365bet娱乐

1. Early Writers (c. 600 B.C .鈥�200 A.C.)

(a) 狈腻谤补诲补.

狈腻谤补诲补 mentioned repeatedly in later literature on music, seems to be the earliest writer on the subject, and the 艢ik峁Ｄ� named after him^[1] appears, apart from its interpolated passages, to be a very old work, and it may be as old as 600 B.C., and its teachings may be earlier still. As one couplet^[2] from it has been quoted by Pata帽jali with a slight variation, it is not later than 200 B.C. Like the P膩峁噄n墨ya 艢ik峁�a (c. 600 B.C.) it is written chiefly in the Anu峁ａ弓ubh metre; and it treats of musical theories in connexion with the singing of S膩mas. The fact that it describes the G膩ndh膩ra Gr膩ma in detail (together with its M奴rchan膩s) shows clearly that it is much anterior to the N艢 which ignores altogether this Gr膩ma and was written when they become obsolete. The N艢 quotes the N膩艢. (1.3.13) at least once (XXXIII. 227) without naming it. As this 艣iks膩 discusses the seven notes in the three Gr膩mas and the M奴rchanas and T膩nas connected with them, the Indian Music seems to have been pretty advanced at the time when this work was composed.

(b) 厂惫腻迟颈.

厂惫腻迟颈 has been mentioned in the N艢 along with 狈腻谤补诲补, but not even a fragment of his teaching has reached us, and we are not sure whether he wrote any work on the subject or anything was written on his views.

(c) Kohala.

In the N艢 (I. 26) Kohala has been mentioned as one of the hundred sons of Bharata and as such he was anterior to the author of this work. From another passage in the N艢 (XXXVI 61) we learn that 鈥�艣e峁�em uttaratantre峁嘺 Kohala岣� kathayi峁�yati鈥� 鈥楰ohala will speak of the remaining (teachings) on dramaturgy in a supplementary treatise.鈥� Hence it may be presumed that Kohala was not widely separated in time from the author of the N艢. Kohala鈥檚 opinion has been referred to in Dattila鈥檚 work in connexion with T膩la. This is perhaps the earliest reference to his teaching. The B峁沨adde艣i also refers to Kohala鈥檚 views no less than five times while discussing notes, T膩na and J膩ti. The author of the Sa峁僩墨tamakaranda also mentions him twice in the chapter on dance (苍峁泃测补), P膩r艣vadeva in his Sa峁僩墨tasamayas膩ra names Kohala in the beginning of his chapter on T膩la. In his commentary of the chapters on music, Abhivavagupta while discussing T膩la, refers at least twice to Kohala. From Abhinava鈥檚 commentary, it is further learnt that Kohala wrote a work named the Sa峁僩墨ta-meru. Hence it is natural that 艢膩r峁単adeva has named him as one of the old masters.

Two other works the T膩la-lak峁�a峁嘺 and the Kohala-rahasya, have also been ascribed to Kohala^[3]. These may genuinely reflect the the teachings of Kohala. From all these it appears that Kohala was a very important early writer on music.

(d) 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补 and 痴腻迟蝉测补.

The N艢 has twice mentioned 痴腻迟蝉测补 and 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补 together. 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补 not being included amongst the hundred Sons of Bharata, seems to be somewhat later. But one cannot be sure on this point. 艢腻峁囜笉颈濒测补 has not been quoted in an early work. Only the author of the commentary 鈥淭ilaka鈥� on the R膩m膩ya峁嘺, mentions him twice in connexion

with the M奴rchan膩 and the J膩ti^[4]. And 痴腻迟蝉测补 is not known to have been quoted by any work.

(e) 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补:

Dattilam is the earliest work to mention 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补.^[5] As we have already seen that Dattila was anterior to the N艢. 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补 was also a very old writer on music. The B峁沨adde艣墨 also once refers to him.^[6] The passage in question being somewhat corrupt it has escaped the notice of other writers. It is as follows:

nanu m奴rchan膩-t膩nayo岣� ko bheda岣�? ucyate鈥攎奴rchan膩-t膩nayo nun膩tvantaram (=stu n膩rth膩ntaram) iti Vi艣ra峁卥hila (=痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补岣�) etacc膩ss峁僩atam.

(Tr. Now, what is the difference between the M奴rchan膩 and the T膩na? 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补鈥檚 view that the M奴rchan膩 and the T膩na are identical, is not correct.) 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补 has been quoted and referred to at least seven times by Abhinavagupta in his commentary on ch. XXXVIII of the N艢.^[7] Cakrap膩峁噄datta (c. 11th century) also has quoted from 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补 in his commentary on Caraka, Nid膩na-sth膩na, VII. 7.^[8]. The relevant passage is as follows:

Yad uktam Vi艣膩khin膩 (wrong reading for 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒别苍补)

艣amy膩 dak峁�i峁嘺-hastena v膩mahastena t膩lakah /

ubh膩bhy膩峁� v膩dana峁� yat tu sannip膩ta岣� sa ucyate //

(Tr. As has been said by 痴颈艣腻办丑颈濒补, the 艢amy膩 is struck by the right hand, the T膩la by the left hand, and that struck by both the hands is the Sannip膩ta.)

(f) Dattila:

Another very old authority on music was Dattila^[9]. Mentioned by the N艢 as one of the sons of Bharata, he is earlier than the writer of this work. But the work going by his name, may not be actually written by him; but its antiquity is great. For the teachings ascribed to him as available in the text named after him, seems to be less developed than that available in the N艢. For example, according to Dattila, Ala峁僰膩ras are thirteen in number while according the N艢 (XXIX. 23-28) they are thirty-three, and later writers further add to their number. The B峁沨adde艣墨 makes quotation twice (pp.29-30) from

Dattila. K峁Ｄ玶asv膩min (11th century) the commentator of the Amara-ko艣a (ed. R.G.Oka, Poona, 1913) also quotes passages twice from Dattila.

Abhinavagupta in his commentery on the chapter XXVIII of the N艢, has quoted passages from Dattila no less than ten times. And another comentator of the Amara-ko艣a (Vandyagha峁�墨ya 艢arv膩nanda) also quoted from him the following: Mukha峁� pratimukha峁� caiva grabho vimar艣a eva ca etc.^[10] From this it appears that Dattila wrote not only on music, but also on dramaturgy.

2. The Date of the N膩tya艣膩stra.

In the Introduction to the volume I of the present work the translator wrote 鈥渋t may be reasonable to assume the existence of the N膩tya艣膩stra in the 2nd century. A. C. (p. LXXVI). By the N膩tya艣膩stra was meant the present text of the work including some spurious passages (p. LXV) Hence the date of the N艢 in its original form will be earlier. After making a closer study of the concluding chapters, the translator is inclined to support the view of the late Haraprasad Sastri who concluded that the work belonged to 200 B.C.^[11] But the question will be taken up later on.

3. Early Medieval Writers on Music (200 A.C.鈥�600 A.C.)

(a) 痴颈艣惫腻惫补蝉耻.

The view of 痴颈艣惫腻惫补蝉耻 on 艢ruti has been quoted in the B峁沨adde艣i (p.4). But it is difficult to identify him with 痴颈艣惫腻惫补蝉耻 the king of Gandharvas who according to the Mah膩bh膩rata was an expert in playing a V墨峁嚹�.

(b) Tumburu.

Tumburu鈥檚 view also has been quoted in the B峁沨adde艣墨 (p.4). But due to the corrupt nature of the passage quoted, this has escaped the notice of the earlier writers. The passage in question is as follows:鈥�

Apare tn v膩ta-pitta-kapha-sannip膩ta-bheda-bhinn膩峁� catur-vidh膩峁� 艣ruti峁� pratipedire. tath膩 c膩ha Tumburu岣� (the last word wrongly read as catura岣�): uccaistaro dhvan墨 ruk峁�o vij帽eyo v膩tajo (wrongly v膩laja岣�) budhaih. gambh墨ro ghanal墨na艣ca (wrongly n墨la艣ca) j帽eyo鈥檚au pittajo dhvani岣�. snigdha艣 ca sukum膩ra艣ca

madhura岣� kaphajo dhvani岣�. tray膩峁嚹乵 gu峁嘺sa峁儁ukto vij帽eyo sannip膩taja岣�.

This quotation from Tumburu occurs in a correct from in Kallin膩tha鈥檚 commentary on the SR (1.3.13-16). Some writers think on the basis of the occurrence of the expression 鈥楾umburu-n膩峁璦ka鈥� in Locana鈥檚 R膩ga-tara峁単i峁嚹� (12th century) that Tumburu wrote a play. But this tumburu-n膩峁璦ka seems to have meant a kind of dance-drama originating with Tumburu.

(c) The M膩rka峁囜笉eyapur膩峁嘺.

Though not a work on music, the M膩rka峁囜笉eya-pur膩峁嘺 may be considered in the present connexion; because it gives us valuable informations regarding the musical theory and practice at the time of its compilation. Though here is no direct evidence about its exact age, scholars are agreed about its great antiquity, and according to Pargiter who studied this work very closely, its oldest parts may belong to the third century A.C.^[12]. This suit very much the data of music obtained from it. For, it mentions the seven svaras (notes), seven Gr膩mar膩gas, seven G墨takas and as many M奴rchan膩s, forty-nine T膩nas, the three Gr膩mas, four Padas, three K膩las (wrongly T膩las), three Layas, three Yatis and four 膧todayas. Except the Gr膩ma-r膩gas mentioned in this Pur膩峁嘺, all other terms occur in the N艢. The Gr膩ma-r膩gas are ignored by the N艢. They are probably related to the 骋谤腻尘补-驳别测补-驳腻苍补 (songs to be sung in a village) of the Vedic S膩ma-singers as distinguished from the S膩ma-singers鈥� 膧谤补测峁噛补-驳腻苍补 or forest songs which were taboo in villages^[13]. It seems that the term which may be earlier the N艢 was not recognised by the N艢, for some reason or other. The three K膩las might also relate to the time required to pronounce short, long and pluta syllables. From these facts, it may be concluded that the M膩rka峁囜笉eya Pur膩峁嘺 was not compiled much later than the N艢. Those who assign a lower date to the Pur膩峁嘺 refer to the Dev墨-m膩h膩tmya (ch. 81-93) which in their opinion is not much earlier than 600 A.C. This however seems to be far from justified. For Durg膩 glorified in this Pur膩峁嘺 was already an important deity in the later Vedic period, the Dev墨-s奴kta being a part of the Khila-

portion of the 峁歡veda. Hence the M膩rka峁囜笉eya Pur膩峁嘺 may very well be placed in the 3rd century A.C.

(d) The V膩yupur膩峁嘺.

The V膩yupur膩峁嘺 also should be considered in connection with the medieval writings on music. For it contains two chapters (86-87) which treat of the M奴rchan膩s, T膩nas and G墨t膩la峁僰膩ras^[14]. Even if these two chapters are in a very corrupt state, from them one can form a fairly correct idea about the musical teachings of the time. Though this Pur膩峁嘺 describes the rule of the Gupta dynasty as it was in the 4th century A.C.^[15], and though the Guptas, one very great among them being Samudragupta, were patrons of music, these two chapters seem to repeat only what is already available in the N艢, except that they give the number of Ala峁僰膩ras as thirty. (The second half of the first couplet of the chapter 87 should be emended as follows: tri峁兣沘t ye vai ala峁僰膩r膩s t膩n me nigadata岣� 艣峁涐箛u (see sl.21 below). But the N艢 gives the number of Ala峁僰膩ras as thirty-three (XXIX, 23-28). Another new information available in the V膩yupur膩na is the affiliation of T膩nas to different Vedic sacrifices. Due to a loss of some 艣lokas between the two hemistichs of the couplet 41 of the chapter 86, some writers were led to attach these names to M奴rchan膩s. If these 艣lokas occuring in the B峁沨adde艣墨 have not been taken from the V膩yupur膩na, they must have been taken from a common source by both these works.

(e) 狈补苍诲颈办别艣惫补谤补.

The B峁沨adde艣墨 quotes (p.32) in one passage the view of 狈补苍诲颈办别艣惫补谤补 on the M奴rchan膩. From this we learn that he recognised a class of M奴rchan膩 consisting of twelve notes. We also know one 狈补苍诲颈办别艣惫补谤补 as a writer on abhinaya (gesture) and T膩la. And the two may be identical. The 搁耻诲谤补-岣峚尘补谤奴诲产丑补惫补-蝉奴迟谤补-惫颈惫补谤补峁嘺尘 a commentary on the M膩he艣vara-s奴tras, is also ascribed to 狈补苍诲颈办别艣惫补谤补. This also may be from the hands of 狈补苍诲颈办别艣惫补谤补 the author on abhinaya etc. But before the work has been critically studied, one cannot be sure about this. And 狈补苍诲颈办别艣惫补谤补 the author of the Abhinaya-darpa峁嘺 as we have seen elsewhere^[16] was posterior to the 5th century.

4. Medieval writers of the Transitional Period( 600 A.C .-1000 A.C.)

(a) 艢腻谤诲奴濒补, 惭补迟补峁単补, 驰腻峁ａ弓颈办补, Ka艣yapa and Durga艣askti.

It was during this period that the R膩gas of later Indian music slowly developed from the Gr膩ma-r膩gas^[17] of early medieval music, which have been mentioned in the M膩rka峁囜笉eya Pur膩峁嘺. The G墨ti or the Bh膩s膩-g墨ti of various kinds mentioned in the B峁沨adde艣墨^[18] had probably connection with this Gr膩mar膩ga. And from this work, it is also learnt that 艢腻谤诲奴濒补 recognised only one G墨ti called Bh膩峁Ｄ乬墨ti, 惭补迟补峁単补 two G墨tis, Bh膩峁Ｄ乬墨ti and Vi产丑腻峁Ｄ�-g墨ti, 驰腻峁ａ弓颈办补 three of them named Bh膩峁Ｄ乬墨ti, Vi产丑腻峁Ｄ乬墨ti and Antar-bh膩峁�ikag墨ti. Durga艣akti however gave their number as five, viz. 艢uddha, Bhinna, Vesara, Gau岣嵞� and S膩dh膩ra峁嚹�. Ka艣yapa seems to agree with 驰腻峁ａ弓颈办补 in this regard; but one cannot be sure on this point. The personal view of the author of the B峁沨adde艣墨 is that the G墨ti is of seven kinds: such as 艢uddha, Bhinnaka, Gau岣峣ka, R膩gag墨ti, Bh膩峁Ｄ乬墨ti and Vi产丑腻峁Ｄ乬墨ti. It is probably to demonstrate the fuller nature of his own classification, that he brings in the view of his predecessors, which have been mentioned above. The evidence at our disposal for ascertaining the time of these authorities is meagre. But we are possibly not quite helpless in this matter. For, the term Bh膩峁Ｄ乬墨ti seems to give some indication as to the upper limit to the age of these teachers. It seems to be evident that 产丑腻峁Ｄ� in this connection is nothing other than the de艣a-产丑腻峁Ｄ� or regional dielects or languages, and that is the reason why the songs composed in de艣a-产丑腻峁Ｄ� were also called De艣墨 from which the B峁沨adde艣i derives its name. Now 产丑腻峁Ｄ� came to be accepted as a vehicle of literary expression as early as the 6th century A.C.; for B膩峁嘺bha峁�峁璦 mentions among his friends one 莫艣膩na who was a 产丑腻峁Ｄ�-kavi or a poet writing in 产丑腻峁Ｄ�.^[19] Hence it may naturally be assumed that 产丑腻峁Ｄ� attained some prestige at that time in connection with the music also. In all probability 艢腻谤诲奴濒补 who recognised one kind of G墨ti called the Bh膩峁Ｄ乬墨ti, might have

been an younger contemporary of B膩峁嘺bha峁�峁璦. 惭补迟补峁単补, 驰腻峁ａ弓颈办补, Ka艣yapa and Durga艣akti all of whom might have followed him in later centuries, probably one after another, added to the number of G墨tis or Bh膩峁Ｄ乬墨tis. The new era reached right down to the time of the author of the B峁沨adde艣i who seems to have flourished about the 10th century A.C. when the Bh膩峁Ｄ�-movement may be said to have culminated in the development of New Indo-Aryan languages and bha峁Ｄ� became the vehicle of the classical melodies of the R膩ga-type.

(b) The B峁沨adde艣墨.

The work ascribed to 惭补迟补峁単补 cannot be taken as a work written by 惭补迟补峁単补. For as we have seen above, 惭补迟补峁単补鈥檚 view has been quoted in the work itself along with the view of other earlier writers. Hence it seems have been compiled by some one other than 惭补迟补峁単补 himself, and was ascribed to the old master evidently for giving it a greater authority. About the date of this work we have given our view above. The fact that 艢膩r峁単adeva recognised Durga艣akti鈥檚 view about the number of G墨tis in opposition to the one given by the author of the B峁沨adde艣墨^[20], probably shows that the two authors were not widely separated in time. The B峁沨adde艣墨 extensively makes quotation form the N艢.

5. Late Medieval Writings (1000 A.C.-1300 A.C.)

(a) The Sa峁単墨ta-makaranda.

This work^[21] ascribed to 狈腻谤补诲补, was evidently not from the hands of the author connected with the 艢ik峁Ｄ� named after him. The fact that the R膩gas known in later music make their appearance in it, speaks for its lateness. As it has been utilized by 艢膩r峁単adeva (1210-1247 A.C.) it may be tentatively placed in the 11th century A.C.

(b) The R膩ga-tara峁単i峁嚹�.

This was composed by Locana-Kavi, the court-musician of the king Vall膩lasena of Bengal.. It was written 1160 A.C.^[22], the year of Vall膩lasena鈥檚 accession

to the throne. He therefore lived one generation earlier than Jayadeva the celebrated author of the G墨ta-govinda which was a lyrical poem to be sung with musical accompaniment. From the R膩gatara峁単i峁嚹� it is learnt that the author also wrote other works such as the R膩ga-g墨tasa峁僩raha. But these have not come down to us. Locana鈥檚 work mentions twelve basic (janaka) R膩gas to which eighty-six derivative (janya) R膩gas owe their origin.

(c) The Sa峁単墨ta-samayas膩ra.

This work^[23] was written by P膩r艣vadeva of whom we do not know anything more. He was probably a Jain; and as he names Bhoja^[24] and Some艣vara^[25] he was later than these personages. But 艢膩r峁単adeva who mentions them does not mention P膩r艣vadeva. P膩r艣vadeva therefore may be placed in the 13th century A.C. and may be considered to be a contemporary of the author of the Sa峁単墨ta-ratn膩kara. P膩r艣va鈥檚 treatment of R膩gas though pretty exhaustive, is shorter than that of 艢膩r峁単adeva.

(d) The Sa峁単墨ta-ratn膩kara.

This is the most exhaustive treatise on Indian music. It was written by 艢膩r峁単adeva (1210-1247) a South Indian whose grandfather was a Kashmirian. In the seven chapters of the work, he treats of notes, R膩gas, miscellaneous topics, musical compositions, rhythms, musical instruments and gestures. He describes 艢ruti, notes, Gr膩mas including the obsolete G膩ndhara Gr膩ma, M奴rchan膩, T膩na, Var峁嘺, Ala峁僰膩ra, J膩ti, V膩d墨, Sa峁僾膩d墨, Viv膩d墨 and Anuv膩d墨 notes very clearly, and summarizes whatever has been said by his predecessors. This gives the work a special importance in connection with a critical study of the N艢. Many things occurring in this latter work when otherwise obscure, become elucidated as soon as they are compared with similar items discussed in the Sa峁単墨ta-ratn膩kara. As 艢膩r峁単adeva elaborately describes the R膩gas with their late developments, his work serves, as a bridge between the tradition of the N艢 and the works written in late medieval times (after the 13th century) which almost exclusively treat the R膩gas and their different varieties. As these works are not of much importance regarding the study of Indian music in its ancient and early medieval aspects, we refrain from mentioning them.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

N膩S (N膩radiya-艣铆k峁Ｄ�).

[2]:

鈥渕antro h墨na岣� svarato var峁嘺to v膩 mithy膩 prayakto na tamartham膩ha |
sa v膩gavajro yajam膩na峁� hinasti yathendr艣atru岣� svaratopar膩dh膩t ||鈥�

Pata帽jali reads as 鈥渄峁涐梗峁璦岣� 艣abda岣� svarato var峁嘺to v膩鈥� etc. Evidently the author of the Bh膩峁�ya changed the couplet to suit his own purpose.

[3]:

Sv膩mi Praj帽膩n膩nanda鈥擲a峁僩墨ta-O-Sa峁僺k峁泃i (Bengali) vol. II. pp. 347f.

[4]:

Ibid. pp. 352-353.

[5]:

Dattils, 艣l. 177.

[6]:

See page 26.

[7]:

Pages 14, 15, 24, 34, 41, 72. and 86 of the transcript from Baroda.

[8]:

ed. Haridatta Sastri pp. 473-474.

[9]:

ed. K. Sambasiva Sastri.

[10]:

See the Introduction to this text (Baroda ed.)

[11]:

See JPASB, vol. V. (N.S.) pp. 351 ff.; also vol. VI pp. 307ff.

[12]:

Winterniz. Vol. I. p. 560. The chapter 23 of the M膩rka峁囜笉eya Pur膩峁嘺 has been critically edited and published by Alain Dani茅lou and N. R. Bhatt in 鈥楾extes des Pur膩峁嘺 sur la theorie musicale,鈥� Pondichery, 1959. It reached the present author late.

[13]:

Winternitz, p. 167,

[14]:

Sv膩mi Praj帽膩n膩nanda has printed these in his vol. II of the Sa峁単墨ta-O-Sa峁僺k峁泃i, pp. 484 ff. The Vi峁ａ箛udharmottara (C. 8th century) also contains some chapters on music. But these are not of much importance in the present connection. See Textes des Pur膩峁嘺 sur la theorie musicale ed. by Dani茅lou and Bhatt.

[15]:

Winternitz op. cit. p. 554.

[16]:

See the Introduction to the Abhinayadarpa峁嘺 ed. M. Ghosh (2nd ed). Calcutta, 1957.

[17]:

See above p. 24.

[18]:

See page 82.

[19]:

Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies Vol. I (1917-20), Grierson, Indo-Aryan Vernaculars, Chapter II, p. 65.

[20]:

See SR II. 1.7.

[21]:

Ed. M. R. Telang.

[22]:

See Kshitimohan Sen, B膩峁単l膩r Sa峁単it膩c膩rya in the G墨tavit膩na-v膩r峁�ik? Vol. I, 1350 (BE.) Songs of Vidy膩pati available in the present text of the R膩gatara峁単in墨 are evidently a later interpolation and hence do not determine its date. See ibid.

[23]:

Ed. Ganapati Sastri. 100. Ibid (II. 5).

[24]:

Ibid (III.5).

[25]:

Ibid (II. 5; IX. 2).