रामचरितम् /12
This page has not been fully proofread.
**
xii
information supplied by Ksemendra regarding the fondness of Abhinanda for
the Anustubh metre is equally applicable to both the authors.
Bhojadeva quoted many verses from both the Kadambarikathasara
and the Râmacarita. About 50 ślokas of the Râmacarita are found quoted
in his S'rigaraprakasa and the Sarasvatikanthabharana and only a few
verses are to be found from the other work. But Soddhala, Ujjvaladatta and
Rayamukuta quote verses under the name of Abhinand only from the
Râmacarita and not from the Kadambari kathasard. We can be sure, therefore,
that these works of two Abhinandas were well-known to the later writers,
though they do not produce sufficient evidence to disprove their identity.
It is thus necessary to examine whether the two authors represent one
and the same person or they are entirely different. There are at least four
reasons which favour the identification. These are as follows:-
1. Kṣemendra informs us that the Anustubh is the favourite metre
of Abhinanda. But it is used by both of them very often in their works.
Excepting some verses in the end of every chapter the whole of the
Kadambari kathâsâra is composed in the same metre. Similarly, in the
Ramacarita we find at least 9 chapters written in that metre.
2. The fact that one is quoted as Gauḍa Abhinanda cannot be regarded
as the surest indication to distinguish the one from the other Abhinanda,
because both the authors can be styled as Gaudas as they really belonged to
that country. It has already been shown that the forefathers of Abhinanda
of the Kadambari kathasara really belonged to the Gauda country though they
afterwards made Kashmir their home. The surname Gauda as given to
this Abhinanda is therefore quite appropriate. Abhinanda of the Ramacarita
on the other hand, also belonged to Gauda or Bengal, because he stayed in
the court of a Bengali King as will be shown in the sequel. It is, therefore,
obvious that the surname Gauda is also quite appropriate in the case of the
author of the Ramacarita also. It is, however, difficult with the present
materials to say whether he originally belonged to the Gauḍa country or not.
3. It is generally expected that the two authors should show two
different styles of writing if they are different. On the basis of the style as
can be met with in these two works, identity of the two authors
cannot be shaken, because the style in both is equally simple, charming,
expressive and clear. But the Râmacarita may be considered as more
descriptive and original than the other. This also does not go against
the identity because to a close observer this appears to be simply the result
of mature thinking and style, as, obviously, because of its incompleteness the
Ramacaritu may be regarded as the last and the most mature work of the
author.
xii
information supplied by Ksemendra regarding the fondness of Abhinanda for
the Anustubh metre is equally applicable to both the authors.
Bhojadeva quoted many verses from both the Kadambarikathasara
and the Râmacarita. About 50 ślokas of the Râmacarita are found quoted
in his S'rigaraprakasa and the Sarasvatikanthabharana and only a few
verses are to be found from the other work. But Soddhala, Ujjvaladatta and
Rayamukuta quote verses under the name of Abhinand only from the
Râmacarita and not from the Kadambari kathasard. We can be sure, therefore,
that these works of two Abhinandas were well-known to the later writers,
though they do not produce sufficient evidence to disprove their identity.
It is thus necessary to examine whether the two authors represent one
and the same person or they are entirely different. There are at least four
reasons which favour the identification. These are as follows:-
1. Kṣemendra informs us that the Anustubh is the favourite metre
of Abhinanda. But it is used by both of them very often in their works.
Excepting some verses in the end of every chapter the whole of the
Kadambari kathâsâra is composed in the same metre. Similarly, in the
Ramacarita we find at least 9 chapters written in that metre.
2. The fact that one is quoted as Gauḍa Abhinanda cannot be regarded
as the surest indication to distinguish the one from the other Abhinanda,
because both the authors can be styled as Gaudas as they really belonged to
that country. It has already been shown that the forefathers of Abhinanda
of the Kadambari kathasara really belonged to the Gauda country though they
afterwards made Kashmir their home. The surname Gauda as given to
this Abhinanda is therefore quite appropriate. Abhinanda of the Ramacarita
on the other hand, also belonged to Gauda or Bengal, because he stayed in
the court of a Bengali King as will be shown in the sequel. It is, therefore,
obvious that the surname Gauda is also quite appropriate in the case of the
author of the Ramacarita also. It is, however, difficult with the present
materials to say whether he originally belonged to the Gauḍa country or not.
3. It is generally expected that the two authors should show two
different styles of writing if they are different. On the basis of the style as
can be met with in these two works, identity of the two authors
cannot be shaken, because the style in both is equally simple, charming,
expressive and clear. But the Râmacarita may be considered as more
descriptive and original than the other. This also does not go against
the identity because to a close observer this appears to be simply the result
of mature thinking and style, as, obviously, because of its incompleteness the
Ramacaritu may be regarded as the last and the most mature work of the
author.