Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c44: XXIV Visvanatha

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c44

Language
English

XXIV Visvanatha

v1.c44.1

Viśvanātha never cites Ruyyaka (as well Mammaṭa) by name; but, like Vidyādhara and Vidyānātha, he draws very considerably upon the works of both. He adopts, for instance, the definitions of the figures *upameyópamā* and *bhrānti-mān* directly from Ruyyaka, and admits the two figures *vikalpa* and *vicitra* which, both Ruyyaka and Jayaratha inform us, were inventions of Ruyyaka’s¹. It is quite possible, as Kane holds², that the censorious glancing on Mammaṭa’s text, reproved by Viśvanātha (*ad* ii 14, p. 57), refers in particular to Ruyyaka’s *Saṃketa* commentary where the latter criticises Mammaṭa on the particular point under discussion. But a surer indication of Viśvanātha’s acquaintance with Ruyyaka’s works is given by his quotation of the verse *bhujaṅga-kuṇḍali-vyakta*⁰ at p. 445 (*ad* x 2), which Ruyyaka himself cites (p. 19) as his own from the *Śrīkaṇṭha-stava*. Viśvanātha quotes two other writers who, in all probability, belong to this century, viz., Jayadeva, author of the *Gita-govinda*¹, and Śrīharṣa, author of the *Naiṣadha*². Again, the *Rāja-taraṅgiṇī* iv 441 is quoted in our text at p. 529, *ad* x 57a (possibly indirectly through Ruyyaka p. 93); but this work of Kalhaṇa’s was not completed till the middle of the 12th century. All this will roughly fix one terminus to the date of Viśvanātha, who cannot thus be placed earlier than the end of the 12th or the beginning of the 13th century.

v1.c44.2

¹ For other instances, where Viśvanātha is following or criticising Ruyyaka, see Kane’s ed. of the text, the introd. and notes.

v1.c44.3

² Kane, *op. cit.* p. 24 Addenda.

v1.c44.4

¹ The verse *hṛdi viṣalatā* quoted by Viśvanātha at p. 506 (*ad* x 39) occurs in the *Gita-govinda*, ed. N. S. P. iii 11, p. 58. It is also ascribed to Jayadeva by Śārṅgadhara (no. 3460) and Vallabhadeva (no. 1314). Bühler and Peterson assign (*Kashmir Rep.* p. 64 and *Subhās*[^9] p 38) 1116 A. D. as the date of Jayadeva, while Haraprasāda Śāstrī gives the date 1175 A. D. (*Notices*, 2nd. Ser., p. xxxviii). Jayadeva, however, is said to have been cited by Cāndkavi, who wrote his epic on Pṛthvīrāja of Delhi towards the end of the 12th century (but see *WZKM* vii 189; *JRASBom* xi 283). Viśvanātha also refers to *Laṭaka-melaka* (p. 176, *ad* iii 219) of Śaṅkhadhara, which also belongs to this century.

v1.c44.5

² p. 526, *ad* x:54 (*hanūmadōdyai*[^9]) = *Naiṣadha* ix 122b; p. 520, *ad* x 50 (*dhanyāsi vaidarbhi*) = *ibid* iii 116. For the date of Śrīharṣa see above p. 277, fn. 1

v1.c44.6

The other more or less terminal date is given by the date of a MS of the *Sāhitya-darpaṇa*, discovered by Stein at Jammu, which was written in *saṃvat* 1440 = 1384 A.D.³ This certainly negatives the date (viz. the middle of the 15th century) assigned by Weber⁴, Eggeling⁵ and Haricānd Śāstrī⁶, the last of whom makes the unfortunate mistake of identifying Caṇḍidāsa, referred to as a relative by Viśvanātha, with Caṇḍidāsa, the Bengali poet of the 15th century. It may be noted that Kumārasvāmin, at the beginning of the 15th century, names and quotes (pp. 245, 248) the Sāhitya-darpaṇa (iii 146a, 147 and 150).

v1.c44.7

³ Jammu Cat. p. 64, no. 349.

v1.c44.8

⁴ *Hist. of Sansk. Lit.* p. 231, n. 244. (Eng. trans. 1904).

v1.c44.9

⁵ *IOC* iii p. 337.

v1.c44.10

⁶ *op. cit.* p. 115.

v1.c44.11

All this raises the most likely presumption that Viśvanātha should be assigned to a period ranging roughly from 1200 to 1350 A. D. This approximation can be considerably narrowed down if we can draw any chronological inference from a verse in the Sāhitya-darpaṇa (ad iv 14, p. 232) which refers to a Muhammadan king named Allāvadīna¹. This Allāvadīna or Alāvadīna² may probably be Sultān³ 'Alāu-d-dīn Khaljī, whose army invaded the Deccan and seized Orangal. Even if we suppose that the verse in question was composed in the life-time of that Sultān, who died in 1315 A. D., the Sāhitya-darpaṇa may be presumed to have been composed at a date not earlier than 1300 A. D. At any rate, if this historical deduction is permissible, we may assign Viśvanātha to a period between 1300 and 1350 A. D., or roughly in the first half of the 14th century¹.

v1.c44.12

¹ sandhau sarvasva-haraṇam vigrahe prāṇa-nigrahaḥ| al(l)avadīna-nṛpatau na sandhir na ca vigrahaḥ.

v1.c44.13

² We find both these forms of the name in two inscriptions, see JASB xliii p. 108 and Bhavanagar inscription 114 = Prācīna-lekha-mālā ii 28. In Harṣakīrti's Dhātupāṭha this king is referred to as Allāvadi (Bhandarkar Rep. 1882-83, p. 43).

v1.c44.14

³ The sanskritised form of this word suratrāṇa occurs at p. 509 (ad x 42).

v1.c44.15

¹ Cf Kane *op. cit.* introd. p. vi; M. Cakravarti in *JASB* lxxii (1903), p. 146, N.S. ii, 1906, p. 167n; Keith in *JRAS*, 1911, pp. 848f; Sten Konow, *Ind. Drama* p. 3.

v1.c44.16

Viśvanātha describes himself as the son of *mahākavi* Candraśekhara (p. 583, concluding verses), who appears, like his son, to have been a poet and a scholar², as well as a high official³ in the court of some king, probably king of Kaliṅga. Nārāyaṇa, who appears to have written also on some topics of Poetics, is either his grandfather or great-great-grandfather; for in his commentary on the *Kāvyaprakāśa*, Viśvanātha speaks of Nārāyaṇa as *asmat-pitāmaha*, while in his *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* (p. 73, *ad* iii 4a), the same person is called *asmat-vṛddhapitāmaha*. Caṇḍīdāsa, apparently the author of the *Dīpikā* commentary on Mammaṭa, is also quoted and described as a relative, having been the younger brother of Viśvanātha's grandfather (p. 420, *ad* vii 31a)⁴.

v1.c44.17

² His verses cited at pp. 58, 116, 170, 174, while his works, called *Puṣpamālā* and *Bhāṣārṇava*, referred to at pp. 263 and 316 respectively.

v1.c44.18

³ Both are described as *sāndhivigrahika-mahāpātra*.

v1.c44.19

⁴ Viśvanātha cites one Puruṣottama (p. 440, *ad* ix 4a). A work called *Kavitāvatāra* is attributed to one Puruṣottama in Burnell 54a.

v1.c44.20

Viśvanātha appears to have written a number of works, besides his well-known *Sāhitya-darpaṇa*; for in it he himself refers to his own productions, viz.,

v1.c44.21

(1) *Rāghava-vilāsa-kāvya* (ad vi 325a, p. 355).

v1.c44.22

(2) *Kuvalayāśva-carita* in Prakrit (ad vi 326, p. 356).

v1.c44.23

(3) *Prabhāvatī-pariṇaya* (ad vi 182b, p. 320), also referred to in his commentary on Mammaṭa ch. vii.

v1.c44.24

(4) *Praśasti-ratnāvalī* in 16 languages, a *karaṇa-bhaka* (ad vi 337b, p. 358).

v1.c44.25

(5) *Candrakalā* (ad vi 183a and 184, p. 320-1), a *nāṭikā*.

v1.c44.26

He also wrote a commentary called *Kāvyaprakāśa-darpaṇa* on Mammaṭa's work; but this was probably composed after he had written his larger independent work on Poetics; for in it he himself refers, while commenting on *lakṣaṇā* (ch. ii), to the latter work¹. In the *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* itself he draws very considerably upon Mammaṭa; and although at the beginning of this work, he quotes and criticises at some length Mammaṭa's definition of poetry, he distinctly reproves all irreverent criticism of this venerable writer, who is declared to be his own *upajīvya* (ad ii 14 p. 57). In this commentary Viśvanātha refers to a *Narasimha-vijaya-kāvya* by himself.

v1.c44.27

¹ *eṣām ca ṣoḍaśānām lakṣaṇā-bhedānām iha darśitāny-udāharaṇāni mama sāhitya-darpaṇe'vagantavyāni*. Also on figure *anumāna* (ch. x): *tad uktam matkṛte sāhitya-darpaṇe*.

v1.c44.28

It is not clear on what grounds Weber and Eggeling¹ state that the *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* was composed "on the banks of the Brahmaputra", i. e. in Eastern Bengal. It appears on the contrary that Viśvanātha was probably a native of Kaliṅga, which we may take at this date to have been co-extensive roughly with Orissa and Ganjam. In his commentary on Mammaṭa, he explains certain expression with Oriya equivalents²; and speaking of his ancestor Nārāyaṇa, he refers to king Narasimha-deva of Kaliṅga (presumably Narasimha II, about 1279-1306), at whose court Nārāyaṇa vanquished one Dharmadatta³, who is also referred to in the *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* at pp. 73, 79⁴. It is probably in praise of one of the Narasimhas of Kaliṅga that Viśvanātha's lost poem *Narasimha-vijaya* was written.

v1.c44.29

¹ Cf also Macdonell, *Sansk. Lit.* p. 434; *SCC* vii no. 53, p. 33.

v1.c44.30

² "vaiparītyam rucim kuru" iti pāṭhaḥ, atra ciṅku-padam kāśmīrīdi-bhāṣāyām aślīlārtha-bodhakam, utkalīdi-bhāṣāyām dhṛta-vaṇḍaka-drava iti, on Mammaṭa v p. 238 (ed. Jhalakikara 1917).

v1.c44.31

³ cited also in the *Rasa-pradīpa* of Prabhākara, son of Bhaṭṭa Mādhava (Weber i 823), in which the *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* is also quoted. Prabhākara's work was composed in 1583 A.D.

v1.c44.32

⁴ *yad āhuḥ śrī-kaliṅga-bhūmaṇḍalakhaṇḍala-mahārājādhirāja-śrīnarasimha-sabhāyām dharmadattam sthagayantaḥ sakala-sahṛdaya-goṣṭhī-gariṣṭha-kavi-paṇḍitāsmat-pitāmaha-śrīman-nārāyaṇadāsa-pādāḥ*, etc.

v1.c44.33

The commentaries on Viśvanātha are not so numerous or important as to deserve any special enumeration. Of the four commentaries mentioned below, that of Rāmacaraṇa Tarkavāgīśa, dated in śaka 1623 = 1701 A.D., has been frequently printed with the text.

v1.c44.34

Editions. Published frequently in Calcutta, of which ed. (1) by Nāthurāma, 1828, and (2) by Röer in Bibl. Indica 1851, are notable. The latter does not contain the comm. of Rāmacaraṇa. Also eds. (1) with Rāmacaraṇa's comm. by Caṇḍīcaraṇa Smṛti-bhūṣaṇa, Calcutta B. S. 1318 (2) Benares 1882 (3) Calicut 1886 (4) N. S. P. 1902, 1915 (5) by Kane (ch. i, ii, x) with introd. and notes, Bombay 1910 (the commentary is not given). Translated into English by Ballantyne and P. D. Mitra 1875, Bibl. Indica. Our references are to the N. S. P. ed. of 1915 by Durgāprasāda Dviveda, unless otherwise specified.

v1.c44.35

MSS. Aufrecht i 715b, ii 171a, 233b, iii 148a ; SCC vii 53, 56, 57 ; Madras Trm B 443 ; KBod 510 ; SCB 2235.

v1.c44.36

Commentaries. (1) *Locana* by Anantadāsa, son of Viśvanātha, a MS of which is dated 1636 A. D. Aufrecht ii 171a.

v1.c44.37

(2) *Ṭippaṇa* by Mathurānātha Śukla, a voluminous writer, under whose name Aufrecht makes more than 64 entries. Apparently the same person as Mathurānātha Śukla, a native of Pāṭaliputra in Mālava, who wrote at Benares in 1783 A.D. the *Jyotiḥ-siddhānta-sāra* by order of prince Dalacandra (but see Aufrecht i 422-23). One Mathurānātha was also author of a comm. on *Kuvalayānanda*, and may have been the same person. Aufrecht i 715b.

v1.c44.38

(3) *Vivṛti* by Rāmacaraṇa Tarkavāgīśa, a native of Western Bengal, who dates his commentary in 1701 A. D. Aufrecht i 716a, ii 171a, iii 148a; *Madras Cat.* 12969; *SCC* vii 50-52. Frequently printed with the text in Bengal editions. Also in N. S. P. ed. 1915.

v1.c44.39

(4) *Prabhā* by Gopīnātha. *Madras Trm C* 712. Gopīnātha is also the author of the *Sumanomanoharā* comm. on Mammaṭa. See above p. 186. He is probably identical with Gopīnātha Kavirāja who composed, among other works, a commentary on the *Raghuvamśa* in 1677 A.D. (see Aufrecht i 163b).

Linked texts (13)