History of Sanskrit Poetics c6.28

Language: English

c6.28.1

3. Early beginnings of Poetics. Epigraphic records of the 2nd century A. D. and onwards show that before that period a theory of Poetics had been evolved. Vide on this part of the subject and in general for the development of Poetics my articles in I. A. for 1912 pp. 124-128 and pp. 201-208 and on the epigraphic material in Buhler’s essay ‘Die Indische Inschriften etc.’ (translated by Prof. Ghate in I. A. for 1913 pp. 29, 137, 172, 188, 230, 243). In ‘seven Brāhmī Inscriptions from Mathurā’ E. I. vol. 24 pp. 199 ff. Prof. Lüders says that in one of them occurs a verse in the भुजङ्गविजृम्भित metre and that therefore it must be conceded that *Kāvya* poetry was fully developed before 1st century B.C. The Inscription of रुद्रदामन् at Junagad (dated 150 A.D.) sheds very great light on the stage Poetics had reached by that time. Vide ASWI vol. II p. 128 and E. I. vol. VIII. p. 36 for the inscription. The preserved portion contains only two verbs, it is written in prose with long compounds, it is full of alliteration and other tricks with words. A brief quotation will convey an idea of the nature of the inscription: सर्वक्षत्राविष्कृत-वीरशब्दजातोत्सेकाविधेयानां यौधेयानां प्रशसोत्सादेन... शब्दार्थगन्धर्व्वन्यायानां विद्यानां महतीनां पारणधारणविज्ञानप्रयोगवाप्तविपुलकीर्तिना... स्फुटलघुमधुरचित्रकान्तशब्दसमयोदारालङ्कृतगद्यपद्य... यमधिगतमहाक्षत्रपनाम्ना नरेन्द्रकन्यास्वयंवरानिकमाल्यप्राप्तदाम्ना महाक्षत्रपेण रुद्रदाम्ना (p. 44). This shows that in or before the second century A. D.

c6.28.2

*काव्य* had been divided into *गद्य* and *पद्य*, that some of the *guṇas* that figure in later works had been already named (*vide* स्फुट,¹ मधुर, कान्त, उदार, which correspond to प्रसाद, माधुर्य, कान्ति and उदारता of the काव्यादर्श), both *गद्य* and *पद्य* were required to be *अलङ्कृत* (that is endowed with figures of speech). The नाट्यशास्त्र 17. 102, 106, 107 (K. M. ed. 16. 103, 107-108 and GOS. ed. 16. 104, 110, 112), define माधुर्य, उदात्त, कान्त. The composer of this inscription was evidently trying to come up to the standard of a good poet laid down in the works on Poetics of his day and therefore this inscription represents at least a mediocre attempt at what a *kāvya* was in those days required to be. The Nasik Inscription of Siri Pulumāyi, which is somewhat earlier than that of रुद्रदामन्, though in Prakrit, exhibits the same traits (Bombay Gazetteer vol. 16 p. 550 and E. I. vol. 8 p. 60 No. 2). In the first two centuries of the Christian era both Sanskrit and Prakrit inscriptions were engraved and followed the same pattern of literary style. The Ayodhyā Śuṅga Inscription of धन (देव or भूति), who was the sixth from Senāpati Puṣyamitra is in Sanskrit (E. I. vol. 20 p. 54) and the Inscription of रुद्रदामन् has been cited above already. The Inscription of Khāravela (referred to above on p. 19 and n 3) is in Prākrit, shows all the traits of the Ins. of रुद्रदामन् and mentions गन्धर्ववेद, नट, गीत, वादित्र and उत्सवसमाज. A quotation from it and one from the Nasik Ins.

c6.28.3

in the 19th year of Siri Pulumāyi are given below.¹ It will be noticed that they are full of alliteration, the language is forcible and sonorous and there are long compounds, which were the essence of prose according to somewhat later works like the काव्यादर्श (ओजः समासभूयस्त्वमेतद्गद्यस्य जीवितम् । I. 80) which dictum was probably based on older prose works now lost that were imitated by the writers of the early inscriptions in Sanskrit and Prakrit. Vide for other comparatively old Sanskrit Inscriptions, Dr. R. C. Majumdar’s ‘Ancient Indian Colonies in the Far East’ (vol. 1, book III. p. 1, the Vo-Chanh Rock Inscription from Champā in Sanskrit of the 2nd or 3rd century A. D. containing two वसन्ततिलका verses), I. H. Q. vol. 16 p. 484 (Dr. G. Coedés), vol. 17 pp. 107-110 (Dr. D. C. Sarkar for same as to date); the Pikira grant of Pallava king सिंहवर्मन्, son of युवमहाराज विष्णुगोप and grandson of महाराजस्कन्दवर्मन् II in Sanskrit prose with long compounds. An inscription of the 4th century A. D. contains a panegyric of the great Emperor समुद्रगुप्त by हरिषेण (vide Fleet’s Gupta Inscriptions, No. 1 p. 8). The prose of this प्रशस्ति rivals the style of Bāṇa. This प्रशस्ति tells us that ‘the title कविराज has been applied to समुद्रगुप्त on account of the composition of many kāvyas that were the source of inspiration to learned men’.

c6.28.4

A brief quotation will be helpful : ‘कृपणदीनानाथातुरजनोद्धरणसमन्त्रदीक्षा- धुपगतमनसः समिद्धस्य विग्रहवतो लोकानुग्रहस्य धनदवरुणेन्द्रान्तकस मस्य स्वभुजबलवि- जिताने कनपतिविभवप्रत्यर्पणनित्यव्याप्तायुक्तपुरुषस्य निशितविद्वन्मतिगान्धर्वललितै- र्विडितत्रिदशपतिगुरुतुम्बुरुनारदादिविद्वज्जनोपजीव्यनेककाव्यक्रियाभिः प्रतिष्ठितकवि- राजशब्दस्य etc.’ These inscriptions therefore show that long before the 4th century, Poetics had made a good deal of progress. There are other indications of great antiquity that point in the same direction. The निघण्टु (III. 13) collects twelve phrases from the Ṛgveda and calls them उपमा (such as इदमिव, इदं यथा, अग्निर्वत्, तद्वत्). The निरुक्त, while commenting on this part of the निघण्टु cites a scientific definition of उपमा from गार्ग्य, a predecessor of यास्क, and remarks that in the Ṛgveda a superior object is sometimes compared with an inferior one (though the general rule is that the उपमान is superior to or more well-known than the उपमेय) अर्थात उपमा यदतत्तत्सदृशमिति गार्ग्यस्तदासां कर्म ज्यायसा वा गुणेन प्रख्याततमेन वा कनीयांसं वाप्रख्यातं वोपमिमीतेऽथापि कनीयसा ज्यायांसम्’ (III. 13). The निरुक्त then cites Ṛg. X. 4. 6 (तनूत्यजेव तस्करा वनर्गू &c., where the arms are compared to desperate thieves) and Ṛg. X. 40. 2 (कुह स्विद्दोषा कुह वस्त्रोश्विना &c., where the Aśvins are compared to the levir having intercourse with his brother’s widow).

c6.28.5

यास्क foreshadows the later distinction between पूर्णा and लुप्ता simile in the words ‘लुप्तोपमान्यथोपमानीत्याचक्षते’ (निरुक्त III. 18). A complete Upamā has four constituent elements, उपमान, उपमेय (or उपमित), the common property (सामान्य) and the word expressive of the relation (such as इव, तुल्य). Long before Pāṇini these technical words had become fixed in the language. The followsng sūtras will make this clear : ‘उपमानानि सामान्यवचनैः’ and ‘उपमितं व्याघ्रादिभिः सामान्याप्रयोगे’ (पा. II. 1. 55-56); तुल्यार्थैरतुलोपमाभ्यां तृतीयान्यतरस्याम्’ पा. II. 3. 72; ‘उपमानादाचारे’ पा. III. 1. 10 (क्यच् स्यात्); ‘तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद्वतिः । तत्र तस्येव’ पा. V. 1. 115-16. Pāṇini refers to the Naṭasūtras composed by Śilālin and कृशाश्व (‘पाराशयशिलालिभ्यां भिक्षुनटसूत्रयोः’ and ‘कर्मन्द- कृशाश्वादिभिः’ IV. 3. 110-111). There is nothing left to show what these contained, but if they were to deserve the highsounding designation of a sūtra, it is not unlikely that they gave (however crudely) instruction as to what the business of an actor was, how he could work upon the emotions of the audience (i. e. in short some theory of rasa). The Vedāntasūtras name two alaṅkāras viz. उपमा and रूपक (‘अत एव चोपमा सूर्यकादिवत्’ III. 2. 18 and ‘भानुमानिकमप्येकेषां शरीररूपकविन्यस्तगृहीतदर्श- यति च' I. 4. 1). The बुद्धचरित of अश्वघोष (not later than 3rd century, as it was translated into Chinese about 414-421 A. D. and probably of the 1st or 2nd century A.

c6.28.6

D.) was composed at a time when some theory of poetics had already been in vogue. Each canto has at the end a verse or verses in a different metre. The author is very much after alliteration (I. 14, 15; V. 26), employs such a frightful jingle as हरितुरगतुरङ्गः (V.87) and is very fond of यथासंख्य (V. 42 and IX. 16). The बुद्धचरित III. 51 employs the word रसान्तरम्. Similar remarks apply to Aśvaghoṣa's another Mahākāvya, the Saundarananda. In X. 2 there is अनुप्रास and in X. 11 there is यमक 'चलत्कदम्बे हिमवन्नितम्बे तरौ प्रलम्बे चमरौ ललम्बे ।'. Compare नाट्यशास्त्र 17. 84 (इली बलो लली &.); the same verse is K. M. ed. 16.85 and GOS. vol. II chap. 16. 84 p. 330. Prof. H. Lüders published in 1911 fragments of a drama of Aśvaghoṣa called सारिपुत्रप्रकरण which had nine Acts. That shows that ancient dramas on which the rules of the नाट्यशास्त्र were most probably based were lost or forgotten when later dramas like those of भास and कालिदास took the field. Sabhāparva 11. 36 speaks of नाटकऽ 'नाटका विविधा काव्याः कथाख्यायिका रिकाः'. अश्वघोष uses the technical words हाव and भाव ('भावज्ञानेन हावेन चातुर्योपसम्पदा । बुद्ध० IV. 12). Vide नाट्य० 24. 8-10 for भाव and हाव. नाट्यशास्त्र (GOS. ed. vol. III.) chap. 22. 6-8 are: देहात्मकं भवेत्सत्त्वं सत्त्वाद्भावः समुत्थितः । भावात्समुत्थितो हावो हावाद्धेला समुत्थिता ।। वागङ्गमुखरागैश्च सत्त्वेनाभिनयेन च । कवेरन्तर्गतं भावं भावयन्भाव उच्यते ।।. It was shown above (p. 47) that the नाट्यशास्त्र must have been composed not later than 300 A. D.

c6.28.7

It contains a full exposition of the rasa theory, of dramaturgy and of four figures of speech and gunas. कालिदास is fond of अनुप्रास and employs यमक in रघुवंश IX. Bhāravi (who is mentioned in the Aihole Inscription) cannot be placed later than about 580-590 A.D. and in the 15th sarga of Kirātārjunīya exemplifies such चित्रबन्धs as गोमूत्रिका (verse 12), सर्वतोभद्र (25), एकाक्षर (verse 14 in which the only consonant that occurs is न्), different kinds of यमकs (verses 35, 37, 52), a verse with three applications (45).