Date of Subhasitamuktavali
By P. K. Gode
Summary
In 'Date of Subhasitamuktavali', P. K. Gode tackles the longstanding puzzle of when the Sanskrit anthology Subhasitamuktavali (also known as Subhasitaharavali) was compiled. The anthology, attributed in some manuscripts to Hari Kavi, consists of 560 verses divided into 32 chapters or manjaris (clusters), each focusing on a theme such as benevolence, kingship, astronomy or women. Traditional scholars had associated the work with the Maratha court of king Sambhaji (r. 1680–1689), but Gode argues that the textual evidence points to an earlier date. He examines multiple manuscripts: Bombay University MS No. 2266, B.O.R. Institute MS No. 92 of 1883–84 and MS No. 819 of 1886–92, among others. By comparing the colophons, he finds that some manuscripts call the anthology Subhasitaharavali, while others name it Subhasitamuktavali. Many colophons include a chronogram ‘padagnisaratithi’, which Gode interprets as Samvat 1680 (A.D. 1623). He argues that this date likely marks either the completion of the anthology or the death of its author. Gode further notes that the chapters quote poets like Dharmasuri, Bhanuji Dikshit and Kalidasa, suggesting a compilation no later than the early seventeenth century. He presents a table listing each of the 32 chapters with its title and the number of verses, showing that the longest chapter, Subhasitabhusana, contains 55 verses, while others contain as few as 5. The article also discusses the context in which Hari Kavi worked; he was associated with the court of the Chakrapani brothers and may have been a contemporary of the Mughal emperor Jahangir. Gode concludes that the anthology was likely compiled before A.D. 1624 and that later copies simply updated the colophons. He emphasises that the work is important not only for dating but also for understanding the literary culture of the early seventeenth century, when anthologists sought to preserve maxims and verses on ethics, politics and daily life.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
Gode’s meticulous comparison of manuscripts resolves the debate over the dating of Subhasitamuktavali. By deciphering chronograms and examining colophons, he demonstrates that the anthology predates the Maratha period and belongs to the early seventeenth century. His tabular analysis of chapter topics and verse counts provides scholars with a blueprint for further study. The article illustrates how philological scrutiny can overturn assumptions about authorship and chronology, shedding light on the intellectual milieu of early modern India.