Page images
PDF
EPUB

In Mahor, or Maholí, as the traditionary capital of a Rájá Bhoja, and in Bhojapura, near Farrukhabad, we possibly have traces of one or other of the Bhojas mentioned above.*

If Devas'akti had not been a usurper, Vinayakapála would naturally have deduced his ancestry from a more remote point than that at which he is seen to begin his family-tree.

In some part of the State of Gwalior there exists a huge inscription,†

"the middle country," as its alternative name. See Sir H. M. Elliot's Bibliographical Index to the Historians of Muhammedan India, Vol. I., p. 34.

In the tenth century, the city of Kanauj is said to have been the first city in all India.

Kanauj, according to the Haima-kos'a, IV., 39, 40, was denominated Gádhipura, Kanyakubja, Kányakubja, Kaus'a, Kus'asthala, and Mahodaya. I have seen all these names, Kaus'a excepted, in other books, or in inscriptions. The Harsha-charita calls Kanauj Kus'asthala. In the inscription under notice we have Mahodaya.

Of the various forms of the word from which Kanauj, Kanoj, or Kanawaj is corrupted, the most usual, in old manuscripts and inscriptions, is Kanyakubja. Kanyakubja likewise occurs, and with the countenance of the scholiast on the Haima-kos'a; and so, in the Dwirúpa-kos'a, does Kányákubja.

Mahobá, for numerous reasons, is not to be thought of as the modern representative of Mahodaya. Nor is Maudhá; nor is Mahedú. For indications guiding me to these conclusions, I have to thank Mr. Henry Dashwood, Judge of Banda.

For what looks like Mahodayá, as the name of a woman, a Thakkurání, see the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., second inscription at the end, ninth line.

The Hindu lexicographers apprize us, that Páțaliputra had a second appellation, that of Kusamapura. Hiouen-Thsang additionally declares, that the latter is the older. The late Professor Wilson, speaking of the Pushpapura of Daṇḍin, says: The term Pushpapura, the Flower-city, is synonymous with Kusumapura, and is essentially the same with what should probably be the correct reading, Páṭalipura, the Trumpet-flower city. A legend as old as the eleventh century, being narrated in the Kathá-sarit-ságara, published and translated by Mr. Brockhaus, has been invented, to account for the name Páțaliputra; but this has evidently been suggested by the corruption of the name, and does not account for it. That Patna was called Kusumapura, the Flower-city, at a late period, we know from the Chinese-Buddhist travellers, through whom the name Ku-su-mo-pu-lo became familiar to their countrymen." Das'a-kumára-charita, Introduction, p. 8.

Had Professor Wilson any doubt, when he used the expression "at a late period," that Hiouen-Thsang came to India in the seventh century?

But of Kanauj also, according to the Chinese pilgrim, Kusamapura was the more ancient designation. In support of this statement, Hindu authority is still wanting. See Voyages, &c., Vol. I., p 137; and Vol. II., pp. 224, 410.

Maholí is on the river Gumti, fifty-five miles north-east from Kanauj. Col. R. R. W. Ellis has it, that Bhoja reigned there in Samvat 1011, which corresponds to A. D. 954: but the authority for this statement is not very convincing. If the Bhojapura near Farrukhabad was named from a king of Kanauj, his memory has quite perished in what was once his own kingdom; seeing that the pandits of Bhojapura confound him with Bhoja of Dhárá. See pp. 173, 175, 179, and 185 of Col. Ellis's Legendary Chronicles of the Buildings of Ancient India, and Genealogical Lists of the Rajput and Brahmin Tribes. This suggestive volume was printed, for private circulation, at Delhi, in 1854.

It is in forty-six lines, each of which, measuring about two yards long, contains, or contained, not far from two hundred and twenty-five characters.

a transcript of which I owe to Colonel Alexander Cunningham, a gentleman whose name has long been most honourably identified with the subject of Indian archæology. Besides that my copy is full of breaks at the beginning, the native who executed it was, evidently, unable to discharge from his mind the impression, that he had before him ill-written modern Devanagarí. Though intending to prepare a facsimile, he has, in patches by the dozen, altered as many as eight or ten consecutive letters, and in such sort,no uniformity being observed in his commutations,-as to produce the very perfection of all that is unintelligible. It is not much that, without hazard of being deceived, I have succeeded in gleaning from his laborious infidelity.

From the two opening lines of the transcript, if they were unmutilated, we might discover who preceded the first king of name now legible in the inscription,-Mahendrapála. Near where he is spoken of is the date 960. Next comes Bhoja, and then Mahendrapála again, with the date 964. Further on Kshitipála is mentioned; and, after him, Devapála, the date 1005 being close by. These dates, I may observe, are not sufficiently particularized for one to certify their era by calculation.

Now, we have here, at least in seeming, the succession of Mahendrapála, Bhoja,* and Mahendrapála. Before the first of them, another Bhoja may originally have been enrolled; and, not impossibly, we have, after all, but a single Mahendrapála to enumerate. It is, then, barely suggestible, that, in these kings, we meet with the progeny of the Kanaujan Devas'akti. The kings of the record before us are memorialized as having granted away land, and other things, by way of local donaries,† in ten several years, ranging from 960 to 1025. * The Bhoja-whose father has been made out to be Rámachandra,-of the Thanesur inscription is, manifestly, a different person from any Bhoja referred to in this paper. See this Journal, for 1853, pp. 673-679.

S'ankaravaraman, of Cashmere, is said to have seized upon the kingdom of a Bhoja. Professor Wilson, who will hear of only one Bhoja, assumes, that he of Dhárá is intended. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., pp. 85, 86.

Most of them are appropriated to the service of Vishņu,—also called Náráyaṇa, and Chakraswamin,-who has, throughout the deeds, the title of bhaṭṭáraka. But other deities, great and small, are not forgotten; as S'iva, Umá, Vámana, Vais'wánara, Tribhuvanaswámin,—whoever he was,—and the obsolete Vandukiya and Bháilaswámin.

I have now produced two authorities for Chakraswámin, to add to Albirúní, cited by Messrs. Boehtlingk and Roth, in their Sanskrit-wörterbuch. See the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. VII., p. 27, and my note at p. 42, ibid.

Devapála's date, accordingly as it is computed in Samvat, or in S'aka, is equivalent to A. D. 968, or to A. D. 1103. On the theory, that we have here to do with the rulers of Kanauj, the fact, that Vináyakapála is passed by unnoticed, may be accounted for by supposing, that, in his reign, benefactions to the Gwalior temple were intermitted. Indeed, it would be unsafe to affirm, that his name may not lurk, undetected, in the waste of incoherence which divides Mahendrapála from Kshitipála. If Kanauj at any period reached as far as Benares in one direction, and as far as Gwalior in another, it must have been a sovereignty of first-class dimensions.*

We now come to the last line of Kanauj Hindu kings, with any propriety so entitled.† Little more has transpired, regarding them, than their appellations; and some of the years in which they held power, with exception of the first.

I. Chandra.

II. Madanapála, son of C. A. D. 1097.

III.

Govindachandra, son of M. A. D. 1120 and 1125. IV. Vijayachandra, son of G. A. D. 1163.‡

V. Jayachandra, son of V. A. D. 1177, 1179, and 1186. Chandra, who conquered Kanauj, was son of Mahíchandra, son of Yas'ovigraha. It is doubtful whether Yas'ovigraha was a king; and whether, if so, he is to be identified with one of two magnates

* Benares, when the inscription from Sárnáth was written, was a dependency of Gauda. That inscription, which-provided the printed copy is trustworthy,exhibits the names of Kings Mahípála, Sthirapála, and Vasantapála, is dated in a year 1083. Reckoned from Vikramaditya, this is equal to A. D. 1026; and to A. D. 1161, reckoned from S'áliváhana. If A. D. 1026 be its true time, Benares passed from the possession of the rulers of Kanauj antecedently to the invasion of Chandra. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. V., octavo edition, pp. 131, etc.

For an inscription still inedited, see the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XVII., p. 621. It came from Jhoosee, across the Ganges from Allahabad. I write with the plate before me but so numerous and so grave are its errors, that I shall not adventure a full translation. It contains a land-grant, the donor of which, King Vijayapála, son of Adyapála, son of Trilochanapala,- -seems to have lived on the banks of the Ganges, near Prayaga : 991588)q0F. Pratishthána is mentioned in it. The date is Samvat 1084, S'rávaṇa, vadi 4.

It should appear, therefore, that, already in the eleventh century, there were independent chieftains intermediate to Kanauj and Benares.

No equally early instance has, I believe, before been met with, in Sanskrit, of Prayaga as naming the confluence of the Ganges and Jumna. But Prayága was familiar to Albirúní.

See my paper on this family, in this Journal, for 1858, pp. 217-250.

With him synchronized a reputed tyrant, Hammíra. Captain Fell confounds, this Hammíra with Hammíra of S'ákambhari, who lived in the fourteenth century; and he misreads Col. Wilford. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., pp. 444, 448, and 455; and Vol. IX., pp. 188, 189.

*

named Vigraha. As for Jayachandra, he was defeated, and his. monarchy completely overthrown, by Shihábuddín, in A. D. 1194.†

Apart from the personages of whom I have been treating, detached kings of Kanauj, as mere names, are not unknown to investigators into the past history of India. In the main, however, great uncertainty invests all that has been asserted of them; and, furthermore, it does not fall within the programme of this paper to make them the subject of special inquiry.‡

Considering the illustrious station which Kanauj long maintained among Indian cities, we should expect to be able to refer to it a fair

* See this Journal, for 1858, pp. 217, 218, foot-note.

"Jayachandra went on a pilgrimage to Sinhálá (Ceylon), and received from Virabhadra, King of Sinhálá (whom, by the bye, he conquered) a most beautiful emale. Prithivirája, (commonly called Pithaurá), the last prince of the Chauhán dynasty, already enraged at Jayachandra, from a supposed assumption of having undertaken a sacrifice at which Prithivírája ought to have been allowed to preside, was exasperated at this; and a long and bloody war took place between the parties. This lasted until Anno Domini 1192, when Shihábuddín invaded the dominions of Pithaurá: Jayachandra entered into a league with the invader, and Pithaurá was slain in a desperate battle fought on the plains of Thanesar. The alliance between Shihabuddín and Jayachandra did not last long; for, in the year 1194, a great battle was fought between them, near Etawa, in which Jayachandra's army was totally routed; he himself was obliged to flee, and, in attempting to cross the Ganges in a small boat, was drowned." Captain Fell, in the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., pp. 456, 457. But compare Vol. IX., pp. 171, 172; and the Ayín-i-Akbarí, Vol. II., pp. 97-99.

According to the Rauzatu-t-táhirín, Shihabuddín captured three hundred elephants from the Rájá of Kanauj. See Sir H. M. Elliot's Bibliographical Index to the Historians of Muhammedan India, Vol. I., p. 301.

In Kshemankara's Jaina version, in Sanskrit, of the Sinhásana-dwátrins'atí, it is stated, that there was a Rájá Marunda, of Kanyakubja, whose ghostly adviser was Pádalipta Súri. In the Kathá-kos'a, another Jaina work, Pálitta,the Prakrit form of Pádalipta,-founder of the city of Pálitáná, is said to have instructed Rájá Muruṇḍa: but this prince's place of residence is not mentioned. He has not, I think, hitherto fallen under any one's notice. It will have been observed, that the name is variously spelled.

One Yas'ovarman, king of Kanauj, is said, in the Rája-taranginí, to have been dispossessed of his dominions by Lalitáditya, sovereign of Cashmere. This subjugation Professor Wilson, who surmises that it could have been but temporary, assigns to the first half of the eighth century. But the chronology of the Raja-tarangini stands, in general, in much need of adjustment. Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., pp. 45, 463.

Vírasinha is reported to have been the king of Kanauj who sent to Bengal the ancestors of its present Bráhmans. See this Journal, for 1834, p. 339, footnote; and Third Series of Papers grounded upon the General Reality of the Pauránika Characters, &c. Tellamor, Masurí: 1856.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

They were invited by " Adís'wara, king of Gauda, who is said to have reigned about nine hundred years after Christ." Colebrooke's Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. II, pp. 187, 188. Colebrooke originally wrote Adisúra,' "who is said to have reigned about three hundred years before Christ." Asiatic Researches, Vol, V., octavo edition, p. 64.

Colonels Wilford and Tod, the Muhammadan writers, and the numismatists, as contributors to our knowledge of Kanauj, need not detain us.

contingent of the Sanskrit literature of the silver age. Yet, so far as I can recollect, the sole extant* Sanskrit composition hitherto shown, except by myself, to be associated with it, is the Vis'wa-prakás'a, an homonymic lexicon, by Mahes'wara, written in the year 1111 of our era.†

To the Vis' wa-prakás'a we may certainly add the numerous productions of S'ríharsha, poet, philosopher, and chronicler. Out of nine of his works whose titles have come down to us, only two are known to have survived to the present day; the Naishadha-charita and the Khandana-khanda-khúdya. All that we can be sure of, in respect of the age of S'ríharsha, is, that he was later than Kings Chhanda and Sáhasánka, and earlier than the Saraswati-kanțhábharana, in which the Naishadha-charita is quoted.‡

* On the faith of the Rája-taranginí, a Bhavabhúti was patronized by Yas'ovarman of Kanauj. Was he the well-known dramatist ? As there has been a plurality of Kálidásas, why may there not have been a plurality of Bhavabhútis likewise? Vákpati is named along with Bhavabhúti; and there were at least two poets Vákpati. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., pp. 45, 86.

Having Kanauj in view, Professor Wilson alleges, that "A prince named Sáhasánka must have occupied the throne about the middle of the tenth century; as Mahes'wara, the author of the Vis'wa-prakás'a in the year 1111, makes himself sixth in descent from the physician of that monarch." Asiatic_Researches, Vol. XV., p. 463: and see Sanskrit Dictionary, first edition, Preface, pp. xxvii., xxix.

This is a mistake. The account which Mahes'wara gives of his progenitors is as follows. First was Harichandra, a medical writer, who annotated on Charaka, and professionally served King Sáhasánka. Descended from Harichandra, but distant from him we know not how many generations, was Krishna, physician to an unnamed king of Gádhipura, or Kanauj. Krishna had a son, Damodara; and Damodara had two sons, Krishna, and another whose name is not specified. The latter had a son, Kes'ava. A son of the former was Brahma (?), who was father of Mahes'wara.

For the above I have consulted a very old manuscript; and it differs from those which have been examined in England. See Dr. Aufrecht's Calalogus Cod. Manuscript. Sanscrit, &c., Pars. I., pp. 187, 188.

Mahes'wara, besides being a lexicographer, wrote, he says, with other " great compositions," the Sahasánka-charita. Sáhasánka, of whom we have just read, was, without much doubt, lord of Kanauj. S'ríharsha, to whom we shall come presently, wrote a Nava-sáhasánka-charita. This name lends colour, at first sight, to the view, that S'ríharsha was posterior to Mahes'wara. The reverse was the case, possibly; and S'ríharsha may have rivalled some earlier biographer of Sáhasánka; whence his choice of a title.

Mahes'wara was contemporary with king Madanapála; and Sáhasánka, if of Kanauj, was of the family from which the realm was usurped by Chandra.

For further particulars, see the Preface to the Vásavadattá, pp. 17, 18, foot-note.

A caustic anecdote is told of S'ríharsha. I have often heard it from the mouths of the pandits; and it has been related, in print, by Pandit Is'warachandra Vidyáságara, in his Bangálí pamphlet entitled Sanskrita-bháshá-o-Sanskrita-sahitya-s'ástra-vishayaka-prastáva.

« PreviousContinue »