Page images

In Mahor, or Maholi, as the traditionary capital of a Réjii 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, Viniiyakapéla 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 inscripti0n,f atranscript of which I owe to Colonel Alexander Cunningham, a gentleman whose name has long been most honourably identified with the subject of Indian archaeology. 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 Devamigari. 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 commuta.tions,—~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.

“ the middle country,” as its alternative name. See Sir H. M. Elli0t’s Biblio

graphical 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.

Kaiiaiij, according to the Haima-km’ a, IV., 39, 40, was denominated Gédhipura, Kanyakubja, Kanyukubja, 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 Kanaiij Kus’athala. In the inscription under notice we have Mzihodaya.

Of the various forms of the word from which Kanauj, Kanoj, or Kanawaj is corrupted,_tli_e most usual, in old manuscripts and inscriptions, is Iianyakubja. Kanyakubyi likewise occurs, and with the countenance of the scholiast on the .H'aima-7¢o.v'a ,- and so, in the Duririipa-kos'a, does Kéiiyékubja.

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

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

The Hindu lexicographers apprize us, that Piitaliputra ,ilfld 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 Dandin, sayis : “ The tefimtfiushpapui':LthehFi0w§r-cfgy, is i)y!g?!ly‘!JI\O1t1}S1 with Kuzumagura, an is essentia y e same wi w u s ou pro :1 y e e correc 1-ea ing lhitalipui-a, the '1‘.rumpet-flowerlcity: legend as_old as the eleventh century: being narrated in the Katha-sartt-sagara, published and ,translated by Mr. Brockhaus, has been invented, to account for the name Pataliputra; but this has evidently been suggested by the corruption of the name, and does not account for it. That Patna was called Kusuinapiira, the Flower-city, at a late period, we know from the Chinese-Buddhist travellers, through whom the name ;{l1—Sl:1-lDO_-pl].-10 gecame familiar to their countrymen.” Da.v’a~kum¢ira-charita,

ntro uction p. .

Had Profiessor Wilson any doubt, when he used the expression “ at a late period,” that Hiouen-'I‘hsang_came to India-in the seventh century ?

But of Kanauj also, according to the Chinese pilgrim, Kusamiipura was the mfipe anctient dgsignration. I2 Bl_1VP[i0I‘Ii5 of sta:ie$er1it,HHindu2 éiiitlgpgity is

t in. ee oages o. 0..p -an 0. .p. . 81* glidlholig is on theyrivei: Giimti, fiifty-five ,lDil65 north-taslt) frond Kanauj. 001. R. R. W. Ellis has it, that Bhoja reigned there in Samvat 1011, which corresponds to A. D. 9541: 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 pundits of Bhojapura confound him with B_hoja of Dha'n':'i. _Sea pp. 173, 175, 179, and 185 of Col. Ellis s Legendary Chronicles of the Buildings of Ancient India, and Genealogical Lists of the 1_ia_jput_ and Brahm_in_ Tribes. This suggestive volume was printed, for private circulation, at Delhi, in 1854,.

1- 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.

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,—Mabendrapala. Near where he is spoken of is the date 960. Next comes Bhoja, and then Mahendrapzila again, with the date 9641. Further on Kshitipala is mentioned ; and, after him, Devapala, the date 1005 being close by. These dates, I may observe, are not sufiiciently particularized for one to certify their era by calculation.

Now, we have here, at least in seeming, the succession of Mahendrapala, Bhoja,* and Mahendrapala. Before the first of them, another Bhoja may originally have been enrolled; and, not impossibly, we have, after all, but a single Mahendrapala 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,'1' in ten several years, ranging from 960 to 1025. Devapala’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 Vinéyakapéla 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 atfirm, that his name may not lurk, undetected, in the waste of incoherence which divides Mahendrapaila from Kshitipzila. If Kanauj at any period reached as far

' The Bhoja—whose father has been made out to be Rémachandra,—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'ankaravai-amen, 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 Dhéré is intended. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., pp. 85, 86.

1- Most of them are appropriated to the service of Vishr_iu,—also called Narayann, and Chakraswémin,--who has, throughout the deeds, the title of bha_t_ta’raka. But other deities, great and small, are not forgotten; as S'iva, Umzi, Vamana, Vais’wénara, Tribhuvnnaswémin,—whoever he was,—and the obsolete Vandakiya and Bhéilaswémin.

I have now produced two authorities for Chakraswémin, to add to Albiriini, cited by Messrs. Boehtlingk and Roth, in their Sanskrit-worterbuoh. See the Journal Q/‘the American Oriental Society, Vol. VII., p. 27, and my note at p. 42, ibid.

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.1‘ 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. Madanapzila, 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 11,86.

Chandra, who conquered Kanauj, was son of Mahichandra, 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 named Vigrahafi‘ As for Jayachandra, he was defeated, and his monarchy completely overthrown, by Shihabuddin, in A. D. 11941.1‘

* Benares, when the inscription from Sérnétli was written, was a dependency of Gauda. That inscription, which—provided the printed copy is trustworthy,— exhibits the names of Kings Mahipéla, Sthirapélu, and Vasantupéla, is dated in a year 1083. Reckoned from Vikramziditya, this is equal to A. D. 1026 ; and to A. D. 1161, reckoned from S’:ilivél1ana. IfA. D. 1026 be its true time, Benares passed from the possession of the rulers of Kananj antecedently to the invasion of Chandra. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. V., octavo edition, pp. 131, etc.

For an inscription still ineclite<l,see the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XVIL, p. 621. It came from Jlioosee, 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 Vijayapala, son of A'dyape'\lu, son of '1‘rilochanapala,—seems to have lived on the banks of the Ganges, near Prayéga: S['q]I['Q"l-;fiq"J[',1=‘[?|'Z]‘0. Pratislitlizina is mentioned in it. The date is Samvat 1084-, S’r:ivar_1a, vadi 41.

It should appear, therefore, that, already in the eleventh century, there were independent chieftuins intermediate to Kananj and Benares. _

N0 equally early instance has, I believe, before been met with, in Sanskrit, of Prayéga as naming the confluence of the Ganges and J umna. But Prayaga was familiar to 'Albir|'1ni. _

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

I With ‘him synchronized a reputed tyrant, Hammira. Captain Fell conf0unds_ this Hammira. with Hnmmira of Sfiikambliari, who lived in the fourteenth century ; and he misreads Col. Wilford. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., pp. 44-4, 4-48, and 455; and Vol. IX., pp. 188, 189.

'Apart from the personages of whom Ihave 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.I

Considering the illustrious station which Kanauj long maintained among Indian cities, we should expect to be able to refer to it a fair contingent of the Sanskrit literature of the silver age. Yet, so far as I can recollect, the sole exta.nt* Sanskrit composition hitherto shown, except by myself, to be associated with it, is the Vis’wa-pra7cris'a, an homonymic lexicon, by Ma.hes’wara, written in the year 1111 of our era..'f

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

1‘ “ Jayacliandra went on a pilgrimage to Sinliélé (Ceylon), and received from Yirabhadra, King of Sinhahi (whom, by t-he bye, he conquered) a most beautiful ‘emale. Prithiviraja, (commonly called Pitliaura), the last prince of the Chau

rhén dynasty, already enraged at Jayachandra, from a supposed assumption of ' having undertaken a sacrifice at which Prithiviraja 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 Shihiibuddin invaded the dominions of Pithaura : Jayachandra entered into a league with the invader, and Pithaurzi was slain in a desperate battle fought on the plains of Thanesar. The alliance between Shihzibudrlin a_nd Jayachandra did not last long; for, in the year 1194-, a great battle was fought between them, near Etawa, in which Iayachandrifs army was totally routed ; he hirnself 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 Ayin-i-Akbari, Vol. II., pp. 97-99.

According to the Rauzatu-t-tzihirin, Shihébuddin captured three hundred elephants from the Réja of Kanauj. See Sir H. M. Elliot’s Bibliographical Index to the Historians of Muhammedan India, Vol. I., p. 301.

1 In Kshcmankara’s J aina version, in Sanskrit, of the Sinhrisana-dwa'trins'ati, it is stated, that there was a Réjsi Marunda, of Kanyakubju, whose ghostly adviser was Padalipta Siiri. In the Katha-kos'a, another Jaina work, P:'\litta,— the Prakrit form of P:idalipta,—founder of the city of Yaliténé, is said to have instructed Réjé Murunda: 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 Rafja-iarangirii, to have been dispossessed of his dominions by Lalitéditya, 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 Réja-tarangirii stands, in general, in much need of adjustment. Asiatic Raltflfches, Vol. XV., pp. 45, 4.63.

Virasinha is reported to have been the king of Kanauj who sent to Bengal the ancestors of its present Bréhmans. See this Journal, for 1834, p. 339, footnote; and Third Series of Papers grounded upon the General Reality of the Paurzigaika Characters, &c. Tellamor, Masuri = 1856.

They were invited by “ A'dis'wara, king of Gaudn, who is said to have reigned about nine hundred years after Christ.” C0lebrooke’s Miscellaneous Essays, Vol. IL, pp. 187, 188. Colebrooke originally wrote “ Adisfira,” “ 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 Kauauj, need not detain us.

To the Vis’wa-_prakés'a we may certainly add the numerous productions of S'n'harsha, 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 Naishadka-charita and the Khagzzjana-khanda-lchadya. All that we can be sure of, in respect of the age of S’riharsha, is, that he was later than Kings Chhanda and Szihasiinka, and earlier than the Saraswatz'-7ca1_2_thabkarazza, in which the Naishadka-charita is quoted:

* On the faith of the Riija-tarangizii, a Bhavabhfiti was patronized by Yas'ovarman of Kanauj. VVas he the well-known dramatist? As there has been a plurality of Kalidésas, why may there not have been a plurality of Bhavabhutis likewise? Vékpati is named along with Bhavabhiiti; and there were at least two poets Vzikpati. See the Asiatic Researches, Vol. XV., pp. 45, 86.

1' Having Kanauj in view, Professor Wilson alleges, that “ A prince named Szihasénka must have occupied the throne about the middle of the tenth century; as Mahes'wara, the author of the V'is'wa-pralca's'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 Sahasfinka. Descended from Harichandra, but distant from him we know not how many generations, was K;-ishi_1a, physician to an unnamed king of Gadhipura, or Kanauj. Krishna had a son, Drimodara; 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 avery old manuscript; and it differs from those which have been examined in England. See Dr. Aufrecht’s Calalogus Cod. Maazuscrijat. Sanscrit, &c.. Pars. 1., pp. 187, 188.

Mahes'wara, besides being a lexicographer, wrote, he says, with other “ great compositions," the Sa'hasa'ulca-charita. Séhasanka, of whom we havejust read, was, without much doubt, lord of Kanauj. S’ri'l1a1-slia, to whom we shall come presently, wrote a Nana-sa'hasa'nka-charita. This name lends colour, at first sight, to the view, that S’riharsha was posterior to Mahes'wara. The reverse was the case, possibly ; and S’riharsl1a may have rivalled some earlier biographer of Sahasanka; whence his choice of a title.

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

I For further particulars, see the Preface to the I'asavadm.‘ta', pp. 17, 18, foot-note.

A caustic anecdote is told of S'riharsha. I have often heard it from the mouths of the pandits; and it has been related, in print, by Pundit l's'warachandra Vidyéségara, in his Bangéli pamphlet entitled »S'ans/c_rita-b7m'-slui-o-Sansk_rita-sziIn't_1/a-.s’éstra-visbaya/ca-prasiriva.

« PreviousContinue »