Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of South India from Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar c19.s1: Sanskrit

A History of South India from Prehistoric Times to the Fall of Vijayanagar c19.s1

Language
English

Contents

Sanskrit

c19.s1.1

The Vedic religion of sacrifice had spread all over the country by the beginning of the Christian era, if not earlier, and Vedic literature and exegesis therefore naturally claim our first attention in the domain of Sanskrit. Āpastamba, the author of a complete set of śrauta, grihya and dharma sūtras that has luckily been preserved in its entirety, must have flourished somewhere about 300 B.C. in the Godāvari valley. His language seems to be of an age preceding that of Pāṇini, and the followers of his school abound in the land south of the Narmada. The school of Satyāshāḍha Hiranyakeśins, whose Dharmasūtra shows clear traces of Āpastamba's influence, came into prominence in the Sahya region (Malabar and S. Kanara?) between the first century B.C. and the first century A.D. A third school which can also be definitely assigned to South India is that of the Vaikhānasas whose Grihya sūtra shows many influences of the idiom of the Dravidian languages. The manuals of these two schools also are complete.

c19.s1.2

The foundation of the Chola and Vijayanagar empires was marked by notable efforts to elucidate the Vedas. In the reign of Chola Parāntaka I, Venkata Mādhava, who lived in a village on the banks of the Kaveri, wrote the Rigarthadipikā. Under the patronage of the early Vijayanagar sovereigns, notably Bukka I, a large syndicate of scholars, headed by Sāyaṇa, undertook and completed the stupendous task of commenting upon the Samhitas of all the four Vedas and many of the Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas.

c19.s1.3

Coming long after the age of the texts they annotated, these scholars obviously did not always succeed in interpreting them correctly or convincingly; but the most critical of modern scholars cannot deny the debt they owe to the commentaries which recorded the traditional interpretations current in the Vedic-schools of the tenth and fourteenth centuries in South India. Bharatasvāmin's commentary on the Sāmaveda written under Hoysala Rāmanātha also deserves notice among the pre-Sāyaṇa Vedic commentaries.

c19.s1.4

In the interval between Venkata Mādhava and Sāyaṇa came also another great commentator, Shaḍguruśishya, ‘the pupil of six teachers’, whose personal name has not been handed down to us. He commented on the *Aitareya Brāhmaṇa* and *Āranyaka* and Kātyāyana’s *Sarvānukramaṇī*, probably about the middle of the thirteenth century.

c19.s1.5

Besides Vedic texts proper, ancillary works like the Prātiśākhyas (manuals of phonetics) and the Kalpa sūtras (rituals) were also annotated. Shaḍguruśishya himself wrote a commentary on *Āśvalāyana Śrauta sūtra*, and the *Āpastamba Śrauta* was annotated twice over by Tālavrintanivāsin and by Caundapācārya (fourteenth century); the latter was also the author of *Prayogaratnamālā*, an independent treatise on ritual practices. The *Bodhāyana Śrauta* also had two commentaries, one by Bhavasvāmin (ninth or tenth century), and the other by the famous Sāyaṇa who was himself a follower of the Sūtra. Haradatta is another well-known annotator of the same school whose commentaries *Anāvilā* on the *Āśvalāyana Grihya sūtra*, *Anākulā* on *Āpastamba Grihya sūtra*, and *Ujjvalā* on the *Dharma sūtra* are rightly celebrated. He also wrote the *Mitāksharā* on *Gautama-dharmasūtra*, and a commentary on *Bodhāyana Śrauta sūtra* of which only an insignificant fragment has been traced so far.

c19.s1.6

Devarāja’s *Nighaṇṭu Vyākhyā*, written at Śrīrangam in the fifteenth century, marks an important stage in the history of Vedic scholarship as it is a very learned exposition of Yāska’s celebrated treatise on Vedic lexicology.

c19.s1.7

Among the Purāṇas, the *Bhāgavata* was composed somewhere in South India about the beginning of the tenth century. It summed up the tenets and outlook of the neo-bhakti cult which had been developing from the fourth or fifth century in the course of the conflict between Hinduism and the non-Vedic creeds of Jainism and Buddhism. The *Bhāgavata* combines a simple surging emotional *bhakti* to Krishna with the Advaita philosophy of Śankara in a manner that has been considered possible only in the Tamil country in that period. The *Vishṇu Purāṇa*, perhaps the shortest and the best work of its class, was commented on by Vishnu Chitta in the twelfth century from the standpoint of Viśishtādvaita. We must also notice the more famous commentaries on the *Rāmāyaṇa* and *Mahābhārata* for the place they hold in literary criticism as well as in religious thought. Ātreya Varadarāja, otherwise known as Uḍāli, composed his *Vivekatilaka* on the *Rāmāyaṇa* in the twelfth century; he came later than Rāmānuja and is cited in the *Iḍu*, the great thirteenth-century commentary on *Tiruvāymoḻi*. The much better-known *Bhūṣaṇa*, also the work of a Vaishnava author, was produced by Govindarāja, a native of Kāñchipuram and contemporary of Krishnadeva Rāya and Rāma Rāya of Vijayanagar. He is said to have got his inspiration to write the work during one of his visits to the famous shrine at Tirupati. Mādhava Yogi was the author of *Kaṭaka*, an important commentary on the *Rāmāyaṇa*; the author put forward many interesting points of textual criticism and held Rāma to be an avatar of Brahmā as the Lord of Gāyatrī. Again, the *Vālmīki-hṛdaya* of Ahobala was based on the comments on select verses from the *Rāmāyaṇa* scattered throughout the *Iḍu*. Īśvara Dikshita of the Kaundinya *gōtra* wrote two commentaries on the epic, a *laghu* and a *bṛhad vivaraṇa* in 1517; the work was done at Hemakūṭa in Vijayanagar under the patronage of Krishnadeva Rāya. All together about a score of commentaries on the *Rāmāyaṇa* were produced in South India. On the *Mahābhārata*, the *Lakṣhābharaṇa* of Vādirāja, written some time during the sixteenth century, is the best known of the extant commentaries from South India; the author has sought in his own way to determine the authentic text of the 100,000 verses of the great epic. About the same time or a little earlier came the *Vyākhyāratnāvali* of Ānandapūrṇa Vidyāsāgara who wrote from Gokarna on the west coast and was a contemporary of the Kadamba Kāmadeva, father-in-law of Harihara II of Vijayanagar. A third commentary by Sarvajña Nārāyaṇa, only fragments of which survive, is perhaps the oldest work of its class so far known from the South.

c19.s1.8

In belles-lettres, the first work that claims attention is *Sattasaī*, an anthology in Mahārāshṭri Prākrit passing under the name of the Sātavāhana ruler Hāla and comprising about seven hundred verses. Each verse is a vignette characterized by an unusual degree of realism, and the collection as a whole depicts ‘simple loves set among simple scenes, . . . the work of poets who wished really to express the feelings as well as describe the externals of the people of the land, the cowherds and cowherdesses, the girl who tends the garden or grinds corn at the mill, the hunter, the handworker’. On linguistic grounds the work is assigned by critics to the period A.D. 200-450; but it may possibly be a revised version of an earlier work. Another notable work of the age of the Sātavāhanas was the *Brihatkathā* of Guṇāḍhya, reputed to have been composed in the Paiśācī dialect but no longer available except through a number of later Sanskrit recensions; many legends are told about the composition and fate of the book, and its widespread influence on later literature in many languages is universally admitted. The tales of the *Brihatkathā* had for their hero Naravāhanadatta, a son of Udayana, and borrowed motifs from the *Rāmāyaṇa* and from Buddhist sources. The work seems to have survived till about the eighth or ninth century and is highly praised by such famous authors as Bāṇa and Dandin.

c19.s1.9

Sundara Pāṇdya's *Nitidvishashṭikā* must be older than the sixth century; the author's identity remains a mystery, but the work has great merit and its verses deserve a high place in the literature of *nīti* (policy). Kumāradāsa's long poem in twenty cantos, *Jānakīharaṇa*, handles the familiar story of Rāma; the author was clearly an admirer of Kālidāsa and his work contains many echoes of that great poet. Tradition, late and not very reliable, identifies Kumāradāsa with a king of Ceylon who ruled in the sixth century. This poem has had a curious history; till recently it was only known from a Sinhalese paraphrase and a retranslation of it into Sanskrit in a poem of fifteen cantos by a certain Rājasundara (c. 1600), but the original was recovered recently in Malabar. Much better known and of greater literary merit is Bhāravi's *Kirātārjunīyam* which describes, in eighteen cantos, the conflict between Śiva and Arjuna ending in the latter's attainment of the valuable weapon *Pāśupata astra*. The poem is remarkable for its vigour and its imagery. In an inscription dated 634 the poet is mentioned as having attained great fame already. Tradition connects him with Vishnuvardhana, the founder of the line of Eastern Chālukyas, and with Simhavishnu of Kāñchi; it also affirms that the Ganga king Durvinita annotated the fifteenth canto of the poem: but all this is very doubtful.

c19.s1.10

In passing it may be observed that the inscription just mentioned comes from Aihole and records the achievements of Pulakeśin II in a short poem of no mean literary quality; its author, Ravikīrti, affirms that, by his composition, he deemed himself the peer of Bhāravi and Kālidāsa! A somewhat earlier inscription from Mahākūta is composed in ornate prose which could stand comparison with Bāṇa. In fact a complete history of Sanskrit literature must devote attention to inscriptions as much as to books. This is, in fact, equally true for all languages; but it is a subject that cannot be pursued here. Vijayabhaṭṭārikā, the wife of king Chandrāditya who was a son of Pulakeśin II, has been plausibly identified with the poetess Vijayāṅkā or Vijjikā, who describes herself as a dark Sarasvatī (the Goddess of Learning, usually depicted as white), and whom the great critic Rājaśekhara placed next only to Kālidāsa for style. The few verses of this poetess which have been preserved in the anthologies go far to justify this high estimate.

c19.s1.11

The 'curious-minded' Pallava ruler of Kāñchī, Mahendravarman I, found time to compose two delectable farces (prahasanas), Mattavilāsa and Bhagavadajjuka, which succeed in turning the laugh against the Kāpālikas and Buddhist Bhikshus, and afford a pleasing contrast to the growing intensity of sectarian feeling in his day. The authorship of Bhagavadajjuka is, however, doubtful, and the work has been attributed to Bodhāyana. The relatively dry subject of prosody was expounded in Chandoviciti-Janāśraya, perhaps by Mādhavavarman II of the Vishnukundin line (whose title was Janāśraya). If tradition preserved in the Avantisundarikathā is true, the illustrious Dandin was the great-grandson of Dāmodara, a friend of Bhāravi, and adorned the Pallava court of Narasimhavarman I (630-68). The kathā just mentioned is itself a long prose work which has only been preserved in part; the kernel of the extant Daśakumāracarita is most likely a part of this work, its beginning and end being by other hands. The superb manual of rhetoric Kāvyādarśa, by which Dandin is best known, marks an epoch in the history of literary criticism as it made the Vaidarbhi style the touchstone of good poetry. It also formed the basis of Daṇḍiyalaṅgāram in Tamil.

c19.s1.12

Though most of Bhavabhūti's work was done in Northern India, still, as he was born in Berar and is said to have had his education under Kumārila, it may not be wrong to include the great dramatist's name in this survey. Two of his dramas—the Mahāviracarita and Uttara-rāma-carita—are based on parts of the Rāma saga, while the third—Mālatīmādhava—is a work of the poet's imagination. He flourished at the end of the seventh century and the beginning of the eighth.

c19.s1.13

Kulaśekhara, one of the later ālvārs, and a ruler of Kerala, probably in the ninth century, produced a splendid devotional lyric in the Mukunda-mālā which has retained a wide popularity to this day. Kulaśekhara is believed to have been the patron of Vāsudeva, author of the four Yamaka Kāvyas, *Yudhishṭhira Vijaya*, *Tripuradahana*, *Śaurikathā* and *Nalodaya*. Though Yamaka (sound jingle) often leads to queer expressions and forced constructions, Vāsudeva must be deemed to have succeeded in a remarkable measure in escaping the defects of the method. The *Yudhishṭhira Vijaya* was commented on by Rājānaka Ratnākara of Kashmir. Vāsudeva also wrote the *Vāsudeva Vijaya*, a Kāvya in five cantos on the model of the *Bhaṭṭikāvya*, illustrating the rules of Sanskrit grammar laid down by Pāṇini. The *Āścarya-cūḍāmaṇi* of Śaktibhadra claims to be the first full-blown drama (*nāṭaka*) to be produced in the southern country; its theme is the perennial Rāma story, and some of the author's innovations are real improvements. The poetry and prose are alike of high quality, and the work has always been very popular among the actors of Malabar. Another play by the same author, *Unmādavāsavadattā*, is no longer extant. He is reputed to have been a pupil of Śankara and may be assigned to the early ninth century.

c19.s1.14

Trivikrama Bhaṭṭa, contemporary with Rāshṭrakūṭa Indra III (915), was the author of *Nalacampū* or *Damayantī-kathā*, the earliest extant Campū in Sanskrit. The story is that the work was composed with the aid of Sarasvati to meet the challenge of a rival at a time when his father, a court-poet, was absent. It is said to have been left unfinished because the father returned and rendered the son's effort otiose. Both verse and prose are no more than mediocre. The *Madālasācampū* is also attributed to Trivikrama. The earliest extant Campū from Kerala is the *Amogharāghava* by Divākara (A.D. 1299)—on the Bālakāṇḍa story of the *Rāmāyaṇa*; this type became much more common later both in Sanskrit and Malayālam.

c19.s1.15

A second Kulaśekhara from Kerala (935-55) wrote two dramas—*Tapatīsaṃvaraṇa* and *Subhadrādhanañjaya*—which dramatized minor incidents from the *Mahābhārata* in a very stage-worthy form. Kulaśekhara was also the author of a prose work *Āścarya-mañjarī* cited in a Bengali commentary (A.D. 1159) on the *Amarakośa*. In his time according to tradition there was a reform in the mode of staging Sanskrit dramas by the Chākkiyārs; they are professional actors, who appear to have been a survival in Kerala of the older institution of *sūtas* who recited the Purāṇas to popular audiences. The repertoire of the Chākkiyārs included the *Mattavilāsa*, *Bhagavadajjuka* and *Kalyāṇasaugandhika*, among others.

c19.s1.16

The last mentioned work is a play by Nilakantha, a Vyāyoga depicting a tussle between Hanumān and Bhīma ending in a compromise on their recognizing their common parentage. Bilvamaṅgala-svāmi, also called Kṛṣṇa-līlā-śuka, or Līlā-śuka for short, was another protégé of the king; his Kṛṣṇa-karṇāmṛta is a devotional poem of unsurpassed beauty in three āśvāsas. He composed other works of an erudite nature; but by this poem he lives in the hearts of Sanskritists.

c19.s1.17

The great Jaina writer Somadevasūri (950) flourished in the court of Arikesari II of Vemulavāda (Andhra Pradesh), a subordinate of Rāṣṭrakūṭa Kṛṣṇa III, where the illustrious Kannada poet Pampa also lived. Somadeva was the author of Yaśastilaka campū, Nītivākyāmṛta, and other works. The tale of the Campū is by no means dull, but the main objective of the author is the propagation of Jaina tenets and ethics. The Nītivākyāmṛta reviews the subject-matter of Arthaśāstra from the standpoint of Jaina morals. The author's style is at once learned, pithy and clear. Another contemporary of Kṛṣṇa III was Halāyudha, author of Kavirahasya, a pedantic work which seeks to illustrate the formation of the present tense of Sanskrit roots and at the same time to eulogize the Rāṣṭrakūṭa king. Vādirāja, a pupil of Somadevasūri—a Jain, like his guru—wrote Yaśodharacarita in which he mentions the Pārśvanāthacarita as an earlier work of his; but it is not extant.

c19.s1.18

The prose romance Udayasundarī Kathā of Soḍḍhala, a Kāyastha of Lāṭa, was written about A.D. 1000 under the patronage of Mummunirāja of Thana; the author took Bāṇa's Harṣacarita as his model, but falls far short of it. From Kerala we get in this period the quasi-historical Mūṣakavaṃśa of Atula, a chronicle of the Mūṣaka or Rāmaghata kings in fifteen cantos, and the exquisite unfinished poem Kṛṣṇavilāsa by Sukumāra whose date and nativity are, however, not beyond dispute. The Vikramāṅkadevacarita of Bilhaṇa, the Kashmiri Vidyāpati of Vikramāditya VI, is a Mahākāvya in eighteen cantos, which recounts in epic style the life and deeds of the Cālukyan emperor. The author gives his own life-history in the last canto and says that he composed the poem out of gratitude for the great honour shown to him late in his life by the ruler of Karṇāta. Not all its statements on the relations of Vikramāditya with his elder brother Someśvara can be accepted as true, but the verse is easy and flowing though the descriptions are disproportionately long. Bilhaṇa wrote other works from which citations have survived in anthologies; but there is no proof that the Pañcāśikā, a moving though somewhat outspoken portrayal of the pleasures of illicit love, can properly be attributed to him. Purporting to be the work of Cālukya Someśvara III, but most likely a composition of one or more of his court-poets, is the Mānasollāsa or Abhilashitārtha cintāmaṇi (1129-30), intended for the benefit of all classes in the state. It consists of five books of twenty chapters each. Its range is cyclopaedic, and obviously it lays under contribution many older technical treatises on medicine, magic, veterinary science, the valuing of precious stones and pearls, fortifications, painting and music, games and amusements and on the many other subjects it treats of. No great merit is evident in the choice of topics or their sequence, though the work is valuable as a record of the state of knowledge on many topics at that time. An astrologer and poet who flourished under Someśvara III was Vidyāmādhava whose Pārvati-Rukmiṇiya is a tour de force, each verse yielding two meanings, one narrating the marriage of Śiva and Pārvati and the other that of Krishna and Rukmini. Another and better effort in the same deplorable line was the Rāghava-Pāṇḍaviya of Kavirāja Mādhava Bhaṭṭa setting forth the story of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata. The poet lived in the court of Kadamba Kāmadeva (1182-97) and also wrote the Pārijātaharaṇa, a poem in ten cantos on a well-known episode from the Krishna cycle of legends.

c19.s1.19

A family of hereditary poets held the position of vidyācakravarti (poet-laureate) in the Hoysala court but their names have not been preserved. One of them, who seems to have obtained recognition also from the Pāṇdyas and other rulers of the South, wrote the quasi-historical Gadyakarṇāmṛita, an eloquent prose work dealing with the war between Hoysala Narasimha II and the Pāṇdyas in the first quarter of the thirteenth century. Another composed a poem of high quality, the Rukmiṇikalyāṇa, and wrote commentaries on the Alaṅkārasarvasva and the Kāvyaprakāśa—two celebrated works on poetics; this was in the reign of Ballāla III (1291-1342).

c19.s1.20

To the thirteenth century also belonged Śāradātanaya, born of a scholarly family in the Chingleput district, and author of the well-known Bhāvaprakāśa, an important work on literary criticism, which cites many writers and works otherwise unknown; he also wrote the Śaradiya, a treatise on music. Another celebrity of the same age and neighbourhood was the great Vaishnava teacher Venkatanātha or Vedānta Dēśika (b. 1268) who, though better known for his works on religion and philosophy, achieved distinction in the domain of general literature as well. His Mahākāvya on Krishna's life, called Yādavābhyudaya, was commented on by the great Appaya Dikshita; the Hamsa-sandeśa, an imitation of Kālidāsa's Meghasandeśa, the devotional poem Pādukāsahasra, and the drama Samkalpasūryodaya (a Viśishtādvaitic counterblast to the Advaitic drama Prabodhacandrodaya of Krishna-miśra), deserve particular mention among his other general works.

c19.s1.21

Kerala was prolific in Sandeśa-Kāvyas which have been found there in scores. The Śukasandeśa of Lakshmidāsa (A.D. 1100) is the earliest and perhaps the best. The Kokilasandeśa of Uddaṇḍa Kavi (fifteenth century), and the Mayūrasandeśa of Udaya, the commentator of Locanā (same century), and the Bhringa Sandeśa of Vāsudeva (sixteenth century) also deserve mention. Apart from their lyrical merit, these poems have a historical and topographical interest as they refer to contemporary personalities and events and contain detailed descriptions of the routes of the respective messengers. King Ravivarman Kulaśekhara of Travancore found time for literary pursuits in the midst of his stormy career; he wrote the Pradyumnābhyudaya, a drama in five acts on the marriage of Pradyumna and Prabhāvati, and was the patron of Samudrabandha, the author of a learned commentary on the Alankāra-sarvasva of Ruyyaka of Kashmir.

c19.s1.22

Similar in spirit and manner are two works on dramaturgy, both composed about 1300 and both including a play calculated to glorify the author's patron and illustrate the rules of the drama: these are the Ekāvali of Vidyādhara, written under Narasimha II of Orissa, and Pratāparudra-Yaśobhūshana of Vidyānātha whose patron was Pratāparudra II, the Kākatiya ruler of Wārangal. The last-named ruler was himself the author of a nīti work, extracts from which appear in the anthology Sūktiratnākara of Sūrya and on which the Telugu Baddana-nīti is based. Vidyānātha is often identified with Agastya, the reputed author of seventy-four Kāvyas in all among which are Bālabhārata, a poetic summary of the great epic in twenty cantos commented on by Sālüva Timma, the minister of Krishnadeva Rāya; the Krishna-carita, a prose summary of the Bhāgavata; and Nalakirtikaumudi which narrates the familiar story of Nala and Damayantī. Viśvanātha, the author of Sāhityadarpana a comprehensive work covering the entire field of poetics, flourished (c. 1350) in the court of one Narasimha, probably the third king of that name to rule over Orissa.

c19.s1.23

The achievements of Kumāra Kampana, the second son of Bukka I of Vijayanagar, are celebrated in a beautiful poem by his wife Gaṅgādevī—*Madhurāvijayam* (‘Conquest of Madura’). One of Vidyāraṇya’s pupils was Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāṇa, patronized by the Reddi king Pedda Komati Vēma of Kondavidu (1398-1415), whom he celebrated in a prose romance of considerable length, the *Vemabhūpāla-carita*. The author’s aim was to rival Bāṇa as a prose writer, and he achieved a notable measure of success in his endeavour. His other works were *Nalābhyudaya*, *Raghunātha-carita-kāvya*, and two plays, *Pārvati-pariṇaya* and *Kanakalekhā Kalyāṇa*. The Reddi ruler Pedda Komati himself passes as the author of commentaries on *Amaruśataka*, a centum of erotic verses, and *Saptaśatī-sāra*—a selection of 100 verses from Hāla’s Prākṛit anthology; two independent works on poetics and music, *Sāhitya-cintāmaṇi* and *Saṅgīta-cintāmaṇi* are also attributed to him. Like him, his predecessor Kumāragiri was also author and patron; he wrote a work on *nātya* (dance) called *Vasantarājīya*, after one of his titles. His brother-in-law (and minister) Kāṭayavema wrote well-known commentaries on the plays of Kālidāsa.

c19.s1.24

Passing over several minor works of poetry, drama and criticism of the early Vijayanagar period, we may notice the *Rasārṇavasudhākara*, a masterly treatise on *rasa* and the rules of dramaturgy. This work is said to be by Simhabhūpāla of Rājakonda (c. 1350), but possibly owes much to his court-poet Viśveśvara, who wrote *Camatkāracandrikā*—also a good manual of rhetoric. The family of Diṇḍimas in the village of Mullandram in North Arcot district produced many authors of distinction. Rājanātha’s *Sālvābhyudaya*, a quasi-historical poem on the wars of his patron Sāluva Narasimha (latter half of the fifteenth century), the *Bhāgavata-campū* and *Acyutarāyābhyudaya* of a later Rājanātha, who lived in the sixteenth century in the reign of Acyuta Rāya, deserve particular mention. This last poem is a useful guide to the events of Acyuta Rāya’s reign. Krishnadeva Rāya was scholar and poet as well as soldier and statesman, and wrote with great power in both Sanskrit and Telugu; his drama *Jāmbavatīkalyāṇa* is marked by a fairly high order of poetic and dramatic skill. Tirumalāmbā’s *Varadāmbikāpariṇaya* is another historical Campū of the period to commemorate the marriage of king Achyuta Rāya with Varadāmbikā.

c19.s1.25

The next great name is that of Appaya Dikshita (1520-92), author of over a hundred works in many branches of Sanskrit learning, who was patronized by the Nāyak chieftains of Vellore, particularly by Chinna Bomma. His commentary on the Yādavābhyudaya has been mentioned already. Other contributions which he made to poetry and poetics include Citramīmāmsā and Lakshaṇāvalī on literary criticism and the appreciation of poetry; the Kuvalayānanda which, though in form an amplification of Jayadeva's Candrāloka, almost attains the level of an independent treatise on figures of speech; Vrittivārttika, a treatise on the significance of words in their poetic use; Varadarājastava, and many other devotional poems. The family of Appaya Dikshita produced a considerable number of talented authors, all of whom cannot be mentioned here. Nilakantha Dikshita, Appaya's great-nephew, was a greater poet than his uncle and wrote several works which attained a degree of literary force and charm which had been unknown for several centuries; the Nilakaṇṭha-Vijaya-campū (1637), Gaṅgāvataraṇa, Nalacaritaṇāṭaka and the Śivalīlārṇava, all exhibit the superior talent of the author, who is reputed to have been minister to Tirumalai Nāyaka of Madura.

c19.s1.26

At the Nāyak court of Tanjore, at about the same period, flourished Govinda Dikshita, held in high esteem by Śevvappa Nāyaka, the founder of the line, and his descendants. His Sāhitya Sudhā treats of the history of the two later rulers Achyutappa and Raghunātha; he also composed the Saṅgītasudhānidhi. Two of Govinda's sons also gained distinction as writers; one, Yajñanārāyaṇa, wrote two works on the life of Raghunātha Nāyaka—a poem Sāhityaratnākara, and a drama in five acts, Raghunātha Vilāsa; the other, Venkatamakhi, was a versatile writer on all Śāstras, but his Kāvya Sāhityasāmrājya is not available. Raghunātha Nāyaka himself composed several works like Pārijātāharaṇa, Vālmīkicarita, Gajendra-moksha, Nalacarita, and Acyutendrābhyudaya, the last being obviously a biography of his father. He also wrote on music. The Raghunāthābhyudaya of Rāmabhadrāmbā also has the life of the Nāyaka for its theme and gives clear proof of the intense devotion that the ruler evoked in the talented poetess.

c19.s1.27

Yet another family of Dikshitas rose to literary fame under the Nāyaks of Gingee. Ratnakheṭa Śrīnivāsa Dikshita of Satyamangalam is reputed to have written eighteen plays and sixty poetical works—most of which have been lost, however; his allegorical drama *Bhāvanāpuruṣottama* was composed at the instance of Sūrappa Nāyaka, and the *Bhaiṣmīpariṇaya-campū* is a small work on the marriage of Rukmini and Krishna. Śrīnivāsa had three sons, the best known being Rājachūdāmani Dikshita who migrated to Tanjore and became the pupil of Venkatamakhi. While still in his teens he is said to have written *Kamalinī Kalahamsa*; another drama, *Ānanda-rāghava*, a poem *Rukmiṇī Kalyāṇa* and a biography of Śaṅkarācārya called *Śaṅkarābhyudaya* were among his other works. He also wrote on Mīmāmsā and other subjects which will be mentioned further on.

c19.s1.28

Turning next to philosophical literature, Vātsyāyana (*c.* 350-400), the author of the commentary on the *Nyāya-sūtras* of Gautama, is ascribed by tradition to South India. But the first writer on Nyāya definitely known to belong to South India is Varadarāja, the author of *Tārkikarakṣā* and of a commentary (*Bodhini*) on *Kusumāñjali* of Udayana; he lived most probably in the middle of the twelfth century. Aparārka’s commentary on the *Nyāyasāra* of Bhāsarvajña can be assigned to about the same date. The author was the Silāhāra ruler of Konkan, better known for his commentary on *Yājñavalkya-smṛiti*. Two commentaries were written on *Tarkabhāṣā*, one by the famous Mallinātha (thirteenth century) and the other by Chennubhaṭṭa (fourteenth century). The most popular manual of logic, *Tarkasaṅgraha* (*c.* 1625), and the gloss *Dīpikā* on it were the work of Annambhaṭṭa, a native of the Chittoor district who also wrote commentaries on other classics on this subject.

c19.s1.29

The popularity of Pūrva-Mīmāmsā studies in the South is indicated by a number of inscriptions recording endowments—particularly in favour of the school of Prabhākara, who was the pupil as well as the rival of the great Kumārila, the founder of these studies in this part of the country. Kumārila is generally regarded as an Andhra by birth and an elder contemporary of Śaṅkarācārya (eighth century); his main works are *Ślokavārttika*, *Tantravārttika*, and *Ṭuṭīkā* which together form a complete commentary on the classic *Bhāshya* of Śabarasvāmin on the *Mīmāmsā sūtras* of Jaimini. Prabhākara (a native of North Travancore according to tradition) also wrote two commentaries on Śabara’s *Bhāshya*, a short *Laghvī* or *Vivaraṇa*, no longer extant, and a more extensive *Brihatī* or *Nibandhana* which has survived in part and gives unmistakable evidence of the author's originality and dialectical skill. Mandana Miśra, another elder contemporary of Śankara, discussed two fundamental topics of Mimāmsā in his *Vidhiviveka* and *Bhāvanāviveka*. The *Bhāshyadīpa* of Kshirasāgaramiśra (eleventh century) is another commentary on Śabara written from the standpoint of Prabhākara; the same writer also composed a tract called *Arthavādādivicāra*. Varadarāja expounded in the *Nayavivekadīpikā* the tenets of the same school in the twelfth century. The volume of Mimāmsā literature that developed in South India is very great and cannot be reviewed here in its entirety. Only the names of the most important authors and their works can be noted. They are: Someśvara's *Nyāyasudhā* (c. 1200), an elaborate commentary on Kumārila's *Tantravārttika*; another commentary on the same work—the *Nyāyapārāyaṇa* (mid-thirteenth century) of Gangādhara-miśra; the *Mimāmsāpādukā* and *Śeśvaramīmāmsā* of Vedānta Deśika, who sought to synthesize the views of the two rival schools; the *Nyāyamālā* and its *vistara* by Sāyaṇa's brother Mādhava (fourteenth century), an abstract in verse and an explanation in prose on the subject-matter of each section of Śabara's *Bhāshya*; a number of tracts on Mimāmsā by Appaya Dikshita such as *Vidhirasāyana*, *Upakramaparākrama* and *Vādanakshatramālā* besides his *Mayūkhāvalī* a commentary on the *Śāstradīpikā*, a classic exposition of the Kumārila school by Pārthasārathi Miśra.

c19.s1.30.1

In the domain of Vedānta, all the three major schools had their origin in the South. The first and greatest name here is that of Śankara, the founder of Advaita Vedānta as we know it. Few authentic details of his life are known, though he is believed to have been born at Kāladi (North Travancore) in 788 and to have died in 820 at the age of 32. His principal works are the great *Bhāshyas* on the *Brahma-sūtras*, the principal Upanishads, and the *Bhagavadgītā*, besides certain independent treatises like the *Upadeśa-sāhasrī*. Many other works, particularly Stotras (devotional poems), pass as his but there is no reason to think that Śankara wrote them. The literary force and philosophic depth of Śankara's works entitle him to a very high place among the master minds of the world. His pupil Sureśvara, who may perhaps be identified with Viśvarūpa, wrote the commentary *Bālakrīḍā* on *Yājñavalkyasmriti*. He also succinctly restated his master's fundamental principles in his *Naishkarmyasiddhi*, and wrote monumental vārttikas (elucidations) on Śankara's Bhāshyas on the Taittirīya and the Brihadāranyaka Upanishads. Śankara had other pupils who became authors; but their provenance is unknown. Mention may be made, however, of Padmapāda's Pañcapādikā, a commentary on Śankara's Bhāshya on the Brahma-sūtras; the work is now only available for the first four Sūtras. Padmapāda was a Brahmin from Kerala.

c19.s1.30.2

Mandana Miśra, whom we have already mentioned as a contemporary of Śankara, held different views on Advaita which he expressed in Brahmasiddhi. Sarvajñātman was the next great Advaita author; he flourished in Travancore at the end of the tenth century. His authoritative Samkshepa-śārīraka, with its fine literary flavour, is his chief work, but he also wrote Pañcaprakriyā and Pramāna-Lakshana. This last work, on epistemology, is accepted by Mīmāmsakas as well as Vedāntins. Jñānaghana's Tattavaśuddhi is another treatise of about the same time; its author finds mention in the Śringeri list of pontiffs. Jñānottama, who commented on Sureśvara's Naishkarmyasiddhi, is the author of two independent works—Nyāyasudhā and Jñānasiddhi—and his more celebrated pupil, Chitsukha of Simhāchalam (c. 1200), deserves notice next. Chitsukha's Bhāshya-bhāva-prakāśikā is a highly esteemed commentary on Śankara's Bhāshya on the Brahma-sūtras; among his other works the best known is an independent treatise on Advaita, Tattvapradīpikā. He had pupils like Sukhaprakāśa who also became writers of repute. Amalānanda, a pupil of Sukhaprakāśa, lived near Nasik on the banks of the Godāvari in the reigns of the Yādava kings Krishna and Mahādeva (1246-71); his Vedānta-kalpataru is an extensive commentary on Vāchaspati Miśra's Bhāmatī, itself a commentary on Śankara's Brahmasūtra-bhāshya; and the Śāstradarpana is a more concise statement of the doctrines of the Bhāmatī school. Śankarānanda (c.

c19.s1.30.3

1250) wrote the Ātmapurāna which brings together the gist of the Upanishads in a standard work in anustup verse; he also wrote commentaries on the principal Upanishads and on the Brahmasūtra-bhāshya of Śankara. The Sarvamatasangraha of Rāghavānanda Muni of Kerala is an epitome of several systems of Hindu philosophy, and a forerunner of the better known Sarva-darśana-sangraha of Mādhava Ācārya. Rāghavānanda's commentaries on Paramārtha-sāra, on Mukundamālā, and on the Bhāgavata Purāna called Krishna-padī exhibit his high learning in several branches of literature. This task of commenting on ancient classics and refining and restating doctrines went on steadily from generation to generation, and we can only note the most prominent works in this later derivative literature. Such were: the *Vivarana-prameya-sangraha*, and *Jivan-muktiviveka* of Vidyāraṇya and the *Pañcadaśī* ascribed to his teacher Bhāratītīrtha, but held by some to be in fact the work of the pupil; the *Sarvadarśana-sangraha* of Sāyaṇa-Mādhava which establishes the superiority of Advaita by reviewing many of the rival systems of philosophy; Ānandapūrṇa's (*c.* 1410) commentaries on the *Khaṇḍana-khaṇḍa-khādya*, *Brahmasiddhi*, and *Vivarana* as well as his *Nyāyacandrikā*; Appaya Dīkṣita's sub-commentary *Vedānta-kalpataru-parimala* and his *Siddhāntaleśa sangraha*, a compendium of the various schools of advaitic thought, and *Madhvatantra-mukhamardana*, a polemic against the dualism of Madhva;

c19.s1.30.4

and lastly, the *Vedāntaparibhāṣā* of Dharmarājādhvarin, the best known among the manuals of Advaita.

c19.s1.31

The literature of Viśiṣṭādvaita (qualified monism) philosophy may be said to start with the *Yogarahasya* and the *Nyāyatattva* by Nāthamuni, or Ranganātha-muni (824-924), the first of the great *ācāryas* of Vaishnavism who followed the *āḻvārs*. Then came the somewhat more systematic exposition of Yāmunācārya (*b.* 917), the grandson of Nāthamuni, in his works *Siddhitraya*, *Gītārthasangraha* and *Āgamaprāmāṇya*. He also wrote other works like *Stotraratna*, a devotional poem. The true founder of the system in its entirety was of course Śrī Rāmānuja (*b.* 1018) whose *Śrībhāṣhya* on the *Brahma-sūtras* is its great classic. He also annotated the *Bhagavadgītā* from his point of view, and wrote the *Vedārthasangraha* to demonstrate that the Upanishads support his system rather than that of Śankara. His *Vedāntasāra* and *Vedānta Dīpa* are simple commentaries on the *Brahma-sūtras*. Parāśara Bhaṭṭa, who succeeded Rāmānuja in the pontificate at Śrīrangam in 1137, wrote the *Tattvaratnākara*, no longer in existence, and a commentary on *Viṣṇusahasranāma*. The *Nītimālā* of Nārāyaṇārya, composed some time before 1200, and the *Prameya-mālā* and *Tattvasāra* of Naḍādūr Ammāl (*b.* 1155) are important restatements of the system, while the latter's *Prapannapārijāta* develops the doctrine of *prapatti* (surrender) with great elaboration. Sudarśana Bhaṭṭa, a pupil of Naḍādūr Ammāl, wrote the celebrated commentary known as *Śrutaprakāśikā* on Rāmānuja's *Śrībhāṣhya*. Tradition avers that he was born in A.D. 1175 and that he fled from Śrīrangam, burying his commentary in the sands of the Kaveri, when the place was sacked by the Muslim invader; both these statements, however, cannot be true. The commentary is a voluminous and erudite work and has been itself much commented on since. Sudarśana also wrote Śrutapradīpikā, and commentaries on Rāmānuja's Vedārthasangraha and the Bhāgavata, the last work bearing the name Śukapakshiya. Another pupil of Naḍādūr Ammāl was the famous Piḷḷai Lokācārya, author of Vacanabhūshaṇa, Ācārya Hridaya, and Tattvaviveka, besides many works in Tamil, and founder of the Tengalai (southern branch) sampradāya. A third pupil of Naḍādūr Ammāl was Ātreya Rāmānuja (b. 1220), author of Nyāyakuliśa which seeks to establish doctrines of general Vedānta, and emphasizes the differences between Advaita and Viśishtādvaita only in some of its chapters. His other works have not survived. A nephew (sister's son) and pupil of Ātreya Rāmānuja was the famous Vedānta Dēśika (1268-1369) who wrote commentaries on Rāmānuja's Śrībhāshya (Tattvatīkā) and Gītā-bhāshya (Tātparyacandrikā) besides independent treatises on Viśishtādvaita like Nyāyasiddhāñjana, Sarvārthasiddhi and Tattvamuktākalāpa. His Śatadūshaṇī is a polemic against Advaita. In spite of his decided preference for Tamil, the famous Tengalai saint Maṇavāḷamahāmuni (b. 1370) wrote some philosophical works in Sanskrit such as Tattvatraya, Rahasyatraya, Śrīvacanabhūshaṇa, Jñānasāra and Prameyasāra. Vaishnavism waxed strong under the patronage of Vijayanagar rulers, but though many authors wrote, there was little real advance in philosophic thought.

c19.s1.32

Viśishtādvaita was the philosophy also of Śaivism. The earliest Śaiva writer in Sanskrit is perhaps Haradattācārya (d. 1116) whose Śruti-sūkti-mālā (also called Caturvedatātparya-sangraha) delineates the salient features of Śaiva thought, while his Harihara-tāratamya is a sectarian polemic. He was followed by Śrīkantha whose Brahma-mīmāmsā-bhāshya expounds the Sūtras of Bādarāyaṇa from the Śaiva viewpoint. Śrīkantha may well be identical with the ācārya who, according to Aghoraśivācārya, came down from Gauda to worship Naṭarāja at Chidambaram and whom Vikrama Chola adopted as his guru. There are notable verbal coincidences between Śrīkantha's Bhāshya and the Śrībhāshya of Rāmānuja. Śrīkantha's system is called Śivādvaita to distinguish it from the Śaiva-siddhānta system developed in the Tamil books. Attempts have been made to treat both the systems as one, but they cannot be regarded as successful. Aghoraśivācārya’s (c. 1158) commentaries on *Tattvaprakāśikā* of Bhojadeva and on the highly philosophic *Mrigendrāgama* are important in the history of Śaiva philosophy. Umāpatiśivācārya’s (c. 1290-1320) *Bhāshya* on the *Paushkara Samhitā* is a powerful plea that Śiva is the one deity for everyone to worship. Ñanāśivācārya of the *matha* at Sūryanārkōyil in the Tanjore district, and preceptor of Śevvappa Nāyaka of Tanjore, commented on the *Śivajñānabodha*, not the Tamil work of Meykaṇḍār, but a section of the *Raurava Āgama*, from the more usual Śaiva-siddhānta standpoint; the commentary is notable for its many valuable citations from works no longer extant. His other works were *Śaiva Paribhāshā*, a manual in five sections on the categories of Śaivism, and the *Śivāgrapaddhati* and *Kriyādīpikā* on the rituals of worship and renunciation. Śrikantha’s work was carried further by Nilakantha (c. 1400) whose *Kriyāsāra* is a metrical compendium of Śrikantha’s *Bhāshya* which attempts to discover common ground between his system and that of the Vira-śaivas; and by Appaya Dikshita’s striking contributions to Śaiva philosophy, particularly in his monumental commentary on Śrikantha called the *Sivārkamanidipikā*.

c19.s1.33

The philosophy of Dvaita (dualism) was elaborated by Madhva, also called Ānanda Tirtha (1198-1275), in his *Bhāshya* on the *Brahma-sūtras* and in the *Anuvyākhyā*, a further commentary supporting the conclusions of the *Bhāshya*; he also commented on the Upanishads and the *Bhagavadgītā*, and wrote an epitome of the *Mahābhārata* entitled *Bhāratatātparyanirṇaya*, besides a commentary on some hymns of the Rigveda called *Rigveda-vyākhyā*. He wrote also a number of polemical works rebutting the doctrines of rival schools. He relied for support more on the Purāṇas than on Vedic texts or logical proofs. Jayatirtha (*d.* 1388), a pupil of Madhva’s pupil Akshobhyatirtha and contemporary of Vidyāraṇya, was the greatest elucidator of the works of Madhvācārya, and earned for himself the title *Ṭīkācārya*. He also wrote two polemics, the *Nyāya-sudhā* on the *Brahmasūtra-bhāshya* of Madhva, and *Vādāvali*. The next great name in the history of Dvaita is that of Vyāsarāya (1447-1539) who was highly honoured by the great Krishnadeva Rāya of Vijayanagar. His *Bhedojjīvana* and *Tātparya-candrikā* are summary restatements of the doctrines of his school; *Nyāyāmṛita* was directed against Advaita, and *Tarka-tāṇḍava* against the conclusions of the logicians (Naiyāyikas). Vādirāja, a pupil of Vyāsarāya, wrote the *Yuktimallikā*, a critique of the doctrines of Śankara. Vijayīndra (1576), another pupil of Vyāsarāya, was held in great esteem by Śevvappa Nāyaka of Tanjore. He wrote commentaries on the works of Vyāsarāya besides the *Upasamhāravijaya*, and *Madhva-tantra-mukha-bhūṣaṇa*, refutations of Appaya Dikshita’s works of the opposite names, and *Paratattva-prakāśa*, an answer to the same writer’s *Śiva-tattva-viveka*. He spent his last days at Kumbakonam writing other works.

c19.s1.34.1

In legal literature (*Dharmaśāstra*), the earliest work that calls for notice after the Sūtras mentioned above is the *Bālakrīḍā*, Viśvarūpa’s commentary on *Yājñavalkya-smṛti*. The author, who was also called Sureśvara, was a pupil of Śankara. Another writer of fairly early date was Bhāruci who commented on the *Viṣṇu Dharmasūtras* and *Manusmṛti*; the first work is lost and the second was only recently recovered in a fragmentary form. Perhaps the greatest name in this sphere is that of Vijñāneśvara who adorned the court of Chālukya Vikramāditya VI; his *Mitākṣarā*, a commentary on *Yājñavalkya*, is an important treatise on law based on many earlier writings and it has found acceptance in the whole of South India and large parts of the North. The work was commented on more than once by subsequent writers; Colebrooke, who translated into English the section on inheritance, gave it currency in British Indian courts. Another work ascribed to Vijñāneśvara is the *Aśauca-daśaka* or *Daśaślokī*, ten terse verses treating of pollution consequent on death. A pupil of this great author, Nārāyaṇa by name, compiled an independent digest on civil law called *Vyavahāraśiromaṇi* which has survived only in part. The Śilāhāra ruler of Konkan, Aparārka or Aparāditya I, already mentioned as a writer on Nyāya, wrote an extensive commentary on *Yājñavalkya* early in the twelfth century; even more than the *Mitākṣarā*, it is more an independent digest than a commentary hugging its text.

c19.s1.34.2

Varadarāja’s *Vyavahāranirṇaya*, for which various dates are assigned like A.D. 1297 and A.D. 1500, is valuable for its interpretation of juristic rules in the light of Mīmāmsā principles, and deserves particular notice among the legal digests of South India, as also the more extensive *Smṛticandrikā* of Devana Bhaṭṭa often cited by Hemādri. To the latter half of the thirteenth century may be assigned the famous Haradatta whose commentaries on the *Dharmasūtras* of Āpastamba and Gautama are models of their kind; he is cited by Viśveśvara (1375), author of the *Subodhinī* on the *Mitāksharā*. Hemādri, minister of the Yādava king Mahādeva (1260-71) and his successor, was the author of a cyclopaedic digest called *Caturvargacintāmaṇi* comprising five large sections on Vrata, Dāna, Tirtha, Moksha and Pariśesha. Two more sections on Prāyaścitta (expiation) and Vyavahāra (civil law) are supposed to have been compiled by him though they are not now extant. The published portion covers over 6,000 pages and forms perhaps the most extensive digest on the subjects it treats of. Part of the glory that was Vijayanagar was the work of Mādhava, the brother of Sāyaṇa, whose commentary on *Parāśarasmriti*, the *Parāśara Mādhavīya*, is a most erudite work which includes an independent treatise on Vyavahāra which was neglected in the text of Parāśara.

c19.s1.34.3

And Sāyaṇa himself wrote a number of lesser manuals called *Sudhānidhis* treating of Prāyaścitta (expiation), Yajñatantra (Vedic ritual), Purushārtha (the aims of human endeavour) and so on. The two brothers wrote in the first half of the fourteenth century. Dalapati's extensive work in twelve sections, *Nrisimhaprasāda*, deals with all phases of religious and civil law; Dalapati (1490-1533) was a highly placed Hindu officer in the Nizam Shahi court of Ahmadnagar. Pratāparudra Gajapati of Orissa composed the *Sarasvati-vilāsa* with the avowed intention of reconciling the apparent discrepancies between the views of Vijñāneśvara, Aparārka, Bhāruci and other authors who preceded him. Only the Vyavahāra section of this work has been found. The royal authorship of the work has, however, been doubted as it is counted among the writings of the polyhistor Lolla Lakshmīdhara. The *Smritiratnākara* of Hārita Venkatācārya (Toḷappar) (1450-1500), a native of the Chingleput district which was so prolific of Vaishnava scholars, is accepted to this day as an authoritative exposition of religious law by the Vaishnavas of the South. Vaidyanātha Dikshita's *Smritimuktāphala*, written probably early in the seventeenth century, holds a similar position among the Smārtas. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries under the Nāyak rulers of South India many other works were written in the field of Dharmaśāstra as in other branches of literature.

c19.s1.35

In lexicography, the *Vaijayantī* of Yādavaprakāśa, the teacher of Rāmānuja, has commanded great authority in the eyes of later authors; it is a work in two sections—one on synonyms and the other on homonyms. Dhanañjaya, a Digambara Jaina writer (1150) of Karnātaka, compiled the *Nāmamālā*, a lexicon of synonyms in about two hundred verses. Jātaveda Dikshita (1250), also from Karnātaka, annotated the *Amarakośa* in his *Brihadvritti*. Lastly, Vāmana Bhaṭṭa Bāna, whose writings in prose and drama have been noted already, produced two lexicons of merit—*Sabdaratnākara* and *Sabdacandrikā*.

c19.s1.36

In grammar, Sarvavarman, a reputed contemporary of Gunādhya in the Sātavāhana court, wrote the *Kātantra sūtras*, a simplified system of grammar, for the benefit of his patron and thus began the *Kātantra* school which flourished subsequently more in Bengal than anywhere else. Another system that arose in the South was that of Sākatāyana, of the reign of the Rāshtrakūta Amogavarsha I (A.D. 817-77); he wrote the *Sabdānuśāsana* in four chapters as also a commentary on it called *Amoghavritti* after his patron, besides the ancillary treatises needed to complete his new system. The earliest South Indian writer on the system of Pānini was Haradatta (ninth century) whose commentary *Padamañjarī* on the *Kāśikā* of Vāmana and Jayāditya is a work of outstanding merit and authority. In the thirteenth century a certain Krishnalilāśuka wrote a commentary called *Purushakāra* on the *Daiva* of Deva, a terse metrical treatise in 200 verses on roots of similar form. The commentary described itself as a *vārttika* and deservedly enjoys a high place among grammatical works. The *Mādhavīyadhātuvritti* of Mādhava, the great commentator on the Vedas, is a commentary on the *Dhātupātha* (list of roots) of Pānini which, by the way, suggests the derivation of quite a large number of words whose origin is not given in any other work. The *Siddhānta Kaumudī* of Bhaṭṭoji Dikshita, a younger contemporary of Appaya Dikshita, is today the most popular manual of Sanskrit grammar.

c19.s1.37

In some ways Kerala occupied from the beginning a special position as regards Sanskrit learning and institutions for its promotion, and this became more apparent from the (fifteenth century) when the Zamorins of Calicut began to stand out as the most powerful rulers of Kerala. An early ruler of the line instituted an annual convocation of scholars and poets for public debates, the most meritorious among them being awarded the title of Bhaṭṭa and money-presents; the whole occasion was known as Bhaṭṭadānam. This went on for about a century and a half and attracted to Calicut scholars from distant countries. Mānavikrama, the Zamorin who ruled in the middle of the fifteenth century, was a distinguished scholar himself and a patron of letters; emulating the legendary Vikramāditya of Ujjain who had ‘nine gems’ (poets) adorning his court, Mānavikrama gathered eighteen literary gems about himself, and an inspired Malayālam poet Punam, recognized as a half-poet; the names of only a few of these eighteen-and-a-half (Padineṭṭarakkavigal) have survived. In this constellation, the Bhaṭṭatiris of Payyūr who specialized in Mimāmsā literature stood out prominently; they were great writers in the field of belles-lettres also. There were three Parameśvaras among them; the earliest of them wrote two commentaries on the Nyāya-kaṇikā (Mimāmsā) of Vāchaspati Miśra. He wrote also the Haricharita, an artificial composition of 263 stanzas each beginning with one of the chandra-vākyas of Vararuchi in order. His grandson Parameśvara II was known as Mimāmsā-chakravarti. He composed scholarly commentaries on Maṇḍana Miśra's Sphoṭa-siddhi (on the sphoṭa doctrine) and Vibhrama-viveka (on the five Khyāti-vādas); on Vāchaspati Miśra's Tattvabindu (on the source of verbal cognition); and on Chidānanda's Niti-tattvā-virbhāva (Mimāmsā). In the commentary on the Sphoṭa-siddhi he claims to come of a family whose members were the sole authority on the interpretation of the works of Maṇḍana. He had a brother Vāsudeva II, a poet who, after the manner of his earlier namesake of the ninth century A.D. wrote three Yamaka (alliterative) Kāvyas, viz. Devī-charita, Satyatapahkathā and Achyutalilā. The third Parameśvara was grandson of the second, and author of Mimāmsā-sūtrārtha-sangraha, a commentary on Jaimini's sūtras on the lines of Śabarasvāmin, besides other works.

First 42 of 52 passages. Read on

Linked texts (134)