Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c40: The Commentators On Jayadeva

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c40

Language
English

The Commentators On Jayadeva

v1.c40.1

Of the commentators on the *Candrāloka*, mention has already been made of Pradyotana Bhaṭṭa and his commentary, called *Candrāloka-prakāśa Śaradāgama*. He is described as the son of Miśra Balabhadra, and his patron's name is given as Vīrabhadra (or ºrudra)-deva, son of Rāmcandra and grandson of Vīrabhānu, king of Ayodhya, of the Vandella family.¹ His commentary is dated in 1583 A. D.; while his patron lived in the second half of the 16th century, as we find Vīrabhadra's commentary (called *Kandarpa-cūḍāmaṇi*) on Vātsyāyana is dated in 1577 A. D.

v1.c40.2

¹ The Madras MS reads vandella, but the Florentine MS (*Afl* p. 158) has vāghela.

v1.c40.3

There is another commentary called *Ramā*² written by Vaidyanātha Pāyaguṇḍa, who may not be identical with Vaidyanātha Tatsat, the commentator on Govinda's *Kāvya-pradīpa* and Appayya's *Kuvalayānanda*, although the two writers are taken as identical in most catalogues. The colophon to their commentaries distinctly make out their respective family-names as Pāyaguṇḍa and Tatsat; while in one of the introductory verses of the Ramā our Vaidyanātha calls himself distinctly Pāyaguṇḍa but does not give his own genealogy¹.

v1.c40.4

² The name of his commentary is often given, through a confusion, as *Harilocana-candrikā* (Aufrecht i 182a), which itself appears to be a mistaken name for the *Alaṃkāra-candrikā* comm. of Vaidyanātha Tatsat on *Kuvalayº*, the mistake arising from the word *harilocana-candrikā* occuring in the benedictory verse to the latter commentary, as well as from this confusion between the commentators on Jayadeva and Appayya respectively.

v1.c40.5

¹ This commentary has not yet been published, and the description of it given in the catalogues is unsatisfactory on this point. This conjecture, therefore, is put forward with reserve, as I have no means to verify it except the short extract given from it in the *Madras Catalogue* pp. 8652-53, and in *SCC* vii 30.

v1.c40.6

There is another less known commentary, called Rākigama or *Sulhā*, composed by Gāgābhaṭṭa, *alias* Viśveśvara, son of Dinakara Bhaṭṭa who was a Mīmāṃsaka. Viśveśvara, who also wrote a number of Mīmāṃsā and Smṛti works (Aufrecht i 587b), was a great-great-grandson of Rāmeśvara, nephew of the well-known Mīmāṃsaka Kamalākara Bhaṭṭa, whose date, as we have seen, is the first quarter of the 17th century². Viśveśvara, therefore, is a comparatively modern writer who probably flourished in the beginning of the 18th century, and should not be confused with Viśveśvara, author of the Alaṃkāra-kaustubha.

v1.c40.7

² see above p. 180. The genealogy is given thus : Rāmeśvara→ Nārāyaṇa→ Rāmakṛṣṇa→ Dinakara→ Viśveśvara.

v1.c40.8

Two other little known commentaries are mentioned below.

Linked texts (5)