The Dynastic History of Northern India (Early Mediaeval Period) v1.c14.164

v1.c14.164

Thus it is clear that between 1387 and 1418 the Chinese documents know and recognise as sovereigns of Nepal the descendants of Harisiṁha, who probably ruled from Bhatgaon. But the colophons of the dated MSS. of Nepal reveal the existence of other princes in the Valley. A MS. of the *Vāmakeśvarīmata-ṭippaṇa* preserved in the Durbar library of Nepal, gives us the date 474 (A.D. 1353-54) in the reign of *nṛpati* Jayarājadeva in Nepal.¹ Another MS. preserved in the collection of the Asiatic Society of Bengal bears the date 476 (A.D. 1355-56), while the Vaṁśāvalī of Bendall gives the date 467 (1347 A.D.) as the year of his accession to the throne.² According to the last source, this king was the son of Jayānandadeva, for whom we have already noticed the date 438 (A.D. 1318), and was succeeded by his son Jayārjunamalla. A MS. of the *Meghadūta* preserved in the Nepal Durbar library was copied in 484 (A.D. 1363) in the victorious reign of *Rājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Śrī-Śrī-Jayārjunadeva*.³ Another MS. of the *Mudrārākṣasa* in the same collection bears the date 491 (1371 A.D.) in the *Vijayarājya* of *Parameśvara-Paramabhaṭṭāraka- Paramadhārmika-Śrī-Śrī-Jayārjuna*, while a 3rd MS. of the *Bhojadevasaṁgraha* is dated in 1297 *Saka* (A.D. 1376) in the reign of the same king.⁴ Two other MSS. bearing the dates 493 (1372 A.D.) and 494 (1374 A.D.) in the reign of this prince are also noticed by Bendall in the Cambridge Library collection.⁵ Thus from 1347 to 1376, and even beyond that, as we shall presently see, there appears a continuous series of kings who claim to rule in Nepal. In view of the fact that the Chinese chronicles neglect them altogether, we are disposed to accept the contention of Lévi that the princes mentioned in the colophons were subordinate to the line of Harisiṁha at Bhatgaon.⁶ Though their imperial titles are rather inconsistent with so humble a position, yet it offers the only explanation of the silence of the Chinese annals regarding them. If this was so, then it is likely that while Harisiṁha and his descendants exercised effective control over the whole of the Nepal valley, they left undisturbed the local rulers, who acknowledged their hegemony, in the possession of the other two capitals, *viz.*, Patan and Katmandu.