Kālidāsa's mention of an Uragapura (or, in the reading known to Vallabhadeva, Nāgapura) seems to have given rise to several theories.

Dakṣiṇāvarta’s location of the place on a river Kāyakuṭī is, as we have seen, echoed in the commentary Mallinātha, but also in those of the Keralan commentators Aruṇagirinātha and Nārāyaṇapaṇḍita.  Unsurprisingly, the late medieval commentators from further North seem not to provide information about the identity of the place or the river that it lies on.

Nandargikar in his notes to his 4th edition is categoric that the town must be Nagapattinam, which he asserts without any supporting argument (1971:123): 

‘Hemâdri interpretes (sic) this by “nāgapurasya nāthaṃ.” But he is evidently wrong, the town alluded to here is nāgapaṭṭana or nāgapaṭṭaṇa (Negapattam) in the Râjamahendri district of the Madras Presidency.’

(I suppose that this might mean that Nandargikar supposed that Hemādri erroneously took the town to be the one that is now most famous under the name Nagpur.)

Then there is the possibility that Uragapura refers to Madurai (as in the post referred to by Emmanuel Francis: http://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology_list.indology.info/1999-March/016494.html).

Others again think it must be in a suburb of Trichy, at the Northern edge of the Pāṇḍya area (Ghurye, Caste and Race in India, p. 357):
‘This is again the earliest and perhaps also the solitary reference to the famous early mediaeval and late ancient city or town of Uraiyur in Tiruchirapalli (Trichinopoly) district.’

Dhoyī’s Pavanadūta places the town on the bank of the Tāmraparṇī, which would preclude any identification with Nagapattinam, Madurai or Trichy: 

śrīkhaṇḍādreḥ parisaram atikramya gavyūtimātraṃ 
gantavyas te kim api jagatīmaṇḍanaṃ pāṇḍyadeśaḥ/
tatra khyātaṃ puram uragam ity ākhyayā tāmrapārṇyāḥ 
tīre mugdhakramukatarubhir baddharekhe bhajethāḥ// 8

But of course it is possible that Dhoyī knew little about Uragapura/Nāgapura, having simply read about it in, for instance, Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṃśa in the context of the description of the Pāṇḍyan king, and that he decided on that basis that it must be on the bank of the Tāmraparṇī.

Furthermore, it is perhaps not especially likely that Kālidāsa had been there either.  It could simply have been famous to him as the Pāṇḍya capital, either in his own time, or in some legendary timeless time that he himself knew of only from other literary references.

Dominic Goodall



On 07-Sep-2017, at 7:23 AM, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

Dear Christophe,

Here are some further thoughts related to the place of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha. If he calls it ‘Mahārjuna', one should not equate it with Madhyārjuna or Tiruviṭaimarutūr. We should look for a place called Perumarutūr. Today, you will find many Marutūrs in Tamil Nadu. There is a Perumarutūr in Pudukkottai District (https://www.google.com/maps/@10.0792648,79.1085514,15.95z). But there are no inscriptional records supporting this location as a settlement of Brahmins of high achievement.

However, we have another Perumarutūr mentioned in inscriptions from the 7th century. The Iḷaiyāṉputtūr copper plates (Āvaṇam 18, p.10) mention a Perumarutūr, a village on the bank of the Kāviri river where Vedic Brahmins lived. The objective of the grant was to give a Brahmin from this village a Brahmadeya village called Iḷaiyāṉputtūr in Kōvilpaṭṭi-Caṅkaraṉkōvil region of today. R. Nagaswamy has discussed this inscription in http://tamilartsacademy.com/articles/article54.xml.

Later medieval inscriptions also mention persons from Perumarutūr as living in different villages. SII 12, no. 184 refers to a Brahmin from Perumarutūr living in Ulakaḷantacōḻaccaturvetimaṅkalam identified with Omāmpuliyur near Chidambaram. (The inscription also refers to a Tiruvalañcuḻi Uṭaiyār Iccippeṟṟarayar of Aḻicupakkam. Interestingly Tiruvalañcuḻi Uṭaiyār is the Tamil equivalent of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha (except for the prefix Tiru-) and he is supposedly from Aḻicupākkam.) Karantai Plates mention a 

According to SII 2, no. 70, p. 332, Perumarutūr (Perumarudūr) was in the KīḻPalāṟu subdivision of Pācciṟ Kūṟṟam of Rājāśraya Vaḷanāṭu. Karandai Plates of 1021 mention a Brahmin from the same village receiving a share of the grant. Karandai Plates also mention another Brahmin from Perumarutūr but living in a different village. SII 26, no. 729 of 1219-20 CE in Tiruneṭuṅkaḷam in Tiruchi district mentions a Maṇṭaiyāḻvāṉ Vetanāyakapaṭṭan (Vedanāyakabhaṭṭa) of Kāśyapa gotra from Perumarutūr. Inscription SII 26, no. 140 of 1411 CE in Komaralingam in Coimbatore district mentions a Brahmin from Perumarutūr who acted as a representative of the Vijayanagara king.

According to K. G. Krishnan, the editor of Karandai Plates of 1021 CE, this village was located either in Lalgudi or Musiri Taluk of Tiruchirappalli district. There is a village called Ciṟumarutūr/Sirmarudhur (Little Marutūr) to the west of Lalgudi. (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sirumarudhur,+Tamil+Nadu+621218,+India/@10.8824954,78.7518197,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x3baaf14646fb8353:0xb6c72eac7121f4!8m2!3d10.8819984!4d78.7603726) To the north of Ciṟumarutūr is a village called Marutūr. I do not know if this was the Perumarutūr (contrasting with the Little Marutūr) mentioned in the inscriptions. 

Whatever be its current exact location is, I propose this Perumarutūr near Tiruchrappalli to be the Tamil equivalent of ‘Mahārjuna' of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha. 

Regards,
Palaniappan

 
On Sep 4, 2017, at 6:04 AM, Christophe Vielle <christophe.vielle@UCLOUVAIN.BE> wrote:

Dear Palaniappan,

the date (which can be estimated only relatively) and place of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha are indeed still open to discussion. I take the opportunity of your remark for reviewing my notes on the question.

is not really supported (there is a reference, ibid. fn. 18 p. 353, to Unni 1987 [see below], but the latter pp. 40-41 proposes a dating from the 13th to the 15th c.). 

The place Tiruvalañcuḻi [Thiruvalanjuli, also near Kumbakonam] given by Ajay K. Rao 2014 (your reference) was suggested by T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī in his preface to the 1919 Trivandrum Sanskrit Series (no. 64) edition of the Meghasaṃdeśa with Dakṣiṇāvartanātha's Pradīpa (following the name of Śiva called Dakṣiṇāvartanātha in the sanctuary there, see: http://www.archive.org/details/MeghadutaWithTheCommentaryOfDaksinavartanatha ). 
Unithiri 1976 (see below) suggests another Tiruvalañcuḻi… in Kerala (Thrissur District), with the idea that D would be the Sanskritised form of a Malayalam place-name [Tiru +] "valañcuzhi (dakṣiṇa = valam, 'right' + āvarta = cuzhi, 'whirlpool')". (Unni 1987, pp. 34-38, in discussing these suggestions even adds a third, Keralan also, Tiruvalañcuḷi place, but he does not accept the Keralan ones and keeps the idea of the name Dakṣiṇāvartanātha as referring to the peculiar name of Śiva in the Tamil tradition linked to Tiruvalañcuḻi near Kumbakonam). As we have seen, D gives the Sanskrit name of his place of origin (which could correspond to Tiruviṭaimaruttūr" [Thiruvidaimaruthur] near Kumbakonam, and thus close to the shrine of his name-deity according to N. P. Unni), for which you make now another suggestion of interpretation (Tiruppuṭaimarutūr [Thiruppudaimaruthur], Ambasamudram taluk in Thirunelveli Distr. - http://tnmurals.org/Tiruppudaimaruduur.html : mural paintings in the temple).

As for the relative dating, according to T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī the date of D must be between the 12th c. (since D quotes the lexicon of Keśavasvāmin [ed. TSS 23, 29, 31, 1913] dated by Gaṇapati Śāstrī to the 12th c. - but this lexicon belongs probably rather to the 2nd part of the 13th c. according to Madhukar M. Patkar, History of Sanskrit Lexicography, 1981, p. 97) and Aruṇagirinātha's time  (contemporary of  Mallinātha, early 15th century).
Examining the peculiar relationships between Dakṣiṇāvartanātha's Pradīpa and Pūrṇasarasvatī's Vidyullatā, S.K. De (intr. to his critical ed. of the poem, 1957, p. xxxi fn. 92 ; cf. also 1957 below, pp. 51-52) presumes that D is prior to P. This is also the opinion of Unni with a few more arguments (1987, pp. 52-53, cf. 2016 below). But Unithiri, who has made a closer comparison between the two (1976: "It is to be noticed that in almost all cases [when D differs from P in readings] D[a]k[ṣiṇāvartanātha] notes the variant readings which are those  of P[ūrṇa]s[arasvatī] and in most cases those of P[a]r[ameśva] also, indicating thereby that Dk corrects the traditionally accepted readings for his own reasons" — about 20 such occurrences) has suggested the reverse (1975, p. viii; cf. also Iyer 1965, stressing on the differences between the Kerala textual tradition of Pūrṇasarasvatī/Parameśvara, on the one hand, and the one of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha/Mallinātha on the other).

Having myself several reasons to place P in the first part of the 14th c. (he must be close to Payyūr Bhaṭṭa Parameśvara 'I', fl. c. 1330, whose Sumanoramaṇī criticizes the Vidyullatā in a manner letting think that the two authors were very near in time and place), it would mean that D would belong either to to middle/second part of the 14th c. (close to both Mallinātha and Aruṇagirinātha — there is some connexion between them by their respective choices of names: A and M inspired by/having studied with D?) if he comes after, or to 2nd part of the 13th c. if he come before. I am at the moment of my examination rather inclined to place D after P.

References:
• K. Chattopadhyaya, “Dakṣiṇāvartanātha and his Commentary on the Meghadūta”, Mahamahopadhyaya Kuppuswami Sastri Commemoration Volume [C. Kunhan Raja ed.], Madras [c. 1935], pp. 17-24: https://archive.org/stream/in.ernet.dli.2015.201063/2015.201063.Kuppuswami-Sastri#page/n27/mode/2up 
• S. K. De, “Some Commentators on the Meghadūta”, Annals of Oriental Research Institute (Madras), Centenary Number 13, 1957, (Sanskrit Section), pp. 49-64
• S. Venkitasubramonia Iyer, “The Meghasandeśa tradition in Kerala”, Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal 3/1, 1965, pp. 60-68.
• N.V.P Unithiri, “Dakṣiṇāvartanātha’s commentary on Meghasaṃdeśa”, Journal of the Kerala University Oriental Research Institute & Manuscripts Library 20/1, 1975, pp. 13-20; Id. “Dakṣiṇāvartanātha – commentator on Kālidāsa’s poems: his provenance”, Vishveshvaranand Indological Journal 14, 1976, pp. 216-222; 
• N.P. Unni, Meghasandeśa (an assessment from the South), Delhi : Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1987, pp. 33-65; Id., Highways and Byways in Sanskrit Literature, Delhi : New Bharatiya Book, 2012, vol. 1, pp. 181-191, 232-238 [retyping of the previous one; on Dakṣiṇāvartanātha, same pages as in 1987 also in N.P. Unni, Meghasandeśa of Kālidāsa with the commentaries Pradīpa of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha, Vidyullatā of Pūrṇasarasvatī, Sumanoramaṇī of Parameśvara, edited with an elaborate introduction,
Delhi : Bharatiya Vidya Prakashan, 1987, again retyped in Id. ed. Meghasandeśa of Kālidāsa (text and translation) with Twelves Sanskrit Commentaries, Veliyanad: Chinmaya International Foundation, 2016, pp. 42-69 — the text of the introduction of Unni in Meghasandeśa of Kālidāsa with the Commentary Pradīpa of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha, Delhi : Nag Publishers, 1984, is slightly different, sometimes more extended, than the 1987 version - the latter can be seen as the "revised" one since it is the one which has been thereafter reproduced; I couldn't check Unni's article [probably = the text of the 1984 ed. intr.] "Dakṣiṇāvartanātha: A commentator of Kālidāsa", Sri Jagannatha Jyothi - Journal of Indology 1/2 (Puri), 1984, pp. 94-106).

P.S. 
1. the wrong statement made by T. Gaṇapati Śāstrī (1919) that Mallinātha quotes "Aruṇâchalanâtha" (= Aruṇagirinātha) – the nātha to whom both Mallinātha and Aruṇagirinātha refer being samely Dakṣiṇāvartanātha only – is slavishly repeated by De 1957, p. 51, and should be ignored.
2. Here is the available portion of  the text of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha's Dīpikā on Raghuvaṃśa 6.59  as quoted by Unni 1984, p. 10, 1987, p. 37 (2016, p. 44): pāṇḍyadeśe kāyakuṭīti kāpi nadī vidyate | 
3. Editions of Dakṣiṇāvartanātha's Dīpikās on both the Raghuvaṃśa and the Kumārasambhava is something reallly needed: Unni is himself relying on, respectively, the KUML transcripts T.220 and T.216 (the first one was lost when I once tried to consult it).

Best wishes,
Christophe


Le 1 sept. 2017 à 09:04, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <Palaniappa@aol.com> a écrit :

Thank you Christophe. I stand corrected regarding the name Kāyakkuṭi. Here is the location of the village Achamthavilthan https://www.google.com/maps/place/Achamthavilthan,+Tamil+Nadu+626137,+India/@9.3406345,77.5745443,13.98z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x3b06c40d59b23ce7:0xefcca7727b8ad986!8m2!3d9.4368458!4d77.6643502. 

The river Kāyakkuṭi is not marked in the map, even at maximum zooming. (In contrast, one can see Vaippar can be seen further to the south.) But the satellite map shows a possible dry bed with potential water flows when there is heavy rain on the mountains to the west of Rajapalaiyam. Also see http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=9.466122&lon=77.574162&z=15&m=b&show=/19005235/காயக்குடி-ஆறு.

It is really surprising that such an insignificant river (probably unknown to people from outside the immediate area) is mentioned by a person from a far-away Tiruviṭaimarutūr. (One source says Dakṣiṇāvartanātha is from Tiruvalañcuḻi near Kumpakōṇam. See https://books.google.com/books?id=70uvBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT37&lpg=PT37&dq=Dakṣiṇāvartanātha&source=bl&ots=fJgek3fYnA&sig=IuQZUkdGSskYUIqSsIMN43p3VXU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiXnqHGtYPWAhWj6oMKHRveCIIQ6AEIRTAH#v=onepage&q=Dakṣiṇāvartanātha&f=false ) If the name Kāyakkuṭi is indeed mentioned in the commentary, and if Dakṣiṇāvartanātha’s place is still open, a possible candidate is Tiruppuṭaimarutūr, the southern ‘arjuna’ location. (See https://www.google.com/maps/@9.8155248,77.8396093,8.27z)

One source dates Dakṣiṇāvartanātha to 12th century. See https://books.google.com/books?id=9P3lDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Dakṣiṇāvartanātha&source=bl&ots=6hFyoz8A9b&sig=XbHCimb93_96S5HpUkD63FXetXk&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdqvSko4PWAhUB7oMKHf5OBUcQ6AEIRzAH#v=onepage&q=Dakṣiṇāvartanātha&f=false. In the 12th century, the Pāṇṭiyas were in Madurai. Even if Dakṣiṇāvartanātha lived in the 14th or 15th century, there was no headquarters of the Pāṇṭiyas on the Kāyakkuṭi river. Two places associated with the Pāṇṭiyas were Ukkiraṉ Kōṭṭai (https://www.google.com/maps/@9.8155248,77.8396093,8.27z) and Teṉkāci (https://www.google.com/maps/@9.8155248,77.8396093,8.27z) Both are nowhere near the Kāyakkuṭi river.

I think this Kāyakkuṭi river is a red herring as far as identifying Uraga is concerned.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On Aug 31, 2017, at 11:02 AM, Christophe Vielle <christophe.vielle@UCLOUVAIN.BE> wrote:

There is a Kāyakuṭī/"Kayakudi" river in Tamil Nadu, more precisely in the Pandya country. See:

The imperial gazetteer of India, W.W. Hunter, vol. 1, 1885, p. 12:

https://archive.org/stream/imperialgazette01huntuoft#page/12/mode/2up

Achandaviltán. — Town in Srivilliputtur táluk, Tinnevelli District, Madras Presidency. Lat. 9 29' n., long. 77 42' e. ; population (1881), 2765 ; houses, 544. Situated on the left bank of the Kayakúdi river.

http://www.angelfire.com/nc2/achamthavilthan/about.htm

"Achamthavilthan" ,  means "the lord has removed the fear from the minds of the people".  There is a small story behind this.

There is a river in between the two parts of the village.  People have to go to other side of the river to buy Vegetables and other items. Once a pragrent lady has gone to other side to buy some items. On return, due to sudden rainfall there was a heavy water in the river and she has prayed to the Lord Venkatesa Perumal and he made the way for her. Due to this the people of this village has changed the name as "Achamthavilthan".

11km from there, the same  river (a tributary of the Vaippar river/stream, which flows between the Vangai and the Tamraparni) is also linked to the Madavar Vilagam Vaidyanathar temple in Srivilliputhur (now Virudhunagar District):

The lord also said that as the spring healed her wounds and quenched her thirst, the stream would be known as Kayakudi Aaru.  Those having a dip in the river would be free of all fears of life and attain all comforts in life.

This should be the river to which refers the South-Indian commentator Dakṣiṇāvartanātha (who himself originated from some village called Mahārjuna, identified with the "region called Madhyārjuna which is the Sanskritised form of the popular name of Tiruviṭaimaruttūr" [Thiruvidaimaruthur] near Kumbakonam, according to N. P. Unni).

Why Dakṣiṇāvartanātha says that [the supposed Pandyan capital] Nāgapuram is on the border of this river? Maybe because at the time of the late Pandyas (from the second third of the 14th c. onwards, after the establishment of the Sultanate of Madurai), their real capital was no longer in Madurai (even if they never stopped in their inscriptions to symbolically present themselves as the true rulers of Madurai); "they found themselves restricted to their more southern possessions" (K.A. Nilakanta Sastri, The Pandyan Kingdom, 1929, p. 217) in the regions of Srivilliputur, Tenkasi and Tirunelveli.

I am not sure that more historical importance has to be ascribed to this possibly "new" location of Nāgapura by Dakṣiṇāvartanātha, who is a rather fanciful commentator. 

Best wishes,
Christophe Vielle

Le 29 août 2017 à 23:27, Sudalaimuthu Palaniappan <palaniappa@aol.com> a écrit :

If the question is really about the river mentioned by a commentator, there is no river in Tamil Nadu called Kāyakuṭī. If one considers the possibility that this name is a translation of some Tamil name, one has to allow for ‘losses in translation’. According to Monier Williams, kāya also means "assemblage , collection , multitude SaddhP.” This seems to be a synonym of saṅgha (perhaps referring to the legendary Tamil assembly in Madurai) or a translation of ‘Ta. Kūṭal’, another name of the city of Madurai. 

If it was related to the city called uraga, there was a discussion in Indology earlier such as

I was not able to navigate and get to all the posts from this link. You may want to do a search on ‘uraga’ and look at the posts.

Regards,
Palaniappan

On Aug 29, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Christophe Vielle via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:

The name of this river is reminding of 'Kāyal', the name of the emporium in the delta of the Tamraparni (Tinnevelly District) referred to by Marco Polo (https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/p/polo/marco/travels/book3.21.html - cf. Kólkhoi emporion, Ptolemy Geogr. 7, 1, 10). But the Tamil word kāyal ('backwater, mouth of a stream") is far from the meaning of "Curve of the body" (kuṭī is found in several words for/names of "curving" rivers). The Tāmraparṇī  herself is described by Kālidāsa in 4.50 (53  crit. ed. Goodall & Isaacson).
This explanation of Nāga(/Uraga)-pura as a city on the border of the Kāyakuṭī  river in the  Pāṇḍya country was already made by  Dakṣiṇāvartanātha  (13th-14th c.) in his unpublished dīpikā on the Raghuvaṃśa according to N. P. Unni (Highways and Byways in Sanskrit Literature, Delhi: New Bharatiya Book Corporation, 2012, p. 159, who relies on a KUML transcript-manuscript). It is in this case (like in other) the source of  Aruṇagirinātha (contemporary of  Mallinātha, early 15th century - the latter who also sometimes uses Dakṣiṇāvartanātha has possibly misread his source here or, as you guess, his text has been later corrupted), himself followed by  Nārāyaṇa Paṇḍita.
The commentary of Vallabhadeva could be useful here, but I have not Goodall & Isaacson edition at hand.
On his side, the commentator Hemādri says: uragākhyasyeti kalpitārtham.
Best wishes,
Christophe Vielle

Le 28 août 2017 à 21:34, Krishnaprasad G via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> a écrit :

Dear all

In Raghuvamsa 6th Canto and Verse 58 or 59 
अथोरगाख्यस्य पुरस्य नाथं first foot says about Nagapura or Uragapura 
Mallinatha explains as कान्यकुब्जतीरवर्तिनागपुरस्य but this seems to be a mistake as Kanouj is on the North of India , whereas the poet in further verses clearly places it on the south. 

And on further search I found Arunagirinatha and Narayana in the commentary to the above mentioned verse give the details as the place  in the bank of the river कायकुटी
पाण्ड्येषु कायकुटी नाम नदी प्रवहति तस्मिन् तीरे नागपुराख्यं...

Does any one knows about this river or its modern name kindly inform.

I also believe that even Mallinatha has written कायकुटी as the name is not famous that must be due to लिपिसारूप्य scribal error occurred
Thanks
Correction :
Not तस्मिन् 
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)

–––––––––––––––––––
Louvain-la-Neuve

_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)


–––––––––––––––––––
Louvain-la-Neuve



–––––––––––––––––––
Louvain-la-Neuve


_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
indology-owner@list.indology.info (messages to the list's managing committee)
http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list options or unsubscribe)



Dominic Goodall
École française d'Extrême-Orient,
19, rue Dumas,
Pondicherry 605001
Tel. +91 413 2334539