m
147
challenged   competition,    Then, contemplated with   sincere	_t
devotion by Trivikrama, Sarasvati blessed him with the poetic
muse until the arrival of his father and thus he was capable of	^r
overcoming his   opponent.    The father returned   when the	>
story of Nala was half-done, in which incomplete state  the	I
work to-day stands. That Trivikrama's work had a supremacy	f
in the field of letters is shown by the four commentaries on it,	{/
which have now come down to us.   As for the language, it is	\
not appreciable from our view of the standard of prose.    It	|
presents all the frailties of the style of Subandhu.   The same	I
intricate punnings, the very same long compounds, the self-	^
same strained constructions are all everywhere abundant. Mis	f'
vocabulary however is more learned ancf more extensive than	\
that of Ban a.    The Madalasa-champu is likewise referred to	I
his authorship.	!
Next comes the Ramayana-champu of King Bhoja of	I
Dhar.    He was a great patron of letters and himself highly	I
learned.     He is reputed to be the author of  the Sarasvati-	\
Kanthabharanam.    From an inscription grant dated Samvat	\
'/!
1078 (A. D. 1022) it appears be reigned from 943-1022. His work	)
has had a high renown ever since its composition, which is proved by the reverence with which it is looked upon by scholars of our own times. Tradition says that the chapters up to the Sundara-kanda were composed by a Kalidasa of his court and the rest by himself. It is doubted if the work had really anything to do with the royal author. Perhaps his name was purchased. BhojVs poetry is even more appreciated than his prose ; for in the latter the vices described of later Sanskrit prose had already begun to make their mark. Yet the language is very harmonious and musical. His choice of words is especially noteworthy. Tradition, unsupported however
I