 ^IT, m\, ST
99
6. 5f— M and A
«j — M and A.
***
Open Library
