8. Date of Natakalaksanaratnakosa of Sagaranandin

8. Date of Natakalaksanaratnakosa of Sagaranandin-Before A.D. 1431 + Prof. Myles Dillon in his preface to the edition of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa' of Sagaranandin states that this work was discovered by Prof. Sylvain Levi during his visit to Nepal in 1922 and reported by him in the Journal Asiatique xciii, p. 210 (1933). In examining the question of the chronology of this work Prof. Dillon observes :- "He (Prof. Levi) pointed out that the text is quoted by Rayamukuta in a commentary on the Amarakosa written A.D. 1431 which would give an inferior date but it has not been possible to verify this as I have been unable to discover a complete edition of the commentary. " 2 Annals (B. O. R. I.) XIX, pp. 280-288. 1. Pub. by the Oxford University Press, 1937, Vol. I, Text with a Preface. 2. Do-Preface, p. vii. As Pro. Levi's discovery of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa was announced in 1923 Dr. S. K. De could not make use of it in Vol. I (1923 of his History of Sanskrit Poetics. Dr. V. Raghavan of Madras appears to be unaware of it in 1933 when he made the following remarks in the Annals of the Bhandarkar Institute, Vol. XIV (1933), p. 260:-"On page 325 of his Poetics, Vol. I in the list of anonymous works Dr. De gives a work called Natakaratnakosa as being cited by Rayamukuta and Bhanuji on Amara and as having been noticed by Aufrecht. There is every likelihood of this Natakaratnakosa being only that section of the Samgitaraja dealing with Drama proper, the Dasarupaka and the Uparupaka scheme, Itivetta, Samdhi etc. The sections on Rasa and Nataka, these two being widely read parts of the Natyasastra and connected more than the other sections to Alamkara also perhaps got separated into independent works, as the existence of a separate Ms of the Rasaratnakosa and the citations of these sections with the mere chapter-name show." Dr. Raghavan further observes in the footnote to the above extract;-"From these Ratnakosas that are sections the Samgitaraja must be distinguished the lexicon Ratnakosa which is quoted in commentaries on Amara. The lexicon Ratnakosa is very much earlier to the Samgitaraja." 48 of

Perhaps Prof. Levi's statement may have been based on the following entry in Aufrecht's Cata. Catalogorum' :- "quoted by Rayamukuta and Bhanuji Qxf. 182 b 2 In the above entry the fact of Rayamukuta's quotation from and mention of the Natakaratnakosa, if verified and identified in the text of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa now made available on the basis of the Nepal Ms. will have the highest chronological value. As however, Prof. Dillon has not been able to verify the above reference I propose to attempt such verification in this paper. The Padarthacandrika' of Brhaspati surnamed Rayamukutamani and generally known as Rayamukuta was composed in A. D. 1431. It is based on sixteen earlier commentaries on the Amarakosa. The author was a native of Radha in Bengal. He was the son of Govinda and father of Visrama, Rama and others. Aufrecht has already recorded a list of authorities quoted by Rayamukuta numbering about 270. As neither a complete edition of Rayamukuta's commentary nor the list of authorities published by Aufrecht was available to me I had to avail myself of a good copy of the work available in the Govt. Mss Library at the B. O. R. Institute, Poona. On folio 96 b of this copy I found the following passage :- 1. Vol. I, p. 284. 2. Cata. of Bod. Library, Oxford, 1864, by Aufrecht, p. 182 Here a Ms of a commentary of Bhanuji Diksita on the Amarakosa has been described. In the list of authorities mentioned by Bhanuji has been mentioned. Dr. Belvalkar assigns Bhattoji Diksita to "about 1630 A. D." (Systems of Sans. Grammar, p. 47). Bhanuji, also called Ramasrami, was the son of Bhattoji Diksita. (Vide Kane Hist. of Dharma. Vol. I, p. 455 f. n.). 3. Vide p. xix of Intro. to Kalpadrukosa, Vol. I, (G. O. S. Baroda, 1923) by Prof. Ramavatara Sharma. A. Borooah edited a portion of the Padartha-Candrika in 1887-88. 4. Z. D. M. G., xxviii, pp. 109-118. 5. Ms No. 109 of 1866-68 collection. 8.1.L.H.4

.50 66 STUDIES IN INDIAN LITERARY HISTORY. evam prakaratah vichityadayo grhamte tasvokta natakaratnakose- lilavilaso vichittirvibhramah kila kimcitam | mohathitam kattimitam vivvoko lalitam tatha || vikrtam ceti vijneya strinam cestah svabhavajah " Now compare the following extract from Prof. Dillon's edition of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa with the above extract:Page 108- " atha cestalamkarah kathyate lila vilaso vicchitirvibhramah kila kincitam | mottayita kuttamitam bibboko lalitam tatha || vikrtam ceti vijneyah strinam bhavah svabhavajah | " As Rayamukuta mentions "natakaratnakosa " as the source of his quotation and as the quotation itself has been identified in Prof. Dillon's edition of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa we can easily conclude that natakaratnakosa is identical with natakala ksanaratnakosa . ' As Sagaranandin has drawn largely on Bharata's Natyasastra and as 1. The correct title of the work appears to be nataka laksanaratnakosa of which is evidently an abbreviated form. At the beginning of the work the author remarks "natakalaksanam dasarupakam vaksyamah " (lines 6-7). In the following extract from the end of the work the word has been emphasized and the colophon gives us the title natakalaksanaratnakosa - Page 134 (lines 3217-3230)- " iha hi bharata mukhyacarya sastramburase- ramrtamiva rasadhyam laksanam natakasya | pratighrtamapahaya vyasamuktva ca laksya- eyadhigamayitumalpajnanamalpasramena || srisagarena mukutesvaranandivamsa- vyomanganaikasasinatpadhiya hitaya | srsto munipravacanairiha natakasya bijadinaikavidhalaksanaratnakosah | sriharsavikramanaradhipamatrgupta- gargasmakuttanakhakutaka vadaranam | esam matena bharatasya matam vigahya ghustam maya samanugacchata ratnakosam || samaptascayam natakalaksanaratnakosah kaveh srisagaranandinah "

Prof. Dillon has obliged us by giving us an exhaustive index of quotations from the Natyasastra we are in a position to see that the three lines quoted by Rayamukuta in A. D. 1431 as from are found almost identical with the following lines found in chapter XXIV of the Natyasastra' called " "samanyabhinaya " " lila vilaso vicchittirvikramah kilakincitam | motathitam kuhamitam bisvoko lalitam tatha || 52 || vihrtam ceti vijneya dasa strinam svabhavajah | " Though the above quotation from the Natyasastra is identical with that in Dillon's text of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa we must presume that Rayamukuta has quoted from the Natakaratnakosa of Sagaranandin and not from the Natyasastra, as he mentions his source by name. It would be, therefore, reasonable to conclude that the work of Sagaranandin was available to him. This inference enables us to state definitely that the date of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa is earlier than A. D. 1431. We may even go a little further and conclude that it may have been composed before the latter half of the 14 th century, presuming that a work to be quoted as authority by a writer of Rayamukuta's learning and critical ability must have taken more than 50/60 years to attain the necessary celebrity and authority. We have already recorded above that a work called has been quoted by Bhanuji Diksita in his commentary on the Amarakosa as stated by Aufrecht in his description of an Oxford Ms of the commentary. I find this quotation in a printed edition² of this commentary as follows:- 66 lila vilaso vicchittirvibhramah kila kincitam | mohayitam kuttimitam vivvoko lalitam tatha || vihatam ceti mantavya dasa strinam svabhavajah iti nataka ratnakosah " The first two lines of the above quotation are identical with the first two lines of Rayamukuta's quotation from the Natakaratnakosa but the difference in the 3 rd line will be clear from their comparison as follows:- 1. Vide p. 210 of Natyasastra, ed. by Batuknatha Sharma and Baladeva Upadhyaya (Kashi Sans. Series No. 60) Benares, 1929. 2. Amarakosa with comm. Vyakhyasudha or Ramasrami by Bhanuji Diksita (son of the grammarian Bhattoji Diksita) ed. by Pandit Sivadatta, N. S. Press, Bombay, 1905.-Page 95-, verse 31.

A. D.- Rayamukuta- « vikrtam ceti vijneya strinam cestah svabhavajah | " c. 1630 A. D.-Bhanuji Diksita- 66. vihrtam ceti mantavya dasa strinam svabhavajah | " As Bhanuji Diksita is a later commentator on the Amarakosa the possibility of his copying in toto an earlier quotation in Rayamukuta's commentary on the same work will have to be disproved before any importance is attached to Bhanuji's quotation from the Natakaratnakosa. I am of opinion that the difference in the 3 rd line of the quotation as is revealed in the above comparison is so marked that we can safely presume the existence of a Ms of the Natakaratnakosa from which Bhanuji has taken the quotation in question. This Ms obviously shows a different version of the text if we can judge from the variations noticeable in a single line as pointed out in the above comparison of the versions of the same line as found in Rayamukuta's quotation and in Bhanuji's quotation. Let us now consider the date of Bhanuji Diksita. Dr. Belvalkar assigns his father Bhattoji to about 1630 A. D.' Dr. Saletore, however, assigns him to the "last quarter of the sixteenth and the first quarter of the seventeenth century A.D." If this date is correct we shall have to presume that Bhattoji flourished say between A. D. 1. Systems of Sanskrit Grammar, Poona, 1915, Pages 46-47- "Jagannatha, the Court Pandit of Emperor Shahajahan, informs us in his Praudhamanoramakucamardini that Bhattoji was the pupil of Sesa-Krsna, to whose memory he does very scant justice in his Praudhamanorama. As Jagannatha himself was the pupil of the son of this Sesa-Krsna, this gives us Bhattoji's date which must be about A. D. 1630. This is also confirmed by the fact that a pupil of Bhattoji wrote a work in Samvat 1693 (= A. D. 1637)." 2. Vide p. 98 of Karnataka Historical Review, Vol. IV, 1937 (Jan.-July) Nos. 1 and 2-Dr. Saletore's evidence may be briefiy indicated here. Bhattoji in the opening verses of his states that he wrote the work at the order of Keladi Venkatendra, who is identified by Dr. Saletore with king Venkatapa Nayak I (1582-1629 A. D.). This king was noted for his patronage to learned men and seems to have composed a comm. on the Sivagita of the Padmapurana. Bhattoji calls himself the son of srimadvidvanmukutamanikyalaksmidharabhatta in the tattvakaustubha .

and 1625. Prof. Kane' assigns Bhattoji to the period "about 1575-1650 A. D." in one place while in another place he assigns him to a period "1560-1620 A. D."-a date which agrees with Dr. Saletore's date for Bhattoji mentioned above. I am inclined to accept for the present Dr. Saletore's view about Bhattoji's date and assign Bhanuji Diksita' (the son of Bhattoji) to about 1630 A. D. In view of the above date for Bhanuji Diksita, 'about 1630 A.D.' would be one of the later limits for the date of the Natakaratnakosa. Prof. Dillon states (Preface p. vii) that the Ratnakosa cited by Rucipati in his commentary on the Anargharaghava appears to be the text of the Natakalaksanakosa edited by him and that Ranganatha in his commentary on the Vikramorvasiya cites Sagara regularly by name and quotes the text (vide pp. 90-96, foot-notes of Dillon's Edition). Though Rucipati's date is uncertain, observes Prof. Dillon, the Ms from which the commentary is edited in Kavyamala 5 was written in A. D. 1613. He, therefore, puts A. D. 1613 as the later limit for Sagara's date. As we have, however, identified the reference to the Natakaratnakosa mentioned by Rayamukuta in the Dillon's edition of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa, the later limit for Sagara' date is A.D. 1431 definitely. We have already referred to Dr. Raghavan's view regarding the nature and contents of the Natakaratnakosa. According to this view the work may have been originally a part of the Samgitaraja 1. History of Dharmasastra, Vol. I, p. 716. "asaucanirnaya 2. Ibid, p. 517-" (1560-1620 A. D.)" HET by 3. Laksmanapandita wrote a work called again 1662 A. D. He mentions and as his preceptors. See Ms. No. 143 of 1902-7, folio" mentioned in Kalpa I of the work. Most probably HA mentioned as one of the preceptors of Laksmana Pandita is identical with Bhanuji Diksita alias Ramasrama. Laksmanapandita hailed from the Maharastra (af pasya refr: :). Vide verse 10 at the beginning. sriyah 4. Sagara quotes from numerous previous works. In the Index of authors given by Prof. Dillon we find the following names:- asmakutta, katyayana, carayana, dandin nakhakutta, badarayana, bharata, matrgupta, rahula, satakarni . The Index of titles includes the following names :-anutapanka, abhijnana, ayodhyabharata, utkanthitamadhava, uttaracarita, unmattacandragupta, usaharana, urvasi, Continued on next page)

composed by Rana Kumbha of Mewad (A.D. 1433-1468).' We have proved in this paper that the work mentioned by Rayamukuta in A. D. 1431 as Natakaratnakosa is identical with the Natakalaksanaratnakosa now made available to us in Prof. Dillon's edition. The author of this work is Sagaranandin who flourished definitely before A.D. 1431, the date of Rayamukuta's commentary on the Amarakosa. There is no possibility of any identity of the two works viz. Samgitaraja of Rana Kumbha and the Natakalaksanaratnakosa of Sagaranandin as these two works are distinctly separated in points of time and authorship.2 (Continued from previous page) mardana, kanakavatimadhava, karpuramanjari, kalavati, kamadattapurti, kicakabhima, kicakasa, kunda- mala, kundasekhara vijaya, kumbhanka, kulapatyaka, krtyaravana, kekayibharata, keliraivataka, kosalanga, kridarasatala, ksapanakapalika, grhavatika, grhavrksavatika, gaurigrha, candana- latagrha, citrasalika, janakiraghava, tamalavithyanka, dasarathanka, dutangada, devimahadeva, dhrtarastranka, nadayantisamhara, narakavadha, narakoddharana, nalavijaya, nagarasarvasva, nagavarmanka, nagada (na?)nda, padmavatiparinaya, puspadusitaka, pumsavananka, pravrdaka, balacarita, bindumati, bhagavadajjuka, bhimavijaya, madanamajjula, madanikakamuka, madayantisamhara, mayakapalika, mayamadalasa, mayalaksananka, mayasakunta, maricavancitaka, malatiparinaya, malatimadhava, mudraraksasa, mrcchakatika, ratnavali, rambhanalakuvara, raghavabhyudaya, radhakhyacithi, rama- vikrama, ramananda, ramabhyudaya, ramayana, raivatiparinaya, lalitanagara, lamakayananka, vali- vadha, vikramorvasiya, vibhasana nirbhartsananka, vilasavati, vinavati, vrksavatika, vrttoddharana, venisamhara, saktyanka, sakrananda, sarmisthaparinaya, sasikamadatta, sasivilasa, sakuntala, sala- bhanjika, srngaratilaka, satyabhama, sampatyanka, sugrivanka, sundaranka, svapravasavadatta, - (anu- tapanka, asvatthamanka, unmattamadhava, kadaligrha, gaurigrha, cudamani, caitravatyanka, cauryavivaha, durdinanka, dhrtarastranka, palityanka, pratijnabhima, brhadvakularvathika, bhanumatyanka, motakanka, vadhya- sila, smasananka, samketanka ). - 1. Vide Rajputana Gazetteer, Vol.III-A, by Major K. D. Erskine, Allahabad, 1909-Part III (Sirohi States), p. 303-"The great Rana Kumbha of Mewar (1433-68)" 2. Though the identity of the Natakaratnakosa with the Samgitaraja is impossible in view of the evidence recorded in this paper it does not affect the other suggestion of Dr. Raghavan that the Rasaratnakosa forms a substantial section of Rana Kumbha's very voluminous work Samgitaraja. The nebular hypothesis of the Rasaratnakosa being separated from the central mass of the Samgitaraja and leading an independent existence is possible as the identity of authorship of these works is proved by Dr. Raghavan in his paper "The Rasaratnakosa, the Natakaratnakosa and the Samgitaraja" (Annals, XIV, pp. 258).

We have fixed A.D. 1431 as one terminus to the date of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa. As regards the other terminus we quote Prof. Dillon's remarks:-"The Viddhasalabhanjika of Rajasekhara which is cited at 1. 3071 dates from the tenth century (see Konow: Das Indische Drama, p. 84). If the Dutangada cited at 1. 983 is the play of Subhata, which there is no reason to doubt, the superior date is A.D. 1243 (see Grey J. Am. Or. Soc. 32, 39) but the identity is not certain as there are no quotations. The Ramabhyudaya quoted is not that of Ramadeva (fifteenth century), which has been edited by Losch, Das Indische schattenheater, p. 80 for none of the quotations are to be found in that text. The Ratnakosa may be as early as the thirteenth century but I cannot now put forward any more exact date as the author Sagaranandin is not known except in connection with this work (Levi. Jour. Asiatique xciii, p. 211)." In the above remarks Prof. Dillon refers to the work Ramabhyudaya mentioned and quoted from' by Sagaranandin. As Ramadeva's Ramabhyudaya of the 15 th century has been ruled out by Prof. Dillon we must find other works of this name. Aufrecht 2 records a Ms of this work, which is in 30 Sargas but the authorship is ascribed to one Venkatesa. The work of this name quoted by Anandavardhana must also be taken into account. It is ascribed to Yasovarman. I may, however, record an inscriptional reference to 1. Vide Dillon's pp. 33, 130:Edition of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa line 784 - " ramabhyudaye ravanena arabdhakutasamdhau jalinim raksasi sitarupena ramasya darsayata ramasya janito vimarsah | yadaha | kathamiva vidadhami tasya samdhi kathamamaremdragiram bhavami vasah | iti visamavivartamanacimta- taralamatirna viniscinomi kimcit || " line 3126-"yatha ramabhyudaye vali | ksapanalasikhajalavikiralasaravalih | drsyate na dvipah simhah kruddho vali na vairibhih || " 2. Cata. Catalo. I, p. 523-"a Kavua in 30 Sargas, by Venkatesa. Burnell 161 b (and commentary)'' also (1) Nataka by Yasovarman. Quoted by Anandavardhana in Dhvanyaloka, in Sahityadarpana p. 171 (2)-by Vyasa Sri Ramadeva. Br. M. (addit. 26, 424). 3. Abhinavagupta who was born between 950 and 960 A. D. according to Dr. K. C. Pandey-vide p. 8 of his Abhinavagupta, Vol. I 1935, refers to Ramabhyudaya of Yasovarman in his commentary Locana on the Dhvanyaloka of Anandavardhana :- yasovarmana -- ' sthitamiti yatha sayyam- ' (p. 148 of Kavyamala edition).

Ramabhyudaya which appears to have been a Kavya composed by a poet of the name Narayana. The inscription in which this reference is found hails from the Central Provinces. The verse' containing the name of the work and the name of the poet reads as follows:- "srivatsascaranabja (bja ) pujanamatirnarayanah satkavih sriramabhyudayabhidham rasamayam kavyam sa tadyo vyadhat | smrtyarudhyadiyavakyaracana pradurbhavannirbhara- premollasitacitravrttirabhavadvagdevatavallaki || " The bearing of this verse on the date of the Natakalaksanaratnakosa will have to be studied at some length and hence must be left to a future study." 1. This verse was kindly supplied to me by Prof. V. V. Mirashi of Nagpur in a private communication dated 27 th July 1937, inquiring if I could trace a reference to this Kavya. I have pointed out to him the available references to the Ramabhyudaya. Perhaps Prof. Mirashi may be able to throw some light on this Ramabhyudaya of Narayana different from the works of the same name, by Venkatesa, Yasovarman, and Ramadeva. 2. Since my paper was sent to the press, I have received the following information from my friend Prof. V. V. Mirashi in a letter dated 13 th September 1938 :-The "verse which refers to a Ramabhyudaya-Kavya by the Poet Narayana occurs in a stone inscription found at Pujaripali, a village 22 miles north by east from Sarangarh the chief town of a feudatory state of the same name in the Eastern States Agency. It is now deposited in the Rajpur Museum. The inscription is undated but the prince Gopaladeva mentioned in it is identified by some with his name-sake, an inscription of whose reign has been found at Boramdeva in the State of Kawardha dated in the Kalachuri year 840 (A. D. 1088-9). I am not inclined to accept the identification as in my opinion the Pujaripali inscription belongs to a slightly later date i.e. to the twelfth or thirteenth century A. D. " I am thankful to Prof. Mirashi for the above information. If we succeed in connecting the Ramabhyudaya Kavya of the above inscription with the Ramabhyudaya quoted by Sagaranandin, perhaps we may be able to assign the date of his Natakalaksanaratnakosa to the 13 th century or rather the period between A. D. 1250 and 1350 but as the evidence stands at present this conclusion remains only a probability.