No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Date of the Subhṣitvali
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 December 2009
Extract
The importance of dates in Sanskrit literature renders it desirable to examine critically the interesting attempt of Dr. S. K. De to upset the accepted view that the Subhṣitvali of Vallabhadeva, by reason of its reference to Jainollbhadna (i.e. Zain ul-bidn,c. 141767), is not to be dated earlier than the second half of the fifteenth century. The piece of evidence on which Dr. Des theory rests has long been before us in the shape of a reference to verse 726 of the Subhṣitvali in the commentary by Vandyaghaṭya Sarvnanda on the Amarakoa, which, according to a note of the present date given in the comment on verse 21 of the klavarga, was written when the aka year 1081 and the Kali year 4260 had expired.
- Type
- Papers Contributed
- Information
- Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1928 , pp. 27 - 32
- Copyright
- Copyright School of Oriental and African Studies 1928
References
page 27 note 1 JRAS. 1927, pp. 4717.Google Scholar
page 27 note 2 Ed. Trivandrum Sanskrit Series, Nos. xxxviii, xliii, li, lii.Google Scholar
page 27 note 3 Pt. ii, p. 130.
page 27 note 4 Pt. ii, p. 63.
page 28 note 1 In lieu of full description Sarvnanda curtails, e.g. Kirta for Kirtrjunya, Raghu for Raghuvaṅa, Vidagdha for Vidagdhamukhamaṇḍana, Durghaṭa for Durghaṭavṛtti.
page 28 note 2 Pṇini, 8, 4, 3.Google Scholar
page 28 note 3 Pṇini, 4, 1, 5Google Scholar; the text is not very satisfactory.
page 29 note 1 See vv. 2632, 2633. There are twenty other verses by the poet in the anthology.
page 30 note 1 See Chintaharan, Chakravarti, IHQ. 3, 188Google Scholar; the colophon of the Saduktikarṇmṛta gives aka 1127 as year 27 of the king's reign, or A.D. 1178 as the period of his accession.
page 30 note 2 See Srish, Chandra Chakravarti, Bhṣvṛtti, p. 7.Google Scholar
page 30 note 3 There is a v.l., durhadruteḥ. For a variant explanation, see Pischel, , Die Hofdichter des Lakṣmaṇasena, pp. 24 ff.Google Scholar; Keith, , History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 220, n. 1.Google Scholar The matter is not ripe for solution.
page 30 note 4 Dhoy, Probably, author of the Pavanadta; Pischel, op. cit., p. 35.Google Scholar
page 31 note 1 JRAS. 1927, p. 110.Google Scholar
page 31 note 2 e.g., pt. i, p. 110: kṣitau vikasitaṁ sitam (also pt. ii, p. 58); pt. ii, pp. 153, 284; pt. iii, pp. 49, 179.
page 31 note 3 See Srish Chandra Chakravarti's ed., p. 2.
page 31 note 4 JRAS. 1927, p. 472, n. 2.Google Scholar
page 31 note 5 Meghadta (2nd ed.), pp. 1416.Google Scholar
page 31 note 6 See his trans., p. 224, n. 21.
page 31 note 7 Ed. TSS., No. xliii, p. 44.
page 31 note 8 Mallintha's view is that kaṭyana (iv, 2, 91) is used.
page 32 note 1 Kvyaml, 1, 101.Google Scholar
page 32 note 2 Ed.TSS., No. 6, p. 65Google Scholar, commenting on Kumrasambhava, 2, 44.Google Scholar Sarvnanda refers to Vallabha, 's comments on Mgha, 5, 24 (pt. 2, p. 23)Google Scholar and Kumrasambhava, 5, 74.Google Scholar