Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c17: VII Rudrata And Rudrabhatta

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c17

Language
English

Contents

VII Rudrata And Rudrabhatta

v1.c17.1

The lower limit of Rudraṭa's date is furnished by the citation of Rudraṭa and the reference to his *kāku-vakrókti* figure (ii 16) by Rājaśekhara (p. 31) at the end of the 9th and beginning of the 10th century. This conclusion is supported by two considerations. Vallabhadeva who, as we shall presently see, flourished in the first half of the 10th century, mentions twice in his commentary on Māgha (on iv 21 and vi 28) that he also composed a commentary on Rudraṭa's treatise on Alaṃkāra, where he had discussed in detail the points in question; while in the same commentary Hultzsch notes numerous references, mostly anonymous, to Rudraṭa (ii 44,88; viii 26,37; ix 6; x 33; xii 55; xiii 40)¹. Again, Pratīhārendurāja, about the same time, quotes anonymously (pp. 42, 49) Rudraṭa's *kārikā*-verses vii 35 and xii 4, as well as cites (p. 43) the illustrative stanza in Rudraṭa vii 36². This sets aside altogether the conjectural date, viz. the second half of the 11th century, assigned by Bühler³, as well as his revised date¹, viz, the middle of the 10th century, which Peterson² first put forward.

v1.c17.2

¹ See Hultzsch's pref. to his edition of *Meghadūta* with Vallabha's comm., London 1911, p. x-xi. This Vallabhadeva must be distinguished from the compiler of the *Subhāṣ* who bears the same name.

v1.c17.3

² Cf Pischel in *GgA*, 1885, p. 764.

v1.c17.4

³ *Kashmir Rep.*, p. 67.

v1.c17.5

The upper limit cannot be so definitely settled; but it seems probable that Rudraṭa was younger than Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana, with regard to whose date his own time to be settled. We need not go so far as to hold with Jacobi³ that Rudraṭa derived his idea of *vakrókti* from Ratnākara’s well-known poem *Vakrókti-pañcāśikā*, and therefore was later than Ratnākara, son of Amṛtabhānu, who lived under Bṛhaspati and Avantivarman; but it is clear that if this new idea of *vakrókti* did not originate in Ratnākara or even in Rudraṭa, it was defined for the first time by the latter and illustrated by the former as a particular poetic figure. This verbal figure is described as resting on *śleṣa* (paronomasia) and *kāku* (intonation) and is based on a deliberate misunderstanding of one’s words for the purpose of making a clever retort (Rudraṭa ii 14-17). Bhāmaha (ii 85), on the other hand, had taken *vakrókti*, not as a particular poetic figure, but as a certain strikingness of expression which characterises all poetic figures; while Daṇḍin had limited the range of *vakrókti* and made it a collective name for all poetic figures with the exception of *svabhāvókti* (ii 362 and comm. thereon). Vāmana

v1.c17.6

1 IA xii 30.

v1.c17.7

2 Peterson, i p. 14; also introd. to *Subhāṣo* p. 105. Their arguments are based on the date of Nami-sādhu’s commentary on Rudraṭa, which is now known to be dated in 1069 A.D. See below on Nami-sādhu.

v1.c17.8

3 WZKM ii 151 f.

v1.c17.9

was the first to regard *vakrókti* as a special poetic figure (*arthālaṃkāra*), but he too used the expression in a more or less general sense to denote a particular mode of metaphorical expression based on *lakṣaṇā* or transferred sense (IV. 3. 8)¹. From this it appears that (1) the term *vakrókti* travelled through all these writings from a very broad sense as the distinguishing characteristic of all poetic figures to the precise and narrow signification of a specific verbal poetic figure in Rudraṭa’s definition; a definition which, however, unquestionably established itself in all later writers (except in Kuntala who developed his idea directly from Bhāmaha); (2) the order of development points apparently to the conclusion that Rudraṭa was probably later than Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana; for in his time the broader and older connotation of *vakrókti* was out of date, and it came to be looked upon as a defined species of *śabdālaṃkāra*; and (3), its illustration by Ratnākara indicates its existence, independently of Rudraṭa, in the 9th century A.D. These indications make it probable, apart from a detailed examination of Rudraṭa’s other theories in relation to those of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana, that the substance of Rudraṭa’s teaching was probably later than that of these older writers. If this conclusion is accepted, then Rudraṭa should be placed after Vāmana, who is the latest member of this group; and this gives us the upper limit to his date.

v1.c17.10

¹ Cf Jacobi in *ZDMG* lxiv.

v1.c17.11

It seems probable, therefore, that Rudraṭa should be placed between the first quarter of the 9th century and its end; and it will not be wrong if we accept the most plausible date assigned to him by Pischel¹, viz., the middle of the 9th century². This date makes him a contemporary of Ānandavardhana, who never cites or refers to Rudraṭa, as he does to other well-known predecessors, and by whom this peculiar ālaṃkārika connotation of vakrókti, if known, was not apparently recognised.

v1.c17.12

¹ Pref. to Śṛṅg.til. pp. 12, 26.

v1.c17.13

² The suggestion of Jacobi that Rudraṭa, whose name implies that he was a Kashmirian, was a contemporary of Śaṅkaravarman of Kashmir, successor of Avantivarman, does not make any essential difference to our conclusion, although it is not certain that the example of vakrókti, given by Rudraṭa in ii 15 was at all prompted by Ratnākara, whose work contains similar railleries between Śiva and Gaurī.

v1.c17.14

What is said here about Rudraṭa does not apply to Rudra or Rudrabhaṭṭa, although Pischel³, Weber⁴, Aufrecht⁵ and Bühler⁶ take the two authors to be identical. This identity is declared doubtful by Peterson⁷ and is not admitted by Durgāprasāda⁸ and Trivedi¹. Finally, Jacobi has set at rest this controversy by showing elaborately, from an examination of their respective texts, that these two writers were in all probability different persons².

v1.c17.15

³ Pref. to Śṛṅg. til. ; ZDMG xlii, pp. 296-304, 435.

v1.c17.16

⁴ Ind. Stud. xvi.

v1.c17.17

⁵ ZDMG xxvii pp. 80-1, xxxvi p. 376; Cat. Bod. 209b ; Cat. Cat. pp. 528b, 530a.

v1.c17.18

⁶ Kashmir Rep. p. 67.

v1.c17.19

⁷ Rep. i p. 14 ; pref. to Subhāṣº pp. 104-5 ; but contra in ii 19 footnote.

v1.c17.20

⁸ Footnote to the ed. of Śṛṅg.til. p. 1.

v1.c17.21

¹ Notes to his ed. of *Ekāvalī* p. 3.

v1.c17.22

² *WZKM* ii pp. 151-56; *ZDMG* xlii pp. 425f.

v1.c17.23

From v 15 of the *Kāvyālaṃkāra* of Rudraṭa, as interpreted by Nami-sādhu, it appears that Rudraṭa, also called Śatānanda, was the son of Bhaṭṭa Vāmukha and a follower of the Sāma-veda. Rudrabhaṭṭa's genealogy or personal history is unknown. But much has been made of the apparent similarity of the two names. The last verse of the *Śṛṅgāra-tilaka*, however, expressly gives the name of its author as Rudra, with which description most of the MSS agree³; while both Nami-sādhu and Vallabha call the author of the *Kāvyālaṃkāra* by the name of Rudraṭa. They belong, again, apprently to two different religious persuasions, Rudra being a worshipper of Śiva, and Rudraṭa omitting a reference to this deity and mentioning instead Bhavānī and Murāri (besides the usual Gaṇeśa).

v1.c17.24

³ With the curious exception of a Kashmirian MS in Śāradā character (Bühler's *Kashmir Rep.* no. 264) where the name in given as Rudraṭa. This unique testimony raises a legitimate suspicion, but it can be explained as a piece of not unnatural confusion made by a Kashmirian scribe, to whom the more famous name of Rudraṭa must have been more familiar. The same remark applies to the South Indian MS in *Madras Cat.* 12955, in which, however, thes last verse gives the name as Rudra. This evidence, however, of the colophons of MSS is not decisive; and it is well known the that even later anthologies and writers of note make a similar confusion between the two authors.

v1.c17.25

Taking the works themselves, Rudraṭa’s text covers a much larger ground than Rudra’s, and presents a distinctly different outlook. Rudraṭa puts a greater emphasis on the kāvyālaṃkāras or poetic figures, which supply, as Nami-sādhu points out, the name of the work itself, and which absorb its eleven chapters, leaving only four concluding chapters for a brief supplementary treatment of rasa, the cognate topic of nāyaka-nāyikā and the general problems of poetry. The key-stone of Rudra’s system, on the other hand, is the idea of rasa, having special reference to śṛṅgāra, with just a summary description of the other rasas; and the chief value of his work consists in his minute poetical treatment of the theme of śṛṅgāra-rasa and nāyaka-nāyikā. It will appear, therefore, that while Rudraṭa’s scope and method are more ambitiously theoretical and comprehensive, Rudrabhaṭṭa merely singles out a part of the whole subject, and not troubling himself about definitions and rules (which appear almost word for word as in Rudraṭa) gives us, in his apt and finely composed illustrative verses, a practical poetical manual on the subject of love and other sentiments. Jacobi, therefore, rightly remarks that “Rudraṭa appears as an original teacher of poetics, while Rudra, at his best an original poet, follows, as an expounder of his śāstra, the common herd.”

v1.c17.26

With regard to the common topics, there is, however, a general agreement, even to minute details, which has misled some scholars to attribute the two works to the same author. But beneath this general agreement, the two works reveal many points of difference which affect some of the fundamental conceptions of their respective authors. Taking, for instance, their treatment of *rasa*, we find that while Rudra (i 9) follows the general tradition, prevailing from Udbhaṭa’s time, of mentioning nine *rasas*, Rudraṭa adds one more, viz. *preyas* (xii 3), treating them in an order somewhat different from that followed by Rudra. Rudra enumerates and discusses at some length the *bhāvas* (i 10-16), which are summarily referred to by Rudraṭa in one verse only (xii 4). A similar difference will be noted in the treatment of *vṛttis*, of which Rudra (i 12) mentions, after Bharata (xx 24f), the usual four (viz. *kaiśikī*, *ārabhaṭī*, *sāttvatī* and *bhāratī*), originally taken as styles of dramatic composition but borrowed here apparently with a similar purpose from dramaturgy to poetry (cf Bharata *loc. cit.* 21). Rudraṭa, on the other hand, speaks (ii 19f), after Udbhaṭa,¹ of five *vṛttis* (viz. *madhurā*, *prauḍhā*, *paruṣā*, *lalitā* and *bhadrā*), which have nothing to do with the above four, but being comprised under alliteration (*anuprāsa*) refer primarily to suitable sound-adjustment by special arrangement of letters. With regard to the cognate topic of *nāyaka-nāyikā*, similar material discrepancies can be detected. While Rudra describes at some length the eight conventional *avasthās* (conditions or situations) of the *nāyikā* (i 131-32), Rudraṭa really mentions four (viz., *abhisārikā*, *khaṇḍitā*, *svādhīna-patikā* and *proṣita-patikā*, xii 41f), although to make up for this unwonted divergence there is in some MSS a long passage (between xii 40 and 41), describing the usual eight conditions but irreconcilable to its context, and rightly stigmatised by its editor as interpolated. The third class of heroine, again, viz., the courtesan (*veśyā*). appears to be favoured by Rudra (i 120-30), while Rudraṭa dismisses her in two verses only (xii 39-40) with an apparent note of condemnation. The tenfold state of a lover, beginning with desire and ending in death, is mentioned in passing by Rudraṭa (xiv 4-5), but Rudra defines and illustrates each of these states in detail (ii 6-30). While the trespasses in love, according to Rudra (ii 53), depend on time (*kāla*), place (*deśa*) and circumstance (*prasaṅga* Rudraṭa thinks (xiv 18) that a fourth condition, viz., the person concerned (*pātra*) should be added.

v1.c17.27

¹ Udbhaṭa mentions only three *vṛttis* in connexion with *anuprāsa*, viz. *paruṣā*, *upanāgarikā* and *grāmyā* (i 4-7).

v1.c17.28

All these indications make it highly probable that Rudraṭa and Rudra were two different persons; but if this is so, how are we to explain the fact that most of the verses in the *Śṛṅgāra-tilaka* are, but for their difference in metre (*anuṣṭup* and *āryā* respectively) identical almost word for word with the corresponding verses in the *Kāvyālaṃkāra*? This point has been emphasised with some plausibility by the advocates of the identity of the two writers. But it should be noticed that this extraordinary verbal coincidence does not extend beyond those verses which give the rules and definitions; for the illustrative stanzas in the *Śṛṅgāra-* tilaka, composed in a variety of metres, and forming a distinctive feature of this more poetical work, do not occur in the *Kāvyālaṃkāra* at all. It is not unusual to find similar treatment and terminology in technical treatises, abounding in standardised and conventional rules and definitions; but this is not enough to explain this extraordinary plagiarism, tempered, it is true, by the presence of highly poetical and presumably original¹ stanzas composed to illustrate these dry rules and definitions. Nor is the explanation, which is based on the supposed identity of the two writers, at all free from considerable doubt in view of the discrepancies noted above. The real explanation probably lies in the supposition that Rudra, apparently a later writer and chiefly a poet, and never pretending to be an original teacher of Poetics, found in these ready-made rules of Rudraṭa enough poetic possibilities, as well as an opportunity of displaying his own poetic powers, and proceeded forthwith to furnish the missing poetic illustrations.² As he did not apparently aspire to write an original thesis on the topics concerned, he did not trouble to alter the wording of the fixed canons and made only enough changes to suit the metre. While Rudraṭa is concerned directly with rules and prescriptions, Rudra is more practical in his object and treatment, and intends his treatise on love apparently to serve as a psychologico-poetical guide to the gay science, furnishing it, as he does, with and elaborate analysis of the various moods and sentiments, which belong to the province of Erotics as well Poetics¹.

v1.c17.29

¹ Some stnzas in the *Śṛṅg.til.* are taken from earlier works like the *Amaru-śataka*.

v1.c17.30

² These chapters in Rudraṭa are purely expository, and are not fully illustrated as the preceding chapters are. One may be led to suppose that Rudraṭa himself composed the *Śṛṅgāra-tilaka* to supply this deficiency, but this hypothesis does not sufficiently explain the divergence of views on the points noted above, which apparently indicates that the task of supplementing could not have been undertaken by himself but by some other author, who held some views different from his own. It cannot be argued that chapters xii-xvi in question, which contain this deficiency, is a later

v1.c17.31

verse of ch. xi reads like the end of the work itself; for a similar remark applies to the closing verses of chapters iii, iv and v.

v1.c17.32

I The quotations from these two writers in later literature are unfortunately mostly anonymous, and do not materially help us in this question. Among the very few cases where the author's name is cited along with his verses, Mammaṭa, himself a Kashmirian, correctly refers (ad ix 8a) the verse *sphuṭam arthālaṃkāram* to Rudraṭa (iv 32). Samudrabandha (p. 6) and Hemacandra (p. 286 Comm.) refers rightly to Rudraṭa vii 38-40 and vii 27 respectively. Ruyyaka, which discussing Rudraṭa's views, does not refer to his treatment of the *rasas* at all. On the other hand, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (p. 35) cites *vāmatā durlabhatvam* from *Śṛṅgāra-til.* (ii 41), and correctly refers to the author as Rudra. Vallabhadeva in his anthology cites a number of verses from the *Kāvyālaṃkāra* (421 = ii 17; 730 = iii 57; 1387 = vi 10; 1667 = ii 30; 2047 = vii 71; 2061 = vii 33; 2234 = vii 41; 2409 = vii 32), and with two exceptions, gives the name of the author correctly as Rudraṭa. Similarly Śārṅgadhara quotes eight verse from the *Śṛṅgāra-til.* (3409 = i 95; 3567 = i 35; 3568 = i 81; 3670 = ii 107; 3578 = ii 12; 3579 = ii 50; 3675 = i 51; 3754 = i 30), and with two exceptions, again, Rudrabhaṭṭa’s date is uncertain; but as Hemacandra (p. 110) is the oldest writer to quote and criticise his *maṅgala*-verse (i 1), we should place him between Rudraṭa and Hemacandra, i. e. later than the 9th century but earlier, probably not much earlier, than the 12th. One verse, however, of Rudra, which cannot be traced in his *Śṛṅgāra-tilaka*, is quoted by Dhanika (iv 60, ed. N. S. P. 1917, p. 103); and if this Rudra is the same as our author, he should be placed before the end of the 10th century.¹

v1.c17.33

¹ Dhanika also quotes anonymously from Rudraṭa (xii 4) in his comm. on iv 35, ed. N. S. P.

v1.c17.34

THE COMMENTATORS ON RUDRATA

Vallabhadeva

v1.c17.s1.1

Vallabhadeva’s commentary on *Rudraṭālaṃkāra*, refers them correctly to Rudra. The two exceptions of Śārṅgadhara (*viz.* 3773 and 3788) are wrongly attributed to Rudra; but Vallabhadeva quotes the very same verses (2234 and 1667), and correcting the mistake refers them rightly to Rudraṭa. Vallabhadeva’s two exceptions (2247 and 3122) cannot be found in Rudraṭa to whom they are attributed, nor in Rudra. Jalhaṇa attributes 21 verses to Rudra, of which 5 cannot be traced in his work. Of these, *kiṃ gaurī māṃ* occurs in Rudraṭa ii 15; *ambā śete’tra* occurs in *Kavi. vacana-samuc.* 505 = *Subhāṣ*° 2247 (attributed to Rudraṭa) = *Sadukti-karṇā*° ii 73 (attributed to Bhaṭṭa); *ekākinī yad abalā* is attributed wrongly to Rudra (as in the *Paddhati* 3773) but correctly assigned by Vallabhadeva to Rudraṭa.

v1.c17.s1.2

referred to by himself in his commentary on Māgha (on iv 21, vi 28) is the earliest known commentary on Rudraṭa and is still to be recovered. Vallabhadeva, who bore the surname of Paramāratha-cihna and who describes himself as the son of Rājānaka Ānandadeva¹, is a well-known commentator on several standard poetical works, including those of Kālidāsa, Māgha, Mayūra and Ratnākara. He was apparently a Kashmiri and probably belonged to the first half of the 10th century; for his grandson Kayyaṭa, son of Candrāditya, wrote a commentary on Ānandavardhana's *Devī-śataka*² in 977-78 A.D., during the reign of Bhīmagupta of Kashmir (977-82 A.D.). His preceptor was Prakāśavarṣa who, Hultzsch thinks, is perhaps identical with the poet Prakāśavarṣa, who is quoted by *Subhāṣitāvali* and *Śārṅgadhara-paddhati* and who wrote a commentary on Bhāravi (Aufrecht i 347). Our author must be distinguished from Vallabhadeva, the author of the *Subhāṣitāvali*, who is assigned by Aufrecht to the 16th century³. From Hultzsch's list of Vallabha's quotations in his commentary on Māgha, it is interesting to note that he cites Medhāvirudra, Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa, Bhaṭṭi and the *Viṣamabāṇa-līlā* (apparently the Prakrit poem of Ānandavardhana).

v1.c17.s1.3

¹ In the closing verse of his comm. on *Vakrōkti-pañcaśikā* Ānandadeva seems to have held some high appointment in Kashmir (colophon in Kāvyamālā pt. i, p. 114: Mitra x no. 4064).

v1.c17.s1.4

² See footnote to the ed. of *Vakrōkti-pañcaśikā* in Kāvyamālā, pt i, pp. 101-2: and to ed. of the *Devī-śataka* in *ibid*, pt ix, p. 1. Cf Hultzsch's pref. to *Meghadūta* p. ix.

v1.c17.s1.5

³ Bühler (*Kunst Poesie* p. 71) however thinks that this Vallabhadeva flourished between 1400 and 1450 A.D.

Linked texts (19)