A History of Sanskrit Literature: Classical Period, Vol. I c4.9

c4.9

The comments that have been made above will show that the theory of ornate poetry (Kunstdichtung) is beset with many difficulties. Though it is needless to trace the origin of Sanskrit Kāvyas to the Vedas or the Brāhmaṇas, it cannot be decided that some of the early Upaniṣads like the *Kaṭha*, *Muṇḍaka* and the *Śvetāśvatara* contain verses in the classical style. Indeed the style of the *Mahābhārata* and the *Gītā* may be regarded as the prolongation of the classical style which had begun already at the time of the Upaniṣads. Among the early literature the *Rāmāyaṇa* and the *Mahābhārata* (though the latter is called *itihāsa*) must be regarded as the earliest literature of the Kāvya form that is available to us. Rhetoricians in a much later time have quoted verses from the *Mahābhārata* to demonstrate the theory of *vyañjanā* and *guṇībhūta-vyañjanā*.¹ Though there is a difference of atmosphere in the *Mahābhārata* which lays greater stress on the practical problems of life and conflict of ideals, yet the atmosphere of *Rāmāyaṇa* is not far removed from that of Kālidāsa. As Dr. De has shown, we can hardly trace the origin of Sanskrit Kāvyas to Prākṛt sources. It has also been pointed out by Dr. De that the theory of Renaissance of Sanskrit Kāvya in the 5th or 6th century A.D., as proposed by Maxmüller, cannot properly be supported. It is true that no extant *kāvyas* of any importance are available before Aśvaghoṣa. But there are plenty of references scattered over which suggest the existence of a fairly good field of Kāvya literature during the 5th to the 1st century B.C. Even Pāṇini is said to have written a work called *Jāmbavatīvijaya* and Patañjali refers to a *kāvya* by Vararuci.