Part 2 - The Maṅkhakośa: authorship and date

The Maṅkhakośa or the Anekārthakośa is a koṣa text of homonymous words, composed by Maṅkhaka. It has been named after its author Maṅkhaka, therefore, it is known as the Maṅkhakośa. Again, as it is a collection of words having more than one meaning; hence it is termed as the Anekārthakośa. As for example, the term laṅkā^[1] has been employed to mean the rāvaṇanagarī i.e. the city of king Rāvaṇa. It also denotes the vṛkṣaśākhā i.e. the branches of a tree.

It has been mentioned in the commentary as—

[laṅkā] rāvaṇanagaryāṃ/ Śi. 1, 68/ vṛkṣaśākhāyāṃ/
drumalaṅkāṃ samāśritya vānaraḥ kutra saṃsthitaḥ//^[2]

About the Maṅkhakośa, Sures Chandra Banerji opines that Maṅkhaka, the writer of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita is identical with that of the author of the Maṅkhakośa.^[3]

Regarding the authorship and date of the Maṅkhakośa, there is doubt and difference of opinion. In the History of Sanskrit Literature, Dasgupta expresses little bit of doubt.^[4] Here, the authorship of a koṣa has been attributed to the poet Maṅkhaka. Śrīharṣa, the poet was also attributed with the authorship of a koṣa named Dvirūpakośa.^[5] Apparently, it appears unnecessary, to discuss the question of authorship of the lexicon, which is named after its composer. However, some questions still arise in the mind of its readers, whether the author of the text of the Maṅkhakośa is the same person, who wrote the commentary of the Maṅkhakośa or not. Also, whether, the same author has written both the Maṅkhakośa and the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. Some express doubt regarding the identical authorship of the two works; again, some though grant identical authorship, however, do not provide sufficient supporting evidence for their opinions.

Firstly, among the scholars who express doubt, regarding the identical authorship of the two works are Mahāmahopādhyāya Haraprasād Śāstrī^[6], Theodor Zachariae^[7] and others. On the other hand, the scholars, who are in favour of identical authorship of the works are as follows-A.B. Keith^[8], S.C. Banerjee^[9] etc. Besides them, B.N. Bhatt also, places the Anekārthakośa, among the ‘genuine works of Maṅkha’.^[10] However, these scholars do not put forward ample evidences, in support of their conjecture.

The hypothesis that Maṅkhaka himself wrote both the text and ṭīkā of the Maṅkhakośa has been established from internal evidences found in Mahendra’s commentary on Hemacandra’s Anekārthasaṃgraha Mahendra, while commenting on the term śamī (2. 330), takes it, in the meaning of śimbi, also quotes from Maṅkhaka’s commentary and therein mentions Maṅkha as to be the author of the Maṅkhakośa.^[11] Here, however, Mahendra does not cite from the text of the Maṅkhakośa but supplies different^[12] senses of the term śamī as to be śimbā and explains it in his own words. The original line from the commentary on the Maṅkhakośa (stanza 583) was [śamī] śimbāyāṃ phalapūrṇe śākhāvayave.^[13] There are identical quotations between Maṅkhaka and Mahendra’s commentary.^[14] Moreover, it is to be noted here that Mahendra is not seen mentioning the name of Maṅkhaka, when he quotes from the commentary. Probably he might believe that the same person wrote both the text and the commentary of the Maṅkhakośa, therefore, he did not consider it to be necessary to utter the name of the writer repeatedly. From this, the identical authorship of the text and the commentary of the Maṅkhakośa come out, as approved by Mahendra’s references.^[15]

Again, regarding the identical authorship of the Maṅkhakośa and the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, scholars like Bühler, Haraprasād Sastri, S. K. De and some others are found to be in doubt.^[16] On the other hand, though the scholars viz. S.C. Banerjee, B.N. Bhatt and others believe in the identical authorship of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and the Maṅkhakośa, however, they are keeping quiet in supplying due logic for their opinion. However, Mandal provides ample reasoning in support of the identical authorship of the works.

The koṣakāra mentions himself as Maṅkhaka, again, his koṣa is called the Maṅkhakoṣa. From this, it is known that the name of the author is Maṅkha. In his commentary, Mahendra also referred to him as Maṅkha. Thus, the lexicographer was known both as Maṅkha and Maṅkhaka. Besides, in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita also, the poet calls himself both Maṅkha and Maṅkhaka.^[17] The identical names speak in favour of the identical authorship of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and the Maṅkhakośa. Moreover, in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, the immense knowledge of vocabulary of the poet comes to light, befitting of a koṣakāra. Again, from the examples cited in the commentary, the genius of the commentator is also exhibited, in line with the scholarship of Maṅkhaka, the poet. Besides, the poet, like the lexicographer was also, a native of Kashmir. The origin and character of the older manuscripts of the Maṅkhakośa prove it.^[18] In addition to these, in the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, the poet gives information at full length, regarding his personal history. But the lexicographer, who remains silent about his personal history, should provide at least some information to mark a line of distinction between them, if they were different personalities. Again if, they were identical, then there may arise a question, why the lexicographer does not mention about his royal portfolios, probably he was not a royal officer at the time of composition of his lexicon. He might write it after the demise of his royal patron.

Moreover, it has been observed that the commentator on the Maṅkhakośa quotes^[19] from Kalhaṇa’s Rājataraṅgiṇī (A.D. 1148-1150) and Mahendra, in his commentary (just after A.D. 1173) also quotes from Maṅkhaka, thus, the Maṅkhakośa might have been written between A.D. 1150-1174. As the commentator of the Maṅkhakośa and its text is considered to be identical persons and the text must be a little bit earlier than the commentary, hence the koṣakāra might have lived at about A.D. 1150. The composer of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita too, being a protege of Jayasiṃha, the king of Kashmir, who reigned during A.D 1128-1155, therefore must have lived in that period of time. No other person hailed from the land of Kashmir, named Maṅkhaka is known to have lived at A.D. 1150. Mahendra too, while quoting both from the text and the commentary of the Maṅkhakośa does not make any distinction regarding authorship.^[20]

Thus, from the above discourses, it becomes evident that the same writer has composed the Maṅkhakośa, its commentary and the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita.

Now, the question of the date of composition of the Maṅkhakośa is another pertinent issue to be discussed. The probable date of composition of the Maṅkhakośa may be deduced from the foregoing discussion on the identical authorship of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita and the Maṅkhakośa. As already discussed, the date of composition of the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita is sometimes, between A.D. 1136-1142, whereas the date of composition of the commentary on the Maṅkhakośa is sometimes between A.D. 1150-1174. Obviously, the date of composition of the text of the Maṅkhakośa would be a little prior to the commentary. In the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita, the poet gives information in detail, regarding his lineage and whereabouts; however, in the text of the Maṅkhakośa, he just mentions his name to be Maṅkhaka^[21] and nothing else has been provided. In the commentary of the Maṅkhakośa, there are quotations both from the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita as well as the Alaṃkārasarvasva Again, in the Kāvyaprakāśasaṃketa (A.D. 1159-1160) of Māṇikyacandra, there are quotations from the Śrīkaṇṭhacarita. Thus, Māṇikyacandra is a writer, posterior to Maṅkhaka, the works of Maṅkhaka must have been written sooner than A.D. 1160.

In addition to that, as Maṅkhaka does not refer to his patron in the Maṅkhakośa, therefore he might have composed his Maṅkhakośa, after the demise of his patron, probably after the first part of A.D. 1155. It is also not likely that Maṅkhaka might have written the lexicon before he got familiar with the king, who mounted the throne in A.D. 1128. Because, if that happens, then he have written his commentary, after more than two decades, though not impossible that the same author would compose his commentary on his text, after a long interval of about 22 years at about A.D. 1150.^[22] Therefore, the text and the commentary might have been written sometimes, between A.D. 1155-1159. Moreover, Mahendra, who wrote commentary on Hemacandra’s Anekārthasaṃgraha, quoted both from the text of the Maṅkhakośa and its commentary and discuses some additional meanings from the Maṅkhakośa.

Mahendra is said to have composed his commentary soon after the heavenly departure of his guru Hemacandra in A.D. 1173. But it is to be noted here that Hemacandra neither mentioned about Maṅkhaka’s koṣa nor he has incorporated the additional meanings from the Maṅkhakośa as done by his disciple Mahendra. Thus, the Maṅkhakośa was not written earlier than that of the composition of the Anekārthasaṃgraha (i.e. A.D. 1138 -1143). This way, the text of the Maṅkhakośa was composed at least later than A.D. 1138. Again, it was written when Maṅkhaka was not a royal personage, probably after the reign of his patron i.e. sometimes between A.D. 1128-1155. Hence, the time of composition of the the text of the Maṅkhakośa, being after than A.D. 1138, was subsequent than that of the early part of A.D. 1155, the time of the demise of Maṅkhaka’s patron. Besides, as Maṅkhaka belongs to a period earlier than that of Māṇikyacandra (A.D., 1159-1160), the most probable lower limit of the text of the Maṅkhakośa and its commentary is A.D. 1159.^[23]

Under the circumstances, the date of composition of the Maṅkhakośa and its commentary is to be fixed at about sometimes between A.D. 1155-1159.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

nagarīśākhayorlaṅkā śaṅkā trāsavitarkayoḥ/ Zachariae, Theodor, Maṅkhakośa., 15, page 2

[2]:

Maṅkhakośa., 15

[3]:

“To Maṅkha is attributed the lexicon called Anekārthakośa, which is probably the same as the work popularly known as Maṅkha-kośa in Kashmir. It arranges the words according to their final letters and also according to the number of syllables, e.g., Kāntāḥ, Ekākṣarāḥ, Dvyakṣarāḥ etc. The Anekārthakośa contains a commentary of the author himself who utilises the lexical works of Amara, Śāśvata, Halāyudha and Dhanvantari. There appears to be no reason to doubt, as some do, the identity of Maṅkha with Maṅkha or Maṅkhaka of Kashmir who wrote the epic poem Śrīkaṇṭhacarita probably between 1135 and 1145 A.D.”

Banerji, Sures Chandra, Cultural Heritage of Kashmir, pages 139-140

[4]:

“If our Maṅkhaka is identical with the author of the Maṅkha-kośa, then he was also a lexicographer, whose partiality for recondite words would not be surprising.”

Dasgupta, S.N., History of Sanskrit Literature., page 323, footnote 1

[5]:

Bhatt, B.N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 27

[6]:

“Maṅkha, a resident of Kashmir, wrote a homonymous dictionary entitled Anekārthakośa,…..A commentary on Maṅkha is still extant. It may be either by himself or by one of his immediate pupils.” Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 64

[7]:

“The fact that Mahendra (last quarter of 12^th century) quotes the Maṅkha-ṭīkā, proves that the commentary has been written, either by Maṅkha himself (about 1150 A.D.) or perhaps by one of his contemporaries or pupils.”

Zachariae, T., Preface, page 4

[8]:

History of Sanskrit Literature., page 414

[9]:

Cultural Heritage of Kashmir, page 139-140

[10]:

Bhatt, B.N., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 27

[11]:

śimbi bījakośaḥ…..phalapurṇa-śākhā śimbīti maṅkhaḥ// Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 65

[12]:

śamī śimbā drubhit striyāṃ/ (stanza 583, text) Ibid., page 65

[13]:

Zachariae, Theodor, Maṅkhakośa., Extracts from the commentary, page 80

[14]:

vādyapiṇḍyāṃ mṛdaṅgamukhe mṛditabhaktādidāne/
(Maṅkhakośa., 488);
also mārjanaṃ vādyavadanadeyadhānyapiṇḍyāṃ iti Maṅkhakaḥ/
(Mahendra’s Commentary, 3. 391) Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 65

[15]:

Ibid., page 65

[16]:

“Its author is probably the poet of the 12^th century who composed Śrīkaṇṭhacarita”. (Bühler’s report, page 76)

“The lexicographer is said to be the same person who wrote Śrīkaṇṭhacarita…” (Śāstrī);

also “If our Maṅkhaka is identical with the author of the Maṅkhakośa, then he was also a lexicographer….” (De, referred in History of Sanskrit Literature-Dasgupta, page 323, footnote 1, quoted by Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 65)

[17]:

Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., I. 56; III. 63

[18]:

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 66

[19]:

bhālaṃ vahniśikhāṃkitaṃ dadhat/(Stein, M.A., Rājataraṅgiṇī, I. 2a; on stanza 101 of Maṅkhakośa), Ibid., page 66

[20]:

Ibid., page 67

[21]:

śabdānāṃ maṅkhakaḥ kośaṃ/
Maṅkhakośa., verse 4, page 1

[22]:

Mandal, B.C., Śrīkaṇṭhacarita., page 68

[23]:

Ibid., page 69