North Indian Inscriptions

LITERARY HISTORY

tion of the verse. Bühler leaves the two halves of it utterly unconnected with each other. What it means is that Vatsabhaṭṭi not only composed the pūrvā or ‘descriptive statement’ in verse, but was also in charge of the building of the Sun Temple. This latter work he did in accordance with the orders of the Guild and also on account of his devotion to the divinity. This seems to be the natural sense of the verse in question. There is an inscription¹ of Varmalāta found at Vasantgaḍh in the former Sirohi State, Rājputānā, and dated Vikrama year 682. It speaks of the erection of the temple of Kshēmāryā by the Gōshṭhī of Vaṭakarasthāna. And there, we are told that the Kārāpaka selected by the Gōshṭhī was Satyadēva and that the pūrvā was composed by Dhūrtarāśi and engraved by Nāgamuṇḍin.² The proper sense of Kārāpaka is, not “those who caused the temple to be constructed” but “persons employed in the construction of the temple,” as was clearly shown by Kielhorn.³ It seems that Vatsabhaṭṭi was similarly a Kārāpaka, appointed by the Guild to see the work through, namely, that of building and re-building the temple of the Sun. Further, in the case of the temple of Kshēmāryā, the Kārāpaka was different from the composer of the pūrvā. They are, however, the same in the case of the Sun temple at Daśapura, namely, Vatsabhaṭṭi. In fact, this is how we have to understand verse 44 of the Mandasōr inscription.

       The composition of Vatsabhaṭṭi has been rightly described as pūrvā, ‘a detailed statement, specification of details.’ It divides itself into the following sections:

............1. The maṅgala addressed to the Sun in verses 1-3 of which the first and the third are in the form of āśīsḥ, ‘blessings’ and the second of namaskṛiti, ‘obeisance.’
............2. The mention of the migration of the Guild of Silk-weavers from Lāṭa or Gujarat to Daśapura (Mandasōr), in verses 4-5.
............3. A poetic picture of Daśapura, its lakes, edifices and situation (verses 6-13).
............4. A glowing description of the Guild, the various hobbies pursued by its various members, the pre-eminence of the silk cloth manufactured by them and their desire to make some religious benefaction (verses 14-22).
............5. The mention of the suzerain Kumāragupta I and of the local ruler of Daśapura, namely, Bandhuvarman (verses 23-30), during whose reigns the benefaction, viȥ. the construction of the Sun temple, was made.
............6. A poetic description of the Winter Season during which and the mention of the actual date when the temple was consecrated (verses 31-35).
............7. A reference to the restoration of the edifice, part of which had crumbled, with the mention of the date of this renovation and a description of the Spring Season when it was executed (verses 36-42).
............8. A benediction that the temple may endure for ever (verse 43).
............9. The name of the overseer-poet (verse 44).

       Verse 44, referred to above, also tells us that Vatsabhaṭṭi composed his pūrvā, prayatnēna,‘with effort.’ This does not, however, mean that he tried “to do his best to make his composition resemble a mahākāvya” as Bühler says. This is impossible. Vatsabhaṭṭi could not have been so foolhardy as to think that his tiny composition could at all bear comparison to a Mahākāvya such as the Raghuvaṁśa, Śiśupālavadha and so forth, as they were taken to be its examples in later times. Of more modest dimensions than the Mahākāvya, is the Kāvya; and of still more modest dimensions is the Khaṇḍakāvya such as the Mēghadūta which is described in the Sāhityadarpaṇa⁴ as Kāvyasy=aikadēś-ānusāri: “following Kāvya partially.” The treatises on rhetoric
______________________________________________________________

¹ Ep. Ind., Vol. IX, pp. 187 ff.
² Ibid., p. 192, line 12, verse 12.
³ Ind. Ant., Vol. XIX, p. 62, note 53.
⁴ Parichchhēda VI, verse 329.