On the Date of the Subhasitavali
Author(s): S. K. De
Source: The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland , Jul.,
1927, No. 3 (Jul., 1927), pp. 471-477
Published by: Cambridge University Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25221176
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland
This content downloaded from
129.128.216.34 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:44:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
On the Date of the Subhasitavali
By S. K. DE
T>ETERSON, in his edition of the Subhasitavali, wrote i
18861 : " Of the compiler [of the anthology] all we can say
is that he cannot have flourished before Jainoll?bhad?na
[i.e. Zain ul-4Abid?n], whose date is given by Cunningham
as a.D. 1417-67." Aufrecht places Vallabhadeva, th
compiler of this important Sanskrit anthology, in the sixteenth
century a.D., on the ground that Vallabhadeva has laid the
e?riigadhara-paddhati under contribution in compiling hi
anthology.2 With this view Winternitz seems to agree.3
The reference to Vallabhadeva and his Sul)h?sit?vali,
however, by Vandyaghat?ya Sarv?nanda in his fik?
sarvasva on the lexicon of Amara4 appears to conflict with
the date conjectured by Peterson and Aufrecht. Commenting
on the alternative forms jav? and jap?, Sarv?nanda points
out 6 that a pun based on the possibility of these two forms
is to be found in a verse in the Subhasitavali of the K??m?ra
Vallabhadeva : ka?m?ra-vallabhadeva-racita-subha?it?valyam
api pakar?nta-?lesah, tath? ca
madanam avahkya nisphalam anityat?m api [ca] bandhu
?v?n?m |
vanam upagamya bhramarah samprati j?to jap?saktah \ \
This verse actually occurs anonymously as No. 726 of the
Subhasitavali,6 and there can be hardly any doubt as to the
correctness of the attribution. It is clear, therefore, that this
anthology was known to Sarv?nanda, and his date should
1 Introduction, p. 114.
2 Catalogue Catalogorum, i, p. 555a. This date is not justifiable in itself,
as the Sariigadhara-paddhati was compiled about a.D. 1363.
3 Geschichte der ind. Lit.,i\it p. 158.
4 Ed. Trivandrum Sansk. Ser. 1914-17.
6 Pt.ii, k?nq!aii, varga 4, p. 130.
* The reading slightly varies. In tho second p?da there is, before bandhu?t
a ca, which is required by tho metro (as restored by us). In tho third p?da,
instead of vanam, the reading in tho anthology ?b gurum.
This content downloaded from
129.128.216.34 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:44:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
472 ON THE DATE OP THE SUBHASITAVALI
give us the lower terminus to its date. Sarv?nanda himself
gives us a clue as to the time when his commentary was
actually composed. Commenting on the passage daive yuga
sahasre dve br?hmah,1 he states : id?nim caik?sili-vars?dhika
sahasraika-paryantena hakSbda-k?lena sasli-vars?dhika
dvicatv?rim?aechal?ni kali-sandhy?y? bh?t?ni. In other
words, the ?aka-yeav 1081 and the Kali-year 4260 had
passed away at the moment he was writing.2 This would
give us a.D. 1160 as the date of Sarvananda's commentary.3
1 K?la-varga, ?l. 21 (Pt. i, k?nda i, varga 4, pp. 90-1).
2 In the copy of Sarv?nanda's commentary noticed by Seshagiri Sastri
(Report, 1893-4, No. 2, p. 26), this reference to K??m?ra-Vallabhadevaracita
Subhasitavali also occurs; but relying on Peterson's date, Seshagiri Sastri
places Sarv?nanda between a.d. 1417 and 1431, the last date being obtained
by the latter's priority to R?yamukut-a (p. 24). But the learned Sastri appears
to have overlooked this passage bearing on the date of the commentary. The
other Vallabha cited by Sarv?nanda (Pt. ii, pp. 23, 350) is obviously the well
known scholiast Vallabha, who belonged to the first half of the tenth century
and wrote commentaries on the standard mah?k?vyas; for Sarv?nanda's
citations contain a reference to his commentaries on &isup?la? and Kumara?.
3 No fact has yet come to light which would make us doubt or dispute the
authenticity of this date given by Sarv?nanda himself. He appears to quote
no author who is known to be of a later date than the middle of the twelfth
century. This date may be corroborated by another fact. Sarv?nanda calls
himself fandyaghatiyartihara-putra. The word randyaghafi is well known
in Bengal as connected with the name of the village from which Vandya or
Vandyaghat?ya Brahmans take their name. We need not take the explanation
of Mm. Harapras?d &astri (appended in a note to Seshagiri's Report cited above)
that it denotes a person who has married a girl of superior status; for it is
probably here a proper name, Sarv?nanda describing himself as the son of
one Artillara. The name actually occurs in the form of Atinara or Atibara
in the genealogical table of Vandyaghati Brahmans given in Hari Mi?ra's
K?rik? (quoted in Nagendran?th Vaau's Vanger J?t?ya Itih?sa, p. 138). It
must also be noted that ?tihara's brother's son Va mana received (according
to these Kula-panjilc?s) kula-nutry?d? from Ball?lasena (op. cit., p. 142, f.n.),
one of whose known dates is A.D. 1160. This date coincides happily with that
given by Sarv?nanda. It is curious, however, that the name of ?tihara's
son is not recorded in these genealogical accounts. This is somewhat puzzling ;
but possibly it may bo explained by the not unlikely supposition that as
Sarv?nanda left Bengal for the distant South (where alone his work has been
preserved, and not in Bengal), no account either of him or his family was known
or kept in the genealogical books compiled in Bengal for purposes of social
reference. Mr. Nagendran?th Vasu, however, makes a mistake (op. cit., p. 198,
f.n.) when he identifies our author with a much later and better known Sarv?
nanda, whose father's name is given as Digambara.
This content downloaded from
129.128.216.34 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:44:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ON THE DATE OF THE SUBHASITAVALI 473
Vallabhadeva's anthology, therefore, must be presumed to
have been either contemporaneous with or composed before
this date.
Let us now see if there is anything in the data furnished
by the Subh?sitdvali itself which would conflict with this
conclusion. Of a largo number of authors cited in this
anthology, we possess no authentic information ; but those
about whom our knowledge is more definite can be grouped
into three classes : (1) Those who flourished before the date
proposed by us, i.e., before, say, a.D. 1150 ; (2) those who were
contemporaneous with this date ; and (3) those who
may be supposed to have lived after this date. We need
not consider the first of these groups. Of the second group,
i.e., of those authors who are known or conjectured to have
lived about the middle of the twelfth century, the names of
Jayadeva, Mankha, ?r?harsa, Kalhana, Hem?c?rya, Jenduka,
and Kaly?nadatta are notable. The four verses of Jayadeva
in this anthology are taken from his Gita-govinda ; of the
thirty-three verses of Mankha, about thirty can be traced
in his ?rikanlha-carita ; and almost all of the seventy-seven
verses of $r?harsa, who is generally cited with the designation
naisadJiakartr, are found in his well-known poem. In the
same way, almost all the verses of Kalhana in this anthology
are traceable in his R?ja-tarahgint.1 There is, therefore, no
doubt as to the identity of these authors. It is not clear,
however, if Hem?c?rya is the famous Jaina teacher and
versatile writer Hemacandra ; for only one verse of this
author is quoted, and it is difficult to locate it in the voluminous
writings of the industrious Jaina polygrapher. The case is
much the same with Jenduka and Kaly?nadatta, for it is
not clear if they are identical with the poets of the same
name 2 mentioned by Mankha as his contemporaries. While
Peterson identifies most of these citations. No. 1517, which is not found
in Naisadha, occurs anonymously in Kov?mlra-racana-eanmccaya as No. 206
and is probably wrongly attributed to ?r?harsa.
1 Mankha (&rikanthu? xxv, 71-2) culls him Jinduka.
This content downloaded from
129.128.216.34 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:44:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
474 ON THE DATE OF THE SUBHASITAVALI
one verse of each of these poets (not traceable anywhere)
is given in this anthology, we possess no information about
them (except what Mankha tells us) which would help us
in supporting this suggested identification. Even if these
identifications of Peterson be presumed, the resulting con
clusion would not make any difference. The citation of
contemporary authors need not by itself present any chrono
logical difficulty ; for it is not unreasonable to assume that
in compiling an anthology Vallabhadeva aimed at being
up to date by including quotations from contemporary poets,
most of whom were perhaps already famous and some of whom
were undoubtedly Kashmirians.1
The third group of poets cited, i.e., those who may be
supposed to have lived considerably later than the twelfth
century, may again be classed into two groups : (a) those
whose identity cannot be taken as clearly established, and
(b) those who can be identified with some amount of certainty.
In the first of these groups fall Amrtadatta (with the honorific
title b/i?gavata) and Arjunadeva. Peterson suggests that
Amrtadatta was a court-poet of Shih?b ud-D?n, whom he
places, on the authority of Cunningham, in a.D. 1335 ; while
he proposes to identify Arjunadeva with the Paramara Prince
Arjunavarmadeva, who lived in the first half of the thirteenth
century and wrote a commentary2 on the Amaru-?ataka,
in which he refers to Mu?ja V?kpatir?ja as his predecessor.
It is difficult to accept these identifications in the absence
1 Contemporary quotations are not unusual in anthologies, as instances of
it are not rare in fi?rivgadhara-paddhali and Sadukt?karyt?mrta. The probability
or fact that some of these authors lived beyond the middle of the twelfth
century into another decade or two is of no serious consequence to our con
clusion. Sarvananda's reference to a contemporary anthology, again, need
not be taken as unusual in a technical treatise. Thus Ruyyaka quotes in his
Alaink?rasarvasra (?d. K?vyam?l?, 35, p. 93) from Kalhana (R?ja4ara?,
iv, 441 ), which work was not completed till A.D. 1150, as well as from &rtkan(ha
carita of his own pupil Mankha, written about A.D. 1145. In a lexicon, as in
a work on poetics or grammar, such utilization of " modern " works is not
out of place but really admirable.
* Ed. K?vyam?l? IS, Bombay, 1916.
This content downloaded from
129.128.216.34 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:44:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ON THE DATE OP THE SUBHASITAVALI 476
of sufficient data. The verse No. 609 in the Sublia?it?vali,
attributed to Amrtadatta, is explained in the verse which
immediately precedes it (No. 608) as Shih?b ud-D?n's
challenge to an intending invader of Kashmir. From this
Peterson concludes that Amrtadatta was one of the court
poets of Shih?b ud-D?n. But no work of Amrtadatta, except
a few verses in the anthologies, is known to exist ; and the
evidence of the anthologies and later citations is not con
sistent, but points to an earlier date. One of Amrtadatta's
verses cited in the Subhasitavali (No. 43) is also given anony
mously in the Kavindra-vacana-samuccaya (No. 31) ; but
this latter anthology quotes no other poet who is known to
be of a later date than a.D. 1000.1 Amrtadatta has, again,
a verse in Sadukti-karn?myta (ed. Bibl. Ind., p. 147) in which
he extols the beauty of the ladies of Uttar?patha. The
date of this anthology is known to be A.D. 1206. It is also
noteworthy that the verse No. 43 of Amrtadatta is cited
anonymously by Mammava, who himself is quoted by Valla
bhadeva and who cannot be placed later than the end of the
eleventh century.2 All these facts would throw doubt on the
identification proposed by Peterson and render a revision
of Amrtadatta's date necessary. Of Arjunadeva, only
one verse (No. 1822) is quoted in the Subhasitavali, and
it cannot be traced in the only known commentary of
Arjunavarmadeva, with whom Peterson seeks to identify him.
There are hardly any available data which would justify this
identification, which must still be regarded as a mere
conjecture.
Greater difficulty is presented by those authors who can
be identified with some amount of probability or certainty
with authors who are known to have lived after the twelfth
century. These arc R?j?naka Jonar?ja and ?ri-Baka
pan?lita. The title r?j?naka of the former would indicate
that Jonar?ja was probably a Kashmirian ; but there is
1 Thomas, Introduction, p. 16.
* See my Sanskrit Poetics, i, pp. 158 f.
JRAS. JULY 1927. 31
This content downloaded from
129.128.216.34 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:44:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
476 ON THE DATE OF THE SUBHASITAVALI
no other evidence 1 which would enable us to identify him
definitely with Jonar?ja who is known to have continued the
R?ja-taranginl and lived in Kashmir in the reign of Zain
ul-'Abid?n in the beginning of the fifteenth century. One
?r?-Baka is mentioned in Srivara's continuation of the
R?ja-tarangir?, and is known to have flourished in the reign
of the prince named above. The verse No. 2633 of the
Subh?sitdvali explains that No. 2632 was composed by
?r?-Baka for the delectation of Zain ul-'Abid?n. This some
what pedestrian verse, however, is composed in the ordinary
anustubh-metre, and is couched in a strange form which
introduces the poet in the first person :
?rt-jainollabhoMn?rtham ?loko'yam catu-mi?ritah \
?r?-bakena may?k?ri v?ride hima-v?rsirii | |.
The genuineness of these references to historical personages
cannot be doubted ; but it is not clear if these verses have not
found their way into the anthology at some later time. If
we are to rely on Sarvananda's date and his citation of the
anthology and its compiler, there is no other alternative
but to regard these verses as later interpolations into the
work. From Peterson's own account in the Preface, it is
evident that the Subh?sitavali was much studied in Kashmir ;
and the first MS. of the work, which he received from Pandit
Durg?pras?d, is described by him as being the one which
the Pandit " had himself used when a pupil in Kashmir ".
In an anthology which was in current use, it could not have
been difficult to interpolate at a later time verses of contem
porary authors relating to well-known princes. This may bo
suspected from the fact that Peterson's manuscript C inter
polates verses which are not found in A, B, and D, and which
Peterson himself believes to be inconsistent with what he
considers to have been the original text. This suspicion
gains support also from the readings of the South Indian
1 None of the three verses attributed to Jonar?ja by Vallabhadeva are
traceablo in Jonaraja's continuation of the li?ja>taru?.
This content downloaded from
129.128.216.34 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:44:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
ON THE DATE OF THE SUBHASITAVALI 477
MS. of the Subhasitavali referred to by Ramakrishna Kavi,1
which gives verses and names not traceable, or ascribed to
different authors, in the printed edition of the text.
We may now summarize what we have tried to discuss
above in this way :?
(1) Peterson had good reasons to assign the Subhasitavali
to a date not earlier than the fifteenth century from the
reference in one of the verses to Zain ul-'Abid?n, and from
the probability that some of the poets included were con
temporaneous with that prince.
(2) But Sarv?nanda undoubtedly knew this anthology,
which he cites and quotes from, along with the name of the
compiler.
(3) Sarv?nanda gives the date of his commentary (in which
this citation occurs) as a.d. 1160.
(4) There is no reason (apart from the conflict with the
accepted date of the Subhasitavali) to doubt or dispute this
date given by Sarv?nanda of his own commentary.
(5) If we are to accept the limit supplied by Sarv?nanda's
date, we must consider all references to or verses of later
authors or personages in the anthology as interpolations.
(6) Sarv?nanda's reference in a.D. 1160 to the Subhasitavali
and its author, and his quotation from it, supply the lower
limit to its date, and do not justify such a late date for
the anthology as the fifteenth century assigned by Peterson.
(7) The quotation in this anthology from poets who lived
about a.d. 1150 makes it probable that it could not have been
compiled very far from this date.
1 Preface to Avantisundar?-kath?, p. 4 ; Preface to Caturbhani, pp. ii, iv.
Tho MS. copy of the Subhasitavali mentioned in the Report of the Working of
the Peripatetic Parly of the Govt. Oriental MSS. Library, Madras, during 191&-19
(p. 40), does not contain tho name of tho compiler, and appears to be a different
work.
1st March, 1927.
This content downloaded from
129.128.216.34 on Sun, 24 Jan 2021 08:44:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
