Part 8 - Impact of previous poets upon Maṅkhaka

Maṅkhaka is observed to have been influenced by his predecessors. This impact has been felt in respect of some ideas as well as in form. Maṅkhaka’s acquaintance with the literary creations of previous poets, however, in no way stained the poetic beauty of his work. On the contrary, it enhances the literary value of his poem. It is really a tough task to appraise the impact of previous poets and their writings upon a particular poet or on his works. The two great epics viz. the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata have exercised tremendous influence nearly on all the writers of any Indian language. The poets like Kālidāsa, Bhāravi, Māgha, Ratnākara, Bilhaṇa and others have chosen their subject-matter mostly from these two sources. Like Bhāravi and Māgha, Maṅkhaka too takes up the story of his poem from the Pūrāṇas as well as the Mahābhārata Along with this; Maṅkhaka brings on some set pieces of narration and description from previous poets. Maṅkhaka owes to aforesaid predecessors both directly and indirectly, which may be discussed below.

Maṅkhaka is found to be influenced much by the writings of Kālidāsa. He is seen employing some ideas of the former. As for example, Kālidāsa, in his Raghuvaṃśa, narrates the shaping of ornaments on the bride’s face^[1], likewise, Maṅkhaka describes the smoke, structuring ornaments on various limbs of the idol of Lord Śiva.^[2] Again, Maṅkhaka presents the morning scene of awakening of the Lord by the bards in canto XVI, in a similar manner as found in Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṃśa^[3] Maṅkhaka portrays Śṛṅgāra^[4], his brother, as the repository of learning and riches, which clearly indicates Maṅkhaka’s familiarity with a similar description found in the Raghuvaṃśa^[5] In the same way, there is a reflection of the Raghuvaṃśa^[6], in the statement that, it was only due to the mountain Kailāsa that the other mountains could be said to have a good king.^[7] Besides, in the representation of the glowing vegetables in the verse, divāpi pūtāsu^[8] ……, pravyajyamānodaraśaila^[9] …….., there is the resonance of Kumāra.^[10] There is similarity of exressions viz. ratīpradīpa and suratapradīpa, in the statements respectively of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and the Kumāra.^[11] In the description of the thighs^[12] of a female, said to be defeating the shaft of a plaintain tree, there is an echo of the description found in the Kumāra.^[13] Maṅkhaka’s depiction of a male holding a play-lotus in hand^[14], is again an imitation of a suitor king’s rotating a lotus in hand in the Raghuvaṃśa^[15] Besides, under the influence of Kumāra.^[16], Maṅkhaka employs the term ahnāya^[17] in his poem for so many times. Maṅkhaka applies the term kūlamudruja^[18], which is also the influence of Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṃśa Some other verses^[19], also, testifiy Kālidāsa’s impact on Maṅkhaka.

Thus, Kālidāsa influenced Maṅkhaka a lot. But, it must be mentioned here that these influences improve Maṅkhaka’s poem. Both the Purāṇas as well as the poetry of Kālidāsa become beneficial for Maṅkhaka, in the sense that his poem remains relatively simple and this simplicity resists him from exhibiting pedantry and artificiality to a great extent, in comparison to other counterparts of his time. There are so many examples of simplicity of the style of Maṅkhaka, which can even vie with Kālidāsa such as tanotu bhūtiṃ^[20] ……., vitīrṇaśikṣā iva hṛtpadastha^[21] ……., guṇairmayūkhairiva śuddhimattarai^[22] …, maṇikāñcirañcitavilocanayā^[23] ……, nisargabhrūbh aṅgavyatikara^[24] …….., and many more.^[25]

Above are the examples of similarities between the two poets. But, there are vast differences also between them, regarding style and diction. Kālidāsa’s style is simple, graceful and charming and he resorted to Svabhāvokti and Upamā. However, Maṅkhaka’s style is a conglomeration of simplicity and artificiality.Though in Maṅkhaka, there is enough of grace of expression and melody of verse and still it lacks the charming simplicity of Kālidāsa, as observed by some scholars. But, there is no denial of the fact that Maṅkhaka too possess the neatness of versification, magnificence of diction, luxury of imagery and display of erudition is there in his style. However, in lieu of Svabhāvokti of Kālidāsa, in Maṅkhaka, the reader will get Vakrokti and Atiśayokti, in place of Upamā, one will find Utprekṣā. Whereas, the style of Kālidāsa is suggestive, that of Maṅkhaka is expressive. Though these are some of the points of difference between them, even then, as noticed in previously quoted examples, Maṅkhaka’s style of composition is akin to Kālidāsa in many instances. Again, though form predominates in Maṅkhaka’s style, even then, there is the richness of suggestion of rasas, poetic fancy as well as other embellishments, which no doubt attracts the heart of the reader, contrary to the supposition that ‘it fails to touch the heart of the reader’.^[26] Again, Kālidāsa being a poet of a much earlier period got the advantage of his age^[27], while during the time of Maṅkhaka, the literary taste of the people changed. Therefore, to satisfy his readers and adapt himself to the changing pattern, Maṅkhaka had to take recourse to a bogus style, but thanks to the influence of the Purāṇas and especially to Kālidāsa, that he restricted himself to a comparatively simple style to some extent, inspite of the general trend of that period of time. Even Maṅkhaka’s Vakrokti, being the root of his poetry, create strikingness and his Utprekṣās too, with its inherent charm, help in relishing the sentiment. Like Kālidāsa, Maṅkhaka too is suggestive regarding the suggestion of the rasas, but Kālidāsa’s suggestions are concised and balanced, while, Maṅkhaka is more detailed and extravagant.

Regarding descriptions, Kālidāsa’s are more compact and connected, while Maṅkhaka’s narrations are incorporated there in the poem to build his poem as a literary epic and those descriptions are, as if, loosely hanging around with the main plot. Though Maṅkhaka is accused of artificiality, but, poets like Kālidāsa too have been stained by some of the faults such as the deliberate employment of Yamakas in the beginning of every last pāda of each śloka^[28], use of technical words^[29], use of difficult words^[30], astrological view^[31] and tricks on grammar.^[32] But, Kālidāsa handles this rare artificiality with great skill of poetic art and his originality remained intact, with a contrast to Maṅkhaka, who is mostly re-creative. No doubt, the poetry of Kālidāsa attracts one’s heart for his simplicity, creativity and diversity, but still one can not refute the magnanimity of Maṅkhaka as a literary marvel. There may be a difference of degree, but the creations of both the poet appeal the heart of its readers. As Maṅkhaka represents himself as a poet of learnging or the period of decadence, whatsoever, he bears some of the merits of Kālidāsa and some common demerits of his successors. Even then, he occupies a unique place among the post Kālidāsian literary figures.

It is Kālidāsa, in which the literary epics reaches at its zenith’s height. This is the point of saturation, from which onwards gradually the process of decline starts. Because the successors of Kālidāsa, although have tried their level best to maintain the norms set up by Kālidāsa, most of them end up by exhibiting learning. It is not that all of them do not have talent, some of them do bear evidence of that spark, but their erudition devoured the poetic talent. The intentional showing off has not done any good to them. To name a few, Bhāravi, Bhaṭṭi, Ratnākara and Māgha are some of them. Bhāravi is accused of as the beginner of mannerism in his successors. His impact upon Māgha is so profound that Māgha excelled Bhāravi not only in his virtues but in his vices also and thereby develops Bhāravi’s mannerism. Bhāravi’s style is characterized by use of double entendre, use of obsolete and difficult words, fondness for displaying grammatical and metrical expertise and superb control over language, as supported by various bandhas. Māgha is also adorned by these features. Maṅkhaka too being a successor of the above poets, shares some of the above characteristics along with the Kālidāsian hue. Though Maṅkhaka accepts the format of the literary epics, however, he is seen to have maintained a kind of harmony between literary genius and erudition. Ofcourse, he bears some striking similarities with that of his predecessors. Maṅkhaka owes to his predecessors both for the form and matter, but the craftsmanship is his own. He is indebted to Kālidāsa, for his relatively easy style. Again, he is also influenced by Bhāravi, Māgha and Bilhaṇa regarding the use of complicated terms. Maṅkhaka employs some uncommon and obsolete words also, out of impact of his predecessors. Maṅkhaka seems to have been influenced both by Bhāravi^[33] and Māgha^[34] in the employment of the metre Udgatā, in canto IX of his Śrīkaṇṭhacarita.

The influence of Bhāravi has been noticed on Maṅkhaka in the employment of some difficult words, in the same meaning in which Bhāravi uses them. As for example, Maṅkhaka^[35] uses the term andhas in the sense of food, as it has been found to have used in the Kirātārjunīya^[36] Again, the words śāratā^[37], śāritā^[38] etc. are also used in the same meaning in both the poems. Maṅkhaka makes use of some ideas from Kirātārjunīya also.^[39] Maṅkhaka’s familiarity with Bhāravi has been evinced by the reference of Bhāravi, by name in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita.^[40] Inspite of the above-mentioned similarities, there are much difference between the two poets. Whereas, Bhāravi uses direct but complex language, Maṅkhaka opts for indirect but comparatively easy expressions. While, Bhāravi is descriptive and argumentative, Maṅkhaka not only shows expertise in description and suggestion, but also seen to have been more inclined towards the emotional aspects. Besides, Maṅkhaka keeps a balance between literary genius and learning, as mentioned earlier. Along with these, there is limited scope of originality for Maṅkhaka, as he has taken up a fixed format of literary epic, provided by his predecessors. However, Maṅkhaka donot go for the verbal jugglery, use of bandhas employed by Bhāravi in his poem.^[41] It’s a merit on Maṅkhaka’s part that he desists from employing the artificial wordfigures which are harmful to the soul of poetry i.e. rasa. However, Bhāravi sustains in high position, regarding the development of plot, in comparison to Maṅkhaka.

Like Bhāravi, Māgha too is, seen to have influenced Maṅkhaka a lot in composition of his poem. Regarding the impact of Māgha, on subsequent poets, De’s observation is important.^[42]

The influence of Māgha on Maṅkhaka is conspicuous by the use of peculiar vocabulary i.e. Maṅkhaka has used some difficult words in the same sense in which they are found employed by Māgha in his Śiśupālavadha As for example,

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita — Śiśu
kaḍāra XVIII. 19 — V. 3
kārmaṇa III. 12, 63 — X. 37
kutha XXV. 19 — I. 8
maṅkṣu XI. 52; XXII. 18 — V. 37
nibirīsa XVIII. 4 — VII. 20
saptatantu XXIV. 25 — XIV. 6
śāri XXIII. 29 — XV. 77
śuṣman XXIV. 29 — XIV. 22
tapas III. 8; IV. 56 — VI. 63
tulita XXIV. 1 V. 31; VIII. 12; — XV. 30, 61
utkalikā IX. 15 — III. 70
vipruṣ IV. 64; XIV. 46; XIX. 15; XXIV. 42 II. 18; VIII. 40

Again, Maṅkhaka takes up parallel ideas from Māgha, some of

which are as follows—

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita — Śiśu
IV. 2, 21 — I. 4; I. 50
VIII. 36 — VII. 48
IX. 12, 15 — VIII. 16, 14
X. 1 — IX. 1
XIII. 17 — IX. 73
XIV. 44 — X. 1
XVI. 1 — XI. 1
XVII. 65 — I. 57
XVIII. 2, 3 — XVII. 3, 8
XXI. 24 — XV. 88
XXII. 58 — XVIII. 1
XXIII. 25 — XVII. 25

Moreover, there is affinity between Māgha and Maṅkhaka, regarding the development of a plot, not only in the auxiliary descriptions^[43], but also in the depiction of the subject matter^[44] also. Again, both Māgha and Maṅkhaka are fond of the Śṛṅgārarasa and their inclination towards this rasa is so biased that this subordinate seniment supercedes the principal one i.e. Vīra, in the poem. Besides, Maṅkhaka has been influenced by Māgha even in case of amalgamation of the two sentiments also.^[45]

Thus, both Māgha and Maṅkhaka have been influenced by their previous poets. But Māgha tries to compose his poem upon the model of Bhāravi’s poem and thereby intentionally does tiresome labour to excel him, sometimes both the merits and demerits of Bhāravi have been crept into Māgha’s poem. Whereas, Maṅkhaka has been escaped from the mannerism of Bhāravi, which Māgha develops later on. The comparative simple style, maintaining of harmony between literary genius and scholarship as well as not taking recourse to bandhas etc. become the saviour for Maṅkhaka. Besides, Maṅkhaka is also, not found to have special inclination for a particular predecessor as like Māgha does. He also refrains from too much political conversation like the two poets. Regarding the use of alaṃkāras also, he keeps to simple and pleasant ones and abstains from employment of pedantic and improbable figures of Māgha. Thus, Maṅkhaka’s expressions are not at all extravagant, rather having poetic sensibility and those are very much touching. This way, Maṅkhaka too begs a position, if not surpassing, a parallel one with that of Māgha.

Maṅkhaka is again seems to be indebted to Ratnākara, who writes the Haravijaya (Haravijaya). Maṅkhaka’s gratefulness to Ratnākara may be discussed regarding identical technique of development of plot, taking resort to analogous ideas, use of some words in the same meaning as well as similar mode of suggestion of sentiments. The similar manner of arrangement of plot and striking likeness in expression is very much interesting to take note of, in both the works. Regarding the contents, the following cantos and the theme inhibited therein, of both the poem, may be evaluated.

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita — Haravijaya
III. 1-30 — I. 1-23
IV — IV
V — I. 34-62
VIII-X — XVII-XIX
XI-XII — XX
XIII — XXIII
XIV-XVI — XXVI-XXVIII
XVII. 18-32 — VII. 13-170
XVIII — VII
XIX — XLII
XX — XLI
XXIII — XLVIII-XLIX

Maṅkhaka seems to have been influenced by Ratnākara in the selection of the theme of his poem. This is evinced by the supposition that as the theme of the Haravijaya is the vanquishment of the demon Andhaka by Lord Śiva and there is frequent allusion of the tripuradahana legend^[46], therefore, it is very much probable that Maṅkhaka may get a hint from the poem Haravijaya, on the basis of which, he subsequently composes his Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. The borrowing of analogous ideas and expressions are noticed in the following references-

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita — Haravijaya
I. 16, V. 24 — I. 43
V. 5 — IV. 28
VIII. 19 — XVIII. 97
XVII. 18, 20, 21 — VI. 13, 103, 18, 39
XIX. 9, 10, 12 — VI. 4
XIX. 13 — V. 5

Again, Maṅkhaka employs some words in the same meaning as they are used by Ratnākara. As for example, abhyarṇavarti^[47], akāṇḍa^[48], sarvataḥ śrutiḥ^[49] etc. Besides, there is familiarity between the two poets, regarding the delineation of sentiments on their poems. Both of them has chosen the Vīrarasa as the aṅgīrasa in their poems, but gives more emphasis on delineation of the Śṛṅgāra and this subordinate sentiment surpasses the main one in their poems. That is to say that they are so much engrossed in the delineation of the subordinate one that they become forgetful to the demand of the theme and hence, there occur a fault, which however, is not only their demerit, it is a common defect, which is to be found in almost all the post Kālidāsa poets. Anyway, the manner of suggestion in Maṅkhaka’s poem makes one easily understand the impact, he had received from his predecessor Ratnākara. Again, in Ratnākara, one will get the bandhas^[50], which are completely absent in Maṅkhaka’s case and the excess artificiality which the author of the Haravijaya exhibits, is also missing in Maṅkhaka. Both gives some philosophical^[51] outlines, but while, Ratnākara is pedantic, abstruse and too much detailed, Maṅkhaka is comparatively easy going, pithy and balanced regarding this.

Bilhaṇa too influenced Maṅkhaka in many ways which is obvious from the use of some common as well as peculiar words in the same meaning, use of some identical descriptions, similar delineation of plot, employment of analoguous ideas, similar views on poetry, striking similarity in case of suggestiveness of sentiments, close affinity regarding style etc.

Both Maṅkhaka and Bilhaṇa has used the below-mentioned peculiar words in the same sense-

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita — Vikramāṅkadevacarita
preṅkhola I. 47; VII. 51 — XI. 82
kārmaṇa III. 12 — II. 14
dhoraṇī III. 26; XII. 50, 95; XIV. 2; XVIII. 30 — XVI. 42
hasantikā III. 29; VI. 15; XXII. 43 — XVI. 48
kaṇṭhīrava VI. 8 — XVII. 17
tṛṇāya na mene VI. 41 — tṛṇāya nāmanyata X. 52
aṅkapālī VI. 73; XIV. 63 — IV. 47; XIII. 12
netramaitrī VII. 9 — X. 20
jalārdrā X. 46 — IV. 24
kaṅkaṭa XII. 14; XIII. 3; XX. 59; XXII. 42; XXIII. 11 — XVI. 18
āndolita XII. 52 — X. 35
cīnapiṣṭa XIV. 22; 46; XVI. 22; XIX. 56; XXIII. 15 — III. 61; XIV. 68
parivṛḍha XVI. 13; XXIV. 41 — XVIII. 34
karpara XVI. 59 — XIV. 30
vaiśasaṃ XIX. 46; XXI. 8; XXII. 30; XXIII. 51 — III. 36; XIV. 16
pṛṣatka XX. 40, 41 — XVI. 42; VIII. 23
agrahāra XXV. 37 — XVIII. 19, 24, 39

Among the above examples, the word kārmaṇa has been employed by Māgha also. But, as both Bilhaṇa and Maṅkhaka makes use of the compound word kārmaṇakarma, hence, herein this case, the influence of Bilhaṇa is sure. Again, two words laṭabha^[52] and hevāka^[53] have been used both by Maṅkhaka and Bilhaṇa. Of these, the word hevāka is probably of Persian or Arabic origin.

Some identical descriptions are found in both the poem. As for example, firstly, the description of the good and the bad^[54], may be mentioned here. The destcription of the spring season (VI), swinging sports (VII), flower-plucking (VIII), water-sports (IX) etc. are also found in the Vikramāṅkadevacarita, canto X. Besides, in Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, there is the description of evening twilight (X), the moon (XI), the moon-rise (XII), drinking of liquor (XIV), passionate games (XV), the morning (XVI), which are also to be found in canto XI of the Vikramāṅkadevacarita Though this type of descriptions, are available in almost all the court epics, even then the description of the good and the bad, swinging sports are exclusively peculiar to the Vikramāṅkadevacarita and the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. In addition to that, their order of occurance is surprisingly similar in both the poems. This invariably proves that certainly, Maṅkhaka must have kept the Vikramāṅkadevacarita as a model, while composing the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. Moreover, certain descriptions supplied in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita^[55], such as the censure of the moon by the maidens, whose lovers are found guilty of infidelity under the influence of a similar censure of the moon by women in separation found in the Vikramāṅkadevacarita^[56] Maṅkhaka depicts the physical beauty of a female, which is similar to a description found in Bilhaṇa’s poem.^[57]

In case of delineation of plot also, Maṅkhaka is grateful to Bilhaṇa. However, Maṅkhaka is equally influenced by Māgha and Ratnākara too, in this regard. Other examples of common descriptions of Maṅkhaka and Bilhaṇa are as follows-paying homage to different gods and goddesses^[58], delineation of the province of Kashmir and its city Pravarapura^[59], portrayal of the rulers of Kashmir^[60], depiction of the Murala beauties situated in Kerala^[61], reference of Gopuras.^[62] Moreover, the entreaty of Lord Śiva to Goddess Pārvatī for beholding the charm of the spring season may be seen as a reflection of similar behaviour of Vikrama, the king and his consort.^[63] In addition to these, Maṅkhaka has provided a detailed description of his lineage in similar manner with that of Bilhaṇa.^[64]

Some example of employment of analogous ideas are incorporated below—

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita — Vikramāṅkadevacarita
II. 1, 48 — I. 1, 6
II. 2, 7, 12 — I. 11, 19, 14
II. 41 (Vaidarbhī rīti);
II. 30, 38, 47, 49 (good expression);
II. 31, 39, 40, 55 (good poet);
II. 3, 16, 18, 21, 23, 25 (cunning people); — I. 9, 13 and I. 22, 29; I. 17, 18; I. 18; 29
III. 2 — I. 99
III. 10, 19 — XVIII. 5, 6
III. 22, 25 — II. 14, 4
III.60, 61 — XVIII. 86
V. 23 — VII. 26, 37
VI. 56; VII. 55 — VII. 18
VII. 10, 66 — X. 21, 33
X. 12, 27 — XI. 2, 23
XI. 52-62 — XIV. 41-45
XIV. 52 — VII. 22
XIX. 48-66 — IV. 32-34

Of these, in the verse, XIV. 52 of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and VII. 22 of the Vikramāṅkadevacarita, there is resemblance between the second half of both the verses, not only regarding idea contained, but, in the manner of expression also.^[65]

Bilhaṇa and Maṅkhaka, both of them holds some parallel views on poetry e.g. they speak highly of the Vaidarbhī rīti. Rasa^[66] or the sentiment and vakrokti^[67] or the crooked speech are the favourite of both of them, both keeps high opinion, regarding intellect^[68] in a poem, opts for a erudite authority^[69] for approval of a literary piece of work and believes that the blessing of the mother of the poets (Sarasvatī), is the cause of poems.^[70]

Regarding delineation as well as maintaining the suggestiveness of sentiments, both are quite common in the treatment. As for example, both selects Vīra as the aṅgīrasa and Śṛṅgāra as aṅga, but next to the main sentiment, both follows similar mode, while presenting the Vīra, at the first verse. Moreover, both keeps close to the same manner of interlinking the Śṛṅgāra with that of the Vīra, in the course of depicting the conjugal life of Lord Śiva and Goddess Pārvatī as an integral component of the main theme of the poem.

Regarding style also, there is close resemblance between Bilhaṇa and Maṅkhaka. Both of the poets extols Vaidarbhī and employs it in their respective works, which is generally simple, clear and free from long compounds and play on words. Maṅkhaka is indebted to both to Kālidāsa as well as Bilhaṇa, for the comparative simplicity of his style. However, his style is more close to Bilhaṇa, than to Kālidāsa. Actually, Maṅkhaka tries his best to tread on the path showed by Bilhaṇa, which can be inferred from his appreciative comment on Bilhaṇa. Maṅkhaka, with great reverence, mentions about the prouḍhokti i.e. mature expression of Bilhaṇa.^[71] Maṅkhaka might have taken the Vikramāṅkadevacarita as a model before him, as stated earlier, nevertheless, it appears that Maṅkhaka excels through the mesmerism of his simple and suggestive vakrokti.

Thus, regarding the writing style of Bilhaṇa, De’s remark is significant.^[72] This will not be an exaggeration if, the above opinion has been bestowed upon Maṅkhaka, generally regarding his style of composition.

This way, Maṅkhaka has been influenced by his predecessors right from Kālidāsa upto Bilhaṇa. No doubt, Maṅkhaka has imitated them in some aspects;nevertheless, he possesses a unique poetical acumen as well as exhibits proof of originality, regarding the hanling of the theme of his poem, both regarding matter and manner.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

habiḥ śamīpallavalājagandhī puṇyaḥ kṛśānorudiyāya dhūmaḥ/
kapolasaṃsarpiśikhaḥ sa tasyā muhūrtakarṇotpalatāṃ prapede// Raghuvaṃśa, VII. 26

[2]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., III. 40, 41, 42, 43;
samucchvasadbhaktilatānimantritadvirephapaṅktipratināyakaśriyaḥ/
anekadagdhāgurudhūmarājayo yadarcanasyāvasare pinākinaḥ// Ibid., III. 44, page 38

[3]:

Raghuvaṃśa, V. 65-75

[4]:

kavitvavaktṛtvamayairanudrutaṃ pradānabhogādimayaistathormibhiḥ/

sarasvatī śrīśca mithaḥ samāgate yamāśritadvīpadaśaṃ vivavratuḥ// Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., III. 46

[5]:

nisargabhinnāspadamekasaṃsthamasmindvayaṃ śrīśca sarasvatī ca/
kāntyā girā sūnṛtayā ca yogyā tvameva kalyāṇi tayostṛtīyā// Raghuvaṃśa, VI. 29

[6]:

kāmaṃ nṛpāḥ santu sahasraśo’nye rājanvatīmāhuranena bhūmiṃ/
nakṣatratārāgrahasaṃkulāpi jyotiṣmatī candramasaivarātriḥ//
Ibid., VI. 22

[7]:

dikṣu dyutibhireṇāṅkagabhastiprativastubhiḥ/
yaśāṃsi varṣatā yena rājanvanto mahībhṛtaḥ// Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., IV. 13

[8]:

Ibid., IV. 46

[9]:

Ibid., XII. 50

[10]:

Kumāra., I. 10

[11]:

saṃketabhūmāvabhisārikāṇāṃ bhavasyayatnena ratipradīpaḥ/
Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XI. 66 bhavanti yatrauṣadhayorajanyāmatailapurāḥ suratapradīpāḥ/
Kumāra., I. 10

[12]:

rambhoru saṃbhṛtatamo’tra tavātidūrā-dūrudvayīṃ spṛśati candramasaḥ prakāśaḥ/
eṣā kilaitadudayātkadalīviśeṣā-nkāntyeva śaityakalayāpi tiraskarotu// Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XI. 49

[13]:

Kumāra., I. 36

[14]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XVIII. 31

[15]:

Raghuvaṃśa, VI. 13

[16]:

Kumāra., V. 86

[17]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XIX. 59; XX. 46; XXIII. 56

[18]:

avaśaṃ praviśya rasasajjadanimiṣataraṅgitātmanāṃ/
tatra sarasi tatirapsarasāṃ salilaṃ cakāra kila kūlamudrujaṃ// Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., IX. 36

madodagrāḥ kakudmantaḥ saritāṃ kūlamudrujāḥ/
līlākhelamanuprāpurmahokṣāstasya vikramaṃ// Raghuvaṃśa, IV. 22

[19]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., IV. 60 and Meghadūta, I. 65; Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XII. 22 and Kumāra. IV. 41; Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XXV. 14, 16 and Raghuvaṃśa, I. 10

[20]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., I. 2

[21]:

vitīrṇaśikṣā iva hṛtpadasthasarasvatīvāhanarājahaṃsaiḥ/
ye kṣīranīrapravibhāgadakṣā vivekinaste kavayo jayanti// Ibid., II. 1

[22]:

Ibid., III. 21

[23]:

Ibid., XIII. 24

[24]:

Ibid., XVI. 42

[25]:

Ibid., cf. I. 5, 7-9, 16, 18; II. 2, 3, 9, 1-13, 24, 31, 37; III. 1, 5, 7, 8, 10, 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 40-44, 46, 77; IV. 1-7, 10-25, 29-47; V. 1, 3, 18, 23, 28; V. 1; VI. 1, VII. 17, 18, 28; VIII. 10, 17, 19, 31, 36, 38, 41; X. 1, 3, 5, 12, 18, 19, 25-28; XI. 52-61, 66, 68; XII. 13-23, 28, 36, 87-92; XIII. 17, 31-33, 38; XIV. 57, 66; XV. 14-31, 34, 35, 40; XVI. 43, 59; XVII. 11, 18-33, 35, 44, 62, 64-66 etc.

[26]:

Bhatt, B.N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 127

[27]:

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 155

[28]:

Raghuvaṃśa, IX. 1-54

[29]:

Kumāra., II. 27

[30]:

Ibid., II. 1; Raghuvaṃśa, II. 13, 18; IV. 33; VI. 18

[31]:

Raghuvaṃśa, III. 13

[32]:

Ibid., III. 21

[33]:

Kirātārjunīya, XII

[34]:

Śīśu., XV

[35]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XXIII. 46

[36]:

Kirātārjunīya, I. 39

[37]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XVI. 29 and Kirātārjunīya, IX. 29

[38]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., IV. 24; X. 16, 38; XIV., 11; XXII. 25 and Kirātārjunīya, VIII. 11

[39]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XXI. 21 and Kirātārjunīya, III. 37

[40]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II. 53

[41]:

Kirātārjunīya, XV. 14, 25

[42]:

“Bhaṭṭi and Māgha, therefore, were preferred by authors of laborious talents as models of imitative literary exercises; for here it was possible to make up by learning and rhetoric what was lacking in passion and poetry. On the one hand, the work of Bhaṭṭi became a precursor of some marvellous triumphs of literary ingenuity, Māgh’s poem, on the other, started a long series of artificiality sustained compositions, which seldom went beyond the stereotyped form, theme, manner and method, and included all the customary appandages and embellishments. Māgha himself was indebted to this process of conscious or unconscious conventionalizing, which he brought to his acme and which all his successors adored. But while Māgha was a poet, not many of his successors were; they had his qualities without his genius, his defects without the power of redeeming them. The fine sense of restraint and balance which we find in Kālidāsa is something quite different from the new standard of erudite correctness and massive craftsmanship, in which hardly any one can be put above Māgha, but which, up to a point, can be acquired and applied by labour and dexterity.”

De, S.K., History of Sanskrit Literature., vol. I., pages 305-306

[43]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., IV, VI-XVI and Śiśupālavadha, IV, VI-XI

[44]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XVII-XIX, XXI-XXIV and Śiśupālavadha, XIII. XV, XVII-XX

[45]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XIII. 25 and Śiśupālavadha, XVII. 25

[46]:

Haravijaya, I. 36, 37; IV. 27, 28; VI. 174; IX. 52-61

[47]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., I. 9 and Haravijaya I. 11

[48]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XIX. 13 and Haravijaya, VI. 5

[49]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XXV. 6 and Haravijaya, VI. 123

[50]:

Haravijaya, III. 2-35

[51]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XVII. 18-32 and Haravijaya, VI. 13-170

[52]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., VI. 44; XII. 63; XIII. 25, 41; XV. 34 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, 6; X. 58

[53]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XVI. 24 and VII. 63

[54]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, I

[55]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XI. 52-62

[56]:

Vikramāṅkadevacarita, XIV. 41-45

[57]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XI. 42-50 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, VIII. 6-88

[58]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., I and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, I. 1-8

[59]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., III. 1-30 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, XVIII. 1-32

[60]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., III. 47-50, 62, 66 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, XVIII. 33-69

[61]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., VI. 39; VII. 39 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, XVIII. 18

[62]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XVII. 59 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, XVIII. 35

[63]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., VIII. 9-43 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, X. 19-30

[64]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., III. 31-66 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, XVIII. 70-83

[65]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita.,“api yanmanorathagateragocaraṃ tadāpurīkṣitumadhīracakṣuṣāṃ” and Vikramāṅkadevacarita “manorathāṇāmapi yanna gamyaṃ tad draṣṭumāpuḥ sudṛsāṃ yuvānaḥ”.

[66]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II. 30 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, I. 22

[67]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II. 11 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, I. 22

[68]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II. 5 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, I. 16

[69]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II. 12 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, I. 14

[70]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., II. 27 and Vikramāṅkadevacarita, I. 21

[71]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., XXV. 79

[72]:

“It is as a poet that Bilhaṇa excels; and, in spite of his obvious conventionalism, he often succeeds in imparting a fine poetical charm to his graphic pictures. What Bilhaṇa lacks, like most poets of this period, is confident originality and independence, but within his limits he is undoubtedly an impressive artist and poet. His style is not easy, but elegant and normally attractive; it is doubtless studied, but not overdone with subtleties of thought and expression; it is fully embellished, but reasonably clear and effective in its verbal and metrical skill. This is no mean praise in an age of mechanical conventionality, which reproduced colourless imitations of little merit. Comparatively speaking, Bilhaṇa’s work remains a graphic document for the subject and a pleasant poem in itself.” De, S.K., History of Sanskrit Literature., vol., I, page 353