Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t8: Sanskrit

The Early History of the Deccan (Parts I–XI) v2.c15.s3.t8

Language
English

Sanskrit

v2.c15.s3.t8.1

¹ This section is based partly on the account of Sanskrit literature in the Kākatīya period given by Dr. V. Raghavan, Professor of Sanskrit in the Unversity of Madras, in his learned introduction to Jāya-senāpat's *Nrittaratnāvali*. We are greatly obliged to him for placing it at our disposal though it is still unpublished.

v2.c15.s3.t8.2

SANSKRIT occupied, as in the previous ages, the first place in the educational system of the Āndhra country. The inscriptions of the Kākatīya monarchs and their subordinates bear ample testimony to the flourishing state of Sanskrit learning when they were composed. The educational attainments of the donees who figure in the numerous land grants of the period show that besides the *Vedas* and the subsequent literature connected with them, the *Upanishads*, the *Śāstras*, the *Itihāsas*, the *Purāṇas* and the six *Darśanas*, as well as the various branches of classical Sanskrit literature, were all widely studied, and that in fact most educated persons in the country were very well versed in Sanskrit language and learning. The liberal patronage which the Kākatīya rulers, their nobles and their dependants, extended to Sanskrit scholars and men of letters, gave an impetus to this literary activity, and several works of outstanding merit which now serve as ornaments of Sanskrit literature were produced under the aegis of the court and the nobility dependent upon it. The time for assessing the extent and value of the Sanskrit literature which originated at this time has not yet come, since our knowledge of its history is still fragmentary. No systematic attempt has yet been made to collect and investigate the relevant material and to reconstruct a satisfactory history of the literature of the period on its basis, and until that shall have been done our knowledge can only be tentative and imperfect.

v2.c15.s3.t8.3

Several eminent Sanskrit writers and poets besides those whose works have come down to posterity are known to have flourished during the age of the Kākatīya rulers. Some of them figure as the authors of inscriptions which must be taken into consideration, on account of their literary excellence and manner of composition, as being *kāvyas* in miniature. Of these writers Achintēndra, son of Rāmēśvara Dikshita, and the pupil of the *advaita-sanyāsin* Advayāmṛita, deserves mention first. He was a contemporary of Kākati Rudradēva and was commissioned by that king to compose the *praśasti* embodied in the Hanumakoṇḍa inscription dated A.D. 1163.² Nandi, son of Rēchi and grandson of Nandimitra of the Bhāradvāja-*gōtra*, is mentioned as the author of the Gaṇapavaram inscription dated A.D. 1214;³ another poet who is known only by his title, *Kavi-Chakravartin*, is said to have composed the undated Pākhal inscription of Gaṇapatidēva which has been assigned to about A.D. 1245.¹ Among the donees of the Kōṭagiri Plates of Rudramādēvī dated Ś. 1195 (A.D. 1273), the names of three poets, Drāviḍa Uñjipira-kavi, Arhni-kavi, and Sūri-kavi, are enumerated, although nothing is known about their achievements.² Anantasūri, the daughter's son of a certain Gōvinda-bhaṭṭa, is said to have composed the Pānugal inscription of Immaḍi Mallikārjuna Nāyaka, a subordinate of Kumāra Rudradēva, in A.D. 1290.³ The most famous of the *praśasti* writers of the time was, however, Īśvarabhaṭṭōpādhyāya or Īśvarasūri, the author of the Bōthpūr inscriptions of the Malyāla clan. Īśvara was the son of Mayūrārya of the Taraṇikaṇṭi family, who appears to have been himself a notable scholar. He mastered the Paṇiniyan Grammar and also the Yajur-Vēda together with its *pada-krama*, and was an adept in the *chitra-kavitva*. The Bōthpūr inscriptions in which are inserted verses composed without gutturals (*nish-kaṇṭhya*), or without palatals (*nish-tālavya*), or without cerebrals (*nir-mūrdhanya*), or dentals (*nir-dantya*), or labials (*nir-ōshṭhya*), as well as *bhramakas* and *bandhas*, may be taken as examples of his skill in poetic composition.⁴

v2.c15.s3.t8.4

² *Corpus*, 3.

v2.c15.s3.t8.5

³ Ibid. 22.

v2.c15.s3.t8.6

¹ *HAS*, No. 4.

v2.c15.s3.t8.7

² Ibid., No. 6.

v2.c15.s3.t8.8

³ *Corpus*, 35.

v2.c15.s3.t8.9

⁴ Ibid. 51 and 52.

v2.c15.s3.t8.10

The part played by these ‘epigraphical poets’, as they are called, in the growth of the Sanskrit literature during this period is not known; their *praśasti-kāvyas*, however, give us an insight into some of the prevailing literary fashions of the day. And quite apart from these, the contribution of the Kākatīya poets to Sanskrit literature in general is not inconsiderable. Important works in several branches of learning were produced. Agastya, who has been identified by some with Vidyānātha, wrote no less than seventy-four works, but only three of them have come down to us. Of these the most important is a *mahā-kāvya* called the *Bālabhārata* which is in fact a shortened version of the *Mahābhārata*. The poem appears to have been very popular and widely studied in the south during the following centuries. Sāḷuva Timma, the *Siraḥ-Pradhāna* of Kṛṣṇadēvarāya of Vijayanagara (A.D. 1509-30), wrote a commentary on it called the *Manōhara*. Agastya also produced a *khaṇḍa-kāvya* named the *Nalakīrtikaumudi* in four cantos. Agastya had a distinguished pupil in the famous poetess Gaṅgādēvī, the wife of Kumāra Kampaṇa of Vijayanagara and the authoress of the *Madhurāvijayam* or the *Kamparāya-charitra*. Another well-known *kāvya* writer of the time was the renowned scholar and poet Śākalya Malla or Śākalya Mallu-bhaṭṭa, who is said to have been an ornament of the court of Pratāparudra. He composed two works, the *Udāttarāghava-kāvya* and the *Nirōshṭhya-Rāmāyaṇa*, of which the former appears to have attained great popularity, as evidenced by the two commentaries which were written upon it in succeeding centuries. Appayārya, a Jaina poet at the court of Pratāparudra, composed a *kāvya* called the *Jinēn-* drakalyāṇābhyudaya or Arhatpratiṣṭha, which he completed on Sunday, 20 January, A.D. 1320, at the Kākatīya capital Warangal.

v2.c15.s3.t8.11

Next in importance to the kāvya is the nāṭaka. Though plays in all ten varieties of the Sanskrit drama were composed by the dramatists of the age, none of first-rate importance comparable to plays of Bhāsa, Kālidāsa, and Bhavabhūti appear to have been produced. Judging, however, from the few which have come down to posterity, they deserve recognition on account both of their literary merit and of their artistic excellence. The first dramatist of the period who demands notice is Gaṅgādhara. He is known only through a reference in Gaṅgādēvī's Madhurāvijayam, where it is stated that he dramatized the story of the Mahābhārata. The play itself is not extant, although it seems to have attracted much attention in his own time, and it is therefore not possible to estimate its value or the poetic talents of its author. Gaṅgādhara married a sister of the poet Agastya by whom he had two sons Viśvanātha and Narasimha, who both made their mark in the field of Sanskrit drama. The former wrote the Saugandhikāharaṇa, which was obviously based on the well-known episode in the Araṇya-parvam of the Mahābhārata dealing with the journey of Bhīmasēna to the land of the Yakshas to fetch the Saugandhika flower for Draupadī. The latter was a more prolific writer than his elder brother. He is said to have produced plays in each of the ten varieties of the Sanskrit drama, but all of these with the exception of his Kādambarī-kalyāṇa-nāṭaka seem unfortunately to have perished. Narasimha also wrote an historical work called the Kākatīyacharita. It is not known whether this was composed in prose or in verse. Rāvipāṭi Tripurāntaka is said to have been the author of a vidhi-nāṭaka, one of the ten accepted kinds of Sanskrit drama, called the Prēmābhirāmam. The original play itself is lost, but it is known through a fourteenth-century Telugu translation entitled Krīḍābhirāmam by Vallabharāya, the governor of the fort of Vinukoṇḍa under Harihara II (A.D. 1378-1404) of Vijayanagara. Whatever may have been its merits as a vidhi-nāṭaka, it is undoubtedly of importance, since it describes the religious and social life of the Kākatīya capital Warangal during Pratāparudra's reign.

v2.c15.s3.t8.12

The fourteenth century of the Christian era may be regarded as the golden age of the alaṅkāra-śāstra in the Deccan, when very great progress was made in the study and investigation of the subject and several important treatises noted for their originality and profundity of thought were produced. Of these the Pratāparudra-yaśōbhūṣaṇam of Vidyānātha, which is still used as the standard work on the subject in all the Sanskrit schools where alaṅkāra-śāstra is studied, is easily the best. Vidyānātha was the greatest man of letters of his day; he was the poet laureate of Pratāparudra, to whom he dedicated his work; other writers like Sāyaṇa, Viśvēśvara, and Siṅga-bhūpāla followed in his wake; but since they wrote after the extinction of the Kākatīya monarchy in A.D. 1323, consideration of their works is not called for here.

v2.c15.s3.t8.13

Music and the fine arts flourished under the patronage of the Kākatīyas. How popular music and dancing were in Kākatīya times can be seen from the sculptural representations of musicians and dancers in some of the famous shrines of the age, especially the Rāmappa temple at Pālampēṭa in the Warangal district of the Āndhra Pradesh. Pālkuṛiki Sōma enumerates various instruments of music in his *Paṇḍitārādhyacarita* as well as the *rāgas* which were in vogue among the musicians of the day. Jāyana, the *Gaja-sāhiṇi* of Gaṇapatidēva, wrote the *Gītaratnāvali*; but this work, as also the *Vādyaratnāvali*, which he is said to have written on the subject of musical instruments, is no longer extant; however, his *Nṛittaratnāvali*, a treatise on dancing, has fortunately survived the ravages of time. The *Nṛittaratnāvali* is divided into descriptions of the two modes of dance, *mārga* and *dēśi*, each being treated separately in four chapters. It is one of the best works on *nṛitya*, following Abhinavagupta and Kīrtidhara for the *mārga* and Mataṅga for the *dēśi* system.¹ Though a work on a technical subject, the *Nṛittaratnāvali* is not without literary merit. The author displays considerable poetical talent and remarkable command over both the Sanskrit language and its prosody.

v2.c15.s3.t8.14

¹ M. Ramakrishnakavi, *The Bharatakōśa*, Intro., pp. xvii-xviii.

v2.c15.s3.t8.15

Though verse was generally employed by the poets as well as by other men of letters, prose compositions were not unrepresented. Agastya wrote the *Kṛiṣhṇacarita* and his example was followed by his nephew (sister's son) Narasimha, who produced a *gadya-kāvya* called the *Malayavati*. The former is available, whereas the latter is known only from a reference in an inscription in a Kākatīya temple at Warangal. Sanskrit grammar was widely studied. It may be remembered that the epigraphical poet Īśvarabhaṭṭōpādhyāya claims expert knowledge of the Pāṇinian grammar. He would hardly have boasted of his proficiency in grammar had not grammatical studies been held in high esteem by the educated public of his day. The popularity of grammar is also attested by the appearance of several new works on the subject. Kolani Rudradēva, son of the *mudrāka* (seal-bearer) Ganna and a *pradhāni* of Pratāparudra, wrote a grammatical work in the form of a commentary on the *Ślōkavārttika*, called *Rājarudrīya*. The *Ślōkavārttika* is not itself an original work; it sets forth the metrical data of a *vārttika* character quoted by Patañjali in his *Mahābhāshya*. Besides the *Rājarudrīya*, several exegetical works on other subjects made their appearance about this time. The Kākatīya period was an age of intense religious activity, an activity which naturally led to the production of numerous philosophical and theological works of importance. Though most of these were written in the vernacular languages, a number of them were composed in Sanskrit also. Guṇḍayabhaṭṭa, the *brāhmaṇ-ādhikārin* in the court of Pratāparudra, wrote a commentary on the Advaita classic *Khaṇḍana-khaṇḍa* of Śrī Harsha. Guṇḍaya was a learned scholar, well versed in the *Vēda*, *Śāstra* and *Smṛiti*; he appears to have inherited his love of Advaita from his father Rājamahēndra, who is said to have been a distinguished Vēdāntin. The *Māhēśvara-Sārōddhāra*, commonly known as the *Sōmanātha-bhāshya*, and the *Rudra-bhāshya* of Pālkuriki Sōmanātha are, however, works of a different character. Of these the latter, which was apparently a gloss on the *Rudrādhyāya* of the Yajur-vēda, is not extant. The former is a treatise comprising twenty-five chapters in which the author attempts to establish the superiority of Śaivism to other creeds. He cites in support of his contention a large number of texts from the *Vēdas*, *smṛitis*, *purāṇas* and *āgamas*, as well as passages from Haradattāchārya’s *Chaturvēda-sāra-saṁgraha*. Although the *Sōmanātha-bhāshya* displays the vast erudition and extraordinary skill in debate of its author, it has failed to win general popularity and is in fact scarcely known outside the Vīra-Śaiva community.

Cites (12)