Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c16: VI Vamana

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c16

Language
English

Contents

VI Vamana

v1.c16.1

The upper limit to Vāmana's date is given by his own quotation (IV.3.6 *vrtti*) from the *Uttara-rāma-carita* (i 38) of Bhavabhūti, who is known to have flourished under the patronage of Yaśovarman, king of Kanauj, in the first quarter of the 8th century¹. The lower limit is given by Rājaśekhara's quotation (p. 14) from Vāmana I.2.1-3, and his reference to the Vāmanīyas, which indicates that by the end of the 9th century Vāmana had a respectable number of followers going by his name. We learn also from Abhinavagupta (*Locana*, p. 37) that Vāmana was probably known, in the middle of the 9th century, to Ānandavardhana who, however, never directly cites Vāmana but seems to refer, in a manner not to be mistaken, to the latter's *rīti*-theory in his *vrtti* on iii 52. Like Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Udbhaṭa, Vāmana probably lived before the *dhvani*-theory, under Ānandavardhana, came into prominence; and Pratīhārendurāja, who professes a great reverence for Vāmana's views, expressly states (p. 81), while discussing *alaṃkāra-dhvani*, that in such cases Vāmana has employed the term *vakrókti* (IV.3.8)¹. We will not be wrong, therefore, if we fix the lower limit of Vāmana's date at the middle of the 9th century².

v1.c16.2

¹ *Rāja-taraṅg* iv 144. Bhandarkar, pref. to *Mālatī-madhava* pp. xiiif; S. P. Pandit in pref. to *Gaudavaho* p. lxviif; *WZKM* ii 332f. Vāmana also quotes Subandhu and Bāṇa (ed. Cappeller pp. 38, 68).

v1.c16.3

¹ Even supposing with Jacobi that Vāmana was contemporaneous with the anonymous Dhvanikāra, he cannot yet be shown to have been influenced in any way by the opinions of that school. The remarks of Ruyyaka (p. 7) and Jayaratha apparently support the trend of Pratīhārendurāja's opinion, and Jayaratha expressly says, with reference to these old writers, that they were unaware of the views of the Dhvanikāra (*dhvanikāra-matam ebhir na dṛṣṭam*, p. 3), Dhvanikāra being, in Jayaratha's opinion, the same as Ānandavardhana himself.

v1.c16.4

² Cappeller's thesis propounded (in *Vāmana's Stilregeln* pp. iiif; also pref. to his ed. pp. viif) that Vāmana should be placed later than 1000 A.D. is disproved entirely by the quotations given above. Cf Pischel op. cit. pp. 23f. The mention of Kavirāja need not, as Pischel shows, of itself place Vāmana as late as 1000 A.D.

v1.c16.5

These considerations make it probable that Vāmana lived between the middle of the 8th and the middle of the 9th century, and justify Bühler's identification, in deference to Kalhaṇa iv 497 and "the tradition of Kāśmīrian Pandits", of our Vāmana with the Vāmana, who was a minister of Jayāpīḍa of Kashmir (779-813 A.D.). This conclusion makes Udbhaṭa and Vāmana contemporaries and rivals; and the way in which Rājaśekhara, Hemacandra and Jayaratha refer to the two rival schools of Vāmanīyas and Audbhaṭas lends colour to such a supposition.

v1.c16.6

The *vṛtti* on the *sūtras*, called *kavi-priyā*, is composed, as its *maṅgala-śloka* indicates, by Vāmana himself (cf IV. 3. 33).

v1.c16.7

It has already been noted that Vāmana, in many respects, attempts to improve upon the system of Daṇḍin. Vāmana does not claim entire originality with regard to the illustrations he cites, and many of them may be traced to well-known sources. The rīti-theory itself, which Vāmana for the first time clearly and systematically enunciates, is probably older that Bhāmaha, who alludes to the classification of the gauḍī and vaidarbhī; and Vāmana himself cites from unknown expositors of the past, e.g. in his vṛtti on I. 2. 11, 12-13, 3. 15, 29, 32; II. 1. 18, 2. 19; III. 1. 2, 9, 25, 2. 15; IV. 1. 7 etc., with atra ślokaḥ or tathā cāhuḥ. While Daṇḍin supplies an important link between these unknown authors and Vāmana, we find the theory in its completely self-conscious form in the latter. But it appears to have languished after Ānandavardhana came into the field, in spite of the fact that Vāmana’s influence apparently created a school known in later times as the Vāmanīya. To this school probably belonged Maṅgala, who must have been a comparatively early writer, being cited by Rājaśekhara (pp. 11, 14, 16, 20). Maṅgala, we are told by Hemacandra (Comm. p. 195), agrees with Bharata in his definition of ojas, and maintains with Vāmana that Daṇḍin is not right in emphasising it in the gauḍī rīti, inasmuch as it is common to all the rītis. This is all we hear about this writer, but all these indicate that in his opinions he leaned towards the system of Vāmana. A poet Maṅgala is quoted in the *Sadukti-karṇāmṛta*.

The Commentators On Vāmana

v1.c16.s1.1

The existing commentaries on Vāmana are mostly late, and are therefore hardly acceptable to a historical and critical student. The *Kāmadhenu* by a South Indian prince, Gopendra Tippa Bhūpāla, is a lucid exposition of the text, and its popularity is indicated by its frequent publication in India.

v1.c16.s1.2

Editions. (1) by Cappeller, Jena 1875 (2) Kāvyamālā 15, 1880 (3) by Borooah, Calcutta 1883 (4) Grathapradarśinī, 1895 (5-6) with Kāmadhenu comm. Ben. S. S., 1908, and Śrīvāṇi-vilāsa Series 5, Śrīraṅgam 1909. Eng. Transl. by Gaṅgānātha Jhā, Allahabad (no date), published originally in the *Indian Thought* vol iii-iv. Our references are to the Benares edition, unless otherwise indicated.

v1.c16.s1.3

MSS. Aufrecht i 103a, 779a, ii 20b; iii 22b; *HPS* ii 28 (Kāvipriyā entered here is apparently the vṛtti so named); *SCC* vii 24; *KBod* 487; *Madras Cat.* 12837-12845.

v1.c16.s1.4

Commentaries. (1) *Kāmadhenu* by Gopendra (or Govinda) Tripurahara (Tippa) Bhūpāla, apparently a South Indian prince. He cites, among numerous other authors, Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha, Bhaṭṭa Gopāla (the commentator on Mammaṭa ?), Ghaṇṭāpatha (apparently of Mallinātha) and Dharmadāsa Sūri's *Vidagdha-mukha-maṇḍana*. He is thus later than the 14th century. He cites a work called *Kavi-gajānkuśa*. Ed. with the text in *Grantha-pradarśinī* 1895; in the Ben. S. S. and in the Śrīvāṇī-vilāsa Press. Our references are by pages to the Benares Ed. MSS: Aufrecht i 103a, ii 22b; *Madras Cat.* 12842-45.

v1.c16.s1.5

(2) *Sāhitya-sarvasva* by Maheśvara (*IOC* 566, *ABod* 207b). See under Śrīvatsalāñchana (under Commentators on Mammaṭa below).

Linked texts (7)