Life and date of Bhaṭṭa-Nārāyaṇa

There is a great problem of almost all Sanskrit poets regarding their personal history, it has concealed under a thick veil of obscurity which appears an impossible task to remove in the present condition. It is naturally created in the mind of a reader, when he starts the study of an author, as to what type of person he was, where from he belonged and how he had passed his life but the answer is not cleared in the case of many poets of Indian literature, only the source to know the life of a poet is from the appreciation of his poetry. Mostly the Sanskrit poets are informed by their works, which has the tendency to write the historical subjects indirect contrast with the authors of the kāvyas or Mahākāvyas and sometimes given their names to their compositions. Dramatists also forward some personal details like names, lineage, patronage, their life and date sometimes in the prelude to their plays. Such as prelude to the plays of Bhavabhūti, especially that of his Mālatīmādhava^[1]. In the prelude to the Mudrārākṣasa of Viśākhadatta.^[2]

Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa is also a dramatist, who has no distinct communication in this respect. Nothing is found about himself except the title Kavimārgarāja^[3] in the prelude of the drama Veṇīsaṃhāra. Perhaps he did not feel the necessity to add more details about himself thinking as he was well known in his days. Whatever that may be but the prelude fails to give such information in the case of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa. Though, there are no sufficient references in the concerned text but from some references available in other sources, one comes to know that Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa was of Śāṇḍilya family.^[4] He originally belonged to Kānyakubja or Kannouj as narrated in “Kṣitīśavaṃśāvalīcarita” of Bengal where it is clearly mentioned that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa was one of the five Brāhmiṇs brought to Bengal with special request of king Ādisura^[5].After the performance of the sacrifice to please the deities like Indra, Varuṇa, Mitravaruṇa and others for a shower in the rainless territory of Ādisura, having seen the scholasticity, ritual expertise of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa, king Ādisura became very much impressed and gave him a territory of land (Jamindāry) to Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa; mythically he became a king, Sāmantarāja.The illustrious Tagore family of Calcutta^[6] was believed to be descended from him though no one of this family at present claim the said identity.

The five Brāhmaṇas, who migrated from Kānyakubja to Bengal are called Sārasvatas and after their settlement they came to be known as Gauḍa Sārasvatas^[7]. Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa was the leader of Sārasvata settlers and thus he became the founder of Gauḍa Sāraśvata Brāhmaṇism in that province.

There is some confusion regarding the caste of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa. Some scholars opined that he was a Kṣatriya on two grounds viz (1) In the Kṣitīśavaṃśavalīcarita Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa and his descendants referred as Kṣitīśas and the word Kṣitīśa like Rājan indicates to the Kṣatriya caste. (2) In the prelude of Veṇīsaṃhāra also Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa distinguishes himself as a Kṣatriya by the epithet Mṛgarājalakṣmaṇaḥ, which means one whose surname or family name is Mṛgarāja or Siṃha or sinha. Which is usually found to the names of Kṣatriyas such as Pratāpa-Siṃha or Sinha, Jaya-Siṃha and others. So Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa was a Kṣatriya.

But both these are not sufficient to prove him as a Kṣatriya. First, Kṣitīśa just means a king or Rājan. Where as a Brāhmana also may hold the position of a king. So there is nothing wrong if the designation of Kṣitīśas to be given to Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa who was by caste supposed to be a Brāhmaṇa and his descendants. Secondly the elaboration given on the epithet Mṛgarājalakṣmaṇah is not a strong ground to prove Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa as a Kṣatriya. So also the word Mṛgarājalakṣmaṇah is preceded by the Kavi. By the term lakṣaṇah it indicates a distinctive personal designation or title, consequently it can not signify a surname or a family name which is common to all family members of a family. Again Kavemṛgarāja means lion among poets which finds a place in distinctive titles such as Kīrtaṇa-Keśarin, VedāntaKeśarin. Similarly, Kavimṛgarāja is just a title of the poet.

On the contrary there are positive evidences to believe that Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa was a Brāhmaṇa by caste. At first the particular word Bhaṭṭa clearly proves that he was a Brāhmaṇa. Kṣatriya are never designated in this way as Bhaṭṭa. The meaning of the Bhaṭṭa and Bhata is well known to all. Secondly the traditional chronicles say that Brāhmaṇas are invited by Ādisura from Kānyakubja to Bengal and he was the chief of the Brāhmaṇas. Thirdly, the Kṣītisavaṃśāvalīcarita is enough to give certain incidents and records of these settlers as Brāhmaṇas.

Fourthly, there are some points in the Veṇīsaṃhāra which clearly indicate that its author was a Brāhmaṇa.

(a) The character of the Vidūṣaka brings in the comic or lighter sentiments in a Sanskrit drama and as he is always a Brāhmaṇa. Such a character is absent from the Veṇīsaṃhāra. He has not introduced any Brāhmaṇic qualities. Where the readers enjoyed full of mockery. A Brāhmaṇa author did not want to introduce in his drama such a character which will only serve to cast a stain on his caste. Kālidāsa has given the character of Vidūṣaka in his drama but the caste of him is unknown. Bhavabhūti, obviously a Brāhmaṇa, has not introduced Vidūṣaka in his dramas. Similarly, Viśākhadatta, a Brāhmaṇa, has no Vidūṣaka in his drama Mudṛārakṣasaṃ. In other side Śrīharṣa and Rājaśekhara, who were Kṣatriyas, have introduced the character of Vidūṣaka in their plays. Therefore Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa is a Brāhmaṇa,who has not delineated Vidūṣaka in his drama.

(b) The human body is essentially constituent with blood, flesh, marrow and others which are needed for a body. There is no difference between the Brāhmaṇa blood and Kṣatriya blood flowing from the bodies of both. But the author with a sense pride showed his superiority of caste in the Veṇīsaṃhāra. Which is obviously focused in the 3^rd Act of the drama, when Vasagandhā, the demoness was known the death Droṇācārya then she proposed to her husband Rudhirapriyā, the demon that they should go and drink the blood of Droṇācārya. But Rudhirapriyā remarked with fear (surprisingly) that Brāhmaṇa–blood burn the throat when drunk.^[8] Such a remark only can come out from the mouth of a brāhmaṇa writer.

(c) In the third Act of the drama Veṇīsaṃhāra also it has been noticed that the superiority of Aśvatthāman and mean-mindedness and back biting^[9] of Karṇa while the quarrel occurs in between them. Here the dramatist supports to the Brāhmaṇa as they are mild and gentle by the expression of Duryodhaṇa—“[...]”^[10]

(d)Most of the time the author has shown his importance and respect towards Brāhmaṇa. In the ending part of the battle i.e. in the 6^th Act of the drama though the situation is not favourable for hospitality but Yudhiṣṭhira and Draupadī have shown their duty as a Kṣatriya by showing honour to a Brāhmaṇa^[11]. At the same time it is also seen that the Brāhmana s do not will any harm of the any one which is found in the expression of the Chamberlain—“[...]”^[12].

Moreover, the benedictory verse of the drama also exhibits that Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa was an intense devotee of Lord Śiva and Lord Śri Kṛṣṇa. He had profound knowledge of Purāṇas, especially the Bhāgavata Purāṇa and different branches of Philosophy. Among the three verses of the benedictory, two are praised to Lord Kṛṣṇa^[13] and the last one has been prayed to Lord Śiva^[14]. The author has shown his inner devotion to Hari is seen in the first Act of the drama also from the mouth of Draupadī—“ [...]”^[15]

It may be gathered more about Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa from the Veṇīsaṃhāra. According to the traditional view he was invited for the sacrificial work as he was expert in that field and in the science of Karma Mīmāṃsā. This is found in the first Act of the drama where the dramatist compares war with a sacrifice.^[16]

Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa had knowledge of figures of speech and he had studied the Alaṃkāra in the same time. At the same time his knowledge on Rājanīti or polity is also focused in the 6^th Act of the drama through the application of political wit of Yudhiṣṭhira—“[...]”^[17]

In the conclusion regarding the life of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa almost all the rhetocicians are in the view that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa was invited by the King Ādisura according to the Bengal. M. Krisnamāchāriār believes in tradition and says that the author migrated from Kannouj to Bengal at the invitation of Ādisura. He is also known as Niśā-Narayana by anthalogists because of his beautiful description of the night (Niśā). A. B. Keith also complies view. Different editors of the drama Veṇīsaṃhāra referred about Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa in their introductory chapters that he was the chief amongst the five Brāhmaṇa’s and perhaps the founder of Tagore family. This is found in a book on Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa by A. C. Śāstri, Sāhitya Academy and M. R. Kale, in his Veṇīsaṃhāra about the poet. M. J. Rotate in his introduction of Veṇīsaṃhāra has referred more about a popular talk that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa suffered for prevalent Buddhism in Kānyakubja and he has to come in Bengal as because he was a follower of Vedic tradition. Late Lt. Col. A. B. Gajendragadkar Bombay-28 has also given the similar opinion with that of chronicles.

Hence, it may rightly be assumed that it was the same Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa who had to migrate from Kānyakubja at the advent and dominance of Buddhism in the said place due to royal patronage and search for a safe heaven for the followers of ritualistic culture and that came to him in the form of Bengal. It may also be added that the term “Bhaṭṭa” generally connotes a Brāhmana and its inclusion in the dramatists name reassures that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa is by caste a Brāhmaṇa.

It is always a difficult matter to determine the dates of Indian poets. But some India author and enfiques give clear hints particularly their dates. Such as Bhāsa has been mentioned as of 3^rd Century B. C. in his introductory chapter of Svapnavāsvadattaṃ. It is clearly mentioned that the date of Harśavardhaṇa falls in between 606-647 from which the date of Bāṇabhaṭṭa because he was the courtpoet of Harṣavardhaṇa. Like Bāṇabhaṭṭa Bhavabhūti was also popular for his “Uttararāmaharita” being a courtpoet of Yaśovarman in the first part of 8^th Century. Like other poets there is no clear reference about the date of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa.

The most accomplished writer of Sanskrit prose Bāṇabhaṭṭa, in his introduction to the Kathākāvya Harṣacarita did not mention the name of Bhaṭṭanāryaṇa, while eulogizing other poets of great repute. That proves that Bhaṭṭanāryaṇa was either posterior or contemporary to Bāṇabhaṭṭa, for which the later either was not aware of his name and caliber nor did bother to mention and praise him and thus he might be plae in the middele of the seventh contury or the later of the seventh century A. D. The same may again be affirmed on the ground that Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa had to leave his native place due to kings Harṣavardhaṇa’s intervention in promoting Bhuddism and being a firm believer in in litualisam Bhaṭṭanāryaṇa could not comply with kings wishes and migrated to Bengal along with some followers.

It is pertinent that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa was more a scholastic poet than a spontaneous one. Because of the richness of his vocabulary appropriacy in word application and correct technicalities Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa attracted the attention of later rhetoricians. Vāmaṇa, the author of Kāvyālaṃkāra Sūtravṛtti exemplified from Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa’s usages. Scholars place Vāmaṇa in between 750 A. D. to 800 A. D. It is evident from this fact that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa attained certain degree of popularity by 750 A. D. It may also be mentioned that Bhāmaha, the author of Kāvyālaṃkāra, a predecessor of Vāmaṇa and Daṇḍī, the author of Kāvyādarśa, another predecessor of Vāmaṇa as rhetoricians are placed chronologically in the first half and second half of the seventh century respectively. Both Bāmaha and Daṇḍī did not quote from Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa’s work, that also signify that the scholasticity and the treatise of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa were not much known to the said rhetonicians and hence it can safely be said that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa might be a contemporary of Daṇḍī, who flourished in the second half of the seventh century and Daṇḍī could not make it to refer Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa because of geographical distance and unavailability of the text before hand. It is something striking that name of the later A. D. rhetoricians ranging from Ānandavardhana to Viśvanātha Kavirāja skipped to quote from Veṇīsaṃhāra of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa. ĀnandaVardhana the author of Dhvanyāloka flourished in between 840 A. D. to 870 A. D. Quoted several verses from Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa’s work. Other rhetoricians like Dhanañjaya, the author of Daśarūpaka who flourished in and around 950 A. D. and Bhojarāja, the author of śāraśvatī Kanthābharaṇa who flourshied in between 1005-1054 A. D. also refered and quoted verses from Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa’s Veṇīsaṃhāra as examples of rhetoric inter pretations of their respective works. Kṣemendra, the author of Aucityavicāracarcā and Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, who flourished in between 10251075 also refered to Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa. Mammaṭa, the author of Kāvyaprakāśa flourished in between 1050 A. D. to 1100 A. D. also exemplified from Veṇīsaṃhāra Kṣīrosvamī, the happy commentator of Amarakoṣa also quoted Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa. All these above mentioned references make it clar that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa’s brilliance of composition was very striking and all mojor rhetoricians greatly valued that when a rhetorician of Daṇḍī’s magnitude did not quote Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa, one intends to say that Daṇḍī was either contemporary who did not know much about the author or was an enterior to him and thus the epoch of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa stands to be second half of seventh century A. D.

In support of above statement it may be added that the Bengal tradition where Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa was invited by king Ādisura was considered as the progenitor of the Sena dynasty. According to Cunningham the Sena dynasty reigned in Bengal in between 650 and 1108 A.D. That means Ādisura was reigning in the later half of the 7^th century A.D.Consequently Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa may also be considered to belong to same period of Ādisura.

Hiuen Tsang in his journey he mentioned the name of a king of Nepal, who was Aṃśuvarman and whose sister Bhogadevi was married with Prince Śurasena. This Śurasena is no one else Ādisura, the founder of Sena dynasty, and Aṃśuvarmana’s period of ruling was about 644-652 A. D. which was known as the later half of the 7^th century and as the period of Ādisura and automatically of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa.

Secondly the epoch of Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa may also be confirmed from contemporary history. Buddhism was mostly popularized in Kānyakubja in the second half of the 7^th century. Because of the ascended of Buddhism Brāhamaṇas felt troubled and have to prohibit the practices of the ancient Vedic religion of sacrifices such as slaughtering of animals and other rituals. Consequent the author Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa and his associates migrated to Bengal from Kānyakubja. In this regard about Samgrama of Harṣavardhaṇa i.e. prohibition of slaughter of any living creature is found.^[18]

Thirdly as a writer Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa tried to follow the naturalness of poet Kālidāsa while he himself is an artificial poet. This is evident in the description of autumn season as indicated—“ [...]”^[19]

Also—“ [...]”^[20]

The style and ideology of Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa were greatly influenced by Bhāravi’s style. Very often Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa is noticed to follow the ideas and language of Bhāravi.^[21] Macdonell refers that Bhāravi’s name was found in an inscription of 634 A. D. This implies that Bhāravi flourished earlier than the referred date and is pertinent that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa flourished not before the said date, because had he flourished before the said age has name would also have got a place in the referred inscription.

Max Muller suggested that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa, who was mentioned in the Harṣacarita as a companion of Bāṇa in his wanderings was identical with Bhaṭṭanarayana. This makes our poet a contemporary of Bāṇa. This idea is reflected in the “History of classical Sanskrit literature” by Krishnamacariar that Bāṇabhaṭṭa and Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa are contemporary to each other. This also thus says that Bhaṭṭa-nārāyaṇa belongs to 7^th century A.D.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

C.f. Mālatī-Mādhava, 2^nd Act, p-11,12,13.

[2]:

C.f. Mudrā-Rakṣasa, by M. R. Kale, 1^st Act, p-13.

[3]:

C.f. Tadīdam kavermargarājalakṣmano Bhaṭṭanārayaṇasya kṛtim Venīsaṃhāram nāma nātakaṃ prayuktumudyata vayam.

[4]:

C.f. T.V.O.B,by Lt.col. A. B. Gajendragadkar, p-3

[5]:

C.f. The Veṇīsaṃhāra,by The late Lt.col. A.B.G, p-3

[6]:

C.f. Bhaṭṭanārāyaṇa,by A.C.Sastri p-9

[7]:

T.Veṇīsaṃhāra, by Lt.col. A.B.G p-3

[8]:

C.f. Veṇīsaṃhāra,by M.R.Kale, 3^rd Act p-58

[9]:

C.f. eṇisaṃhāra by M.R.Kale 3^rd Act,p-71

[10]:

Veṇīsaṃhāra by M. R. Kale, 3^rd Act p-70

[11]:

C.f. Veṇīsaṃhāra by M.R.Kale 6^th Act p-141,142.

[12]:

C.f. Veṇīsaṃhāra by M.R.Kale 6^th Act p-149

[13]:

C.f. Veṇīsaṃhāra by M.R.Kale,1^st Act p-1

[14]:

C.f. Veṇīsaṃhāra by M.R.Kale,1^st Act p-3

[15]:

C.f. Veṇīsaṃhāra by M.R.Kale 1^st Act p-26

[16]:

Veṇīsaṃhāra byM.R.Kale,1^st Act p-25

[17]:

Veṇīsaṃhāra by M.R.Kale, 1^st Act p-130

[18]:

C.f. The life of Hiuen-Tsiang,by Shaman HwuiLi, p-83

[19]:

C.f. Veṇīsaṃhāra by M.R.Kale sl -6 p-33

[20]:

C.f. Veṇīsaṃhāra by M. R.Kale, sl-7 p-33

[21]:

C.f. A. H. O. S. L, Arthur A. MacDonell. P-277