46. Janardana’s Commentary on the Raghuvamsa

46. An Adyar Manuscript of Janardana's Commentary on the Raghuvamsa Intermingled with Meanings of the Text words in the old Gujarati Language I In my note on Janardana's commentary on the Raghuvamsa published in the Calcutta Oriental Journal 'I tried to fix the limits for his date, viz. A. D. 1192 and and 1385 and also examined a MS of this commentary in the Library of the B. B. R. A. Society (No. B. D. 131) which is fragmentary and which was not known to Aufrecht. I also referred in my note to a MS of Janardana's commentary on the Meghaduta deposited in a temple at Cambay and described by Peterson in his Third Report (p. 324). It was also pointed out that only one MS of Janardana's commentary on the Raghuvamsa has been recorded by Aufrecht, 2 viz. "B. 2. 100" but this is not available for study. No complete MS of Janardana's commentary on the Raghuvamsa has yet been available to me, and hence I am eager to avail myself of any MSS of Janardana's works that could be noticed in different MSS catalogues or would be reported by scholars hereafter. Since writing the note about Janardana above referred to I obtained on loan through the courtesy of the Director of the Adyar MSS library another fragmentary MS of Janardana's commentary on the Raghuvamsa ( Eastern Section, No. 36- F. 42). This MS contains Janardana's Bhasya on the Raghuvamsa for Sargas XII to XVIII and to a certain extent supplements the B. B. R. A. Society MS No. B. D. 131 referred to above. One great peculiarity about the Adyar MS is that it contains explanations in Gujarati of certain words and expressions of the text. I Indian Culture, Vol. III, pp. 359-365. 1. Vol. I (1934), pp. 199-201. 2. Cata. Catalogorum, Part I, p. 487 a. 309

Mr. T. M. Tripathi in his learned Introduction to the Tarkasamgraha 1 of Anandajnana ( = Anandagiri = Janardana ) surmises that Anandagiri or Janardana was probably a native of Gujarat. He further states that he is 'tempted to identify' him. (Janardana or Anandagiri) with Pandita Janardana, the author of a commentary on the Meghaduta called and a commentary on the Raghuvamsha. Janardana consulted previous commentaries of Asada ( A. D. 1192 ), Vallabha ( A. D. 1163) and Sthira deva. The peculiarity of these commentaries is that besides giving explanations and occasionally figures of speech and parallel passages they are intermingled with meanings of the text-words in the (old) Gujarati language also. These appear to be early atttempts of Anandagiri. Though I cannot subscribe in toto to the contents of the foregoing paragraph from Mr. Tripathi's valuable introduction to the Tarkasamgraha I can vouch them in certain respects only on the strength of the Adyar MS of the commentary of Janardana on the Raghuvamsa. For example the Adyar MS contains Gujarati explanations intermingled with Sanskrit commentary throughout the MS as will be clear from the following extract of the colophon of this MS :- " pratikrtaracanabhyodutasamdarsitabhyah | samadhikatararupah suddhasamtanakamaih || adhivividuramatyairahrtastasya yunah | prathamaparigrhite sribhuvau rajakanyah || " rajakanyastasya yunah sribhuvau laksmiprthivyau adhivividuh | sapatnyau cakuh | rajakanya teha yuva tarunaraham srilaksmi bhu prthviupariparini | kim bhute prathamaparigrhite | pahilum parigrhita svikari chai | kim bhutah | amatyaih | ahrtah | amatyapradhani ahrta ani cha | aparam | pratikrtiracanabhyah samadhikatararupah | citralikhitarupebhyah samadhikataram rupam yasam tah | citralikhitapratima tu samadhikatara atirhi utkastarupa chaim | kim bhutabhyah dutasamdarsitabhyah | dutessamdarsata desadi 1. Gaikwar Oriental Series, No. III, Baroda, 1917, page viii. 2. Mr. Tripathi states that he has fragments of this commentary in his possession. There is of a later origin another similar commentary on the Raghuvamsa giving also explanations in Gujarati by samala, son of Luniga, a Nagara Brahman by caste srimannagarapatavo'tinipunah sri lunigasyabhavat MS dated A. D. 1612. '

chahum | kim bhutaih suddhasamtanakamaih | visuddhasamtaticchubhih | suddhayogya samtana samchata chahum || 55 || maharthopamalavaratnaprasutau ra ...nam mahakavyasampurnau gambhire jananamdano namdanartham budhanam tadastadase bhasye setum babamdhah || srih || sivamastu || " The above extract containing vernacular explanations side by side with Sanskrit commentary is typical of the entire Adyar MS and hence there is reason to believe that the author of the vernacular explanations and of the Sanskrit commentary is one and the same person viz. Janardana. This inference is supported by the MS of Meghadutabhasya of Janardana described by Peterson in his Third Report, p. 325, where, as pointed out by Mr. Tripathi the following Sanskrit and vernacular explanations of some text-words have been recorded:- vigalitasucau vigalito gatah soko yayoh tau vigalita giu suc soca chai jevarahim ata eva hrstacittau sanandamanasau etc. " Without subscribing to Mr. Tripathi's proposed identification of Janardana or Anandajnana or Anandagiri with Janardana, the commentator of the Raghuvamsha and the Meghaduta, we may agree with him in his surmise that our commentator was a resident of Gujarat and wrote a mixed Sanskrit-Gujarati commentary on the Raghuvamsa and the Meghaduta. Not being a student of old or modern Gujarati myself, I am unable to assess fully the value of the vernacular portion of the Adyar MS. Its importance to a student of Gujarati philology is obvious from the fact that Janardana wrote his commentary between A. D. 1191 and 1385. This was a period when the vernaculars were looked down upon. Anandabodha (about A. D. 1150), a great writer on Advaita philosophy, incidentally refers to the two vernaculars viz. the Canarese and the Gujarati as "" in his celebrated work the Nyayamakaranda. As aprasiddha Janardana wrote his commentaries after A. D. 1191 and before A. D. 1385 and as he adopts a bilingual method of explanation, the vernaculars, and in particular the Gujarati language, must have attained a better status than that apparent in Anandabodha's reference to the Canarese and the Gujarati language referred to above. 2 1. See my note in the Calcutta Oriental Journal, Vol. II, p. 232. 2. Nyayamakaranda (Chowkhamba Sans. Series, 1907) p. 253; " kim aprasiddhabhih karnatalatabhasabhih abhibhasase bhavan . "

According to Rao Bahadur C. V. Vaidya ''modern Gujarati like Marathi begins about 1500 A. D.' and if this statement is correct the Gujarati used by Janardana in his present commentary represented by the Adyar MS will have to be considered as old Gujarati, because Janardana's date falls between 1191 and 1385 A. D. Perhaps a glossary of Sanskrit words with their old Gujarati explanations as found in the Adyar MS fragment (about 173 pages) will reveal the nature of the language current in Gujarat in Janardana's time. But such a study is outside the scope of this paper. We now proceed with our analysis of the Adyar MS. The MS begins with folio 242. It is, therefore, clear that the first 241 folios of this valuable MS have been lost. The portion of the commentary which begins on folio 242 pertains to Canto XII as we find the following verse concluding this canto on folio 250:- 66 kalidasakrtavarkavamsakitta krtipriyam vyakrtim dvadasasyemam vitatara janardanah || Folio 268 is missing. Canto XIV begins on folio 269. The concluding verse of Canto XIV reads as under on folio 289 :- 66 yatrarabhya dilipabhupatipatim tigmamsuvamsodbhavam rajanyam raghurajaratnavilasat sriramanamadbhutam | vyakhye kila kalidasasukavih kavye kalau kartike vyacakre'tra caturddasam mativasam sargam jananamdanah || Canto XV begins on folio 290 - with the following verse:- - " bhaktya yatpadanugraham balamalam vistabhya visrambhate nivyamsam svadhiya maya tanudhiyatharabhyate yadvasat | smrtya sarvamanisitarthamvarado devo mahesatmajo nih pratyuhamidam sabhasyamakhilam siddhim nayatvasu me || ' 3. See C. V. Vaidya's article on 'Gujarati in relation to Marathi' in the Proceedings of the 7 th Oriental Conference, Baroda (1935), pp. 1075-1083 Hemacandra's grammar furnishes written evidence of the form of Gujarati in the 12 th century A. D. The words Gujarat and Gujarati had not come into existence in the days of Hemacandra. North Gujarat was called and the South Gujarat was called lata both by rajasekhara and by Alberuni. The name gurjarabhumi first begins to appear about 1220 A. D.- (page 1077).

Folios 292-302 are missing. Chapter XV continues on folio 303 and ends as under on folio 319 - " srimadraghavarajasya carite kavye'sya kavyambudhe samsatsamtkavikalidasaracite sphurjadgunalamkrteh | prakhyatopakrtau janarddanakrtau pratyaksagurvikrtau vyakhyayam samamajagama dasamah sarvo'tra pamcadhikah || " Folios 336 to 338 are again missing and Canto XVII begins on folio 339. Folios 346 and 347 are also missing. Folio 353 is missing and some chapter appears to begin on folio 354 with the following verse :- "6 bhaktya yatpadanugraham balamalam vistabhya visrambhate nirvyasam svadhiya tatha tanudhiyatharabhyate yadvasat | smrtya sarvamanisitarthamvarado devo mahesatmajo nih pratyuhamidam sabhasyamakhilam siddhim nayatvasu me || " This verse is identical with the verse introducing Canto XV as quoted above. The concluding verse of Canto XVIII reads on folio 365 as follows:-- "6 maharthopamalavararatnaprasutau ra ..................nam mahakavyasampurnadhi .. gambhire jananamdananamdanartham - budhanam taddastadase bhasye setum babamdhah || " On folio 365 b the following endorsement shows the name of the owner of this fragment - raghuvamsatika govimdadasaputrasya tr (tru ) titeyam ." Obviously govimda dasaputra obtained the present MS in a fragmentary condition. Another endorsement in bold hand and different ink on folio 365 b but written breadthwise records Samvat 1768 as under :- " svasti srimannrpavikramarkasamayatita samvat 1768 varse asadha vadi 2 budhake " It is difficult to say if Samvat 1768 ( = A.D. 1712) is the date of the Adyar MS. Perhaps the endorsement might have been added by some one later. At any rate it proves that the Adyar MS is older than A.D. 1712 or roughly we may say that it is about 250 years old. References made by Janardana to earlier works and authors in the portion of his commentary represented by the Adyar MS are :-

(1) kumarasambhave folio 262. - (2) sriramayane uttarakamde - fol. 273. (3) srimahabharate - fol. 274. (4) maghakavye fol. 278. (5) naisadhe - fol. 283. (6) bhagavate dasamaskamdhe - fol. 283. astamgayogajnanena - fol. 318 ; yogayogisvara jaimini tu yogayami - (fo 1. 361 ). (7) ramayanam fol. 308. ( 8 ) ( 9 ) yaduktam . - ( 10 ) tatha coktam abhinamdakavye - (fol. 283 ). " janmana brahmano jneyah etc.. " - fol. 325 astamga- " akaranam satyamakaranam tapo jagatrayavyapi yasopyakaranam | akaranam rupamakaranam gunah puranamekam nrsu karmakaranam || (11) smrtau 339. - - This verse is identical with verse 65 of Canto IV of the Ramacarita of Abhinanda [p. 35 of the Baroda (1930) edition ]. " brahme muhurte tatthaya cimtayedatmano hitam etc. " - fol. " durmantrannrpatirvinasyati yatih etc., " " - fol. 348. yaduktam - " sarve gunah kamcanamasrayante etc. " - fol. 349. ( 12 ) yaduktam (13) ( 14 ) - - - uktam ca - "madhuram vada kalyani loko hi madhurapriyah " - fol. 356. - - 1. Abhinanda or Gauda Abhinanda, son of Bhatta Jayanta, wrote the kadambarikathasara and yogavasisthasara . He was a contemporary of RajaSekhara Circa A. D. 900 (F. W. Thomas' Introduction to Kavindravacanasamuccaya, p. 20 ). Gauda Abhinanda is different from Abhinanda ( son of Satananda ) who wrote the ramacarita . The abhinamdakavya referred to by Janardana is identical with a which deals with the history of Rama. The date of Abhinanda, the author of ramacarita, was hitherto unknown (see Keith's History of Sanskrit Literature, p. 135 ) but Mr. K. S. Ramaswami Shastri in his learned introduction to the edition of the Ramacarita (Gaikwar Ori. Series, No. XLVI, 1930, Baroda ) has proved that Abhinanda, the author of the ramacarita ; was the court-poet of king Devapala alias Haravarsa Yuvaraja (between 800 and 900 A. D.) - page xxi. See also Dr. V. Raghavan's note on the Ramacarita ( Annals, Vol. XVI, pp. 141-2 ).

( 15 ) yaduktam - fol. 360. ( 16 ) yaduktam 360. - - 315 " ayaso yasya loke'smin pumsascarati sasvate etc. " - " ekameva yada brahma satyamanyadvikalpitam etc. " - fol. (17) uktam ca jotise 66 - simho yatha sarvacatuspadanam tathaiva pusyo balavanudunam | camdre viruddhe'pyatha gocare'pi siddhati karyani krtani pusye || " (18) Folio 364- uktam - " vrddhe'pi vayasi grahya vidya sarvatmana naraih | yadyapi syanna phalada sulabha canyajanmani || " There are many more anonymous quotations in the present MS than those recorded in the above list of references. On the whole Janardana is not in the habit of naming the author from whose works he quotes a stanza or two occasionally. Almost all the references noted above are taken from comparatively old works and hence they don't furnish any definite chronological clues for narrowing down our present limits for Janardana's date viz. A.D. 1191 and 1385. The quotation from abhinamdakavya i.e. ramacarita by abhinamda given by Janardana and identified by me above is chronologically in harmony with the above limits because the date of falls between 800 and 900 A.D. Since my note on the Janardana's commentary was published Dr. V. G. Paranjpe of the Fergusson College has published his critical edition of the Meghaduta' with the commentary of fa based on a rare MS found in the Mandlik Collection of the Fergusson College, Poona, bearing the date Samvat 1521 (= A.D 1465). Janardana mentions sthiradeva by name in the line " sthira devavallabhasaha krtani " (Cambay MS) as pointed out by me in my previous note. I shall now point out that he has modelled one of his verses on fra's verse in the beginning of his commentary. In fact he has repeated fea's verse almost verbatim as will be seen from the following comparison :- 1. Meghaduta with Sthiradeva's commentary, edited by Dr. V. G. Paranjpe, M. A., D.Litt., Poona; 1935, Price Rs. 2.

sthiradeva 's comm. on the meghaduta (Mandalik_MS ) tasya prasannagambhiratprabamdhannaurivambudheh uddhartum stokamapyartham vyakhya nah prabhavisyati || 4 || janardana 's comm. on the meghaduta (Cambay MS) tasya prasannagambhirat prabamdhannaurivambudheh | uddhartum stokamapyartham vyakhya mama bhavisyati || About the date of fear Dr. Paranjpe observes :- 'Sthiradeva lived in times when critics were under the influences of the Alamkara school. He has quoted passages from bhamaha, dandi, rudrata and udbhata ......... he must be placed at the end of the 9 th century or at the outset of the tenth'. If this date for far is correct it would make sthiradeva a contemporary of abhinamda, the author of the ramacarita (800 to 900 A.D.) which at quotes in his commentary on the Raghuvansa.