Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

A History of Sanskrit Literature c11.s1: 1. The Guptas and the Brahmin Revival

A History of Sanskrit Literature c11.s1

Language
English

1. The Guptas and the Brahmin Revival

c11.s1.1

UTTER obscurity attends the decline of the power of the followers of Kaniṣka in India,¹ but it is certain that in A.D. 320 Candragupta founded, as a result of a matrimonial alliance with a Licchavi princess, a dynasty with head-quarters at Pāṭaliputra, which under his son, Samudragupta (*c.* A.D. 330–75), stood out as the paramount power in northern India, while his grandson, Candragupta II, completed its success by overthrowing the Kṣatrapas and adding Mālwa, Gujarāt, and Kāṭhiāwār to the empire. His son and successor, Kumāragupta (A.D. 413–55), seems to have reigned in unbroken prosperity, and Skandagupta, his son, shortly after his reign began, won a decided success over the Hūṇa invaders who were advancing from the north-west and menacing India. But between A.D. 465 and 470 the Hūṇa advance seems to have become irresistible, and at any rate after the death of Skandagupta about 480 the greatness of the empire was irretrievably departed, though the dynasty continued to rule sadly diminished dominions for several generations. By 499 Toramāṇa, leader of the Hūṇas, was established as ruler of Mālwā, while his successor, Mihiragula, had his capital at Siālkōṭ in the Panjāb. The expulsion of the Huns seems to have been the result about 528 of a victory won by Yaçodharman, a ruler of central India, and the Gupta Bālāditya of Magadha, but the records are curiously unsatisfactory. At any rate Mihiragula retreated to Kashmir, where he won an unenviable reputation,² and shortly after 550 the Turks conquered the Hun kingdom on the Oxus.

c11.s1.2

¹ Smith, EHI. chaps. x and xi; Bhandarkar, *Early History of India*, pp. 47 ff.

c11.s1.3

² To him is ascribed the ruin of Gandhāra and its art; Foucher, *L'Art Gréco-Bouddhique*, ii. 588 ff.

c11.s1.4

There can be no doubt that the Gupta empire signified a distinct revival of Brahmanism and a reassertion of Indian nationality as opposed to the somewhat cosmopolitan Kushan régime, under which Buddhism was decidedly in chief favour, though Brahmanism and Jainism must have been widespread. The art of the period is of a high order, reflecting a national spirit reacting to the impulse of Greek inspiration,¹ although the architecture of the period has largely disappeared, owing doubtless to the appalling destruction wrought by the Mahomedan invaders of north India. The sculpture, however, exhibits an unusual beauty of figure, dignity of pose, and restraint and refinement of treatment in detail. The coinage, often of merit, shows clear traces of intercourse with the Roman world, also attested by records of missions to Rome and Constantinople in 361 and 530. Mathematics, astronomy, and astrology flourished, taking new life under Greek influence, as is abundantly established by the *Pañcasiddhāntikā* of Varāhamihira (*c.* 550) and by the works of Āryabhaṭa (born 476). Relations with China were maintained by visits of Buddhists from and to India. Fa-hien (401–10) gives us a most favourable picture of India under Candragupta II. There was freedom of movement throughout mid-India; justice was dispensed with mercy, fines being normally inflicted, capital punishment being disused, and mutilation restricted to rebels or brigands; the revenues of the crown were derived mainly from land, and the royal officers and servants received regular salaries. Among Buddhists at least—and they still were very numerous—the rule of refraining from animal food or taking life was widely observed, and in many places butchers’ shops and distilleries were unknown. What is of special interest is that he alone records a very significant proof of the revival of Brahmanism; the Caṇḍālas or outcasts were obliged to live apart, and, when they approached a town or bazaar, to strike a piece of wood as a warning of their presence, in order that others might avoid pollution by contact with them. The emperors were clearly devotees of Viṣṇu and attached to the Bhāgavata faith, but religious toleration was still the order of the day, and the signs of the decadence of Buddhism were concealed from Fa-hien’s eyes. Nor is this surprising, for it is probable that Samudragupta himself was a friend of Vasubandhu when that Buddhist sage attended his father’s court.² Samudragupta, however, was careful to assert his devotion to Brahmanical ideals; thus he renewed the ancient horse sacrifice as a sign of his paramount sway, and Kumāragupta appears to have followed his example. The centre of Gupta power, originally fixed at Pāṭaliputra, seems clearly to have shifted during the reign of Candragupta II to Ujjayinī, doubtless in order to secure the steadfast adherence to the empire of the newly acquired lands.

c11.s1.5

¹ Foucher, ii. 756 ff.

c11.s1.6

² Cf. Vāmana’s evidence; Smith, EHI. pp. 346 ff.

c11.s1.7

That such princes should favour poetry and fine arts was inevitable. Samudragupta was proud of his skill with the lute, and a coin depicts him playing that instrument. But a more secure support for his claims is afforded by the assertions of the panegyrist Hariṣeṇa (*c.* 350), who assures us that his patron had a poetic style which was worth study and wrote poems which increased the poet's spiritual treasure, and again that his title of king of poets, Kavirāja, was well grounded through his composition of many poems deserving imitation by others. He delighted also in the society of the earnest students of literature, was interested in the explanation and defence of holy scripture, and devoted to music. Moreover, he won fame by removing the discrepancy between the poet's art and riches, doubtless his chief merit in the eyes of many of his flatterers. Of his great son Candragupta we know that he adopted the title Vikramāditya, reminiscent of the legendary Vikramāditya of Ujjayinī, and it is certainly plausible to suggest that the fame of Vikramāditya as the patron of poets, attested in the late and in itself worthless legend of the Nine Jewels,¹ was due to the literary distinction of Candragupta's court. The list of Jewels runs Dhanvantari, Kṣapaṇaka, Amarasiṁha, Çaṅku, Vetāla Bhaṭṭa, Ghaṭakarpara, Kālidāsa, Varāhamihira, and Vararuci. Of these Dhanvantari, as the author of a medical glossary, is older than Amarasiṁha, who also used Kālidāsa; the fourth and fifth are mere names; Varāhamihira definitely lived in the sixth century, and the dates of Kṣapaṇaka as a lexicographer and of Vararuci are unknown. But we have a distinct corroboration of the idea of Candragupta as a patron of poets in the fact that his minister of external affairs, Vīrasena Kautsa Çāba, was interested in poetry. Probably the succeeding emperors manifested equal concern in poetry.

c11.s1.8

¹ Weber, ZDMG. xxii. 708 ff.; Zachariae, *Die indischen Wörterbücher*, pp. 18 ff.; Fleet, IA. xxx. 3 f.

c11.s1.9

Nor is there any doubt that the drama must have flourished under their patronage; indeed it has been suggested that Candragupta's epithet *rūpakṛtin* denotes maker of plays, which would make the king a predecessor of Harṣa as a dramatist; the accuracy of the rendering is not, however, beyond cavil. What, however, is certain is that Sanskrit was essentially the language of the court and of learned men; even Buddhists such as Vasubandhu and Asaṅga resorted to it as a matter of course as the means of securing a respectful hearing for their doctrines. The disputes between the rival schools were probably friendly enough; the Sāṁkhya philosophy as expounded in the *Kārikā* of Īçvarakṛṣṇa seems to have been the object of special attack by Vasubandhu, and Samudragupta's interest in these matters may have been aroused by that teacher.

Cites (4)