पवनदूतम् /18
This page has not been fully proofread.
[ 10 ]
indicate his poetic excellence.
And as regards his title
Kaviraja it is due to his excessive vanity and exaggerated
opinion of his own attainments. But Jayadeva alone is
skilled in compositions full of Gunas and figures of speech.
This is how the verse has been interpreted in the
Rasamañjarī commentary of the Gitagovinda. It is also in
a similar strain that various other commentators explain
the verse' and these interpretations have sought to bring out
all conceivable charges against the styles of composition
of the contemporaries of Jayadeva.
We are not, however, sure if the commentatore,. in
question, had any direct and personal acquaintance with the
works of Dhoyi and the opinion recorded by them with
regard to his style was born of a careful study of his works or
they were merely trying to laud to the sky the author of
the work they were commenting upon and thus twist out
the meaning most suited to the purpose from the parti-
cular verse. These interpretations, however, seem to indicate
that the position occupied by our poet in the estimation of
his successors if not contemporaries-was not very high.
successors.
But there is sufficient ground to suppose that he
was not awarded his proper dues by his
We know that he bore the coveted title of Kavirāja
which was conferred upon great poets as is recorded by
Rājas'ekhara in his Kāvyamīmāmsā. There is scarcely any
ground to suppose as has been done by the author of
the Rasamañjarī that the title was assumed by him on
account of his self-sufficiency. For it is reasonable
1. af Lassen's edition-p. 72.
2. Vide Kavyamimamsa (Gaekwar Series p. 9).
indicate his poetic excellence.
And as regards his title
Kaviraja it is due to his excessive vanity and exaggerated
opinion of his own attainments. But Jayadeva alone is
skilled in compositions full of Gunas and figures of speech.
This is how the verse has been interpreted in the
Rasamañjarī commentary of the Gitagovinda. It is also in
a similar strain that various other commentators explain
the verse' and these interpretations have sought to bring out
all conceivable charges against the styles of composition
of the contemporaries of Jayadeva.
We are not, however, sure if the commentatore,. in
question, had any direct and personal acquaintance with the
works of Dhoyi and the opinion recorded by them with
regard to his style was born of a careful study of his works or
they were merely trying to laud to the sky the author of
the work they were commenting upon and thus twist out
the meaning most suited to the purpose from the parti-
cular verse. These interpretations, however, seem to indicate
that the position occupied by our poet in the estimation of
his successors if not contemporaries-was not very high.
successors.
But there is sufficient ground to suppose that he
was not awarded his proper dues by his
We know that he bore the coveted title of Kavirāja
which was conferred upon great poets as is recorded by
Rājas'ekhara in his Kāvyamīmāmsā. There is scarcely any
ground to suppose as has been done by the author of
the Rasamañjarī that the title was assumed by him on
account of his self-sufficiency. For it is reasonable
1. af Lassen's edition-p. 72.
2. Vide Kavyamimamsa (Gaekwar Series p. 9).