|
North
Indian Inscriptions |
|
|
LITERARY HISTORY
Introductory
Years ago, the late Max-Müller brought out his famous dissertation on the Renaissance of
Sanskrit Literature, where he has asseverated two literary-historical propositions. The first of
these is that the Indians did not manifest any literary activity during the first two
centuries of the Christian era, as this country was then infested with the inroads of many
foreign races. His second proposition is that the real period of the bloom of Kāvya or
Artificial Poetry is to be placed about the middle of the sixth century A.D. In fact,
his theory was that the first five centuries of the Christian era were a dark age for
Sanskrit literature. This theory, no doubt, held the filed for a pretty long period, but
has now been completely demolished by literary and epigraphic evidence of an irrefragable
character. When Max-Müller propounded this view, the dramas of Bhāsa (circa 300 A.D.)
were not brought to light. Little was also known about the literary achievements of Aśvaghōsha
who was a contemporary of the Kushāṇa sovereign Kanishka (circa 125 A.D.) and was the
author not only of the Buddhacharita, Saundarānanda and Sūtrālaṁkāra but also of the drama
Śārīputraprakaraṇa. These works of Aśvaghōsha are genuine kāvyas in strict conformity with
the rules laid down by the sciences of Sanskrit Rhetoric. And the very fact that a Buddhist
monk thought of setting forth the life of Buddha with the help of the poetic art shows how
popular artificial poetry was even in the first two centuries of the Christian era. But we may
proceed one step further, and consider for a while what may be gleaned on the subject from
the Mahābhāsya of Patañjali who has now been universally placed about the middle of the
second century B.C. On Pāṇini IV. 3. 87 there is a Vārtika which says that “an affix, in the
sense of ‘made in relation to any subject’, when the thing made is ‘a book’, is dropped frequently
when the book belongs to the class of Ākhyāyikās.” In illustration of this Vārtika, Patañjali
cites the instances of Vāsavadattā and saumanōttarā, noticing also an exception in the case of
Bhaimarathī.
This means that in the time of Patañjali at least three Ākhyāyikās were known,
namely, Vāsavadattā, Saumanōttarā and Bhaimarathī respectively. Again, it is worthy of note that
the first two of these have been mentioned by Patañjali in connection with Pāṇini IV. 2. 60.
The actual gloss is: Ākhyān-ākhyāyik-ētihāsa-purāṇēbhyaś=cha ṭhag=vaktavyaḥ. “The affix ṭhak comes in the sense of ‘one who studies’ or of ‘one who knows’ after (the names of) stories
(ākhyāna) and narratives (ākhyāyikā), and after (the words) itihāsa and purāṇa.” It is in this
connection that Patañjali refers again to Vāsavadattā and Saumanōttarā as Ākhyāyikās but under
the forms Vāsavadattika and Saumanōttarika (=one who has studied or is conversant with the
Vāsavadattā or Saumanōttarā narrative).
In regard to the Ākhyānas also he cites the forms
Yāvakrītika, Praiyaṅgavika and Yāyātika which mean “one who has studied or is conversant with
the Yavakrīta, Priyaṅgu and Yayāti stories.” It is reasonable to hold that the terms Ākhyāna and Ākhyāyikā used by Patañjali are identical with those employed in treatises of Sanskrit Rhetoric in somewhat later times. It is true that in those times there was a little confusion about the
exact signification of Ākhyāna, Ākhyāyikā and Kathā. But if the Harshacharita has been styled an
Ākhyāyikā and the Kādambarī a Kathā, it seems that the first word signifies ‘a (historical) narrative’ and the second ‘a romance’. And, further, if it is true that some Ākhyānas were Ākhyāyikās and some were Kathās, as Daṇḍin and Viśvanātha assure us, Ākhyāna must be taken to mean
‘a story’ so as to include both ‘a narrative’ and ‘a romance’. It will thus be seen that many
Ākhyānas and Ākhyāyikās were known when Patañjali lived and wrote and that consequently
|
\D7
|