365bet娱乐

(i) Proving Vedakavi is not the author:

All the above recorded sources invariably give the common information namely, the two 苍腻峁璦办补蝉 are by Vedakavi and not by 膧nandar膩ya Makhin. The main source of this information is the Introduction given by T.S. Kuppuswami Sastri to the edition of 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈肠补谤颈迟补, published by K膩vyam膩la in 1894. This has been later rendered to English by the author himself as 鈥�Ramabhadra Dikshita and the Southern poets of his Time鈥� in the Indian Antiquary, May-July 1904.

In the first paragraph of the article he has stated that there had been no proper account about 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 Dik峁�ita. 鈥淚 therefore wrote a short memoir of Ramabhadra Dikshita as a preface to his 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈肠补谤颈迟补 when I despatched a 狈腻驳补谤墨 transcript of it for publication in the K膩vyam膩l膩 in 1984. This account was based on facts collected from written records, which, though few, could be safely relied on. The present paper is a little more than a reproduction in English of what I have already published in Sanskrit鈥�.

Dr. Raghavan also points out in his Introduction (p.1) to his edition of 厂腻丑别苍诲谤补惫颈濒腻蝉补 that 鈥渟ubsequent writers on the history of the Maratha dynasty of Tanjore invariably referred to this article in the Indian Antiquary鈥�. The same situation seems to have prevailed in writing the history of the literature of the Maratha period, by later senior scholars including Dr. Raghavan.

Actually,^[1] the information given by T.S. Kuppuswamy Sastri about the writings of Vedakavi and 膧nandar膩ya Makhin is quite brief. While giving details about the contemporary poets of 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 in the second part of his article in Indian Antiquary (July 1904), he records (p.181)鈥�

鈥�(3) Vedakavi, who wrote the 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍腻峁璦办补, 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补 and its commentary and who attributed his works to his patron 膧nandar膩ya Makhin鈥�.

Then he continues with the information about 膧nandar膩ya Makhin from (i) 笔补谤颈产丑腻峁�e苍诲丑耻艣别办丑补谤补 of 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 Dik峁�ita, (ii) text of the 笔谤补蝉迟腻惫补苍腻 of 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍腻峁璦办补 to show that it had been written during the period of 艢ahaji I and (iii) the 笔谤补蝉迟腻惫补苍腻 portion of the 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嚹乱补苍补峁璦办补 to show that it was written during 艢arabhoji鈥檚 reign.

At the end of this he concludes (p.183)鈥�

鈥淐ertainly Vedakavi must have lived during the reign of Sarabhoji I, if he wrote the 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补na峁璦ka.... Another work by or rather attributed to 膧nandar膩ya Makhin is the 膧艣惫补濒腻测补苍补驳峁沨测补蝉奴迟谤补惫峁泃迟颈.鈥�

This article found in the Indian Antiquary being 鈥渁 little more than a reproduction in English鈥� of what T.S. Kuppuswami Sastri had already published in Sanskrit as preface to 笔补迟补帽箩补濒颈肠补谤颈迟补, one has to surmise that all information that Sastri had given in the original Sanskrit Preface have been definitely reproduced in the English article.

It is to be noted that there is no other information about Vedakavi in this article. Such being the case, it leads one to wonder about how T.S. Kuppuswami Sastri came to the conclusion that all three works are only works ascribed to 膧nandar膩ya Makhin.

Dr. Raghavan adds one more information in his Introduction (p.43) to 艢腻丑别苍诲谤补惫颈濒腻蝉补 that 鈥淧eriappa Kavi mentions him [Vedakavi] in the prologue to his 艢峁涐箙驳腻谤补-尘补帽箩补谤颈-艢腻丑腻箩墨测补 as one of the more celebrated poets of the time鈥�. This also does not prove that Vedakavi wrote the two 苍腻峁璦办补蝉.

Also it should be kept in mind, that there is no internal evidence from the within the texts or external evidences from any other contemporary or later writers to prove this decision of

T.S. Kuppuswami Sastri and all others who followed him.

(ii) Proving 膧nandar膩ya Makhin is the Author:

(a) It would be worthwhile to consider V.A. Ramaswami 厂补蝉迟谤颈鈥檚 observations on this issue in his article 鈥溎�nandar膩ya Makhin versus App膩dhvarin鈥� (Journal of Oriental Research, Vol.III. p.68-73).

According to him (pp.69-70)鈥�

鈥�... 膧nandar膩ya Makhin was a poet of a high order. His works so far as we are able to judge, are (1) 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补, published in Kavyamala Series鈥揳n allegorical drama on the model of 碍峁涐梗峁嘺尘颈艣谤补鈥檚 Prabodha-candrodaya and (2) 膧艣惫补濒腻测补苍补-驳峁沨测补-蝉奴迟谤补-惫测腻办丑测腻 (ms. Available in Tanjore Palace Library) a good and readable commentary on the 峁歡vedic 驳峁沨测补-蝉奴迟谤补s and to some extent, a good compendium of the duties of the 叠补丑惫峁沜补 householder.

There is a strong belief prevalent among scholars that all the works known in the name of 膧nandar膩ya are not his production. It is believed that one Vedakavi wrote 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补 and J墨v膩nanda鈥揳nother drama of the same type and attributed them to 膧nandar膩ya Makhin.... But the verses in the prologue to 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补, expressly state that the author of the drama was 膧nandar膩ya Makhin whose name as author and as minister of the Maratha kings鈥揝hahji and Serfoji was widely known鈥�.

(b) Another important point in support of 膧nandar膩ya Makhin鈥檚 authorship is provided by M. Duraiswami Aiyengar, who edited the text 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补尘 along with his commentary 鈥�狈补苍诲颈苍墨鈥� for the Adyar Library, Madras, published in 1947. Himself an erudite Sanskrit scholar and an Ayurvedic physician, he had given some more practically plausible information about 膧nandar膩ya Makhin.

In his Introduction (pp.7-8) he writes:鈥�^[2]

鈥淭he author of this drama unlike other poets, did not stop merely with great attachment to literature, 惫别诲腻苍迟补 and other arts. He went further. He has proved himself, through this play, as one who possessed taste, high knowledge and skill in the healing science of Medicine, which was a boon to suffering mankind.

鈥淓ven from about two hundred years before, Tanjore palace was renowned for famed medicines. Many may know, that a valuable dispensary or 础耻峁�a诲丑补-艢腻濒腻 containing staple medicines prepared from 诲丑腻迟耻蝉 and lohas (minerals and metals) capable of curing even many chronic and complicated diseases, existed in the palace.

鈥淪ome of us might also have heard of Dhanvantari Mahal along side of the famous Library, Sarasvati Mahal in the palace, where rare and valuable medical works, were, with royal patronage, collected and kept.

鈥淚t is said that the initial founders of such a medical section and progenitors of its activities were 膧nandar膩ya Makhin and his disciples鈥�.

Unless and otherwise one has firsthand knowledge of 膧测耻谤惫别诲补, characterisation of diseases as dramatic personae and the relevant respective medicines for these, described suitably in the drama, would be a Herculean task. 膧nandar膩ya Makhin having been the initiation of the Dhavantari Mahal of Tanjore, would definitely have had the knowledge of medicine too. In addition, the war tactics described in the play also convince one of 膧nandar膩ya Makhin鈥檚 authorship; he had been the Dalavoy of the Maratha kings, and waged war with the combined forces of Madura and Pudukkottai (as shown earlier) and won the war.

(c) As already pointed out,^[3] 膧nandar膩ya Makhin along with 艢膩haji is recognised as a scholarly patron by 搁腻尘补产丑补诲谤补 顿墨办峁�i迟补 and others.

(d) V膩帽ce艣vara Kavi also known as Ku峁�峁璱kavi (of the time of Prat膩pasi峁僪a鈥�1741-64) laments about the loss of the great scholars (惫颈诲惫腻峁僺腻岣�) and patrons (辫谤补产丑补惫补岣�) like N膩n膩ji (minister), Prabhucandrabh膩nu (king), 艢膩haji (king) and 膧nandar膩ya (his minister) and derides his contemporary scholars in his 惭补丑颈峁�a艣补迟补办补 (v.3):

苍腻苍腻箩颈辫谤补产丑耻肠补苍诲谤补产丑腻苍耻艣腻丑补箩墨苍诲谤腻苍补苍诲补谤腻测腻诲补测辞
  vidv膩峁僺a岣� prabhavo gat膩岣� 艣ritasudh墨sa峁僤ohaj墨v膩tava岣� |
vidy膩y膩峁� vi峁�abuddhayo hi v峁涐梗al膩samy膩stvid膩n墨峁僼an膩岣�
  ki峁� kurve'mba k峁涐梗e vraj膩mi 艣补谤补峁嘺峁� tv膩meva vi艣v膩van墨m ||

(e) Apart from these external evidences, the 苍腻峁璦办补蝉 by them-selves show that they are by 膧nandar膩ya Makhin. In addition to recording the author鈥檚 name^[4] and his family details in the 笔谤补蝉迟腻惫补苍腻 of both the plays, the main trait of 膧nandar膩ya Makhin as a staunch 艢颈惫补产丑补办迟补 is also well brought out in both the plays.

The second 狈腻苍诲墨 verse in the 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补 and the fourth verse in 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补^[5] bring out this specific qualities of 膧nandar膩ya Makhin (闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补, I.2):

辫谤腻驳箩补苍尘墨测补迟补辫补岣� 辫丑补濒补峁� tanubh峁泃膩 pr膩pyeta m膩nu峁�yaka峁� tacca pr膩ptavat膩 kimanyaducita峁� pr膩ptu峁� 迟谤颈惫补谤驳补峁� 惫颈苍腻 |
迟补迟辫谤腻辫迟别谤补辫颈 蝉腻诲丑补苍补峁� prathamato deho ruj膩varjitasten膩rogyamabh墨psita峁� di艣atu vo devo pa艣奴n膩峁� 辫补迟颈岣� ||

膧nandar膩ya Makhin further declares about his own ideal of upholding 艢颈惫补产丑补办迟颈 in the 笔谤补蝉迟腻惫补苍腻 of 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补 thus (I.13/14; p.6):

艣谤耻迟颈蝉尘峁泃颈-颈迟颈丑腻蝉补-腻驳补尘补-迟补苍迟谤腻诲颈蝉颈诲诲丑补-苍腻苍腻惫颈诲丑补-s膩mba艣iva-cara峁嘺paricara峁嘺-tadanusa峁僤h膩na-nirantarita-nikhilav膩sarasya... 艣arabhamah膩raja-mantri艣ikh膩ma峁噀rasya ||

While 艢颈惫补产丑补办迟颈 is the first character to enter the stage in 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补, in 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补, the greatness of 艢颈惫补产丑补办迟颈 is repeatedly referred to in many places such as (I.47ab):

艣补办测补峁� tat khalu pu峁囜笉ar墨kanagara峁� gantu峁� manodv膩ratastatr膩ste 艣ivabhaktirityanupam膩 办腻辫颈 pramod膩spadam |

膧nandar膩ya Makhin also stresses the fact that 艢颈惫补产丑补办迟颈 is the only and final resort to obtain liberation (I.48):

t膩madvait膩峁� svar奴pe峁嘺 bhakti峁� h峁沝ayara峁�jan墨m |
sv墨k峁泃yaha峁� bhavi峁�y膩mi pr膩pt膩khilamanoratha岣� ||

In both the 苍腻峁璦办补蝉, 闯墨惫补 is the hero and is throughout figured as a devotee of the divine couple 艢颈惫补 and 笔腻谤惫补迟墨. Thus in both the plays he establishes his main aim of depicting the Supremacy of 艢颈惫补. The concluding 艣濒辞办补蝉 before the traditional 叠丑补谤补迟补惫腻办测补 of both the plays also emphasize the poet鈥檚 extraordinary 艢颈惫补产丑补办迟颈.^[6]

While 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补 (VII.38d cited below) states that all the creation is His drama鈥�bhavann膩峁璦kamidam jagad, the last line of the 叠丑补谤补迟补惫腻办测补 of 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补 (VII.36d) prays for 诲峁涐笉丑补艣颈惫补产丑补办迟颈:

bh奴y膩dasya kave艣cir膩yurarujo bhakti艣ca 艣aiv墨 诲峁涐笉丑腻 ||

Thus, by considering the evidences avaliable from all quarters, it can be definitely concluded that 膧nandar膩ya Makhin is assuredly the author of all the three works鈥�

1. 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补n膩峁璦ka,
2. 痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补, and
3. 膧艣惫补濒腻测补苍补-g峁沬hyas奴tra-惫峁泃迟颈.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

See Appendix I鈥損p.181-85 of Indian Antiquary (July, 1904).

[2]:

M. Duraiswami Aiyengar has given all these points running together in one single paragraph. Here to bring forth the critical value of the fact that 膧nandar膩ya Makhin is the author of all the three texts, they are shown separately.

[3]:

See. fn. 11 supra.

[4]:

See also 膧艣惫补濒腻测补苍补g峁沬hyas奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (v.12):
膩nandar膩yayajvendurak峁�aratsvaras膩nug膩m |
腻艣惫补濒腻测补苍补蝉奴迟谤补蝉测补 惫峁泃迟颈峁� vitanute 蝉耻诲丑墨岣� ||

[5]:

痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补 (I.4) slightly varies from the text of 闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补:
辫谤腻驳箩补苍尘墨测补迟补辫补岣� 辫丑补濒补峁� tanubh峁泃膩 pr膩pyeta m膩nu峁�yaka峁� tacca pr膩ptavat膩 kimanyaducita峁� pr膩ptu峁� 迟谤颈惫补谤驳补峁� 惫颈苍腻 |
tatpr膩pti艣ca yath膩 bhavetphalavat墨 vi艣vottar膩峁� 艣膩艣vat墨峁� t膩madvaitakal膩峁� kal膩nidhikal膩maulirvidhatt膩峁� 艣iva岣� ||

[6]:

痴颈诲测腻辫补谤颈峁嘺测补, VII.38:
vil墨ya sv膩vidy膩ghanayavanik膩y膩matha vadan 惫颈肠颈迟谤补峁� 苍别辫补迟丑测补峁� na峁璦si 艣iva n膩n膩tmakatay膩 |
svaya峁� j膩gratpa艣yasyapi ca param膩nandabharito jayatyatya艣carya峁� jagaditi bhavann膩峁璦kamidam ||
闯墨惫腻苍补苍诲补苍补, VII.35cd:
测辞驳补峁� tatastvadupadi峁ａ弓amav膩pya j墨vanmukto'smi te karu峁嘺y膩 kimata岣� 辫谤颈测补峁� me ||