Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c27: XIV Bhoja

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c27

Language
English

Contents

XIV Bhoja

v1.c27.1

The earliest writer on Poetics who quotes Bhoja seems to be Hemacandra¹, who flourished as we shall see, in the first half of the 12th century; while Vardhamāna, who however did not write till 1140 A.D., mentions Bhoja in the second verse of his Gaṇaratna, the vṛtti on which explains this Bhoja as the author of the Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa. The latest writer quoted by Bhoja appears to be Rājaśekhara², whose latest date is the beginning of the 10th century, although some verses from the Caura-pañcāśikā (no. 12, ed. Bohlen), attributed to Bilhaṇa, occur in the Sarasvatī-kº (ad i 152)³. Bhoja appears also to refer in one verse (ad i 71, p. 22) to Muñja, apparently Muñja-vākpatirāja of Mālava. Jacob⁴ in misleading in putting down the name of Nami-sādhu, (who did not write his commentary on Rudraṭa till 1069 A.D.) in the list of authors quoted by Bhoja; for the verses in question, though found in Nami, are not Nami's own but really quoted by him from previous authors¹ Bhoja also quotes about sixteen times from the *Daśarūpaka* and its commentary, which belong to the time of Muñja, i.e. the end of the 10th and the beginning of the 11th century. The internal evidence of the text, therefore, places the author of the *Sarasvatī-k°* in the period between the second and the fourth quarters of the 11th century; and as this date fits in easily with the known dates of the 9th Paramāra ruler Bhoja of Dhārā, one of the well-known princes of the 11th century, noted for his patronage of letters, the two may be taken to have been reasonably identified. Our Bhoja is frequently cited in later *Alaṃkāra* literature as Bhojarāja, and some times simply as *rājan*² which designation, like that of muni applied to Bharata, seems to mark him out *par excellence* in this literature.

v1.c27.2

¹ p. 295 Comm., besides anonymous quotations.

v1.c27.3

² From Karpūra-mañjº, Bāla-bhāº, and Viddhaśālaº. See Sten Konow's ed. of Karpūra-mañjº pp. 198 f., for the quotations : also Jacob IRAS, 1897, p. 304f.

v1.c27.4

³ We have not based any chronological inference on this, because Bilhaṇa's authorship of the work is not beyond question and Solf tries to demonstrate the existence of a poet called Cora or Caura, whose date is not known.

v1.c27.5

⁴ op. cit. p. 304.

v1.c27.6

¹ For instance, the verse *avam padmâsânâsina°* (Bhoja *ad* i 51 p. 15) is found, no doubt, in Nami on xi 24, but it is really a quotation, along with several other verses in the same context, from Bhāmaha ii 55. Similarly the two verses *sa marutā* and *sa pītavāsā*, quoted by Bhāmaha himself (ii 41, 58) from some previous authors (one of whose names is given as Rāmaśarman) occur in Bhoja anonymously (*ad* i 121, pp. 43, 44), but they are also quoted by Nami in the same context. There is no reason to suppose that Bhoja took these verses from Nami's comm. instead of going directly to Bhāmaha, from whom he quotes several other verses directly (e.g., *ākrośan nûhvayan*, Bhoja *ad* iii 8, p. 144 = Bhāmaha ii 94; Bhāmaha ii 92 = Bhoja *ad* iv 51, p. 226-7 = *Subhāṣ°* 1645 *bhāmahasya*). Similar remarks apply to the other supposed quotations given by Jacob, whose mistake is probably due to the fact that Bhāmaha's text was not available to him.

v1.c27.7

² e.g. Vidyādhara pp. 98, 150, 192, 287, 304, and Mallinātha pp. 287, 304 etc.

v1.c27.8

Kalhaṇa states (vii 259)¹ that king Bhoja of Dhārā was the true friend of poets; and it is possible that he had himself literary predilections. He was the son and successor of Sindhurāja and a nephew Muñja-vākpatirāja who was also, as we have seen a great patron of letters. The date of Bhoja is well known from his own and other inscriptions². Alberuni³ mentions him as still reigning in 1030 A D., while the date *śaka* 964 = 1042 A.D. is given by the *Rāja-mṛgāṅka* which is attributed to Bhoja. We know also that he fought with Cālukya Jayasiṃha III between 1011 and 1019 A.D., and with the latter's successor Someśvara (1042-1066 A.D.), who according to Bilhaṇa took Dhārā by storm and forced Bhoja to flee. Bilhaṇa himself speaks of Bhoja as of a contemporary ‘whom he did not visit though he might have done so’⁴. In Kalhaṇa's assertion, referred to above, with respect to Bhoja and Kṣitirāja, the phrase *tasmin kṣaṇe* is taken by Bühler to refer to the period when, after the nominal coronation of Kalasa in 1062

v1.c27.9

¹ *sa ca bhoja-narendras ca dānôtkarṣeṇa viśrutau | sūri tasmin kṣaṇe tulyam dvâvāstām kavi-bāndhavau.*

v1.c27.10

² *IA* v 17, 318f, vi 53f ; *EI* i 230f.

v1.c27.11

³ ed. Sachau i 191. According to Merutuṅga, Bhoja succeeded Muñja in *saṃvat* 1078 = 1022 A.D. See, however, Bhandarkar, *Rep.* 1882-83, pp. 44-45.

v1.c27.12

⁴ Bühler's ed. *Vikramāṅka* p. 23 fn, also text xviii 96.

v1.c27.13

A.D., Kṣitirāja became a *sannyāsin* and sometimes visited king Ananta in order to console him. If this interpretation is correct, we get a limit to Bhoja's date at 1062 A.D. A copper-plate of his successor Jayasiṃha, however, is dated 1055 A.D., and throws doubt on Bühler's conjecture. But all this will justify us in fixing Bhoja's date with great probability between 1010 and 1055 A.D.; i.e. roughly covering a part of the first and the whole of the second quarter of the 11th century, and he may have lived into the third quarter of the same century. The exact dates of his accession and death are unknown.

v1.c27.14

Besides his well-known *Sarasvati-kaṇṭhābharaṇa*, Bhoja appears also to have written a work called *Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa*¹, a MS of which has been recently acquired by the Government Oriental MSS Library, Madras². It is composed in 36 *prakāśas*, and is described as the largest known work in Sanskrit Poetics. The first eight chapters are devoted to the quasi-grammatical question relating to word and its sense as the means of expression, and the theory of *vṛtti*. The ninth and the tenth chapters describe the blemishes and excellences of expression (*doṣa* and *guṇa*); while the eleventh and twelfth chapters deal respectively with the *mahā-kāvya* and the drama. The next twenty-four chapters treat exclusively of the *rasas*, of which the *śṛṅgāra* or love is maintained to be the principal and essential, and the work derives its name from Bhoja’s theory that *śṛṅgāra* is the only one *rasa* admissible¹. As in the *Sarasvatī-ka°*, this work, in the manner of a cyclopaedic compilation, gives a large number of quotations to illustrate the rules and principles laid down. Śāradātanaya’s *Bhāvaprakāśa*, which deals with the same subject, constitutes really a summary of the important chapters of Bhoja.

v1.c27.15

¹ This work is mentioned by Vidyādhara p. 98, Kumārasvāmin p. 114, 221; Rāyamukuṭa and Sarvānanda on Amara ; Hemādri on *Raghu* etc.

v1.c27.16

² mentioned in the *Rep. of the Working of the Peripatetic Party of the Library, 1916-19*.

v1.c27.17

¹ Cf Vidyādhara *rājā tu śṛṅgāram ekam eva śṛṅgāraprakāśe rasam urarīcakāra* p. 98; Kumārasvāmin p. 221 *śṛṅgāra eka eva rasa iti śṛṅgāraprakāśa-kāraḥ*.

v1.c27.18

The *Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa* is not a very original work, but consists chiefly of a patient compilation in an encyclopaedic manner from earlier treatises, especially from Daṇḍin, from whom he takes, according to the calculation of Jacob², no less than 164 illutrations. From the index of citations given by Jacob, we find that Vāmana is quoted 22 times, Rudraṭa 19 times, the *Dhvanyāloka* more than 10 times (six of the *kārikās* being reproduced), while it is curious to note that Bhoja makes a good use of Bhaṭṭi’s illustrations of the figure *yamaka* and its numerous sub-species. While the chief value of Bhoja's work consists in its abundant wealth of illustrations and examples, numbering about 1500, to every rule and prescription, it is nevertheless interesting as embodying, in the main, a tradition of opinion, which is also represented in the *Agni-purāṇa*, but which in many respects stands apart from the orthodox Kashmiri school.

v1.c27.19

² *loc. cit.*

v1.c27.20

The commentators on Bhoja, as noted below, are not numerous, nor are they of much importance. Ratneśvara's commentary has been published several times together with the text, but so far only three chapters of it have been printed.

a. Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa

v1.c27.s1.1

Editions. (1) by Borooah, Calcutta 1883, 1884 (2) by Vireśvara Śāstrī, Benares 1888 (chs. iv and v) (3) by Jīvānanda, with comm. of Ratneśvara (on chs. i-iii), Calcutta 1894 (4) Kāvyamālā (partly published). Our references are to ed. Boorah 1884.

v1.c27.s1.2

MSS. Aufrecht i 699b; ii 167a, 232b; iii 145a; *SCC* vii 47, 48; *KBod* 489; *SCB* 34 (with comm.); *Madras Cat.* 12962.

v1.c27.s1.3

Commentaries. (1) *Ratna-darpaṇa* by Miśra Ratneśvara. (ed. with the text by Jīvānanda, Calcutta 1894; ed. Benares as above. MSS. Aufrecht i 699b, ii 167a, 232b, iii 145a; *KBod* 490; *SCC* vii 49; *Madras Cat.* 12963). The nominal author Rāmasiṃhadeva, mentioned in the introductory stanza 2, is apparently the author's patron. In the colophon, the author's name is given as Miśra Ratneśvara and in Benares ed. of the text, the commentary is said to have been written at the command of Rāmasiṃhadeva. In the Catalogues, the work is sometimes inaccurately given as by Rāmasiṃhadeva. The author refers to a comm. on the *Kāv. prak.* by himself. Only the first three chapters of this *Ratnadarpaṇa* have been published in the editions noted; and both the Madras and Bodleian MSS contain these chapters only.

v1.c27.s1.4

(2) *Mārjanā* by Harinātha, mentioned by himself in his comm. on Daṇḍin (*A Bod* 206b).

v1.c27.s1.5

(3) *Duṣkara-citra-prakāśikā* by Lakṣmīnātha Bhaṭṭa. Aufrecht iii 145a. He may be indentical with Lakṣmīnātha who according to Kielhorn *Report* 1880-81 p. 71, wrote his *Piṅgala-pradīpa* in 1601 A.D. Kielhorn's MS of this latter work appears to have been copied in 1660, while Burnell's (*Piṅgalārtha-dīpikā* pp. 53b, 175b) in 1632 A.D.

v1.c27.s1.6

(4) *Ṭīkā* by Jagaddhara, son of Ratnadhara and Damayantī. Aufrecht ii 167a, 232b; extract is given in Ulwar 1086. This work is probably earlier than the 17th century but later than the 14th (see Bhandarkar Pref. to *Mālatīmādhava* pp. xviii-xxi). Jagaddhara's genealogy is given thus: Caṇḍeśvara→Vedeśvara (Veadhara)→Rāmadhara (Rāmeśvara)→Gadādhara→Vidyādhara→Ratnadhara→Jagaddhara. He wrote several commentaries (Aufrecht i 195) on the *Meghadūta*, *Vāsavadattā*, *Veṇīsaṃhāra*, *Mālatī-mādhava* etc.

v1.c27.s1.7

Comm. by Harikṛṣṇa Vyāsa. SCB 34.

v1.c27.s1.8

b. *Śṛṅgāra-prakāśa*

v1.c27.s1.9

The only MS known is in the Government Oriental MSS Library, Madras, mentioned in their *Report* quoted above. See above p. 147.

Linked texts (15)