Freda Bedi Cont'd (#3)

[admin]

The Arctic Home in the Vedas
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/23/21

A year of mortals is a day and a night of the Gods, or regents of the universe seated round the north pole; and again their division is this, their day is the northern, and their night the southern course of the sun.

-- Institutes of Hindu Law: Or, The Ordinances of Menu, According to the Gloss of Culluca. Comprising the Indian System of Duties, Religious and Civil, Verbally translated from the original Sanscrit, With a Preface, by Sir William Jones

--The Arctic Home in the Vedas, Being Also a New Key to the Interpretation of Many Vedic Texts and Legends, by Bal Gangadhar Tilak, B.A., LL.B., Author of Orion or Researches into the Antiquity of the Vedas, Editor of the Kesari, Sometime Additional Member of the Council of H.E. the Governor of Bombay for Making Laws, &c., &c., 1903

The title page of the 1903 edition of The Arctic Home in the Vedas

The Arctic Home in the Vedas is a 1903 book on the origin of Aryanic People by Indian nationalist, teacher and independence activist Bal Gangadhar Tilak.[1] It propounded the idea that the North Pole was the original home of Aryans during the pre-glacial period which they had to leave due to the ice deluge around 8000 B.C. and had to migrate to the Northern parts of Europe and Asia in search of lands for new settlements. In support to his theory, Tilak presented certain Vedic hymns, Avestic passages, Vedic chronology and Vedic calendars with interpretations of the contents in detail.

The book was written at the end of 1898, but was first published in March 1903 in Pune.

Man was believed to be post-glacial, and the theory of an Asiatic origin of the Aryan peoples prevailed. The age of the oldest Vedic period, however, was carried back to 4500 BC by scholars including the author himself after scientific astronomical research in correlation with purported evidence found in the Vedic hymns.

Tilak cites a book by William F. Warren, the first President of Boston University, Paradise Found or the Cradle of the Human Race at the North Pole, as having anticipated his ideas to some extent. Warren dedicated his book to Max Müller, with whom Tilak had shared ideas before the book was completed.

Tilak held the view that further study of Vedic hymns and Avestan passages might reveal the long vista of primitive Aryan antiquity.

Summary of Tilak’s polar theory

• Neolithic Aryan race in Europe cannot be regarded as autochthonous [indigenous peoples], nor European Aryans descended from the Paleolithic man. Hence, question of the original Aryan home is still unsettled.
• In the early geological ages, the Alps were low, the Himalayas not yet upheaved, Asia and Africa were represented only by a group of islands and an equable and uniform climate prevailed over the whole surface of the globe. In those days, however, a warm climate prevailed in the Arctic region.
• The close of the Pliocene and the whole of the Pleistocene period were marked by violent changes of climate bringing on what is called the Glacial and Inter-Glacial epochs. A succession of cold and warm climates must have characterized these Glacial and Inter-Glacial periods which were also accompanied by extensive movements of depression and elevation of land, the depression taking place after the land was weighed down with the enormous mass of ice.
• Thus a period of glaciations was marked by elevation, extreme cold and the invasion of the ice-caps over regions of the present Temperate zone; while an inter-glacial period was accompanied by depression of land and milder and congenial climate which made even the Arctic regions habitable.
• According to the latest geological evidence, the last Glacial period must have closed and Post-Glacial must have commenced at about 10,000 years ago or 8,000 BC. There were at least two Glacial and one Inter-Glacial period, and the geographical distribution of land and water on the earth during the Inter-Glacial period was quite different from what it is at present. It was the coming on of the Glacial age that destroyed this genial climate and rendered the regions unsuited for the habitation of tropical plants and animals.
• At the North Pole, one sees the heavenly dome above seems to revolve around one like a potter's wheel. The stars will not rise and set but move round and round in horizontal planes during the long night of six months. The Sun, when it is above the horizon for six months; would also appear to revolve in the same way but with some difference. The Northern celestial hemisphere will alone be visible spinning round and round and the Southern half remain invisible. The Sun going into the Northern hemisphere in his annual course will appear as coming up from the South. Living in the temperate and tropical zones, however, one sees all heavenly objects rise in the East and set in the West, some passing over the head, others traveling obliquely.
• The long dawn of two months is a special and important characteristic of the North Pole. As we descend southward, the splendor and the duration of the dawn will be witnessed on a less and less magnificent scale. But the dawn occurring at the end of the long night of two, three or more months will still be unusually long, often of several days duration.
• All these characteristics of an Arctic home are clearly recorded in several Vedic hymns and Avestic passages and they come to us sometimes as the description of the prevailing conditions or the day-to-day experience or stories told by the earlier generation and sometimes as myths.


Tilak in his Study

Chronology of the post-glacial period

• 10,000 to 8000 BC – The destruction of the original Arctic home by the last Ice Age and the commencement of the post-Glacial period.
• 8000 to 5000 BC – The age of migration from the original home. The survivors of the Aryan race roamed over the northern parts of Europe and Asia in search of lands suitable for new settlements. Tilak calls it the Pre-Orion Period.
• 5000 to 3000 BC. – The Orion period, when the vernal equinox was in Orion. Many Vedic hymns can be traced to the early part of this period and the bards of the race seem to have not yet forgotten the real importance of the traditions of the Arctic home inherited by them. It was at this time that first attempts to reform the calendar and the sacrificial system appear to have been systematically made.
• 3000 to 1400 BC – The Krittika period, when the vernal equinox was in Pleiades. The traditions about the original Arctic home had grown dim by this time and were often misunderstood, making the Vedic hymns less and less intelligible.
• 1400 to 500 BC – The Pre-Buddhistic period, when the Sutras and the Philosophical systems made their appearance.

Influence

M.S. Golwalkar, in his 1939 publication We or Our Nationhood Defined, famously stated that "Undoubtedly [...] we — Hindus — have been in undisputed and undisturbed possession of this land for over eight or even ten thousand years before the land was invaded by any foreign race."[2] Golwalkar was inspired by Tilak's[note 1] The Arctic Home in the Vedas.[3] Gowalkar took over the idea of 10,000 years, arguing that the North Pole at that time was located in India.[3][note 2]

See also

• Ancient North Eurasians
• Arctic
• Ariana
• Aryan
• Aryan race
• Aryavarta
• Atlantis
• Indo-Aryan languages
• Indo-Aryan peoples
• Indo-Aryans
• Indo-Iranians
• Indo-Iranian languages
• Kumari Kandam
• Kurgan
• Lemuria (continent)
• Mu (lost continent)
• Hyperborea
• Rigveda
• The Orion (book)
• Vedic Age

Notes

1. Carol Schaeffer: "Tilak, dubbed the “father of Indian unrest” for his advocacy of violent tactics against British colonialists and inspiration to later Indian Hindu nationalists".[3]
2. See also Is our civilisation really 10 millennia old? Or are we simply insecure?; Sanjeev Sabhlok (2013), Not to be outdone by Müller, Tilak proposed that Aryans descended from the north pole. and Golwalkar’s most fantastic and absurd attempt to “prove” that the non-existent Aryans were from India.

References

• The Arctic Home in the Vedas by B.G. Tilak, edition 1925.
1. Ashalatha, A.; Koropath, Pradeep; Nambarathil, Saritha (2009). "6 – Indian National Movement" (PDF). Social Science: Standard VIII Part 1. Government of Kerala • Department of Education. State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT). p. 72.
2. Gyanendra Pandey (2006), Routine Violence: Nations, Fragments, Histories, Stanford University Press, p.103
3. Carol Schaeffer (2018), Alt-Reich. The unholy alliance between India and the new global wave of white supremacy, The Caravan (2018), p.42

Sources

• Ashalatha, A.; Koropath, Pradeep; Nambarathil, Saritha (2009). "6 – Indian National Movement" (PDF). Social Science: Standard VIII Part 1. Government of Kerala • Department of Education. State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT).
<!- P -->
• Pandey, Gyanendra (2006), Routine Violence: Nations, Fragments, Histories, Stanford University Press
• Schaeffer, Carol (2018), "Alt-Reich. The unholy alliance between India and the new global wave of white supremacy", The Caravan

Further reading

• The Arctic Home in the Vedas by B.G. Tilak, edition 1925.

External links

• The Arctic Home in the Vedas (1903) at the Internet Archive
• The Whalers Atlas (Атлас Китобоев) by Dionysius Artifex 2021

[admin]

Part 1 of 2

Wilhelm Furtwängler
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/23/21

Alongside the daily grind, Freda was also adept at maintaining connections with those of influence. When a couple of months after the move to Dalhousie Anita Morris headed home to England, she carried a package for Christmas Humphreys, the judge and doyen of the Buddhist Society in London, and for the renowned violinist Yehudi Menuhin.

-- 14: The Young Lamas' Home School, Excerpt from The Lives of Freda: The Political, Spiritual and Personal Journeys of Freda Bedi, by Andrew Whitehead

[Menuhin] performed for Allied soldiers during World War II [over 500 concerts for wounded servicemen and Allied troops] and, accompanied on the piano by English composer Benjamin Britten, for the surviving inmates of a number of concentration camps in July 1945 after their liberation in April of the same year, most famously the Bergen-Belsen. He returned to Germany in 1947 to play concerto concerts with the Berlin Philharmonic under Wilhelm Furtwängler as an act of reconciliation, the first Jewish musician to do so in the wake of the Holocaust, saying to Jewish critics that he wanted to rehabilitate Germany's music and spirit...

Menuhin made several recordings with the German conductor Wilhelm Furtwängler, who had been criticized for conducting in Germany during the Nazi era.

--Yehudi Menuhin, by Wikipedia

Furtwängler in 1912

Gustav Heinrich Ernst Martin Wilhelm Furtwängler (UK: /ˈfʊərtvɛŋɡlər/ FOORT-veng-glər, US: /-vɛŋlər/ -⁠lər, German: [ˈvɪlhɛlm ˈfʊɐ̯tvɛŋlɐ]; 25 January 1886 – 30 November 1954) was a German conductor and composer. He is widely regarded as one of the greatest symphonic and operatic conductors of the 20th century. He was a major influence for many later conductors, and his name is often mentioned when discussing their interpretative styles.[1]

Furtwängler was principal conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic between 1922 and 1945, and from 1952 until 1954. He was also principal conductor of the Gewandhaus Orchestra (1922–26), and was a guest conductor of other major orchestras including the Vienna Philharmonic.

Although he was not an adherent of Nazism,[2] he was the leading conductor to remain in Germany during the Nazi regime. This decision caused lasting controversy, and the extent to which his presence lent prestige to the Third Reich is still debated.

Life and career


Furtwängler in 1925

Wilhelm Furtwängler was born in Schöneberg (now a district/borough of Berlin) into a prominent family. His father Adolf was an archaeologist, his mother a painter.[note 1] Most of his childhood was spent in Munich, where his father taught at the city's Ludwig Maximilian University. He was given a musical education from an early age, and developed an early love of Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer with whose works he remained closely associated throughout his life.

Although Furtwängler achieved fame chiefly from his conducting, he regarded himself foremost as a composer. He began conducting in order to perform his own works. By age of twenty, he had composed several works. However, they were not well received, and that, combined with the financial insecurity of a career as a composer, led him to concentrate on conducting. He made his conducting debut with the Kaim Orchestra (now the Munich Philharmonic) in Anton Bruckner's Ninth Symphony. He subsequently held conducting posts at Munich, Strasbourg, Lübeck, Mannheim, Frankfurt, and Vienna.

Furtwangler succeeded Artur Bodanzky as principal conductor of the Mannheim Opera and Music Academy in 1915, remaining until 1920. As a boy he had sometimes stayed with his grandmother in Mannheim. Through her family he met the Geissmars, a Jewish family who were leading lawyers and amateur musicians in the town.[3] Berta Geissmar wrote, "Furtwängler became so good at [skiing] as to attain almost professional skill...Almost every sport appealed to him: he loved tennis, sailing and swimming...He was a good horseman..."[4] She also reports that he was a strong mountain climber and hiker.

Berta Geissmar subsequently became his secretary and business manager, in Mannheim and later in Berlin, until she was forced to leave Germany in 1935.[5] From 1921 onwards, Furtwängler shared holidays in the Engadin with Berta and her mother. In 1924 he bought a house there. After he married, the house was open to a wide circle of friends.[6]

In 1920 he was appointed conductor of the Berlin Staatskapelle succeeding Richard Strauss. In January 1922, following the sudden death of Arthur Nikisch, he was appointed to the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra. Shortly afterwards he was appointed to the prestigious Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, again in succession to Nikisch.[7] Furtwängler made his London debut in 1924, and continued to appear there before the outbreak of World War II as late as 1938, when he conducted Richard Wagner's Ring [Die Nibelungen (The Nibelungs)].[2] (Furtwängler later conducted in London many times between 1948 and 1954). In 1925 he appeared as guest conductor of the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, making return visits in the following two years.[2]

In January 1945 Furtwängler fled to Switzerland. It was during this period that he completed what is considered his most significant composition, the Symphony No. 2 in E minor. It was given its premiere in 1948 by the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra under Furtwängler's direction and was recorded for Deutsche Grammophon.

Following the war, he resumed performing and recording, and remained a popular conductor in Europe, although his actions in the 1930s and 40s were a subject of ongoing criticism. He died in 1954 in Ebersteinburg, close to Baden-Baden. He is buried in the Heidelberg Bergfriedhof. His second wife Elisabeth died in 2013, aged 103, outliving him by 59 years.

Third Reich controversy

Furtwängler's relationship with and attitudes towards Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party were a matter of much controversy.

First confrontations with the Nazis

Furtwängler was very critical of Hitler's appointment as Chancellor of Germany,[8] and was convinced that Hitler would not stay in power for long.[9] He had said of Hitler in 1932, "This hissing street pedlar will never get anywhere in Germany".[10]

As the antisemitic policies of the Third Reich took effect, Jewish musicians were forced out of work and began to leave Germany. The Nazis were aware that Furtwängler was opposed to the policies and might also decide to go abroad, so the Berlin Philharmonic, which employed many Jews, was exempted from the policies.[11] In 1933, when Bruno Walter was dismissed from his position as principal conductor of the Leipzig Gewandhaus Orchestra, the Nazis asked Furtwängler to replace him for an international tour. Their goal was to show to the world that Germany did not need Jewish musicians. Furtwängler refused, and it was Richard Strauss who replaced Walter.[12]

On 10 April 1933, Furtwängler wrote a public letter to Goebbels to denounce the new rulers' antisemitism:

Ultimately there is only one dividing line I recognize: that between good and bad art. However, while the dividing line between Jews and non-Jews is being drawn with a downright merciless theoretical precision, that other dividing line, the one which in the long run is so important for our music life, yes, the decisive dividing line between good and bad, seems to have far too little significance attributed to it [...] If concerts offer nothing then people will not attend; that is why the QUALITY is not just an idea: it is of vital importance. If the fight against Judaism concentrates on those artists who are themselves rootless and destructive and who seek to succeed in kitsch, sterile virtuosity and the like, then it is quite acceptable; the fight against these people and the attitude they embody (as, unfortunately, do many non-Jews) cannot be pursued thoroughly or systematically enough. If, however, this campaign is also directed at truly great artists, then it ceases to be in the interests of Germany's cultural life [...] It must therefore be stated that men such as Walter, Klemperer, Reinhardt etc. must be allowed to exercise their talents in Germany in the future as well, in exactly the same way as Kreisler, Huberman, Schnabel and other great instrumentalists of the Jewish race. It is only just that we Germans should bear in mind that in the past we had Joseph Joachim one of the greatest violinists and teachers in the German classical tradition, and in Mendelssohn even a great German composer - for Mendelssohn is a part of Germany's musical history".[13]

As stated by the historian F. Prieberg, this letter proved that if the concepts of nation and patriotism had a deep meaning for him, "it is clear that race meant nothing to him".[14] In June 1933, for a text which was to be the basis for a discussion with Goebbels, Furtwängler went further, writing, "The Jewish question in musical spheres: a race of brilliant people!" He threatened that if boycotts against Jews were extended to artistic activities, he would resign all his posts immediately, concluding that "at any rate to continue giving concerts would be quite impossible without [the Jews] - to remove them would be an operation which would result in the death of the patient."[15]


Etching of Furtwängler from 1928

Because of his high profile, Furtwängler's public opposition prompted a mixed reaction from the Nazi leadership. Heinrich Himmler wished to send Furtwängler to a concentration camp.[16] Goebbels and Göring ordered their administration to listen to Furtwängler's requests and to give him the impression that they would do what he asked.[17] This led him to believe that he had some positive influence to stop the racial policy. He subsequently invited several Jewish and anti-fascist artists (such as Yehudi Menuhin, Artur Schnabel, and Pablo Casals) to perform as soloists in his 1933/34 season, but they refused to come to Nazi Germany.[18] Furtwängler subsequently invited Jewish musicians from his orchestra such as Szymon Goldberg to play as soloists.

The Gestapo built a case against Furtwängler, noting that he was providing assistance to Jews. Furtwängler gave all his fees to German emigrants during his concerts outside Germany.[19] The German literary scholar Hans Mayer was one of these emigrants. Mayer later observed that for performances of Wagner operas in Paris prior to the war, Furtwängler cast only German emigrants (Jews or political opponents to the third Reich) to sing.[20] Georg Gerullis, a director at the Ministry of Culture remarked in a letter to Goebbels, "Can you name me a Jew on whose behalf Furtwängler has not intervened?"[21]

Furtwängler never joined the Nazi Party.[22] He refused to give the Nazi salute, to conduct the Horst-Wessel-Lied, or to sign his letters with "Heil Hitler", even those he wrote to Hitler.[2][23][24] F. Prieberg has found all the letters from the conductor to the dictator: these are always requests for an audience to defend Jewish musicians or musicians considered to be "degenerate". The fact that he refused to sign by 'Heil Hitler' was considered a major affront by the Nazi leadership and explains that many of these requests for a hearing were refused.[25] However, Furtwängler was appointed as the first vice-president of the Reichsmusikkammer and Staatsrat of Prussia, and accepted these honorary positions to try to bend the racial policy of Nazis in music and to support Jewish musicians.[26][27] For concerts in London and Paris before the war, Furtwängler refused to conduct the Nazi anthems or to play music in halls adorned with swastikas.[25] During the universal exposition held in Paris in 1937, a picture of the German delegation was taken in front of the Arc de Triomphe. In the picture, Furtwängler is the only German not giving the Nazi salute (he has his hand on his shoulder).[28] This picture was suppressed at the time. The photo was, moreover, carefully preserved by the Gestapo, providing new proof that Furtwängler was opposed to Nazi policy.[25]

In 1933, Furtwängler met with Hitler to try to stop the new antisemitic policy in the domain of music. He had prepared a list of significant Jewish musicians: these included the composer Arnold Schoenberg, the musicologist Curt Sachs, the violinist Carl Flesch, and Jewish members of the Berlin Philharmonic.[29] Hitler did not listen to Furtwängler, who lost patience, and the meeting became a shouting match.[30] Berta Geissmar wrote, "After the audience, he told me that he knew now what was behind Hitler's narrow-minded measures. This is not only antisemitism, but the rejection of any form of artistic, philosophical thought, the rejection of any form of free culture..."[31][32]

Mannheim Concert

On 26 April 1933, Furtwängler and the Berlin Philharmonic performed a joint concert in Mannheim with the local orchestra to mark the 50th anniversary of Wagner's death and to raise money for the Mannheim orchestra. The concert had been organised before the Nazis came to power. The Nazified Mannheim Orchestra Committee demanded that the Jewish leader of the Berlin orchestra, Szymon Goldberg, give way to the leader of the Mannheim orchestra for the evening. Furtwängler refused, and the concert took place as planned.

Before the banquet organized for the evening, members of the Mannheim Orchestra Committee came to remonstrate with Furtwängler, accusing him of "a lack of national sentiment".[33][34] Furtwängler furiously left before the banquet to rejoin Berta Geissmar and her mother. The fact that Furtwängler had preferred to spend the evening with his "Jewish friends" rather than with Nazi authorities caused a controversy. He subsequently refused to conduct again in Mannheim,[35][36] only returning 21 years later in 1954.

"The Hindemith Case"

In 1934, Furtwängler publicly described Hitler as an "enemy of the human race" and the political situation in Germany as a "Schweinerei" ("disgrace", literally: "swinishness").[37]

On 25 November 1934, he wrote a letter in the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, "Der Fall Hindemith" ("The Hindemith Case"), in support of the composer Paul Hindemith. Hindemith had been labelled a degenerate artist by the Nazis. Furtwängler also conducted a piece by Hindemith, Mathis der Maler, although the work had been banned by the Nazis.[38] The concert received enormous acclaim and unleashed a political storm. The Nazis (especially Alfred Rosenberg, the Nazi Party's chief racial theorist) formed a violent conspiracy against the conductor, who resigned from his official positions, including his titles as vice-president of the Reichsmusikkammer and of Staatsrat of Prussia. His resignation from the latter position was refused by Göring. He was also forced by Goebbels to give up all his artistic positions.[39]

Furtwängler decided to leave Germany,[40] but the Nazis prevented him.[41][42] They seized the opportunity to Aryanise the orchestra and its administrative staff. Most of the Jewish musicians of the orchestra had already left the country and found positions outside Germany, with Furtwängler's assistance.

The main target of the Nazis was Berta Geissmar. She was so close to the conductor that she wrote in her book about Furtwängler that the Nazis had begun an investigation to know if she was his mistress. After being harassed for a period of two years, she moved to London when she became Sir Thomas Beecham's main assistant. In the book she wrote on Furtwängler in England in 1943, she said:

Furtwängler, although he had decided to remain in Germany, was certainly no Nazi [...] He had a private telephone line to me which was not connected via the exchange [...] Before going to bed, he used to chat with me over telephone. Sometimes I told him amusing stories to cheer him up, sometimes we talked about politics. One of the main threats the Nazis used against Furtwängler and myself later on was the assertion that they had recorded all these conversations. I should not have thought that it was possible! Was there enough shellac? If the Nazis really did this, their ears must certainly have burnt, and it was not surprising that Furtwängler was eventually put on their black list, let alone myself.[43]

Goebbels refused to meet Furtwängler to clarify his situation for several months.[44] During the same period, many members of the orchestra and of his public were begging him not to emigrate and desert them.[45][46] In addition, Goebbels sent him a clear signal that if he left Germany he would never be allowed back, frightening him with the prospect of permanent separation from his mother (to whom he was very close) and his children.[47] Furtwängler considered himself responsible for the Berlin Philharmonic and for his family, and decided to stay.[48][49][50]

The compromise of 1935

On 28 February 1935, Furtwängler met Goebbels, who wanted to keep Furtwängler in Germany, since he considered him, like Richard Strauss and Hans Pfitzner, a "national treasure". Goebbels asked him to pledge allegiance publicly to the new regime. Furtwängler refused.[51][52] Goebbels then proposed that Furtwängler acknowledge publicly that Hitler was in charge of cultural policy. Furtwängler accepted: Hitler was a dictator and controlled everything in the country. But he added that it must be clear that he wanted nothing to do with the policy and that he would remain as a non-political artist, without any official position.[53][54] The agreement was reached. Goebbels made an announcement declaring that Furtwängler's article on Hindemith was not political: Furtwängler had spoken only from an artistic point of view, and it was Hitler who was in charge of the cultural policy in Germany.

Goebbels did not reveal the second part of the deal.[55] However, the agreement between them was largely respected. At his subsequent denazification trial, Furtwängler was charged with conducting only two official concerts for the period 1933–1945. Furtwängler appeared in only two short propaganda films.

Other Nazi leaders were not satisfied with the compromise, since they believed that Furtwängler had not capitulated: Rosenberg demanded in vain that Furtwängler apologise to the regime.[55] Goebbels, who wanted to keep Furtwängler in Germany, wrote in his diary that he was satisfied with the deal and laughed at "the incredible naïvety of artists".[56]

Hitler now allowed him to have a new passport. When they met again in April, Hitler attacked Furtwängler for his support of modern music, and made him withdraw from regular conducting for the time being, save for his scheduled appearance at Bayreuth.[57] However, Hitler confirmed that Furtwängler would not be given any official titles, and would be treated as a private individual. But Hitler refused Furtwängler's request to announce this, saying that it would be harmful for the "prestige of the State".[58]

Furtwängler resumed conducting. On 25 April 1935, he returned to the Berlin Philharmonic with a program dedicated to Beethoven. Many people who had boycotted the orchestra during his absence came to the concert to support him.[59] He was called out seventeen times.[58] On 3 May, in his dressing room before conducting the same program, he was informed that Hitler and his entire staff would attend the concert. He was given the order to welcome Hitler with the Nazi salute.[60][61] Furtwängler was so furious that he ripped the wooden panelling off a radiator.[62][63] Franz Jastrau, the manager of the orchestra, suggested that he keep his baton in his right hand all the time.[64] When he entered the hall, all the Nazi leaders were present making the Hitler salute, but Furtwängler kept hold of his baton and began the concert immediately. Hitler probably could not have imagined that such an affront was possible but decided to put up a good show: he sat down and the concert went on.[61]

At the end of the concert, Furtwängler continued to keep his baton in his right hand. Hitler understood the situation and jumped up and demonstratively held out his right hand to him.[65][66] The same situation occurred during another concert later on, when a photographer had been mobilized by the Nazis for the occasion: the photo of the famous handshake between Furtwängler and Hitler was distributed everywhere by Goebbels.[56] Goebbels had obtained what he desired: to keep Furtwängler in Germany and to give the impression to those who were not well informed (especially outside the country) that Furtwängler was now a supporter of the regime.

Furtwängler wrote in his diary in 1935 that there was a complete contradiction between the racial ideology of the Nazis and the true German culture, the one of Schiller, Goethe and Beethoven.[67] He added in 1936: "living today is more than ever a question of courage".[68]

The New York Philharmonic Orchestra

In September 1935, the baritone Oskar Jölli, a member of the Nazi party, reported to the Gestapo that Furtwängler had said, "Those in power should all be shot, and things in Germany would not change until this was done".[69] Hitler forbade him to conduct for several months, until Furtwängler's fiftieth birthday in January 1936.[70] Hitler and Goebbels allowed him to conduct again and offered him presents: Hitler an annual pension of 40,000 Reichsmarks, and Goebbels an ornate baton made of gold and ivory. Furtwängler refused them.[48][71][72]

Furtwängler was offered the principal conductor's post at the New York Philharmonic Orchestra, which was then the most desirable and best paid position in international musical life.[73] He was to have followed Arturo Toscanini, who had declared that Furtwängler was the only man to succeed him.[74][75] Furtwängler accepted the post, but his telephone conversations were recorded by the Gestapo.[16]

While Furtwängler was travelling, the Berlin branch of the Associated Press leaked a news story on Hermann Göring's orders.[76] It suggested Furtwängler would probably be reappointed as director of the Berlin State Opera and of the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra.[48][74] This caused the mood in New York to turn against him: it seemed that Furtwängler was now a supporter of the Nazi Party.[77] On reading the American press reaction, Furtwängler chose not to accept the position in New York. Nor did he accept any position at the Berlin Opera.

1936 to 1937

Furtwängler included Jewish and other non-Aryan musicians during his overseas tours in the 1930s. This was the case in France in April 1934 where he conducted operas by Wagner. Hans Mayer, a professor of literature, a communist Jew exiled from Germany, reported after the war that Furtwängler had voluntarily chosen a cast made up almost entirely of Jews or of people driven out of Germany during these concerts.[20] Likewise, during the Universal Exhibition in Paris in 1937, Furtwängler performed a series of Wagnerian concerts which were a triumph. Goebbels announced in the German press that Furtwängler and Wagner had been acclaimed in Paris. In fact, those who made Furtwängler a triumph were precisely German exiles, including many Jews, who lived in Paris and who saw Furtwängler as a symbol of anti-Nazi Germany. Furtwängler also refused to conduct the Nazi anthem[78] and demanded that all swastikas be removed from his concert halls[79] The Nazis realized and complained that Furtwängler did not bring back any money from his tours abroad. They initially believed that Furtwängler was spending everything for him, and later realized that he was giving all the money to the German emigrants. It confirmed after the war that the conductor gave them everything he had "to the last penny" when he met them.[80] Furtwängler always refused to practice the Nazi salute and conduct the Nazi hymns. When the Berlin orchestra performed abroad, he had to start the concert with the Nazi anthem Horst-Wessel-Lied. As the English and French could see during the period 1935–1939, Furtwängler was replaced by the steward Hans von Benda and only entered the room afterwards.[25]

Furtwängler conducted at the Bayreuth festival in 1936 for the first time since 1931, in spite of his poor relationship with Winifred Wagner. Here, he conducted a new staging of Lohengrin (the first time this work was performed at the festival since 1909) for which Hitler ensured no expense was spared; the costume and set design were on a larger and more expensive scale than anything previously seen at Bayreuth.[50] This performance was broadcast throughout Europe and in the Americas, and was used as part of a propaganda effort intended to portray the "New Germany" as the triumphant inheritor of the German musical tradition rather than a break from the past, to which Furtwängler's place at the podium was instrumental.[81] Both Hitler and Goebbels attended the festival and attempted to force him to accept an official position. Friedelind Wagner, the composer's anti-Nazi granddaughter, witnessed a meeting between Hitler and Furtwängler at her mother's Bayreuth home:

I remember Hitler turning to Furtwängler and telling him that he would now have to allow himself to be used by the party for propaganda purposes, and I remember that Furtwängler refused categorically. Hitler flew into a fury and told Furtwängler that in that case there would be a concentration camp ready for him. Furtwängler quietly replied: "In that case, Herr Reichskanzler, at least I will be in very good company." Hitler couldn't even answer, and vanished from the room.[82]

Furtwängler avoided the 1936 Summer Olympics in Berlin, and canceled all his public engagements during the following winter season in order to compose.[83] He returned to the Berlin Philharmonic in 1937, performing with them in London for the coronation of George VI, and in Paris for the universal exposition, where he again refused to conduct the Horst-Wessel-Lied or to attend the political speeches of German officials.[25][50]

The Salzburg Festival was considered to be a festival of the "free world" and a centre for anti-fascist artists. Hitler had forbidden all German musicians from performing there.[84] In 1937, Furtwängler was asked to conduct Beethoven's ninth symphony in Salzburg. Despite strong opposition from Hitler and Goebbels, he accepted the invitation.[85]

Arturo Toscanini, a prominent anti-fascist, was furious to learn that Furtwängler would be at the Festival. He accepted his engagement in Salzburg on the condition that he would not have to meet Furtwängler.[86] But the two did meet, and argued over Furtwängler's actions. Toscanini argued: "I know quite well that you are not a member of the Party. I am also aware that you have helped your Jewish friends [...] But everyone who conducts in the Third Reich is a Nazi!". Furtwängler emphatically denied this and said: "By that, you imply that art and music are merely propaganda, a false front, as it were, for any Government which happens to be in power. If a Nazi Government is in power, then, as a conductor, I am a Nazi; under the communists, I would be a Communist; under the democrats, a democrat... No, a thousand times no! Music belongs to a different world, and is above chance political events." Toscanini disagreed and that ended the discussion.[87]

Furtwängler returned to the Bayreuth festival, his relationship with Winifred Wagner worse than ever. He did not appear again in Bayreuth until 1943.[85] He wrote a letter to Winifred Wagner, sending copies to Hitler, Göring and Goebbels, accusing her of having betrayed Wagner's heritage by applying racial and not artistic rules in the choice of the artists, and of putting her "trust in the powers of an authoritarian state".[88] This clear attack on Hitler caused a sharp reaction: Hitler wanted to drop Furtwängler from Bayreuth after all.[88] Goebbels wrote in two entries of his diary in 1937 that Furtwängler was constantly helping Jews, "half-Jews" and "his small Hindemith".[89]

According to the historian Fred Prieberg, by the end of 1937 nobody who was correctly informed could accuse Furtwängler of working for the Nazis.[88] For the Nazi leadership, especially for Hitler, it became necessary to prove to him that he was not irreplaceable.

Herbert von Karajan

The Nazi leaders searched for another conductor to counterbalance Furtwängler.[90] A young, gifted Austrian conductor now appeared in the Third Reich: Herbert von Karajan. Karajan had joined the Nazi Party early and was much more willing to participate in the propaganda of the new regime than Furtwängler.[91]

Furtwängler had attended several of his concerts, praising his technical gifts but criticizing his conducting style; he did not consider him a serious competitor. However, when Karajan conducted Fidelio and Tristan und Isolde in Berlin in late 1938, Göring decided to take the initiative.[90] The music critic Edwin von der Nüll wrote a review of these concerts with the support of Göring. Its title, "The Karajan Miracle", was a reference to the famous article "The Furtwängler Miracle" that had made Furtwängler famous as a young conductor in Mannheim. Von der Nüll championed Karajan saying, "A thirty-year-old man creates a performance for which our great fifty-year-olds can justifiably envy him". Furtwängler's photo was printed next to the article, making the reference clear.[92]

The article was part of a broader attack made against Furtwängler.[92] The Nazi press criticized him for being "a man of the Nineteenth century" whose political ideas were obsolete and who did not understand and accept the new changes in Germany. The situation became intolerable for Furtwängler. He obtained from Goebbels a pledge to cease these attacks.[93]

However, Furtwängler's position was weakened: he knew that if he left Germany, Karajan would immediately become the conductor of the Berlin Philharmonic. It was the beginning of an obsessive hate and contempt for Karajan that never left him until his death. He often refused to call Karajan by his name, calling him simply "Herr K". Hitler's opinion was that even if Furtwängler was infinitely better than Karajan as a conductor, it was necessary to keep Karajan "in reserve" since Furtwängler was "not politically trustworthy".

Kristallnacht and the Anschluss

Furtwängler was very affected by the events of Kristallnacht. Berta Geissmar, who met him in Paris, described him as "greatly depressed".[94] Friedelind Wagner, who saw him also in Paris, wrote that he was a "very unhappy man".[95] Andrew Schulhof, who met him in Budapest said that "he had the impression that what he had done before for his Jewish friends had been lost".[96]

Furtwängler approved of the Anschluss that had occurred on 12 March 1938.[97] But he quickly disagreed with the Nazi leaders' decision to "annex Austrian culture" by abolishing independent cultural activity in Austria and subordinating it to Berlin.[98] Just after the Anschluss, Furtwängler discovered that a huge Swastika flag was displayed in the hall of the Musikverein. He refused to conduct the Vienna Philharmonic "as long as the rag is visible". The flag was finally removed.[99]

Goebbels wanted to eliminate the Vienna Philharmonic and to convert the Vienna Opera and the Salzburg Festival into branches of the Berlin Opera and the Bayreuth Festival respectively.[100] In addition, he wished to confiscate the largest musical collection in the world, belonging to the Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde in Vienna and to move it to Berlin. Hitler's goal was to deny that Austria had developed its own culture independently of Germany. Austrian musical circles asked Furtwängler, who was the honorary president of the Vienna Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, to help them.[98]

Furtwängler campaigned to convince Nazi leaders to abandon their plans. According to historian Fred K. Prieberg, he conducted concerts (often with the Vienna Philharmonic) in the presence of German leaders during this period in exchange for the conservation of the orchestra. He organized several concerts of Austrian music in Berlin and Vienna for Hitler, to highlight Austrian culture. The Nazi leadership, who wanted to take advantage of this situation, invited Furtwängler in 1938 to conduct Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg with the Vienna Philharmonic in Nürnberg for the Nazi party congress. Furtwängler accepted to conduct, as long as the performance was not during the party congress. Hitler eventually accepted Furtwängler's conditions:[101] the concert took place on 5 September and the political event was formally opened the following morning.[102] This concert, along with one given in Berlin in 1942 for Hitler's birthday, led to heavy criticism of Furtwängler after the war. However, Furtwängler had managed not to participate in the party congress. He had also succeeded in conserving the Vienna Philharmonic, and the musical collections of Vienna and the Vienna Opera, where he persuaded Hitler and Goebbels to agree to the appointment of Karl Böhm as artistic director.[100] At the Vienna Philharmonic, as at the Berlin Philharmonic, Furtwängler succeeded in protecting 'half-Jews' or members with 'non-aryan' wives until the end of the war (these were exceptional cases in Germany during the Nazi period).[102] However, in contrast to his experience with the Berlin Philharmonic, he could not save the lives of 'full-blooded' Jews: they were persecuted, with a number dying in concentration camps.

Goebbels was satisfied that Furtwängler had conducted the concerts in Vienna, Prague and Nürnberg, thinking that these concerts gave a "cultural" justification to the annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia.[103] During this period he said that Furtwängler was "willing to place himself at my disposal for any of my activities", describing him as "an out-and-out chauvinist".[104] However, he regularly complained that Furtwängler was helping Jews and 'half-Jews', and his complaints continued during the war.[105] Goebbels wrote in his diary that Furtwängler's goal was to bypass Nazi cultural policy. For instance, Goebbels wrote that Furtwängler supported the Salzburg festival to counterbalance the Bayreuth festival, a keystone of the Nazi regime.[103]

Furtwängler was very affected by the events of the 1930s. Fred K. Prieberg describes Furtwängler in 1939 as a "broken man".[106] The French government awarded him the Legion of Honour in 1939, which may support the theory that western diplomatic services knew Furtwängler was not a supporter of the Nazi regime. Hitler forbade news of the award to be spread in Germany.[96]

World War II

During the war, Furtwängler tried to avoid conducting in occupied Europe. He said: "I will never play in a country such as France, which I am so much attached to, considering myself a 'vanquisher'. I will conduct there again only when the country has been liberated".[107][108] He refused to go to France during its occupation, although the Nazis tried to force him to conduct there.[107][109][110] Since he had said that he would conduct there only at the invitation of the French, Goebbels forced the French conductor Charles Munch to send him a personal invitation. But Munch wrote in small characters at the bottom of his letter "in agreement with the German occupation authorities." Furtwängler declined the invitation.[111]


Furtwängler conducting the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra in a "work-break" concert at AEG in February 1941, organized by the Nazi "Strength Through Joy" program.

Furtwängler did conduct in Prague in November 1940 and March 1944. The 1940 program, chosen by Furtwängler, included Smetana's Moldau. According to Prieberg, "This piece is part of the cycle in which the Czech master celebrated 'Má vlast (My Country), and [...] was intended to support his compatriots' fight for the independence from Austrian domination [...] When Furtwängler began with the 'Moldau' it was not a deliberate risk, but a statement of his stance towards the oppressed Czechs".[112] The 1944 concert marked the fifth anniversary of the German occupation and was the result of a deal between Furtwängler and Goebbels: Furtwängler did not want to perform in April for Hitler's birthday in Berlin. He said to Goebbels in March (as he had in April 1943) that he was sick. Goebbels asked him to perform in Prague instead,[113] where he conducted the Symphony No. 9 of Antonín Dvořák. He conducted in Oslo in 1943, where he helped the Jewish conductor Issay Dobrowen to flee to Sweden.[113]

In April 1942, Furtwängler conducted a performance of Beethoven's ninth symphony with the Berlin Philharmonic for Hitler's birthday. At least the final minutes of the performance were filmed and can be seen on YouTube. At the end, Goebbels came to the front of the stage to shake Furtwängler's hand. This concert led to heavy criticism of Furtwängler after the war. In fact, Furtwängler had planned several concerts in Vienna during this period to avoid this celebration.[114] But after the defeat of the German army during the Battle of Moscow, Goebbels had decided to make a long speech on the eve of Hitler's birthday to galvanize the German nation. The speech would be followed by Beethoven's ninth symphony. Goebbels wanted Furtwängler to conduct the symphony by whatever means to give a transcendent dimension to the event. He called Furtwängler shortly before to ask him to agree to conduct the symphony but the latter refused arguing that he had no time to rehearse and that he had to perform several concerts in Vienna. But Goebbels forced the organizers in Vienna (by threatening them: some were physically assaulted by the Nazis) to cancel the concerts and ordered Furtwängler to return to Berlin[115] In 1943 and 1944, Furtwängler provided false medical certificates in advance to be sure that such a situation would not happen again.[114][116]

It is now known that Furtwängler continued to use his influence to help Jewish musicians and non-musicians escape the Third Reich.[16][24][117] He managed to have Max Zweig, a nephew of conductor Fritz Zweig, released from Dachau concentration camp. Others, from an extensive list of Jews he helped, included Carl Flesch, Josef Krips and the composer Arnold Schoenberg.[118]

Furtwängler refused to participate in the propaganda film Philharmoniker. Goebbels wanted Furtwängler to feature in it, but Furtwängler declined to take part. The film was finished in December 1943 showing many conductors connected with the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, including Eugen Jochum, Karl Böhm, Hans Knappertsbusch, and Richard Strauss, but not Furtwängler.[119] Goebbels also asked Furtwängler to direct the music in a film about Beethoven, again for propaganda purposes. They quarrelled violently about this project. Furtwängler told him "You are wrong, Herr Minister, if you think you can exploit Beethoven in a film." Goebbels gave up his plans for the film.[120]

In April 1944, Goebbels wrote:

Furtwängler has never been a National Socialist. Nor has he ever made any bones about it, which Jews and emigrants thought was sufficient to consider him as one of them, a key representative of so-called 'inner emigration'. Furtwängler['s] stance towards us has not changed in the least.[115][121][122][123]

Friedelind Wagner (an outspoken opponent of the Third Reich) reported a conversation with her mother Winifred Wagner during the war, to the effect that Hitler did not trust or like Furtwängler, and that Göring and Goebbels were upset with Furtwängler's continuous support for his "undesirable friends". Yet Hitler, in gratitude for Furtwängler's refusal to leave Berlin even when it was being bombed, ordered Albert Speer to build a special air raid shelter for the conductor and his family. Furtwängler refused it, but the shelter was nevertheless built in the house against his will.[124] Speer related that in December 1944 Furtwängler asked whether Germany had any chance of winning the war. Speer replied in the negative, and advised him to flee to Switzerland from possible Nazi retribution.[125] In 1944, he was the only prominent German artist who refused to sign the brochure 'We Stand and Fall with Adolf Hitler'.[126]

Furtwängler's name was included on the Gottbegnadeten list ("God-gifted List") of September 1944, but was removed on 7 December 1944 because of his relationships with German resistance.[127] Furtwängler had strong links to the German resistance which organized the 20 July plot. He stated during his denazification trial that he knew an attack was being organized against Hitler, although he did not participate in its organization. He knew Claus von Stauffenberg very well[128] and his doctor, Johannes Ludwig Schmitt, who wrote him many false health prescriptions to bypass official requirements, was a member of the Kreisau Circle.[116] Furtwängler's concerts were sometimes chosen by the members of the German resistance as a meeting point. Rudolf Pechel, a member of the resistance group which organized the 20 July plot said to Furtwängler after the war: "In the circle of our resistance movement it was an accepted fact that you were the only one in the whole of our musical world who really resisted, and you were one of us."[129] Graf Kaunitz, also a member of that circle, stated: "In Furtwängler's concerts we were one big family of the resistance."[130]

Grove Online states that Furtwängler was "within a few hours of being arrested" by the Gestapo when he fled to Switzerland, following a concert in Vienna with the Vienna Philharmonic on 28 January 1945. The Nazis had begun to crack down on German liberals. At the concert he conducted Brahms's Second Symphony, which was recorded and is considered one of his greatest performances.[131]

After World War II

In February 1946, Furtwängler met in Vienna a German Jew by the name of Curt Riess who had fled Germany in 1933.[132] The latter was a musician and writer, he later wrote a book on Furtwängler. Riess was then a journalist and correspondent in Switzerland for American newspapers. He thought Furtwängler was a Nazi collaborator and objected to having Furtwängler directing in Switzerland in 1945. Furtwängler asked to meet him and when Riess had studied all the documents concerning Furtwängler, he completely changed his mind. Realizing that Furtwängler had never been a Nazi and had helped many people of Jewish origin, he became his "denazification advisor". A long friendship ensued and Curt Riess spent the next two years doing everything to get Furtwängler exonerated. As Roger Smithson writes at the conclusion of his article "Furtwängler, The Years of Silence (1945-1947)": "Ultimately Furtwängler's return to conducting was very largely the result of skill and stubbornness of Curt Riess. Furtwängler's admirers owe him a great debt".[133]

Furtwängler initially wanted Curt Riess to write articles about him based on the many documents he had provided him because Curt Riess was a journalist. However, Curt Riess preferred to go himself to meet General Robert A. McClure who was in charge of the Furtwängler file.[134] The general, after meeting Riess and having all the documents translated into English, admitted that no serious charge could be brought against Furtwängler and that they had made a mistake concerning the conductor who was "a very good man". He asked Riess to tell Furtwängler not to speak to the press, so as not to give the impression that he was exerting pressure on the Allied forces. He said the case would be closed within weeks. Riess sent a telegram to Furtwängler to this effect, but the telegram took a long time to reach its destination and arrived too late.[135]

In the meantime, Furtwängler had made a very serious mistake: he had gone to Berlin, which was occupied by the Soviets.[136] The latter received him as a Head of State because they wanted to recover the one that Arsenyi Gouliga, the representative of the Soviet Union at the Furtwängler trial, called the "greatest conductor in the world" to lead a great cultural policy in Berlin. Precisely, the Soviets offered the post of director of the Berlin State Opera, which was in the Soviet zone, to Furtwängler. General Robert A. McClure was forced to pass Furtwängler by the normal denazification procedure. He explained to Curt Riess, by telephone,[136] that otherwise it gave the impression that the Americans had ceded to the Soviets on the Furtwängler file. The American authorities knew that the conductor would necessarily be cleared[137] by the denazification court and the Soviet authorities declared that this trial made no sense and was "ridiculous".[138] Thus, with the backdrop of the Cold War, Furtwängler, who absolutely wanted to recover the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra which was in the British occupation zone, was obliged to go through the denazification court.[139]

Furtwängler was thus required to submit to a process of denazification. The charges were very low.[140] He was charged with having conducted two official Nazi concerts during the period 1933–1945. Furtwängler declared that for two concerts that had been "extorted" from him, he had avoided sixty.[140] The first was for the Hitler Youth on 3 February 1938. It was presented to Furtwängler as a way to acquaint younger generations with classical music. According to Fred Prieberg: "when he looked at the audience he realized that this was more than just a concert for school kids in uniform; a whole collection of prominent political figures were sitting there as well [...] and it was the last time he raised his baton for this purpose".[141][50]

The second concert was the performance of Wagner's Die Meistersinger von Nürnberg with the Vienna Philharmonic on 5 September 1938, on the evening before the Nazi congress in Nüremberg.[102] Furtwängler had agreed to conduct this concert to help preserve the Vienna Philharmonic, and at his insistence the concert was not part of the congress.[102]

He was charged for his honorary title of "Prussian State Counselor" (German: Preußischer Staatsrat) (he had resigned from this title in 1934, but the Nazis had refused his resignation) and with making an anti-semitic remark against the part-Jewish conductor Victor de Sabata (see below).[142][143] The chair of the commission, Alex Vogel, known for being a communist,[144] started the trial with the following statement:

"The investigations showed that Furtwängler had not been a member of any [Nazi] organization, that he tried to help people persecuted because of their race, and that he also avoided... formalities such as giving the Hitler salute."[142]

The prosecution believed it had something more substantial because Hans von Benda, a former member of the Nazi Party who had been the artistic director of the Berlin Philharmonic during the Nazi period and had therefore been in constant contact with Furtwängler for many years, absolutely wanted to testify to accuse Furtwängler of anti-Semitism.[145] He said he heard, during an argument with another German musician, that Furtwängler allegedly said: "a Jew like Sabata cannot play Brahms' music" . This story soon became ridiculous: Furtwängler had played Brahms' music with many Jewish musicians (especially those from his orchestra). This was either a mistake or a misunderstanding: Furtwängler probably had no anti-Semitic feelings towards Sabata who had been his friend. On the other hand, Hans von Benda was forced to admit that he was not directly present when Furtwängler allegedly spoke these words, and his testimony was therefore not taken seriously by the prosecution. The reason for Hans von Benda's behavior was as follows: he had been dismissed from his post as artistic director of the Berlin Orchestra on 22 December 1939 for numerous serious professional misconduct.[145] He had wished to take the opportunity of the lawsuit for take revenge on Furtwängler, considering him responsible for his dismissal because he would have supported Karajan, a version very strongly contested by Furtwängler and his wife.[146] Moreover, historian Fred Prieberg has proved that, on the contrary, Hans von Benda had never ceased to send information to the Nazis (to denounce it) proving that Furtwängler was helping Jews and opposing their policies.

Two of the main people who prepared Furtwängler's defense for his denazification trial were two German Jews who had to flee the Nazi regime: his secretary Berta Geissmar and Curt Riess. The two had very different backgrounds. Berta Geissmar knew Furtwängler personally and had witnessed everything he did at the start of the Nazi period; she left Germany in 1936 but returned from exile. Curt Riess didn't know Furtwängler at all and initially had a very negative outlook on the conductor. Geissmar had collected hundreds of files to prepare the conductor's defense, files which contained a list of over 80 Jewish and non-Jewish people who had claimed to have been helped or saved by him.[147] This list was not exhaustive, but it concerned cases where Geissmar had managed to find indisputable concrete evidence. Among the many people involved were Communists, Social Democrats, as well as former Nazis whom the regime had turned against.[148][149] Berta Geissmar had forwarded the documents to General Robert A. McClure in charge of the Furtwängler trial, but the documents had mysteriously disappeared in Berlin,[150] when they were to be handed over to the general of the American zone of occupation. Curt Riess also did not find these documents in the Washington archives.[151] Furtwängler therefore found himself without a means of proving the help he had given to many people. However, three people of Jewish origin had made the trip to Berlin and certified on 17 December 1946, the second day of the trial, that Furtwängler had risked his life to protect them. One of them was Paul Heizberg, former opera director. The other two were members of the Philharmonic such as Hugo Strelitzer, who declared:

If I am alive today, I owe this to this great man. Furtwängler helped and protected a great number of Jewish musicians and this attitude shows a great deal of courage since he did it under the eyes of the Nazis, in Germany itself. History will be his judge.[152]

As part of his closing remarks at his denazification trial, Furtwängler said:

I knew Germany was in a terrible crisis; I felt responsible for German music, and it was my task to survive this crisis, as much as I could. The concern that my art was misused for propaganda had to yield to the greater concern that German music be preserved, that music be given to the German people by its own musicians. These people, the compatriots of Bach and Beethoven, of Mozart and Schubert, still had to go on living under the control of a regime obsessed with total war. No one who did not live here himself in those days can possibly judge what it was like. Does Thomas Mann [who was critical of Furtwängler's actions] really believe that in 'the Germany of Himmler' one should not be permitted to play Beethoven? Could he not realize that people never needed more, never yearned more to hear Beethoven and his message of freedom and human love, than precisely these Germans, who had to live under Himmler’s terror? I do not regret having stayed with them.[153]

The prosecution itself acknowledging that no charge of anti-Semitism or sympathy for Nazi ideology could be brought against the conductor, Furtwängler was cleared on all the counts.[142] Even after Furtwängler's acquittal at the denazification trials, Mann still criticized him for continuing to conduct in Germany and for believing that art could be apolitical in a regime such as the Third Reich, which was so intent on using art as propaganda. In a drafted letter to the editor of Aufbau magazine, Mann praises Furtwängler for assisting Jewish musicians and as a "preeminent musician", but ultimately presents him as a representative example of a fatal "lack of understanding and lack of desire to understand what had seized power in Germany".[154]


Furtwängler's tomb in Heidelberg

The violinist Yehudi Menuhin was, with Arnold Schoenberg, Bronisław Huberman, and Nathan Milstein, among the Jewish musicians who had a positive view of Furtwängler. In February 1946, he sent a wire to General Robert A. McClure in February 1946:

Unless you have secret incriminating evidence against Furtwängler supporting your accusation that he was a tool of Nazi Party, I beg to take violent issue with your decision to ban him. The man never was a Party member. Upon numerous occasions, he risked his own safety and reputation to protect friends and colleagues. Do not believe that the fact of remaining in one's own country is alone sufficient to condemn a man. On the contrary, as a military man, you would know that remaining at one's post often requires greater courage than running away. He saved, and for that we are deeply his debtors, the best part of his own German culture... I believe it patently unjust and most cowardly for us to make of Furtwängler a scapegoat for our own crimes.[155]

In 1949 Furtwängler accepted the position of principal conductor of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. However the orchestra was forced to rescind the offer under the threat of a boycott from several prominent musicians including Arturo Toscanini, George Szell, Vladimir Horowitz, Arthur Rubinstein, Isaac Stern, and Alexander Brailowsky.[156]

According to a New York Times report, Horowitz said that he "was prepared to forgive the small fry who had no alternative but to remain and work in Germany." But Furtwängler "was out of the country on several occasions and could have elected to keep out".[156] Rubinstein likewise wrote in a telegram, "Had Furtwängler been firm in his democratic convictions he would have left Germany".[156] Yehudi Menuhin was upset with this boycott, declaring that some of the main organizers had admitted to him that they had organized it only to eliminate Furtwängler's presence in North America.[155]

Wilhelm Furtwängler died on 30 November 1954 of pneumonia, in Baden-Baden. He was buried in Heidelberg cemetery, the Bergfriedhof, in his mother's vault. A large number of personalities from the artistic and political world were present, including Chancellor Konrad Adenauer.

After Furtwängler's death, the Jewish writer and theater director Ernst Lothar said:

He was totally German and he remained so, despite the attacks. This is why he did not leave his defiled country, which was later counted to him as a stain by those who did not know him well enough. But he did not stay with Hitler and Himmler, but with Beethoven and Brahms.[157]

At the end of his life, Yehudi Menuhin said of Furtwängler, "It was his greatness that attracted hatred".[158]

[admin]

Part 2 of 2

Conducting style

Furtwängler had a unique philosophy of music. He saw symphonic music as creations of nature that could only be realised subjectively into sound. Neville Cardus wrote in the Manchester Guardian in 1954 of Furtwängler's conducting style: "He did not regard the printed notes of the score as a final statement, but rather as so many symbols of an imaginative conception, ever changing and always to be felt and realised subjectively..."[159] And the conductor Henry Lewis: "I admire Furtwängler for his originality and honesty. He liberated himself from slavery to the score; he realized that notes printed in the score, are nothing but SYMBOLS. The score is neither the essence nor the spirit of the music. Furtwängler had this very rare and great gift of going beyond the printed score and showing what music really was."[160]

Many commentators and critics regard him as the greatest conductor in history.[161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172] In his book on the symphonies of Johannes Brahms, musicologist Walter Frisch writes that Furtwängler's recordings show him to be "the finest Brahms conductor of his generation, perhaps of all time", demonstrating "at once a greater attention to detail and to Brahms' markings than his contemporaries and at the same time a larger sense of rhythmic-temporal flow that is never deflected by the individual nuances. He has an ability not only to respect, but to make musical sense of, dynamic markings and the indications of crescendo and diminuendo[...]. What comes through amply... is the rare combination of a conductor who understands both sound and structure."[173] He notes Vladimir Ashkenazy who says that his sound "is never rough. It's very weighty but at the same time is never heavy. In his fortissimo you always feel every voice.... I have never heard so beautiful a fortissimo in an orchestra", and Daniel Barenboim says he "had a subtlety of tone color that was extremely rare. His sound was always 'rounded,' and incomparably more interesting than that of the great German conductors of his generation."

On the other hand, the critic David Hurwitz, a spokesman for modern literalism and precision, sharply criticizes what he terms "the Furtwängler wackos" who "will forgive him virtually any lapse, no matter how severe", and characterizes the conductor himself as "occasionally incandescent but criminally sloppy".[174] Unlike conductors such as Carlos Kleiber or Sergiu Celibidache, Furtwängler did not try to reach the perfection in details, and the number of rehearsals with him was small. He said:

I am told that the more you rehearse, the better you play. This is wrong. We often try to reduce the unforeseen to a controllable level, to prevent a sudden impulse that escapes our ability to control, yet also responds to an obscure desire. Let's allow improvisation to have its place and play its role. I think that the true interpreter is the one who improvises. We have mechanized the art of conducting to an awful degree, in the quest of perfection rather than of dream [...] As soon as rubato is obtained and calculated scientifically, it ceases to be true. Music making is something else than searching to achieve an accomplishment. But striving to attain it is beautiful. Some of Michelangelo's sculptures are perfect, others are just outlined and the latter ones move me more than the first perfect ones because here I find the essence of desire, of the wakening dream. That's what really moves me: fixing without freezing in cement, allowing chance its opportunity.[160]

His style is often contrasted with that of his contemporary Arturo Toscanini. He walked out of a Toscanini concert once, calling him "a mere time-beater!". Unlike Toscanini, Furtwängler sought a weighty, less rhythmically strict, more bass-oriented orchestral sound, with a more conspicuous use of tempo changes not indicated in the printed score.[175] Instead of perfection in details, Furtwängler was looking for the spiritual in art. Sergiu Celibidache explained,

Everybody was influenced at the time by Arturo Toscanini - it was easy to understand what he was trying to do: you didn't need any reference to spiritual dimension. There was a certain order in the way the music was presented. With Toscanini I never felt anything spiritual. With Furtwängler on the other hand, I understood that there I was confronted by something completely different: metaphysics, transcendence, the relationship between sounds and sonorities [...] Furtwängler was not only a musician, he was a creator [...] Furtwängler had the ear for it: not the physical ear, but the spiritual ear that captures these parallel movements.[176]

Furtwängler commemorated on a stamp for West Berlin, 1955

Furtwängler's art of conducting is considered as the synthesis and the peak of the so-called "Germanic school of conducting".[177][178] This "school" was initiated by Richard Wagner. Unlike Mendelssohn's conducting style, which was "characterized by quick, even tempos and imbued with what many people regarded as model logic and precision [...], Wagner's way was broad, hyper-romantic and embraced the idea of tempo modulation".[179] Wagner considered an interpretation as a re-creation and put more emphasis on the phrase than on the measure.[180] The fact that the tempo was changing was not something new; Beethoven himself interpreted his own music with a lot of freedom. Beethoven wrote: "my tempi are valid only for the first bars, as feeling and expression must have their own tempo", and "why do they annoy me by asking for my tempi? Either they are good musicians and ought to know how to play my music, or they are bad musicians and in that case my indications would be of no avail".[181] Beethoven's disciples, such as Anton Schindler, testified that the composer varied the tempo when he conducted his works.[182] Wagner's tradition was followed by the first two permanent conductors of the Berlin Philharmonic.[183] Hans von Bülow highlighted more the unitary structure of symphonic works, while Arthur Nikisch stressed the magnificence of tone.[184] The styles of these two conductors were synthesized by Furtwängler.[184]

In Munich (1907-1909), Furtwängler studied with Felix Mottl, a disciple of Wagner.[185] He considered Arthur Nikisch as his model.[186] According to John Ardoin, Wagner's subjective style of conducting led to Furtwängler and Mendelssohn's objective style of conducting led to Toscanini.[183]

Furtwängler's art was deeply influenced by the great Jewish music theorist Heinrich Schenker with whom he worked between 1920 and Schenker's death in 1935. Schenker was the founder of Schenkerian analysis, which emphasized underlying long-range harmonic tensions and resolutions in a piece of music.[187][188] Furtwängler read Schenker's famous monograph on Beethoven's Ninth symphony in 1911, subsequently trying to find and read all his books.[189] Furtwängler met Schenker in 1920, and they continuously worked together on the repertoire which Furtwängler conducted. Schenker never secured an academic position in Austria and Germany, in spite of Furtwängler's efforts to support him.[190] Schenker depended on several patrons including Furtwängler. Furtwängler's second wife certified much later that Schenker had an immense influence on her husband.[191] Schenker considered Furtwängler as the greatest conductor in the world and as the "only conductor who truly understood Beethoven".[192]

Furtwängler's recordings are characterized by an "extraordinary sound wealth[184] ", special emphasis being placed on cellos, double basses,[184] percussion and woodwind instruments.[193] According to Furtwängler, he learned how to obtain this kind of sound from Arthur Nikisch. This richness of sound is partly due to his "vague" beat, often called a "fluid beat".[194] This fluid beat created slight gaps between the sounds made by the musicians, allowing listeners to distinguish all the instruments in the orchestra, even in tutti sections.[195] Vladimir Ashkenazy once said: "I never heard such beautiful fortissimi as Furtwängler's."[196] According to Yehudi Menuhin, Furtwängler's fluid beat was more difficult but superior than Toscanini's very precise beat.[197] Unlike Otto Klemperer, Furtwängler did not try to suppress emotion in performance, instead giving a hyper romantic aspect[198] to his interpretations. The emotional intensity of his World War II recordings is particularly famous. Conductor and pianist Christoph Eschenbach has said of Furtwängler that he was a "formidable magician, a man capable of setting an entire ensemble of musicians on fire, sending them into a state of ecstasy".[199] Furtwängler desired to retain an element of improvisation and of the unexpected in his concerts, each interpretation being conceived as a re-creation.[184] However, melodic line as well as the global unity were never lost with Furtwängler, even in the most dramatic interpretations, partly due to the influence of Heinrich Schenker and to the fact that Furtwängler was a composer and had studied composition during his whole life.[200]

Furtwängler was famous for his exceptional inarticulacy when speaking about music. His pupil Sergiu Celibidache remembered that the best he could say was, "Well, just listen" (to the music). Carl Brinitzer from the German BBC service tried to interview him, and thought he had an imbecile before him. A live recording of a rehearsal with a Stockholm orchestra documents hardly anything intelligible, only hums and mumbling. On the other hand, a collection of his essays, On Music, reveals deep thought.

Influence

One of Furtwängler's protégés was the pianist prodigy Karlrobert Kreiten who was killed by the Nazis in 1943 because he had criticized Hitler. He was an important influence on the pianist/conductor Daniel Barenboim (who decided to become a conductor when he was eight years old during a concert of the Passion Saint Matthew by Bach conducted by Furtwängler in 1950 in Buenos Aires ), of whom Furtwängler's widow, Elisabeth Furtwängler, said, "Er furtwänglert" ("He furtwänglers"). Barenboim has conducted a recording of Furtwängler's 2nd Symphony, with the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Other conductors known to speak admiringly of Furtwängler include Valery Gergiev, Claudio Abbado, Carlos Kleiber, Carlo Maria Giulini, Simon Rattle, Sergiu Celibidache, Otto Klemperer, Karl Böhm, Bruno Walter, Dimitri Mitropoulos, Christoph Eschenbach, Alexander Frey, Philippe Herreweghe, Eugen Jochum, Zubin Mehta, Ernest Ansermet, Nikolaus Harnoncourt, Bernard Haitink (who decided to become a conductor as a child and bedridden while listening to a Furtwängler concert on the radio during the second world war), Rafael Kubelík, Gustavo Dudamel, Jascha Horenstein (who had worked as an assistant to Furtwängler in Berlin during the 1920s), Kurt Masur and Christian Thielemann. For instance, Carlos Kleiber thought that "nobody could equal Furtwängler".[201] George Szell, whose precise musicianship was in many ways antithetical to Furtwängler's, always kept a picture of Furtwängler in his dressing room. Even Arturo Toscanini, usually regarded as Furtwängler's complete antithesis (and sharply critical of Furtwängler on political grounds), once said – when asked to name the World's greatest conductor apart from himself – "Furtwängler!". Herbert von Karajan, who in his early years was Furtwängler's rival, maintained throughout his life that Furtwängler was one of the great influences on his music making, even though his cool, objective, modern style had little in common with Furtwängler's white-hot Romanticism. Karajan said:

He certainly had an enormous influence on me [...] I remember that when I was Generalmusikdirektor in Aachen, a friend invited me to a concert that Furtwängler gave in Cologne [...] Furtwängler's performance of the Schumann's Fourth, which I didn't know at the time, opened up a new world for me. I was deeply impressed. I didn't want to forget this concert, so I immediately returned to Aachen.[202]

And Claudio Abbado said in an interview about his career (published in 2004):

Furtwängler is the greatest of all […]; Admittedly, one can sometimes dispute his choices, his options, but enthusiasm almost always prevails, especially in Beethoven. He is the musician who had the greatest influence on my artistic education.[203]

Furtwängler's performances of Beethoven, Wagner, Bruckner, and Brahms remain important reference points today, as do his interpretations of other works such as Haydn's 88th Symphony, Schubert's Ninth Symphony, and Schumann's Fourth Symphony. He was also a champion of modern music, notably the works of Paul Hindemith and Arnold Schoenberg[204] and conducted the World premiere of Sergei Prokofiev's Fifth Piano Concerto (with the composer at the piano) on 31 October 1932[205] as well as performances of Béla Bartók's Concerto for Orchestra.

The musicians who have expressed the highest opinion about Furtwängler are some of the most prominent ones of the 20th century such as Arnold Schönberg,[206] Paul Hindemith,[207] or Arthur Honegger.[208] Soloists such as Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau,[209][210] Yehudi Menuhin[211] Pablo Casals, Kirsten Flagstad, Claudio Arrau and Elisabeth Schwarzkopf[212] who have played music with almost all the major conductors of the 20th century have clearly declared upon several occasions that, for them, Furtwängler was the most important one. John Ardoin has reported the following discussion he has had with Maria Callas in August 1968 after having listened to Beethoven's Eight with the Cleveland orchestra conducted by George Szell:

"Well", she sighed, "you see what we have been reduced to. We are now in a time when a Szell is considered a master. How small he was next to Furtwängler." Reeling this disbelief -- not at her verdict, with which I agreed, but from the unvarnished acuteness of it -- I stammered, "But how do you know Furtwängler? You never sang with him." "How do you think?" she stared at me with equal disbelief. "He started his career after the war in Italy [in 1947]. I heard dozens of his concerts there. To me, he was Beethoven."[213]

Notable recordings

There are a huge number of Furtwängler recordings currently available, mostly live. Many of these were made during World War II using experimental tape technology. After the war they were confiscated by the Soviet Union for decades, and have only recently become widely available, often on multiple legitimate and illegitimate labels. In spite of their limitations, the recordings from this era are widely admired by Furtwängler devotees.

This is only a small selection of some of Furtwängler's most famed recordings. For more information, see his discography and list of currently available recordings. The French Wilhelm Furtwängler Society also has a list of recommended recordings.

• Johann Sebastian Bach, St Matthew Passion (first half only), live performance with the Vienna Philharmonic, 1952 (SWF)
• Bartók, Violin Concerto No. 2, studio recording with Yehudi Menuhin and with the Philharmonia Orchestra, 1953 (EMI)
• Beethoven, Third Symphony, live performance with the Vienna Philharmonic, December 1944 (Music and Arts, Preiser, Tahra)[214][215][216]
• Beethoven, Third Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, December 1952 (Tahra)
• Beethoven, Fifth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, June 1943 (Classica d'Oro, Deutsche Grammophon, Enterprise, Music and Arts, Opus Kura, Tahra)
• Beethoven, Fifth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, May 1954 (Tahra)
• Beethoven, Sixth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, March 1944 (Tahra)
• Beethoven, Seventh Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, October 1943 (Classica d'Oro, Deutsche Grammophon, Music and Arts, Opus Kura)[217]
• Beethoven, Ninth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, March 1942 with Tilla Briem, Elisabeth Höngen, Peter Anders, Rudolf Watzke, and the Bruno Kittel Choir (Classica d'Oro, Music and Arts, Opus Kura, Tahra, SWF)[218][219]
• Beethoven, Ninth Symphony, live performance at the 29 July 1951 re-opening of Bayreuther Festspiele (not to be confused with EMI's release) with Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, Elisabeth Höngen, Hans Hopf and Otto Edelmann. (Orfeo D'or, 2008).[220]
• Beethoven, Ninth Symphony, ostensibly a live performance at the 29 July 1951 re-opening of Bayreuther Festspiele but purported by the President of the Wilhelm Furtwängler Society of America to actually be dress rehearsal takes edited by EMI into one recording, all performed prior to the actual public performance. (EMI, 1955).[221]
• Beethoven, Ninth Symphony, live performance at the 1954 Lucerne Festival with the London Philharmonia, Lucerne Festival Choir, Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, Elsa Cavelti, Ernst Haefliger and Otto Edelmann (Music and Arts, Tahra).[222]
• Beethoven, Violin Concerto, studio recording with Yehudi Menuhin and with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra, 1947 (Testament)
• Beethoven, Piano Concerto No. 5, studio recording with Edwin Fischer and with the Philharmonia Orchestra, 1951 (Naxos)
• Beethoven, Fidelio, live performance with the Vienna Philharmonic with Elisabeth Schwarzkopf, Kirsten Flagstad, Anton Dermota, Julius Patzak, Paul Schoeffler, Josef Greindl, and Hans Braun, August 1950 (Opus Kura)
• Beethoven, Fidelio, both live and studio recordings, with Martha Mödl, his preferred soprano, in the title role, and Wolfgang Windgassen, Otto Edelmann, Gottlob Frick, Sena Jurinac, Rudolf Schock, Alfred Poell, Alwin Hendriks, Franz Bierbach, and the Vienna Philharmonic.
• Brahms, First Symphony, live performance with the North German Radio Symphony Orchestra, Hamburg, October 1951 (Music and Arts, Tahra).[223]
• Brahms, Second Symphony, live performance with the Vienna Philharmonic, January 1945 (Deutsche Grammophon, Music and Arts)
• Brahms, Third Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, December 1949 (EMI).[224]
• Brahms, Fourth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, December 1943 (Tahra, SWF)
• Brahms, Fourth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, October 1948 (EMI)
• Brahms, Violin Concerto, studio recording with Yehudi Menuhin and with the Lucerne Festival Orchestra, 1949 (Tahra, Naxos)
• Brahms, Piano Concerto No. 2, live performance with Edwin Fischer and with the Berlin Philharmonic, 1942 (Testament)
• Bruckner, Fourth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, October 1941 (WFCJ)
• Bruckner, Fifth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, October 1942 (Classica d'Oro, Deutsche Grammophon, Music and Arts, Testament).[225]
• Bruckner, Sixth Symphony (the first movement is missing), live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, November 1943 (Music and Arts)
• Bruckner, Seventh Symphony (adagio only), live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, April 1942 (Tahra).[226]
• Bruckner, Eighth Symphony, live performance with the Vienna Philharmonic, October 1944 (Deutsche Grammophon, Music and Arts)
• Bruckner, Ninth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, October 1944 (Deutsche Grammophon)
• Franck, Symphony, live performance with the Vienna Philharmonic, 1945 (SWF)
• Furtwängler, Second Symphony, live performance with the Vienna Philharmonic, February 1953 (Orfeo)
• Gluck, Alceste Ouverture, studio recording with the Vienna Philharmonic, 1954 (SWF)
• Haendel, Concerto Grosso Opus 6 No. 10, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, February 1944 (Melodiya)
• Haendel, Concerto Grosso Opus 6 No. 10, live performance with the Teatro Colón Orchester, 1950 (Disques Refrain)
• Haydn, 88th Symphony, studio recording with the Berlin Philharmonic, 5 December 1951 (Deutsche Grammophon)
• Hindemith, Symphonic Metamorphosis of Themes by Carl Maria von Weber, studio recording with the Berlin Philharmonic, 16 September 1947 (Deutsche Grammophon, Urania)
• Mahler, Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, live performance with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and the Vienna Philharmonic, 1951 (Orfeo)
• Mahler, Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen, studio recording with Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau and the Philharmonia Orchestra, 1952 (Naxos, EMI)
• Mendelssohn, Violin Concerto, studio recording with Yehudi Menuhin and with the Berlin Philharmonic, 1952 (Naxos, EMI)
• Mozart, Don Giovanni, the 1950, 1953 and 1954 Salzburg Festival recordings (in live performance). These have been made available on several labels, but mostly EMI. A videotaped performance of Don Giovanni is also available, featuring Cesare Siepi, Otto Edelmann, Lisa Della Casa, Elisabeth Grümmer, and Anton Dermota.
• Mozart, Die Zauberflöte, a live performance from 27 August 1949, featuring Walther Ludwig, Irmgard Seefried, Wilma Lipp, Gertrud Grob-Prandl, Ernst Haefliger, Hermann Uhde, and Josef Greindl.
• Schubert, Eighth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, December 1944 (SWF)
• Schubert. Ninth Symphony, studio recording with the Berlin Philharmonic, 1951 (Deutsche Grammophon). The first movement is a supreme example of Furtwaengler's style. Note the sharp accelerandi at the end of the introduction and the middle of the recapitulation.
• Schubert, Ninth Symphony, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, 1942 (Deutsche Grammophon, Magic Master, Music and Arts, Opus Kura)
• Schubert, Die Zauberharfe Overture, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, September 1953 (Deutsche Grammophon)
• Schumann, Fourth Symphony, studio recording with the Berlin Philharmonic, Deutsche Grammophon, May 1953 (Deutsche Grammophon).[227]
• Sibelius, En saga, live performance with the Berlin Philharmonic, February 1943 (SWF)
• Tchaikovsky, Fourth Symphony, studio recording with the Vienna Philharmonic, 1951 (Tahra)
• Tchaikovsky, Sixth Symphony Pathétique, studio recording with the Berlin Philharmonic, HMV, 1938 (EMI, Naxos).[228]
• Wagner, Tristan und Isolde, studio recording with Flagstad, HMV, June 1952 (EMI, Naxos).[229]
• Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen, 1950 (live recording from La Scala in Milan with Kirsten Flagstad)
• Wagner, Der Ring des Nibelungen with Wolfgang Windgassen, Ludwig Suthaus, and Martha Mödl, 1953 (EMI) (recorded live in the RAI (Radiotelevisione Italiana) studios).
• Wagner, Die Walküre, his last recording in 1954. EMI planned to record "Der Ring des Nibelungen" in the studio under Furtwängler, but he only finished this work shortly before his death. The cast includes Martha Mödl (Brünnhilde), Leonie Rysanek (Sieglinde), Ludwig Suthaus (Siegmund), Gottlob Frick (Hunding), and Ferdinand Frantz (Wotan).

Notable premieres

• Bartók, First Piano Concerto, the composer as soloist, Theater Orchestra, Frankfurt, 1 July 1927
• Schoenberg, Variations for Orchestra, Op. 31, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, Berlin, 2 December 1928
• Prokofiev: Piano Concerto No. 5, the composer as soloist, Berlin Philharmonic, 31 October 1932
• Hindemith, suite from Mathis der Maler, Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, Berlin, 11 March 1934
• Richard Strauss, Four Last Songs, Kirsten Flagstad as soloist, Philharmonia Orchestra, London, 22 May 1950

Notable compositions

Orchestral

Early works

• Overture in E♭ Major, Op. 3 (1899)
• Symphony in D major (1st movement: Allegro) (1902)
• Symphony in B minor (Largo movement) (1908; the principal theme of this work was used as the leading theme of the 1st movement of the Symphony No. 1, in the same key)

Later works

• Symphonic Concerto for Piano and Orchestra (1937, rev. 1952-54)
• Symphony No. 1 in B minor (1941)
• Symphony No. 2 in E minor (1947)
• Symphony No. 3 in C♯ minor (1954)

Chamber music

• Piano Quintet (for two violins, viola, cello, and piano) in C major (1935)
• Violin Sonata No. 1 in D minor (1935)
• Violin Sonata No. 2 in D major (1939)

Choral

(all early works)

• Schwindet ihr dunklen Wölbungen droben (Chorus of Spirits, from Goethe's Faust) (1901–1902)
• Religöser Hymnus (1903)
• Te Deum for Choir and Orchestra (1902–1906) (rev. 1909) (first performed 1910)

In popular culture

• British playwright Ronald Harwood's play Taking Sides (1995), set in 1946 in the American zone of occupied Berlin, is about U.S. accusations against Furtwängler of having served the Nazi regime. In 2001 the play was made into a motion picture directed by István Szabó and starring Harvey Keitel and featuring Stellan Skarsgård in the role of Furtwängler.[230]

References

Informational notes

1. Philipp Furtwängler (*1869) couldn't be Wilhelm Furtwängler's (*1886) brother, because Wilhelm was the first child of his parents and his brother Philipp a mathematician.

Citations

1. Cowan, Rob (14 March 2012). "Furtwängler – Man and Myth". Gramophone. Retrieved 10 April2012.
2. Cairns, David (1980). "Wilhelm Furtwängler" in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians. London: Macmillan.
3. Geissmar, Berta (1944). The Baton and the Jackboot: Recollections of Musical Life. London and Edinburgh: Morrison and Gibb ltd. p. 12.
4. Geissmar, p. 15
5. Geissmar, pp. 20-5 and 143-7
6. Geissmar, p. 23
7. Geissmar, pp. 20-5 and 30
8. Riess, Curt (1953). Furtwängler, Musik und Politik. Berne: Scherz. p. 89.
9. Geissmar, pp. 66–67.
10. Roncigli, Audrey (2009). Le cas Furtwängler. Paris: Imago. p. 37.
11. Prieberg, Fred K. (1991). Trial of Strength: Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Third Reich. Quartet Books. pp. 57–60.
12. Prieberg, p. 44.
13. Prieberg, p. 340.
14. Prieberg, p. 55.
15. Prieberg, p. 74.
16. Ardoin, John (1994). The Furtwängler Record. Portland, Oregon: Amadeus Press. p. 56. ISBN 978-0-931340-69-7.
17. Schönzeler, Hans-Hubert (1990). Furtwängler. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-7156-2313-8.
18. Roncigli, p. 46.
19. Prieberg, p. 319.
20. Roncigli, p. 109.
21. Prieberg, p. 94.
22. Galo, Gary A., Review of The Furtwängler Record by John Ardoin (December 1995). Notes (2nd Ser.), 52 (2): pp. 483–485.
23. Ardoin, p. 47
24. Prieberg
25. Prieberg, p. 220.
26. Prieberg, Chapter 2.
27. Riess, p. 113.
28. Prieberg, Fred K. (1991). Trial of Strength: Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Third Reich. Quartet Books. p. 187., the picture is reproduced in the book p. 187.
29. Prieberg, p. 100.
30. Ardoin, p. 50.
31. Geissmar, p.86.
32. Roncigli, p. 45.
33. Riess, p. 109.
34. Geissmar, pp 81-2
35. Geissmar, p. 82.
36. Riess, p. 110.
37. " L'atelier du Maître ", article by Philippe Jacquard on the web site of the french Wilhelm Furtwängler society: read on line.
38. Prieberg, p. 138.
39. Spotts, Frederick (2003). Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. Overlook Books. p. 291.
40. Roncigli, p. 48.
41. Geissmar, p. 144.
42. Riess, p. 139.
43. Geissmar, p. 132.
44. Riess, p. 141.
45. Geissmar, p. 159.
46. Riess, p. 142.
47. Riess, p. 144.
48. Roncigli, p. 52.
49. Elisabeth Furtwängler, Pour Wilhelm, Paris, L'Archipel, 2004, p. 51 and p. 128.
50. Klaus Lang, Celibidache et Furtwängler [" Celibidache und Furtwängler "], Paris, Buchet/Chastel, 2012, p. 55.
51. Prieberg, chapter 5.
52. Riess, p. 143.
53. Prieberg, p. 172.
54. Riess, p. 145.
55. Prieberg, p. 173.
56. Roncigli, p. 51.
57. Spotts, p. 293
58. Riess, p. 151.
59. Prieberg, p. 150.
60. Roncigli, p. 253.
61. Prieberg, p. 177.
62. Riess, p. 152.
63. Schönzeler, p.74.
64. HSchönzeler, p. 74.
65. Riess, p. 153.
66. Schönzeler, p. 75.
67. Wilhelm Furtwängler (trad. Ursula Wetzel, Jean-Jacques Rapin, préf. Pierre Brunel), Carnets 1924-1954 : suivis d’Écrits fragmentaires, Genève, éditions Georg, 1995, p. 39.
68. Wilhelm Furtwängler (trad. Ursula Wetzel, Jean-Jacques Rapin, préf. Pierre Brunel), Carnets 1924-1954 : suivis d’Écrits fragmentaires, Genève, éditions Georg, 1995, p. 11.
69. Prieberg, p.188.
70. Roncigli, p. 104.
71. Prieberg, p.191.
72. Riess, p. 155.
73. Curt Riess, Furtwängler, Musik und Politik, Berne, Scherz, 1953, p. 156.
74. Riess, p. 157.
75. ASIN 0761501371
76. Riess, pp. 157-159.
77. "Music: Partisans on the Podium". Time. 25 April 1949.
78. Roncigli, p. 56.
79. Roncigli, p. 254.
80. Schönzeler, Hans-Hubert (1990). Furtwängler. Portland, Oregon: Timber Press. p. 84. ISBN 978-0-7156-2313-8.
81. Vaget, Hans Rudolf (2006). Seelenzauber: Thomas Mann und die Musik. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer. p. 270.
82. Roncigli, p. 53.
83. Roncigli, p. 54.
84. Curt Riess, Furtwängler, Musik und Politik, Berne, Scherz, 1953, p. 165.
85. Schönzeler, p. 81.
86. Curt Riess, Furtwängler, Musik und Politik, Berne, Scherz, 1953, p. 166.
87. Riess, pp. 168-169.
88. Prieberg, p.221.
89. Roncigli, p.102.
90. Prieberg, p. 239.
91. Prieberg, p. 241.
92. Prieberg, p. 242.
93. Prieberg, p. 244.
94. Geissmar, p. 352.
95. Schönzeler, p. 89.
96. Roncigli, p. 59.
97. Prieberg, p. 231.
98. Riess, p. 174.
99. Riess, p. 176.
100. Riess, p. 175.
101. Prieberg, p. 235.
102. Prieberg, p. 236.
103. Roncigli, p. 57.
104. Spotts, p. 295
105. Roncigli, p. 102.
106. Prieberg, p. 272.
107. Hürlimann, Martin (1955). Wilhelm Furtwängler im Urteil seiner Zeit. Atlantis Verlag. p. 215.
108. Roncigli, p. 60.
109. See David Cairns, ibid
110. Roncigli, p.60.
111. Riess, p. 185.
112. Prieberg, p. 285.
113. Roncigli, p.115.
114. Prieberg, p. 291.
115. Roncigli, p.75.
116. Roncigli, p.64.
117. Geissmar
118. Shirakawa, Sam, chap. 15
119. Prieberg, p. 320.
120. Riess, p. 191.
121. Prieberg, p. 306.
122. Joseph Goebbels, Reden 1932–1939, hrsg. von Helmut Heiber, Düsseldorf, Droste Verlag, 1972, p. 282.
123. Wilfried von Oven, Finale furioso, Mit Goebbels zum Ende. Tübingen, Grabert Verlag, 1974, p. 268.
124. Spotts, p. 87
125. Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich (1970) Macmillan pp 548.
126. Prieberg, p. 317.
127. Roncigli, p. 171.
128. Roncigli, p.174.
129. Schönzeler, p. 93.
130. Schönzeler, p. 94.
131. Bernard D. Sherman. (1997) [1999]. "Brahms: The Symphonies/Charles Mackerras". Fanfare. Retrieved 5 September 2010.
132. Roncigli, p. 76.
133. Roger Smithson, article "The Years of Silence (1945-1947)", p. 9 on the website of the French Wilhelm Furtwängler society: [1]
134. Riess, Curt (1953). Furtwängler, Musik und Politik. Berne: Scherz. p. 16.
135. Riess, Curt (1953). Furtwängler, Musik und Politik. Berne: Scherz. p. 17.
136. Roncigli, p. 77.
137. Roncigli, p. 79.
138. Roncigli, p. 78.
139. Roncigli, p. 131.
140. Roger Smithson, article "The Years of Silence (1945-1947)", p. 7 on the website of the French Wilhelm Furtwängler society: [2]
141. Prieberg, p. 226.
142. Roger Smithson (1997). "Furtwängler's Silent Years: 1945–47" (.RTF). Société Wilhelm Furtwängler. Retrieved 21 July 2007.
143. Monod, David (2005). Settling Scores: German Music, Denazification, and the Americans, 1945–1953. The University of North Carolina Press. p. 149. ISBN 978-0-8078-2944-8.
144. Riess, Curt (1953). Furtwängler, Musik und Politik. Berne: Scherz. p. 188.
145. Klaus Lang, Celibidache et Furtwängler [" Celibidache et Furtwängler "], Paris, Buchet/Chastel, 2012, p. 79.
146. Klaus Lang, Celibidache et Furtwängler [" Celibidache et Furtwängler "], Paris, Buchet/Chastel, 2012, p. 80.
147. Roncigli, Audrey (2009). Le cas Furtwängler. Paris: Imago. pp. 171–194.
148. Roncigli, Audrey (2009). Le cas Furtwängler. Paris: Imago. p. 103.
149. Prieberg, Fred K. (1991). Trial of Strength: Wilhelm Furtwängler and the Third Reich. Quartet Books. p. 344.
150. Roncigli, Audrey (2009). Le cas Furtwängler. Paris: Imago. p. 133.
151. Roncigli, p. 133.
152. "In Memoriam Furtwängler", Tahra 2004.
153. Quoted from John Ardoin's The Furtwängler Record
154. Vaget (2006). Seelenzauber. pp. 483–84.
155. Ardoin, p.58.
156. Taubman, Howard (6 January 1949). "Musicians' Ban on Furtwaengler Ends His Chicago Contract for '49". The New York Times. reprinted in McLanathan, Richard B K; Gene Brown (1978). The Arts. New York: Arno Press. p. 349. ISBN 978-0-405-11153-2.
157. Klaus Lang, Celibidache et Furtwängler [" Celibidache und Furtwängler "], Paris, Buchet/Chastel, 2012, p. 137.
158. Yehudi Menuhin, Le violon de la paix, Paris, éditions alternatives, 2000, p. 154.
159. Martin Kettle (26 November 2004). "Second coming". The Guardian. London. Retrieved 21 July2007.
160. Wilhelm Furtwängler, CD Wilhelm Furtwängler in Memoriam FURT 1090–1093, Tahra, 2004, p. 54.
161. "Arguably the greatest conductor of all time", "The Furtwangler Legacy on BBC radio, November 2004". Archived from the original on 30 May 2016. Retrieved 19 June 2012..
162. "The greatest conductor of all time", "Furtwangler's love, 2004"..
163. "The most influential and important orchestral conductor of the recorded era", Kettle, Martin (26 November 2004). "Second coming". The Guardian..
164. "Amazing, spur-of-the-moment inspirational intensity, probably unsurpassed by any other conductor before or since", "Sinfini Music, Top 20 conductors, November 2012"..
165. "Wilhelm Furtwängler is widely considered the one of the greatest—if not the very greatest—conductors of the twentieth century", "Ten Perfect Orchestral Recordings on The New Yorker, article by David Denby, May 1, 2012". The New Yorker. May 2012..
166. "Maybe the greatest conductor in history", Patrick Szersnovicz, Le Monde de la musique, December 2004, p. 62–67.
167. "Maybe the greatest conductor in history, probably the greatest Beethovenian", "L'orchestre des rites et des dieux", editor: Autrement, series mutation, volume 99, 1994, p. 206.
168. "Why was Wilhelm Furtwängler the greatest conductor in history?" Critic Joachim Kaiser, course in German available on the web site of the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper.
169. "Wilhelm Furtwängler Biography". Naxos. Retrieved 21 July 2007.
170. "Many saw and see him as the greatest conductor of the 20th century", Von Stefan Dosch "Als mitten im Weltkrieg große Musik entstand". Augsburger Allgemeine. Retrieved 7 May 2019.
171. "An artist frequently regarded as the most important conductor in the history of phonography, or even of all time", Maciej Chiżyński "Wilhelm Furtwängler le géant, enregistrements radio à Berlin 1939-1945". ResMusica. Retrieved 23 May 2019.
172. "La tradizione di Furtwängler". HUFFPOST. Retrieved 12 April 2021., "probably the greatest conductor of all time" ("probabilmente è il più grande direttore d’orchestra di tutti i tempi"), Giovanni Giammarino.
173. Frisch, Walter (2003). Brahms: The Four Symphonies. Yale University Press. pp. 183–185. ISBN 978-0-300-09965-2.
174. "Historical Gems: Furtwängler RIAS Recordings from Audite - Classics Today".
175. The difference is sometimes mis-characterized by the terms "objective" and "subjective", but Furtwängler's tempo inflections were often planned and reflected his studies with the harmonic theorist Heinrich Schenker from 1920 to 1935.
176. Sergiu Celibidache, CD Wilhelm Furtwängler in Memoriam FURT 1090–1093, Tahra, 2004, p. 57.
177. Harold Schönberg, The great conductors, Simon and Schuster, 1967.
178. Ardoin
179. Ardoin, p.18.
180. Ardoin, pp.19–20.
181. Beethoven, CD Furtwängler, Beethoven's Choral Symphony, Tahra FURT 1101–1104, p. 28.
182. Ardoin, p. 21.
183. Ardoin, p. 22.
184. (in French) Patrick Szersnovicz, Le Monde de la musique, December 2004, p. 62–67.
185. Ardoin, p. 25.
186. Elisabeth Furtwängler, Pour Wilhelm, Paris, 2004, p. 32.
187. SchenkerGUIDE By Tom Pankhurst, p. 5 ff
188. Schenker Documents Online.
189. Sami Habra, CD Furtwängler, Beethoven's Choral Symphony, Tahra FURT 1101–1104, p. 18.
190. (in French) Biography of Schenker on the Internet site of Luciane Beduschi and Nicolas Meeùs.
191. Elisabeth Furtwängler, Pour Wilhelm, Paris, 2004, p.54.
192. CD Furtwängler, Beethoven's Choral Symphony, Tahra FURT 1101–1104, p. 19.
193. David Cairns, CD Beethoven's 5th and 6th Symphonies, 427 775-2, DG, 1989, p. 16.
194. Ardoin, p. 12.
195. Patrick Szersnovicz, Le Monde de la musique, December 2004, p. 66
196. CD Wilhelm Furtwängler, his legendary post-war recordings, Tahra, harmonia mundi distribution, FURT 1054/1057, p. 15.
197. Yehudi Menuhin, DVD The Art of Conducting - Great Conductors of the Past, Elektra/Wea, 2002.
198. Wilhelm Furtwängler, Carnets 1924–1954, 1995, p. 103.
199. Christoph Eschenbach Own Words on His Life
200. Elisabeth Furtwängler, Pour Wilhelm, 2004, p. 55.
201. "Carlos Kleiber, un don et une malédiction". Le Huffington Post. 17 July 2012. Retrieved 15 February 2016.
202. Herbert von Karajan, CD Wilhelm Furtwängler in Memoriam FURT 1090–1093, Tahra, 2004, p. 57.
203. 'La symphonie des chefs, Robert Parienté, Éditions de La Martinière, Paris, 2004, p. 249-259.
204. Michael H Kater The Twisted Muse, p.198
205. Daniel Jaffé Sergey Prokofiev, p.128 (London: Phaidon, 1998)
206. Gérard Gefen, Furtwängler, une Biographie par le disque, Belfond, 1986, p. 51.
207. Leins Hermann, Diener der Musik, herausgegeben von Martin Müller und Wolfgang Mertz, Rainer Wunderlich Verlag, 1965, p. 180–187.
208. About Furtwängler's second symphony, Honneger wrote: "the man who can write a score so rich as this is not to be argued about. He is of the race of great musicians". CD Wilhelm Furtwängler The Legend, 9 08119 2, EMI, 2011, p. 7.
209. Fischer-Dieskau, Dietrich (2009). Jupiter und ich: Begegnungen mit Furtwängler. Berlin: Berlin University Press. ISBN 978-3-940432-66-7.
210. Kettle, Martin (20 May 2005). "It is the start of the final episode". The Guardian. Retrieved 15 February 2016.
211. Menuhin, Yehudi (2009). La légende du violon. Flammarion. p. 242.
212. DVD The Art of Conducting - Great Conductors of the Past, Elektra/Wea, 2002.
213. Ardoin, p.12.
214. About this recording, often considered as one of the most important ones of the 20th century, John Ardoin wrote: "The magnificent 1944 performance with the Vienna Philharmonic [is] an authenticated performance that is not only Furtwängler's noblest and most compelling Eroica, but one unrivalled on disc", Ardoin, p.120.
215. "A performance of prodigious classicism, it presents us with figures that seem to us to be made of stone by virtue of their nobility and of fire because of their compelling urgency, but which, on the wings of a scherzo at the pace of a march, suddently releases the infinite - placed on record", André Tubeuf, EMI C 051-63332, 1969.
216. "A guide to the best recordings of Beethoven's Symphony No 3, 'Eroica'". Gramophone. Retrieved 7 May 2019., "In the high peaks of the Marcia funebre and in the finale, the 1944 Vienna performance remains unsurpassed [...] No conductor articulates the drama of the Eroica – human and historical, individual and universal – more powerfully or eloquently than Furtwängler. Of his 11 extant recordings, it is this 1944 Vienna account, closely followed by the 1950 Berlin version, which most merits pride of place".
217. Harry Halbreich wrote in his analysis of this performance: "Does the second movement remain an Allegretto under Furtwängler's baton? Many critics have raised this question, troubled by the spaciousness even more than in Berlin than in Vienna [in 1950]. And yet, why hesitate? From the first bars, this perfection overrules us - beyond doubt, this is humanely, organically the right tempo and it would be completely insensitive and unmusical to argue otherwise [...] Who could describe the incredible beauty of phrasing of the song of violas and cellos [...] the sublime expressiveness of the violins? [...] The second theme on its reappearance seems still more moving and expressive [...] This Finale was always one of Furtwängler's great warhorses and undoubtedly the summit of this interpretation [...] Furtwängler relives his unbelievable performance of the end of the Fifth Symphonyin June 1943, four months before, launching into a break-taking acceleration without the unleashed forces ever escaping the control of the brilliant leader. "I am the Bacchus who distils the delicious nectar for mankind, and brings them to divine frenzy of the spirit": thus Beethoven explained himself. But it takes a demiurge like Furtwängler, that autumn day in 1943, to bring that frenzy to life in sound!", Harry Halbreich, CD Furtwängler conducts Beethoven, SWF 941, 1994, p.11.
218. Harry Halbreich wrote in his analysis of this performance that, for the first movement, "nobody has ever approached Furtwängler in the evocation of this terrifying release of cosmic forces" and about the Adagio: "in its superhuman spaciousness, which seems to seek to renounce human time and to align itself with that of creation, was not this Adagio the highest achievement of Wilhelm Furtwängler's art? Certainly no other conductor allowed himself such interpretative scope, and none put himself so much at risk. Yet on actual hearing the tempi prove so right, so natural lending themselves so perfectly to the whole presentation of the musical thought that one can hardly imagine anything different". For the Finale, he says: "from bar 321 Furtwängler imperiously asserts his presence with a gradual allargando building up to the colossal fortissimo of bar 330 followed by a timeless pause, a divine vision in which Beethoven, thanks to an interpreter worthy of him, equals the stature of the Michelangelo of the Sistine Chapel", Harry Halbreich, CD Beethoven, Ninth Symphony, SWF 891R, 2001, p.8–10.
219. "The 1942 performance in Berlin is one of the most convincing proofs of Furtwängler's rebellion during Germany's tragic era, while the nazis tried in vain to bury the great German musical heritage by using it for their sinister ends. Furtwängler fought for it and strived to save it from their cluthes", Sami Habra, CD Furtwängler, Beethoven's Choral Symphony, Tahra FURT 1101–1104, p. 19.
220. Sami Habra wrote regarding this very famous concert: "Yet, after the war, he had to prove to the World that German musical Art had indeed survived that fateful period as well as some attempts by the Allies to ignore or undermine German culture. The whole musical world retained its breath while Beethoven was universally re-born when Furtwängler conducted the Ninth for the re-opening of Bayreuth in 1951", Sami Habra, CD Furtwängler, Beethoven's Choral Symphony, Tahra FURT 1101–1104, p. 19.
221. Kees A. Schouhamer Immink (2007). "Shannon, Beethoven, and the Compact Disc". IEEE Information Theory Newsletter: 42–46. Retrieved 12 December 2007.
222. Sami Habra said: "The Lucerne 1954 concert, Furtwängler's last performance of the Ninth, allowed the listener an even deeper insight into the great conductor's art, the most important impression being that of abyssal depths that permeate this Swan song: no doubt Furtwängler sensed his end was near...", Sami Habra, CD Furtwängler, Beethoven's Choral Symphony, Tahra FURT 1101–1104, p. 19.
223. This Brahms 1st turned out to be Furtwängler's best version [...] More than ever, the broad opening, with the hammering of Friedrich Weber on the timpani and the soaring strings of that magnificent ensemble, impress the listener. The special quality of the string section, miraculously dense and transparent at the same time, permeates the whole work. The four great fortissimi of the first movement have an irresistible "élan", the long lyrical phrases of the second movement enchant the listener with their intensity. The third movement is Furtwängler at his most feverish here, and full of serenity is reached only after the repeated trumpet calls [...] The 4th movement is played with unmistakable grandeur and solemnity, as indeed the whole work is. While keeping Brahms' personality in mind, Furtwängler nevertheless brings out Beethoven's influence on Brahms [...] No wonder the French critics bestowed upon this recording the "Diapason d'Or of the century"....", Sami Habra, CD Wilhelm Furtwängler, his legendary post-war recordings, Tahra, harmonia mundi distribution, FURT 1054/1057, p. 19.
224. "Furtwängler's interpretations of Brahms go beyond the merely "composed" notation and realise the vision of the organic form that hovered before Brahms but can no longer be attained. Herein lies the explanation of the flawless formal architecture of his interpretations as well as the psychical compulsion of their musical performance that never becomes lost in detail but, to the contrary, always keeps the work as a whole in view. In this recording, notwithstanding his traditional interpretative style Furtwängler, unlike many a younger composer, lays more stress on the characteristics beyond the classical model symphony that herald the new trend: "Spiritual life" which Furtwängler traces and creates anew in each work - in this symphony, energetic and vigorous though it is, spiritual life is not concentrated on the dualism of the themes, the dramatic development and the intensity of the finale, but above all on the variety of tone-colours which are here formative energy that puts a constantly changing complexion on the scarcely modulated themes and motifs and becomes the favourite means of musical expression.", Sigurd Schimpf, EMI C 049-01 146.
225. "The interpretation is typically manic: very fast, and very slow. It lurches about impulsively and has thrilling moments–but also some pretty distressing examples of shoddy ensemble, particularly in the scherzo and finale. It was all too seldom that Furtwängler managed to keep his band together to allow him to time his climaxes optimally. A classic case of "overshoot" occurs at the end of the first movement, which sounds terribly rushed. The Adagio, though, is magnificent...", "Bruckner: Symphony No. 5/Furtwängler". classicstoday.com. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
226. "Furtwängler has always been Bruckner's greatest exponent [...] Again, the tragic element and grandeur are unequalled here. This is a "desert island" recording, fortunately restored for music lovers of this World to cherish all their life", Sami Habra, CD Furtwängler " revisited ", FURT 1099, Tahra, 2005, p.10.
227. "Schumann's Fourth [has] long [been regarded] as the recording of the century (along with the HMV Tristan) [...] Before the boisterous last movement starts, there is the famous transitional passage in which Furtwängler builds up the most impressive crescendo ever heard. This crescendo is referred to by Conservatoire teachers and conductors as being the very perfection, in spite of its infeasibility. Celibidache and Karajan have tried to imitate Furtwängler in this part on some occasions, but both conductors run out of breath towards the middle of the crescendo. This Furtwängler performance has yet to be equalled...", Sami Habra, CD Furtwängler " revisited ", FURT 1099, Tahra, 2005, p.11.
228. "According to Friedland Wagner, this 1938 performance of the "Pathetique" by Furtwängler was so overwhelming that Toscanini, in his house at Riverdale, played this recording again and again to his guests on a memorable day, pointing out with enthusiasm all its fine points [...] We can safely say that no one has probed as deeply as Furtwängler into the abyss of the tragic contents and pessimistic forebodings of the "Pathetique" [...] The last movement would probably have contained a glimmer of hope, had it not been for the fateful events that were to plunge the World into its darkest hours. Many observers have asserted that Furtwängler had foreseen what was to happen", Sami Habra, CD Furtwängler " revisited ", FURT 1099, Tahra, 2005, p.9.
229. "Produced in 1952, this recording, now reissued, has long been something of a landmark in recent history - rightly so, for its importance and its uniqueness are unquestionable [...] Wilhelm Furtwängler's architectural greatness is communicated so directly, so forcefully from the very first bar that one immediately forgets the small imperfections of the mono recording [...] The most striking thing is certainly the cogency of this interpretation. Nowhere are there hiatuses, breaks in the music's flow. Furtwängler, though far from being a perfectionist in individual detail, invariably seems to see the entire conception before him, so grippingly does he span the work's long arches, so magnificently does he weld together the various components. [...] His feeling for form is so compelling in its certainty that one does not stop to consider for a moment that it is not the only way of interpreting a particular phrase or sequence [...] The idea of Furtwängler seeking effect from a series of 'purple passages' is unthinkable; and yet the great emotional crescendi, the great climaxes, have a dramatic power scarcely matched elsewhere", Gerhard Brunner, CD Tristan und Isolde, EMI CDS 7 47322 8, p. 20.
230. Taking Sides (2001) at IMDb

Bibliography

• Cairns, David "Wilhelm Furtwängler" in The New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians London: Macmillan, 1980.
• Frisch, Walter Brahms: The Four Symphonies New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2003 ISBN 978-0-300-09965-2
• Geissmar, Berta The Baton and the Jackboot: Recollections of Musical Life, Morrison and Gibb ltd., 1944.
• Kater, Michael H. The Twisted Muse: Musicians and Their Music in the Third Reich Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
• Spotts, Frederic Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics. London: Hutchinson, 2002. ISBN 978-0-09-179394-4
• Shirakawa, Sam H. The Devil's Music Master: The controversial life and career of Wilhelm Furtwängler Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992 ISBN 978-0-19-506508-4
Further reading
• Ardoin John, The Furtwängler Record. Portland: Amadeus press,1994. ISBN 978-0-931340-69-7.
• Furtwängler, Wilhelm. Notebooks 1924–1954. Edited by Michael Tanner. Translated by Shaun Whiteside. London: Quartet Books, 1989. ISBN 978-0-7043-0220-4.
• Pirie Peter, Furtwängler and the Art of Conducting. London, Duckworth, 1980, ISBN 978-0-7156-1486-0

External links

• Wilhelm Furtwängler at AllMusic
• Newspaper clippings about Wilhelm Furtwängler in the 20th Century Press Archives of the ZBW

[admin]

Kalidasa
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/26/21

-- Sacontala [Shakuntala]; or, The Fatal Ring: An Indian Drama, by Calidas [Kalidasa], Translated from the Original Sanscrit and Pracrit by Sir William Jones

Kalidasa
A 20th century artist's impression of Kālidāsa composing the Meghadūta
Occupation: Poet, Dramatist
Language: Sanskrit, Prakrit
Period: c. 4th–5th century CE
Genre: Sanskrit drama, Classical literature
Subject: Epic poetry, Puranas
Notable works: Kumārasambhavam, Abhijñānaśākuntalam, Raghuvaṃśa, Meghadūta, Vikramōrvaśīyam

Kālidāsa (Devanagari: कालिदास; fl. 4th–5th century CE) was a Classical Sanskrit author who is often considered ancient India's greatest playwright and dramatist. His plays and poetry are primarily based on the Vedas, the Rāmāyaṇa, the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas.[1] His surviving works consist of three plays, two epic poems and two shorter poems.

Much about his life is unknown except what can be inferred from his poetry and plays.[2] His works cannot be dated with precision, but they were most likely authored before the 5th century CE.

Early life

Scholars have speculated that Kālidāsa may have lived near the Himalayas, in the vicinity of Ujjain, and in Kalinga. This hypothesis is based on Kālidāsa's detailed description of the Himalayas in his Kumārasambhava, the display of his love for Ujjain in Meghadūta, and his highly eulogistic descriptions of Kalingan emperor Hemāngada in Raghuvaṃśa (sixth sarga).

Lakshmi Dhar Kalla (1891–1953), a Sanskrit scholar and a Kashmiri Pandit, wrote a book titled The birth-place of Kalidasa (1926), which tries to trace the birthplace of Kālidāsa based on his writings. He concluded that Kālidāsa was born in Kashmir, but moved southwards, and sought the patronage of local rulers to prosper. The evidence cited by him from Kālidāsa's writings includes:[3][4][5]

• Description of flora and fauna that is found in Kashmir, but not Ujjain or Kalinga: the saffron plant, the deodar trees, musk deer etc.
• Description of geographical features common to Kashmir, such as tarns and glades
• Mention of some sites of minor importance that, according to Kalla, can be identified with places in Kashmir. These sites are not very famous outside Kashmir, and therefore, could not have been known to someone not in close touch with Kashmir.
• Reference to certain legends of Kashmiri origin, such as that of the Nikumbha (mentioned in the Kashmiri text Nīlamata Purāṇa); mention (in Shakuntala) of the legend about Kashmir being created from a lake. This legend, mentioned in Nīlamata Purāṇa, states that a tribal leader named Ananta drained a lake to kill a demon. Ananta named the site of the former lake (now land) as "Kashmir", after his father Kaśyapa.
• According to Kalla, Śakuntalā is an allegorical dramatization of Pratyabhijna philosophy (a branch of Kashmir Shaivism). Kalla further argues that this branch was not known outside of Kashmir at that time.

Still other scholars posit Garhwal in Uttarakhand to be Kalidasa's birthplace.[6]

According to folklore, a scholarly princess once decides to find a suitable groom by testing men in her kingdom for their intelligence. When no man is able to pass the test, the frustrated citizens decide to send Kālidāsa, an uneducated man, for an interview with the princess.

In another version, the court's chief minister is insulted when the princess rejects his son's marriage proposal. To avenge this insult, the minister finds the most unfit person, the shepherd Kālidāsa, to send to the princess.

In any case Kālidasa fares poorly, and is greatly humiliated by the princess. Thus challenged, he visits a Kāli temple, is inspired to learn Sanskrit, studies the Purāṇas and other ancient texts, and becomes a great poet.

He then writes three epics starting with the words of his insult: "अस्ति कश्चित् वाग्विशेष?"(asti kaścit vagviśeṣa? is there anything particularly intelligent you can now say?, implying, have you attained any profound knowledge that should make me give you a special welcome?).

From these three words he embraces, he writes his three classic books. From “asti” = asti-uttarasyaam diśi, he produces the epic “Kumārasambhava”; from “Kaścit” = kaścit-kāntā, he writes the poem “Meghadūta” and from “Vāgviśeṣa”= vāgarthāviva, he wrote the epic “Raghuvaṃśa".

Another old legend recounts that Kālidāsa visits Kumāradāsa, the king of Lanka and, because of treachery, is murdered there.[7]

Period

Several ancient and medieval books state that Kālidāsa was a court poet of a king named Vikramāditya. A legendary king named Vikramāditya is said to have ruled from Ujjain around 1st century BCE. A section of scholars believe that this legendary Vikramāditya is not a historical figure at all. There are other kings who ruled from Ujjain and adopted the title Vikramāditya, the most notable ones being Chandragupta II (r. 380 CE – 415 CE) and Yaśodharman (6th century CE).[8]

The most popular theory is that Kālidāsa flourished during the reign of Chandragupta II, and therefore lived around the 4th-5th century CE. Several Western scholars have supported this theory, since the days of William Jones and A. B. Keith.[8] Modern western Indologists and scholars like Stanley Wolpert also support this theory.[9] Many Indian scholars, such as Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi and Ram Gupta, also place Kālidāsa in this period.[10][11] According to this theory, his career might have extended to the reign of Kumāragupta I (r. 414 – 455 CE), and possibly, to that of Skandagupta (r. 455 – 467 CE).[12][13]

The earliest paleographical evidence of Kālidāsa is found in a Sanskrit inscription dated c. 473 CE, found at Mandsaur's Sun temple, with some verses that appear to imitate Meghadūta Purva, 66; and the ṛtusaṃhāra V, 2–3, although Kālidāsa is not named.[14] His name, along with that of the poet Bhāravi, is first mentioned in a stone inscription dated 634 C.E. found at Aihole, located in present-day Karnataka.[15]

Theory of multiple Kālidāsas

Some scholars, including M. Srinivasachariar and T. S. Narayana Sastri, believe that works attributed to "Kālidāsa" are not by a single person. According to Srinivasachariar, writers from 8th and 9th centuries hint at the existence of three noted literary figures who share the name Kālidāsa. These writers include Devendra (author of Kavi-Kalpa-Latā), Rājaśekhara and Abhinanda. Sastri lists the works of these three Kalidasas as follows:[16]

1. Kālidāsa alias Mātṛgupta, author of Setu-Bandha and three plays (Abhijñānaśākuntalam, Mālavikāgnimitram and Vikramōrvaśīyam).
2. Kālidāsa alias Medharudra, author of Kumārasambhava, Meghadūta and Raghuvaṃśa.
3. Kālidāsa alias Kotijit: author of Ṛtusaṃhāra, Śyāmala-Daṇḍakam and Śṛngāratilaka among other works.

Sastri goes on to mention six other literary figures known by the name "Kālidāsa": Parimala Kālidāsa alias Padmagupta (author of Navasāhasāṅka Carita), Kālidāsa alias Yamakakavi (author of Nalodaya), Nava Kālidāsa (author of Champu Bhāgavata), Akbariya Kalidasa (author of several samasyas or riddles), Kālidāsa VIII (author of Lambodara Prahasana), and Abhinava Kālidāsa alias Mādhava (author of Saṅkṣepa-Śaṅkara-Vijayam).[16]

According to K. Krishnamoorthy, "Vikramāditya" and "Kālidāsa" were used as common nouns to describe any patron king and any court poet respectively.[17]

Works

Poems

Epic poems

Kālidāsa is the author of two mahākāvyas, Kumārasambhava (Kumāra meaning son, and sambhava meaning possibility of an event taking place, in this context a birth. Kumārasambhava thus means the birth of a son) and Raghuvaṃśa ("Dynasty of Raghu").

• Kumārasambhava describes the birth and adolescence of the goddess Pārvatī, her marriage to Śiva and the subsequent birth of their son Kumāra (Kārtikeya).
• Raghuvaṃśa is an epic poem about the kings of the Raghu dynasty.

Minor poems

Kālidāsa also wrote two khaṇḍakāvyas (minor poems):

• Descriptive:[18] Ṛtusaṃhāra describes the six seasons by narrating the experiences of two lovers in each of the seasons.[N 1]
• Elegiac: Kālidāsa created his own genre of poetry with Meghadūta (The Cloud Messenger),[18] the story of a Yakṣa trying to send a message to his lover through a cloud. Kālidāsa set this poem to the mandākrāntā meter, which is known for its lyrical sweetness. It is one of Kālidāsa's most popular poems and numerous commentaries on the work have been written.

Plays

Kālidāsa wrote three plays. Among them, Abhijñānaśākuntalam ("Of the recognition of Śakuntalā") is generally regarded as a masterpiece. It was among the first Sanskrit works to be translated into English, and has since been translated into many languages.[19]


Śakuntalā stops to look back at Duṣyanta, Raja Ravi Varma (1848-1906).

• Mālavikāgnimitram (Pertaining to Mālavikā and Agnimitra) tells the story of King Agnimitra, who falls in love with the picture of an exiled servant girl named Mālavikā. When the queen discovers her husband's passion for this girl, she becomes infuriated and has Mālavikā imprisoned, but as fate would have it, Mālavikā is in fact a true-born princess, thus legitimizing the affair.
• Abhijñānaśākuntalam (Of the recognition of Śakuntalā) tells the story of King Duṣyanta who, while on a hunting trip, meets Śakuntalā, the adopted daughter of a sage, and marries her. A mishap befalls them when he is summoned back to court: Śakuntala, pregnant with their child, inadvertently offends a visiting sage and incurs a curse, whereby Duṣyanta forgets her entirely until he sees the ring he has left with her. On her trip to Duṣyanta's court in an advanced state of pregnancy, she loses the ring, and has to come away unrecognized by him. The ring is found by a fisherman who recognizes the royal seal and returns it to Duṣyanta, who regains his memory of Śakuntala and sets out to find her. Goethe was fascinated by Kālidāsa's Abhijñānaśākuntalam, which became known in Europe, after being translated from English to German.
• Vikramōrvaśīyam (Ūrvaśī Won by Valour) tells the story of King Pururavas and celestial nymph Ūrvaśī who fall in love. As an immortal, she has to return to the heavens, where an unfortunate accident causes her to be sent back to the earth as a mortal with the curse that she will die (and thus return to heaven) the moment her lover lays his eyes on the child which she will bear him. After a series of mishaps, including Ūrvaśī's temporary transformation into a vine, the curse is lifted, and the lovers are allowed to remain together on the earth.

Translations

Montgomery Schuyler, Jr. published a bibliography of the editions and translations of the drama Śakuntalā while preparing his work "Bibliography of the Sanskrit Drama".[N 2][20] Schuyler later completed his bibliography series of the dramatic works of Kālidāsa by compiling bibliographies of the editions and translations of Vikramōrvaśīyam and Mālavikāgnimitra.[21] Sir William Jones published English translation of Śakuntalā in 1791 C.E. and Ṛtusaṃhāra was published by him in original text during 1792 C.E.[22]

Influence

Kālidāsa has had great influence on several Sanskrit works, on all Indian literature.[14] He also had a great impact on Rabindranath Tagore. Meghadūta's romanticism is found in Tagore's poems on the monsoons.[23] Sanskrit plays by Kālidāsa influenced late eighteenth and early nineteenth-century European literature.[24] According to Dale Carnegie, Father of Modern Medicine Sir William Osler always kept on his desk a poem written by Kalidasa.[25]

Critical reputation

Bāṇabhaṭṭa, the 7th-century Sanskrit prose-writer and poet, has written: nirgatāsu na vā kasya kālidāsasya sūktiṣu. prītirmadhurasārdrārsu mañjarīṣviva jāyate. ("When Kālidāsa's sweet sayings, charming with sweet sentiment, went forth, who did not feel delight in them as in honey-laden flowers?")[26]

Jayadeva, a later poet, has called Kālidāsa a kavikulaguru, 'the lord of poets' and the vilāsa, 'graceful play' of the muse of poetry.[27]

Kālidāsa has been called the Shakespeare of India. The scholar and philologist Sir William Jones is said to be the first to do so. Writing about this, author and scholar MR Kale says "the very comparison of Kālidāsa to Shakespeare is the highest form of eulogy that could be bestowed upon him."[28]

The Indologist Sir Monier Williams has written: "No composition of Kālidāsa displays more the richness of his poetical genius, the exuberance of his imagination, the warmth and play of his fancy, his profound knowledge of the human heart, his delicate appreciation of its most refined and tender emotions, his familiarity with the workings and counterworkings of its conflicting feelings - in short more entitles him to rank as the Shakespeare of India."[29]

Willst du die Blüthe des frühen, die Früchte des späteren Jahres,

Willst du, was reizt und entzückt, willst du was sättigt und nährt,
Willst du den Himmel, die Erde, mit Einem Namen begreifen;
Nenn’ ich, Sakuntala, Dich, und so ist Alles gesagt.

— Goethe

Wouldst thou the young year's blossoms and the fruits of its decline
And all by which the soul is charmed, enraptured, feasted, fed,
Wouldst thou the earth and heaven itself in one sole name combine?
I name thee, O Sakuntala! and all at once is said.

— translation by E. B. Eastwick

"Here the poet seems to be in the height of his talent in representation of the natural order, of the finest mode of life, of the purest moral endeavor, of the most worthy sovereign, and of the most sober divine meditation; still he remains in such a manner the lord and master of his creation."

— Goethe, quoted in Winternitz[30]

Philosopher and linguist Humboldt writes, "Kālidāsa, the celebrated author of the Śākuntalā, is a masterly describer of the influence which Nature exercises upon the minds of lovers. Tenderness in the expression of feelings and richness of creative fancy have assigned to him his lofty place among the poets of all nations."[31]

Later culture

Many scholars have written commentaries on the works of Kālidāsa. Among the most studied commentaries are those by Kolāchala Mallinātha Suri [estimated 1346-1440 CE], which were written in the 15th century during the reign of the Vijayanagara king, Deva Rāya II.

Based on the evidence from the inscriptions, it is estimated that he lived between 1350-1450 CE...

Mallinātha is well known as a commentator who has written glosses on Classical epics of Sanskrit, besides his commentaries on Śātric works...

Interestingly, in Marathi Language, there is a word 'Mallinathi', which means 'a comment or criticism' done by somebody.

-- Mallinātha Sūri, by Wikipedia

The earliest surviving commentaries appear to be those of the 10th-century Kashmirian scholar Vallabhadeva.[32]

For more than a millennium Kalidasa's long poem Raghuvarnsa ("The Lineage of Raghu") has been acknowledged as one of the masterpieces of Sanskrit literature. Many thousands of manuscripts survive, transmitting versions of the text, which often differ considerably, and many classical commentaries. Most of these have not yet been consulted by modern scholars, and as a result there is still no truly authoritative edition of the poem. This volume presents a critical edition of the first six chapters of the oldest commentary known to survive, by the Kashmirian scholar Vallabhadeva (10th century). This commentary has never before been published, so this is the first time that one of the most important sources for the text and the interpretation of Kalidasa's poem has been made available. Vallabhadeva's work is also of intrinsic value as one of the earliest commentaries in Sanskrit on a belletristic work. Kashmirian manuscripts of the poem have not hitherto been used by editors: ten have been collated, and their readings, which are often supported by Vallablhadeva's commentary, reported in the critical apparatus. The apparatus also records the readings of the six pre-modern commentaries that have appeared in print. The notes discuss problems of textual criticism and some questions related to the interpretation of the poem; they also report the readings of two other unpublished commentaries that are transmitted in palm-leaf manuscripts preserved in Nepal: those of Srinatha and Vaidyasrigarbha. A lengthy Introduction discusses the transmission of the poem and the commentary and the distinctive style of the latter.

-- The Raghupaãncik-a of Vallabhadeva, being the earliest commentary on the Raghuvaṃśa of K-alid-asa. Vol. 1, by Vallabhadeva, Dominic Goodall, H. Isaacson · 2003

Eminent Sanskrit poets like Bāṇabhaṭṭa [606-647 CE],

Bāṇabhaṭṭa (Sanskrit: बाणभट्ट) was a 7th-century Sanskrit prose writer and poet of India. He was the Asthana Kavi [Court Poet] in the court of King Harsha Vardhana, who reigned c. 606–647 CE in north India first from Sthanvishvara (Thanesar), and later Kannauj. Bāna's principal works include a biography of Harsha, the Harshacharita (Deeds of Harsha), and one of the world's earliest novels, Kadambari. Bāṇa died before finishing the novel and it was completed by his son Bhūṣaṇabhaṭṭa...

A detailed account regarding his ancestry and early life can be reconstructed from the introductory verses attached to the कादम्बरी and the first two ucchāvasas of the Harṣacarita..

In Harshacharit, Bana Bhatta describes himself as Vatsyayana Gotriya and Bhriguvanshi who used to reside in a village called Pritikoot. He has also described his childhood in Harshacharit. Bana Bhatta describes Pritikoot as a village on the banks of the River Son i.e. Hirnybahu. Pritikoot (now Piru) village is located in Haspura block of Aurangabad district on the eastern bank of River Son. Its distance is about 15 kilometres from Bhrigu Rishi's historical ashram (Bhrigurari), located in Goh block of Aurangabad district. According to the first chapter of [[Harshacharit>Dr. Keshavrao Musalgaonkar, Chaukhamba Sanskrit Institute, Varanasi</ref>]], Bana Bhatta has associated himself with Goddess ‘Saraswati’. According to him, due to the curse of Durvasha Rishi, once 'Saraswati' had to leave Brahmaloka and stay on earth. Her stay on earth was to end at the sight of her own son's face. Saraswati made her debut on the western bank of the Son River presently known as Shahabad region. Soon she fell in love with Dadhich, son of Bhrigukul-Vanshi-Chyawan, who used to come to meet her crossing the reiver Son. According to Harshacharit, Dadhich's father's house was situated across (in the east of) the River Son. Soon Saraswati got a son from the union with Dadhich, whose name was Saraswat. With his birth, Saraswati was freed from the curse and went back to Brahmaloka. Distracted by this separation, Dadhich handed over his son to his own Bhrigu-Vanshi brother for upbringing and himself went for penance. With the blessings of mother Saraswati, her son Saraswat knew all the Vedas and scriptures. He settled Pritikoot and later he too went to join his father to do penance. Later in the same clan, Munis [ancient Indian sages], like Vatsa...

Vatsa or Vamsa (Pali and Ardhamagadhi: Vaccha, literally "calf") was one of the solasa (sixteen) Mahajanapadas (great kingdoms) of Uttarapatha of ancient India mentioned in the Anguttara Nikaya. Vatsa or Vamsa country corresponded with the territory of modern Allahabad in Uttar Pradesh, at the confluence of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers.

It had a monarchical form of government with its capital at Kaushambi (whose ruins are located at the modern village of Kosam, 38 miles from Allahabad). Udayana [Udayana, the romantic hero of the Svapnavāsavadattā, the Pratijñā-Yaugandharāyaṇa and many other legends was a contemporary of Buddha and of Pradyota, the king of Avanti] was the ruler of Vatsa in the 6th-5th century BCE, the time of the Buddha. His mother, Mrigavati, is notable for being one of the earliest known female rulers in Indian history.

The Vatsas were a branch of the Kuru dynasty. During the Rig Vedic period, the Kuru Kingdom comprised the area of Haryana/ Delhi and the Ganga-Jamuna Doab, till Prayag/ Kaushambi, with its capital at Hastinapur. During the late-Vedic period, Hastinapur was destroyed by floods, and the Kuru King Nicakṣu shifted his capital with the entire subjects to a newly constructed capital that was called Kosambi or Kaushambi. In the post Vedic period, when Arya Varta ["Abode of the Aryas"] consisted of several Mahajanpads, the Kuru Dynasty was split between Kurus and Vatsas. The Kurus controlled the Haryana/ Delhi/ Upper Doab, while the Vatsas controlled the Lower Doab. Later, The Vatsas were further divided into two branches—One at Mathura, and the other at Kaushambi.

-- Vatsa, by Wikipedia

Vatsyayan ...

Vātsyāyana is an ancient Indian philosopher, known for authoring the Kama Sutra. He lived in India during the second or third century CE, probably in Pataliputra (modern day Patna).

He is not to be confused with Pakṣilasvāmin Vātsyāyana, the author of Nyāya Sutra Bhāshya, the first preserved commentary on Gotama's Nyāya Sutras. His name is sometimes erroneously confused with Mallanaga, the seer of the Asuras, to whom the origin of erotic science is attributed.

Hardly anything is known about Vātsyāyana from sources outside the Kāmasūtra itself.

-- Vātsyāyana, by Wikipedia

and then Bana Bhatt were born. This description shows that Bana Bhatta was the resident of the eastern bank of the Son River. Chyavan Rishi's ashram is also situated in the village Deokund under the Goh block of Aurangabad district.

-- Bāṇabhaṭṭa, by Wikipedia

Jayadeva [1170-1245 CE] ...

Jayadeva (born c. 1170 CE), also known as Jaideva, was a Sanskrit poet during the 12th century...

Little is known of his life, except that he was a loner poet and a Hindu mendicant celebrated for his poetic genius in eastern India...

Inscriptions at Lingaraj temple, and the more recently discovered Madhukeswar temple and Simhachal temple that were read and interpreted by Satyanarayana Rajguru have shed some light on Jayadeva's early life.

-- Jayadeva, by Wikipedia

and Rajasekhara ...

Rajashekhara (fl. 10th century) was an eminent Sanskrit poet, dramatist and critic. He was the court poet of the Gurjara Pratiharas.

Rajashekhara wrote the Kavyamimamsa between 880 and 920 CE. The work is essentially a practical guide for poets that explains the elements and composition of a good poem...

In Bālarāmāyaṇa, he mentioned that his great grandfather Akalajalada belonged to Maharashtra. In the same work, he described his father Durduka as a Mahamantrin (minister) without providing any details. He mentioned in his works that his wife Avantisundari belonged to the Chahamana (Chauhan) family. In his works, he described himself as the teacher of the Gurjara-Pratihara ...

The origin of the dynasty and the meaning of the term "Gurjara" in its name is a topic of debate among historians. The rulers of this dynasty used the self-designation "Pratihara" for their clan, and never referred to themselves as Gurjaras. They claimed descent from the legendary hero Lakshmana, who is said to have acted as a pratihara ("door-keeper") for his brother Rama....

Multiple inscriptions of their neighbouring dynasties describe the Pratiharas as "Gurjara". The term "Gurjara-Pratihara" occurs only in the Rajor inscription of a feudatory ruler named Mathanadeva, who describes himself as a "Gurjara-Pratihara"...

According to the Agnivansha legend given in the later manuscripts of Prithviraj Raso, the Pratiharas and three other Rajput dynasties originated from a sacrificial fire-pit (agnikunda) at Mount Abu...

The original centre of Pratihara power is a matter of controversy. R. C. Majumdar, on the basis of a verse in the Harivamsha-Purana, AD 783, the interpretation of which he conceded was not free from difficulty, held that Vatsaraja ruled at Ujjain...

In the Gwalior inscription, it is recorded that Gurjara-Pratihara emperor Nagabhata "crushed the large army of the powerful Mlechcha king." This large army consisted of cavalry, infantry, siege artillery, and probably a force of camels...

The Arab chronicler Sulaiman describes the army of the Pratiharas as it stood in 851 CE, "The ruler of Gurjars maintains numerous forces and no other Indian prince has so fine a cavalry. He is unfriendly to the Arabs, still he acknowledges that the king of the Arabs is the greatest of rulers. Among the princes of India there is no greater foe of the Islamic faith than he. He has got riches, and his camels and horses are numerous."

-- Gurjara-Pratihara dynasty, by Wikipedia

king Mahendrapala I.

Inscriptions discovered at Ramgaya, opposite the Gadadhar temple at Gaya, at Guneria in the southern part of the Gaya district, at Itkhori in the Hazaribagh district of Bihar and at Paharpur in the northern part of the Rajshahi district of Bengal, describe his reign. [???]

The greater part of Magadha up to even northern Bengal had come under the suzerainty of the monarch Mahendrapala I.[3]:21 [Sen, S.N., 2013, A Textbook of Medieval Indian History, Delhi: Primus Books, ISBN 9789380607344]

In north his authority was extended up to the foot of the Himalayas. Gwalior was also under his control as the Siyadoni inscription mentions him the ruling sovereign in 903 and 907 A.D.. Thus, he retained the empire transmitted to him by his father Mihir Bhoja and also added some part of Bengal by defeating Palas.

In Dinajpur an inscription pillar of Mahendrapala has been found.[???]

-- Mahendrapala I, by Wikipedia

-- Rajashekhara (Sanskrit poet), by Wikipedia

have lavished praise on Kālidāsa in their tributes. A well-known Sanskrit verse ("Upamā Kālidāsasya...") praises his skill at upamā, or similes. Anandavardhana, a highly revered critic, considered Kālidāsa to be one of the greatest Sanskrit poets ever.

Ānandavardhana (c. 820–890 CE) was the author of Dhvanyāloka, or A Light on Suggestion (dhvani), a work articulating the philosophy of "aesthetic suggestion" (dhvani, vyañjanā)...

Ānandavardhana is credited with creating the dhvani theory. He wrote that dhvani (meaning sound, or resonance) is the "soul" or "essence" (ātman) of poetry (kavya)." "When the poet writes," said Ānandavardhana, "he creates a resonant field of emotions." To understand the poetry, the reader or hearer must be on the same "wavelength."

-- Anandavardhana, by Wikipedia

Of the hundreds of pre-modern Sanskrit commentaries on Kālidāsa's works, only a fraction have been contemporarily published. Such commentaries show signs of Kālidāsa's poetry being changed from its original state through centuries of manual copying, and possibly through competing oral traditions which ran alongside the written tradition.[/size][/b]

Kālidāsa's Abhijñānaśākuntalam was one of the first works of Indian literature to become known in Europe. It was first translated to English and then from English to German, where it was received with wonder and fascination by a group of eminent poets, which included Herder and Goethe.[33]

Kālidāsa's work continued to evoke inspiration among the artistic circles of Europe during the late 19th century and early 20th century, as evidenced by Camille Claudel's sculpture Shakuntala.

Koodiyattam artist and Nāṭya Śāstra scholar Māni Mādhava Chākyār (1899–1990) choreographed and performed popular Kālidāsa plays including Abhijñānaśākuntala, Vikramorvaśīya and Mālavikāgnimitra.

The Kannada films Mahakavi Kalidasa (1955), featuring Honnappa Bagavatar, B. Sarojadevi and later Kaviratna Kalidasa (1983), featuring Rajkumar and Jayaprada,[34] were based on the life of Kālidāsa. Kaviratna Kalidasa also used Kālidāsa's Shakuntala as a sub-plot in the movie.V. Shantaram made the Hindi movie Stree (1961) based on Kālidāsa's Shakuntala. R.R. Chandran made the Tamil movie Mahakavi Kalidas (1966) based on Kālidāsa's life. Chevalier Nadigar Thilagam Sivaji Ganesan played the part of the poet himself. Mahakavi Kalidasu (Telugu, 1960) featuring Akkineni Nageswara Rao was similarly based on Kālidāsa's life and work.[35]

Surendra Verma's Hindi play Athavan Sarga, published in 1976, is based on the legend that Kālidāsa could not complete his epic Kumārasambhava because he was cursed by the goddess Pārvatī, for obscene descriptions of her conjugal life with Śiva in the eighth canto. The play depicts Kālidāsa as a court poet of Chandragupta who faces a trial on the insistence of a priest and some other moralists of his time.

Asti Kashchid Vagarthiyam is a five-act Sanskrit play written by Krishna Kumar in 1984. The story is a variation of the popular legend that Kālidāsa was mentally challenged at one time and that his wife was responsible for his transformation. Kālidāsa, a mentally challenged shepherd, is married to Vidyottamā, a learned princess, through a conspiracy. On discovering that she has been tricked, Vidyottamā banishes Kālidāsa, asking him to acquire scholarship and fame if he desires to continue their relationship. She further stipulates that on his return he will have to answer the question, Asti Kaścid Vāgarthaḥ" ("Is there anything special in expression?"), to her satisfaction. In due course, Kālidāsa attains knowledge and fame as a poet. Kālidāsa begins Kumārsambhava, Raghuvaṃśa and Meghaduta with the words Asti ("there is"), Kaścit ("something") and Vāgarthaḥ ("spoken word and its meaning") respectively.

Bishnupada Bhattacharya's "Kalidas o Robindronath" is a comparative study of Kalidasa and the Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore.

Ashadh Ka Ek Din is a Hindi play based on fictionalized elements of Kalidasa's life.

See also

·         Sanskrit literature
·         Sanskrit drama
·         Bhāsa
·         Bhavabhūti

References

1.       "Kalidasa - Kalidasa Biography - Poem Hunter". www.poemhunter.com. Retrieved 5 October2015.
2.       Kālidāsa (2001). The Recognition of Sakuntala: A Play In Seven Acts. Oxford University Press. pp. ix. ISBN 9780191606090.
3.       Gopal 1984, p. 3.
4.       P. N. K. Bamzai (1 January 1994). Culture and Political History of Kashmir. 1. M.D. Publications Pvt. Ltd. pp. 261–262. ISBN 978-81-85880-31-0.
5.       M. K. Kaw (1 January 2004). Kashmir and Its People: Studies in the Evolution of Kashmiri Society. APH Publishing. p. 388. ISBN 978-81-7648-537-1.
6.       Shailesh, H D Bhatt. The Story of Kalidas. Publications Division Ministry of Information & Broadcasting. ISBN 9788123021935.
7.       "About Kalidasa". Kalidasa Academi. Archived from the original on 28 July 2013. Retrieved 30 December 2015.
8.       Chandra Rajan (2005). The Loom Of Time. Penguin UK. pp. 268–274. ISBN 9789351180104.
9.       Wolpert, Stanley (2005). India. University of California Press. p. 38. ISBN 978-0-520-24696-6.
10.     Vasudev Vishnu Mirashi and Narayan Raghunath Navlekar (1969). Kālidāsa; Date, Life, and Works. Popular Prakashan. pp. 1–35. ISBN 9788171544684.
11.     Gopal 1984, p. 14.
12.     C. R. Devadhar (1999). Works of Kālidāsa. 1. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. vii–viii. ISBN 9788120800236.
13.     Sastri 1987, pp. 77–78.
14.    Gopal 1984, p. 8.
15.     Sastri 1987, p. 80.
16.     M. Srinivasachariar (1974). History of Classical Sanskrit Literature. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 112–114. ISBN 9788120802841.
17.     K. Krishnamoorthy (1994). Eng Kalindi Charan Panigrahi. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 9–10. ISBN 978-81-7201-688-3.
18.     Kalidasa Translations of Shakuntala, and Other Works. J. M. Dent & sons, Limited. 1 January 1920.
19.     "Kalidas". www.cs.colostate.edu. Retrieved 7 April 2021.
20.     Schuyler, Jr., Montgomery (1901). "The Editions and Translations of Çakuntalā". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 22: 237–248. doi:10.2307/592432. JSTOR 592432.
21.     Schuyler, Jr., Montgomery (1902). "Bibliography of Kālidāsa's Mālavikāgnimitra and Vikramorvaçī". Journal of the American Oriental Society. 23: 93–101. doi:10.2307/592384. JSTOR 592384.
22.     Sastri 1987, p. 2.
23.     "Rabindranath Tagore on Kalidasa's Meghadoota". Cloud and Sunshine. 16 September 2011. Retrieved 7 April 2021.
24.     "Translations of Shakuntala and Other Works - Online Library of Liberty". oll.libertyfund.org. Retrieved 5 October 2015.
25.     Carnegie, Dale (2017). How to Stop Worrying and Start Living. Manjul Publishing House. ISBN 978-81-8322-802-2.
26.     Kale, p. xxiv.
27.     Kale, p. xxv.
28.     Kale, p. xxvi.
29.     Kale, pp. xxvi-xxvii.
30.     Maurice Winternitz; Moriz Winternitz (1 January 2008). History of Indian Literature. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 238. ISBN 978-81-208-0056-4.
31.     Kale, p. xxvii.
32.     Vallabhadeva; Goodall, Dominic; Isaacson, H. (2003). The Raghupaãncik-a of Vallabhadeva. E. Forsten. ASIN 9069801388 Check |asin= value (help). ISBN 978-90-6980-138-4. JSTOR 10.1163/j.ctt1w76wzr.11.
33.     Haksar, A. N. D. (1 January 2006). Madhav & Kama: A Love Story from Ancient India. Roli Books Private Limited. pp. 58. ISBN 978-93-5194-060-9.
34.     Kavirathna Kaalidaasa (1983) - IMDb, retrieved 7 April 2021
35.     Rao, Kamalakara Kameshwara, Mahakavi Kalidasu (Drama, History, Musical), Akkineni Nageshwara Rao, S. V. Ranga Rao, Sriranjani, Seeta Rama Anjaneyulu Chilakalapudi, Sarani Productions, retrieved 7 April 2021

Notes

1.       Ṛtusaṃhāra was translated into Tamil by Muhandiram T. Sathasiva Iyer.
2.       It was later published as the third volume of the 13-volume Columbia University Indo-Iranian Series, published by the Columbia University Press in 1901-32 and edited by A. V. Williams Jackson.

Citations

·         Raghavan, V. (January–March 1968). "A Bibliography of translations of Kalidasa's works in Indian Languages". Indian Literature. 11 (1): 5–35. JSTOR 23329605.
·         Śāstrī, Gaurīnātha (1987). A Concise History of Classical Sanskrit Literature. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-81-208-0027-4.
·         Gopal, Ram (1 January 1984). Kālidāsa: His Art and Culture. Concept Publishing Company.
·         Kale, M.R. The Abhijñānaśākuntalam of Kālidāsa. Motilal Banarsidass. ISBN 978-8120802834.

Further reading

·         Kālidāsa (1984). Miller, Barbara Stoler (ed.). The Plays of Kālidāsa: Theater of Memory. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 978-81-208-1681-7.
·         Sethna, Kaikhushru Dhunjibhoy (2000). Problems of Ancient India. Aditya Prakashan. pp. 79–120. ISBN 978-81-7742-026-5.
·         Venkatachalam, V. (1986). "Kalidasa Special Number (X), The Vikram". Bhāsa. Sahitya Akademi. pp. 130–140.

External links

·         Media from Wikimedia Commons
·         Quotations from Wikiquote
·         Texts from Wikisource
·         Data from Wikidata
·         Kalidasa at the Encyclopædia Britannica
·         Kalidasa: Translations of Shakuntala and Other Works by Arthur W. Ryder
·         Biography of Kalidasa
·         Works by Kalidasa at Project Gutenberg
·         Works by or about Kalidasa at Internet Archive
·         Works by Kalidasa at WorldCat Identities
·         Clay Sanskrit Library publishes classical Indian literature, including the works of Kalidasa with Sanskrit facing-page text and translation. Also offers searchable corpus and downloadable materials.
·         Kalidasa at The Online Library of Liberty
·         Kalidasa at IMDb
·         Kalidasa at Banglapedia
·         Epigraphical Echoes of Kalidasa
 
 

[admin]

CHAPTER IV. The Second Empire. Excerpt from "The Pālas of Bengal"
by Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay
1915
Chapter IV. The Second Empire.

The period which follows is entirely different in character, the principal actors having changed. The great Gurjara-Pratīhāra Empire was rapidly dissolving and the Rāṣṭrakūṭa kings were gradually becoming weaker. Rāṣṭrakūṭa and Gurjara invasions became things of the past. New actors were appearing in the political arena. The invasion of the Great Coḷa Conqueror left a deep impression on north eastern India. It gave Bengal a new dynasty of kings and indirectly hastened the ruin of the Pãla Empire. After the Badal pillar inscription of Narāyaṇapāla, there is no other inscription which can throw Hght on the history of Northern Bengal for three generations, i.e. till the time of Mahīpāla I. About this time some Mongolian tribes occupied the whole of the Northern Bengal and either massacred the old inhabitants or gradually forced them back southwards. A monolithic pillar now standing in the grounds of the place of the Mahārājas of Dinajpur bears a record of one of these Mongolian kings, who also claimed to be the lords of Gauḍa (Gauḍeśvara).

Kamboja or Mongolian invasion of North Bengal

At present the whole of Northern Bengal is strewn over with pre-Muhammadan ruins and so far the general theory had been, that these temples, monasteries and towns were ruined at the time of the Muhammadan occupation of the country. But recently a plausible theory has been started by Mr. Ramā Prasād Canda, B.A., on the basis of Dinājpur pillar inscription, according to which the ruin of these ancient cities of Northern Bengal should be differently interpreted. The inscription on the Dinājpur pillar was brought to notice in 1871 when it was published with a rude lithograph.[1] The late Dr. Bloch examined the inscription during one of his tours and hastily gave a reading which I am afraid cannot be supported. Mr. Canda obtained some very clear and beautiful rubbings of this inscription during one of his many visits and submitted a paper on it to the Asiatic Society of Bengal.[2] According to Mr. Canda, the Koch, Mech and the Palias of the present day are the descendants of the Mongolians who invaded and settled in North Bengal during the latter half of the ninth and the tenth century A.D. The inscription on the Dinājpur pillar, which forms the basis of Mr. Canda's paper, records the erection of a temple of Śiva during the reign of a king of Gauḍa of the Kāmboja race, in the year 888 of some unspecified era. The date is expressed as a chronogram:

The date in the Dinājpur inscription.

Kuñjara-Ghaṭā-varṣeṇa, which probably means 888. This date cannot be referred to the Vikrama era as in that case it would be equivalent to 831 A.D., which is too early to suit the characters used in this inscription. Neither can it be referred to the Gupta era as in that case it would be equal to 1207 A.D., which is certainly too late. The Kalacuri-Cedī era has never been found to have been used in Bengal. The Śaka era suits best though it has but been sparsely used in the North-East. In that case S. 888 = 966 A.D. falls just after the reign of Devapāla, the Pratihāra King of Kanauj. At that time the invaders must have settled down so that the invasion itself must have taken place some time earlier. Northern Bengal was in the undisputed possession of Nārāyaṇapāla at the time of the incision of Guravamiśra's record. So this invasion must have taken place some time between 850-950 A.D. The irruption of these Mongolian hordes must have taken place through the Himalayas, and most probably they were dispossessed of their former homes in the hills by some other invaders. So the Pālas after Nārāyaṇapāla, i.e. Rajyapāla, Gopāla II, and Vigrahapāla II, were having a rather bad time of it with the Gurjara Empire in the West and occasional Rāṣṭrakūṭa raids thrown in, and with Barbarian hordes advancing in untold numbers through the mountain passes of the North. No wonder that Magadha was annexed to the Gurjara-Pratihāra Empire. At the time of the invasion of Indra III, the Eastern Frontier of the Gurjara-Pratihāra Empire most probably extended right up to the modern Bhagirathi, and its confluence near Saugor Island. North Bengal must have remained in the possession of the Mongolian kings up to the end of the tenth century A.D.

Kāmboja kings of Gauda

In the beginning of the eleventh century we find that the Pālas have recovered possession of Northern Bengal, and from this time onwards right up to the end of the second Pāla Empire, Northern Bengal continued to be in their possession. At the time of the Dinajpur inscription the Pālas seem to have been deprived of Gauḍa and consequently the Mongolian king became Gauḍeśvara. The name Kāmboja itself is of great interest. Thus far the Kāmbojas or Kamvojas were known to be a northern tribe who lived side by side with the Greeks in Afghanistan and the Western Punjab, as shown by the phrase "Yona-Kāmbojesu" in the XIII Rock Edict of Asoka.[3] The occurrence of the name in a Bengal inscription does not mean that the Kāmbojas, whole or part, immigrated into Bengal from the Punjab across the whole of Northern India, because that would have been an impossibility in those days but shows that all Mongolians were called Kāmbojas, and that people with Mongolian features crossed over into Bengal through the Northern Mountains and as Kāmbojas. They may or may not have been a part of the people who became known during the Maurya period as the Kāmbojas.

The occupation of Gauḍa by a barbarian tribe, at a time when the whole of Magadha was in the possession of the Gurjaras, shows that the kings of the Pāla dynasty between Nārāyaṇapāla and Vigrahapāla II and Mahīpāla I were kings in name only. Most probably they ruled over an insignficant kingdom surrounded by a large number of petty monarchies. The Tirumalai inscription of Rajendra Coḷa I shows that the ancient Gauḍa and Vaṅga had become divided into a large number of small kingdoms. The exact state and extent of the Pāla dominions under Vigrahapāla are not known. Most probably he lost even what had belonged to Gopāla II as his son Mahīpāla I is said to have recovered his paternal kingdom. His only recorded war seems to have been conducted in Eastern Bengal. In the Āmgāchi and Dinājpur grants there is a verse about this:—

Deśe prāci pracura-payasi svaccham = āpīya toyaṁ svairaṁ bhrāntvā tad = anu malay-opatyakā-candaneṣu,
Kṛtvā sāndrais = taruṣu jaḍatāṁ śīkarair = abhra-tulyāḥ prāley-ādreḥ kaṭakam = abhajan yasya senā-gajendrāḥ.—verse 11 Dinajpur grant of Mahīpāla.[4]

But this is not very certain, as in the Āmgāchi grant of Vigrahapāla the verse is attributed to Vigrahapāla III.[5]

After the death of Vigrahapāla II, Mahīpāla succeeded to what remained of the first Empire of the Pālas. In his Dinājpur grant he is said to have recovered the kingdom of his father:—

Hata-sakala-vipakṣaḥ saṅgare vāhu-darppād = anadhikṛta-viluptaṁ rājyam = āsādya pitryaṁ
Nihita-caraṇa-padmo bhūbhṛtāṁ murdhni tasmād = abhavad = avani-pālaḥ Śrī-Mahīpāladevaḥ.[6]

Mahīpāla I conquers Magadha

After the recovery of his paternal kingdom, Mahīpāla I must have turned his attention to the West. In his sixth year Nālanda was included in his kingdom as a manuscript copied at that place in that year of the king has been acquired for the Asiatic Society of Bengal by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī. Magadha seems to have continued in the possession of the king for a long time. In the eleventh year of the king an image of Buddha was dedicated in or near the temple of the Mahābodhi at Bodh-Gaya, and in the same year the great temple at Nālanda was restored, as it had been burnt down in a fire. After the conquest of Magadha, Mahīpāla seems to have attacked Tīrabhukti or Mithilā which continued in the possession of the king at least till his 48th year. His kingdom seems to have extended as far as Benares and continued to be included in it till 1020 A.D. In that year, two persons were deputed by the king, named Sthirapāla and Vasantapāla, to execute some repairs near the Buddhist city. The state of the Gurjara kingdom of Kanauj favoured the occupation.

Occupies Benares.

Only a few years before it had been devastated by Sultan Mahmūd of Ghazni, and after his departure, the king Rājyapāladeva had been deposed and murdered by the Indian Princes for having submitted to an alien conqueror. At that time Trilocanapāla was seated on the throne of the Gurjara-Pratīhāras and most probably his power did not extend beyond the confluence of the Yamunā.

In spite of the victories during the earlier part of his reign, Mahīpāla I suffered some very severe reverses from the time of the rise of the Cedis, under Gāṅgeyadeva and Karṇadeva and the invasion of the Coḷa king Rājendra Coḷa I.

Invasion of Rājendra Coḷa I.

The invasion of the Coḷa king took place before the 13th year of that prince, i.e. before 1025 A.D. Rājendra Coḷa earned the viruda of "Gaṅgegoṇḍā" or "Gangā-vijayī" by pushing as far North as the Ganges during this raid. The Tirumalai Rock inscription of the great conqueror records the Northern Campaign in detail. It is said that the king seized the "Oḍḍa-viṣaya" which was difficult to approach.

Conquest of Odra and Kośala. Daṇḍabukti and Southern Rāḍhā.

This is clearly the Odra Viṣaya of the copper-plate inscriptions of Orissa. Then he entered "Koṣalaināḍu," i.e. the Kośala of the inscriptions of the Soma-vaṁśī kings of Orissa.[7] Next in order comes the subjugation of Daṇḍabhukti. The province has been identified by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī with the modern province of Bihar, because the ancient name of the town of Bihar was called Otantapuri by the Tibetans and Adwand Bihār by the Muhammadans. But this identification is scarcely tenable.

Uddandapura

The place is mentioned in the Rāmacarita of Sandhyākaranandi where a person named Jayasiṁha is said to have been its ruler and is said to have aided Rāmapāla in his wars in Northern Bengal. This man is said to have defeated Karṇa-Keśarī, the king of Orissa.[8] Most probably Daṇḍabhukti was the march-land between Orissa and Bengal, corresponding to the modern British districts of Midnapur and Balasore, and the man had defeated the king of Orissa in one of his expeditions against Bengal. It is more probable for a king of the march-lands to come into conflict with the king of Orissa than for the ruler of Magadha. Moreover the order in which the names of the countries are mentioned prevents us from supposing that Bihar is the country mentioned as we shall see later on. From Daṇḍabhukti the king passed on to Bengal, attacking and occupying the province of "Takkaṇa-Lāḍam." This name has been taken to be the equivalent of "Dakṣiṇa Lāṭa" by the late Dr. Kielhorn, which is the ancient name of Southern Gujarat.[9] But Messrs. Hultzsch and Venkayya take it to mean "Dakṣiṇa Virāṭa" or Southern Berar.[10] Mr. Venkayya is a great authority on Tamil, and he supposes that "the Tamil term "Ilaḍa" does not correspond to Sanskrit Lāṭa (Gujarat) but to Virāṭa (Berar)". But nowhere did it strike the learned scholars that the order in which the countries are mentioned, prevents us from supposing that either Berar or Gujarat is mentioned. In fact the country mentioned is Southern Rāḍhā. Mr. Venkayya will find, on re-considering the question, that Dakṣiṇa-Rāḍhā is a better equivalent for Tamil Takkana-Lāḍam than Dakṣiṇa-Virāṭa. Immediately after "Takkana-Lāḍam" we have the mention of Vaṅgāla-deśa, which all authorities agree as being equal to Vaṅga or Eastern Bengal. No sane man would turn from Orissa to conquer Southern Gujarat or Berar and then return to the East to conquer East Bengal, after which he turns back to the West to defeat Mahīpāla in North Bengal and again rushes to North Gujarat or Berar to conquer it. The more natural explanation is that Rājendra Coḷa defeated Raṇaśūra, the ruler of Southern Rāḍhā, and then passed on through that country to invade Vaṅga. From very early times a part of Bengal has been called Rāḍhā.

Rāḍhā as an ancient name

It occurs in a dated inscription of the Indo-Scythian period as Rārā. This inscription is at present in the Indian Museum, in Calcutta, but it was discovered in Mathurā in the United Provinces. The record mentions the erection of a Jaina image in the year 62 of the Kuṣana era = 150 A.D. at the request of a Jaina monk who was an inhabitant of the country of Rārā.[11] In comparatively modern times the name has been found on two copper-plate inscriptions:—

(1) The newly discovered grant of the Sena king Vallālasena, found at Sitāhāṭī, near Kāṭwā, in the Burdwān district of Bengal, where we find that the village granted, Vāllahiṭṭi, was situated in the North Rāḍhā (Uttara-Rāḍhā-maṇḍale).[12] The very name Uttara-Rāḍhā occurs in the Tirumalai inscription as we shall see later on. Besides this, the kings of the Sena dynasty seem to have ruled in the Rāḍhā country:—

Vaṁśe tasy = ābhyudayini sadācāra-caryā-niruḍhi-prauḍhāṁ Rāḍhām-akalita-carair = bhūṣayantoऽnubhāvaiḥ,
Śaśvad = viśv-ābhaya-vitaraṇa-sthūla-lakṣyāvalakṣaiḥ kīrtty-ullolaiḥ snapita-viyato jajñire rājaputrāḥ.—verse 3.[13]

There being a Uttara-Rāḍhā we can say from immediate inference, that there was a Dakṣiṇa-Rāḍhā, which in Tamil becomes "Takkana-Lāḍam."

(2) Besides this the Kenduāpatna plates of Narasiṁhadeva II of Orissa, dated Śaka 1217 = 1296 A.D., show very clearly that Rāḍhā and Vārendrī were well-known names of divisions of Bengal:—

Rāḍhā-Vārendra-yavanī-nayan-āñjan-āśru-pūreṇa dūra-viniveśitakālima-śrīḥ,
Tad-vipralambha-karaṇ-ādbhuta-nistaraṅgā Gaṅgāpi nūnam-amunā Yamun = ādhun = ābhūt.—verse 84.[14]

At the time of the Coḷa invasion a king named Raṇaśūra was ruling Southern Rāḍhā. In Bengal there is a tradition that a dynasty of kings with the affix Śūra ruled in Bengal before the Pālas. We have no reliable evidence for this. But three kings of this family, at least with the word Śūra affixed to their names, have been mentioned in epigraphs. These are: Raṇaśūra, of the Tirumalai inscription; Lakṣmīśūra, a king of a division of Bengal named Apara-Mandāra, a contemporary of Rāmapāla, who was the headman of all feudatories of Forest lands (samastāṭavika-sāmanta-cakra-cuḍāmaṇiḥ); a man named Damaśūra, who is mentioned in a newly-discovered inscription of the time of Gopāla III, found at Manda in the Rājshāhi district of Bengal. After conquering Southern Rāḍhā, the Coḷa king did not proceed to subdue the northern portion of it, but on the other hand, passed eastwards towards Vaṅga, which was then ruled by a king named Govinda-Candra.

Conquest of Eastern Bengal

This king has been wrongly identified with a king named Govinda-Candra or Govi-Canda, about whom some songs are current in the State of Kuch-Bihar and the Rungpur district of Bengal. The king of that name mentioned in the Tirumalai inscription is expressly stated to be the King of Eastern Bengal, and so there is very little chance of identifying him with the local hero of Rungpur. After conquering Eastern Bengal, Rājendra Coḷa turned towards the West and faced Mahīpāla, who had been rightly identified by the late Dr Kielhorn with the Pāla king Mahīpāla I, who was defeated.

Defeat of Mahīpāla and conquest of Northern Rāḍhā

The inscription is so worded that one at once understands that by defeating Mahīpāla, the king was able to reach "Uttira-Lāḍam" and the Ganges. Uttira-Lāḍam for the same reasons as have been stated above in the case "Takkana-Lāḍam" should be taken to be Northern Rāḍhā, which is actually mentioned as a maṇḍala in the Sītāhāṭi grant of Vallālasena. Moreover there is no evidence to prove that Berar or Virāṭa was divided into two parts at any time. Again from Bengal Rājendra Coḷa reached Uttara-Rāḍha and after that the Ganges. It is a far cry from Berar to the Ganges, but the sacred river which added lustre to the conquest of Rājendra Coḷa I in the eyes of the Southern people actually forms the Northern boundary of Rāḍha. The divisions of Bengal across the great river are known as Mithilā and Vārendra, the latter of which is mentioned in the Rāma-carita,[15] and at least three copper-plates. So now it is clear that the Ganges formed the Northern boundary of the conquest of Rājendra Coḷa I. Curiously enough he did not attempt to cross the Ganges to the other side. The Tirumalai inscription being a Praśasti does not mention such details. But the desired details are supplied by an ancient manuscript discovered by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī and now in the library of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. In 1893 the Mahāmahopādhyāya published notes on a find of ancient Sanskrit manuscripts among which was a drama named Caṇḍa-Kauśika, by Ārya Kṣemīśvara. This play was enacted before the king by his order, and it contains a verse in which the king Mahīpāla I is compared with Candragupta and a people named Karṇāṭakas, to the Nandas. So this contemporary work gives the credit of defeating the Karṇāṭakas to Mahīpāla I. The Karṇāṭakas seem to be the southerners who invaded Bengal under Rājendra Coḷa I. It appears that though Mahīpāla I was defeated by Rājendra Coḷa when he crossed into Rāḍhā from East Bengal, he prevented him from crossing the Ganges into Varendra or Northern Bengal, and so the Coḷa conqueror had to turn back from the banks of the Ganges. The manuscript on which Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī relies is not a modern one, as it was copied in 1331 A.D.[16] The invasion of the Coḷa king did not change the political divisions of the country, but it left one permanent mark in the shape of a body of settlers, who occupied the thrones of Bengal and Mithilā as the Sena and Karṇāṭa dynasties during the latter days of the Pālas.

The Coḷa invasion took place, as has been stated above, before the thirteenth year of the king, i.e. 1025 A.D. The very next year we find that the Wheel of Law at Benares is being repaired, and a new temple (Gandha-kūṭī) built by the brothers Sthirapāla and Vasantapāla under the orders of the king.

The record of these events is found in an inscription discovered amidst the ruins of Sārnāth near Benares more than a hundred years ago.[17] It is incised on the pedestal of an image of Buddha, which is at present in the Provincial Museum at Lucknow. This image was dedicated in the Vikrama year 1083 = 1026 A.D. Very soon after this Benares was taken away from the Pālas by the Cedī Emperor of Gāṅgeyadeva who invaded North-Eastern India about this time and had occupied it six or seven years ago.

The struggle with the Cedi Empire

Some time before 1881 A.D., some metal images were found near a village Imādpur in the Muzaffarpur district of Bengal,[18] which were pronounced by Dr. Hoernle to have been dedicated in the 48th year of Mahīpāladeva.[19] As these images were found in Tirhut or Tīrabhukti, it is natural to conclude that Mithila was in the possession of the Pālas up to the 48th year of Mahīpāla I.

Conquest of Mithilā.

But six years before the erection of the temple of Sārnath, Mithilā passed out of the hands of the Pālas. In the year 1020 A.D. Gāṅgeyadeva was in possession of Tīrabhukti or Mithilā. A copy of the Rāmāyaṇa copied in that year v. s. 1076 mentions Tīrabhukti as being in the possession of Gāṅgeyadeva:—

Saṁvat 1076 āṣāḍha badi 4 mahārājādhirāja puṇyāvaloka-somavaṁśodbhava-Gauḍadhvaja-Śrīmad-Gāṅgeyadeva-bhujyamāṇa Tīrabhuktau kalyāṇavijayarājye.[20]

Very soon after Benares passed into the hands of the Cedīs. Karṇṇadeva, the son of Gāṅgeyadeva, was in possession of Benares in 1042 A.D. (Kalacurī-Cedī year 793).[21] Tīrabhukti or Mithilā was never recovered by the Pālas. The only Pāla records referring to this Province are the Bhāgalpur grant of Nārāyaṇapāla and the Imādpur image inscription of Mahīpāla I.

Mahīpāla I was succeeded by his son Nayapāla, who is called Nyāyapala on the authority of some unpublished record, by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī.

Successor and length of reign.

According to Tārānātha, Mahīpāla reigned for fifty-two years, which is most probably correct as the Imādpur images were dedicated in the 48th year of the king. Of the relations of the king we only know the names of the brothers Sthirapāla and Vasantapāla, who were most probably nearly related to him besides his son Nayapāla. The long reign of Mahīpāla I is very fruitful in inscription and manuscript records. The earliest of these is the manuscript of Aṣṭasāhasrikā Prajñāpāramitā, now in the University Library at Cambridge. The colophon runs thus:—

Parameśvara paramabhaṭṭāraka-paramasaugata-mahārājādhirāja Śrīman-Mahīpāladeva pravarddhamāna-vijayarājye samvat 5 Āśvine Kṛṣṇe.[22]

The date next in order is to be found in a manuscript of the same work, collected by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī, for the Asiatic Society of Bengal. The reading of the colophon as revised by the late Dr. Theodor Bloch runs as follows:—

Deyadharmmeyaṁ pravaramahāyānayāyinaḥ Tāḍivāḍi-Mahāvihārīya āvasthitena Śākyācārya-sthavira-Sādhuguptasya yad = atra puṇyan = tad = bhavatv = ācāry = opādhyāya-mātā-pitṛ-puraṅgamaṁ kṛtvā sakala-satva-rāśer = anuttara-jñāna phal = āvāptaya iti. Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Paramasaugata Śrīmad-Vigrahapāladeva-pādānudhyāta Paramabhaṭṭāraka-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Paramasaugata Śrīman = Mahīpāladeva-pravarddhamāna-Kalyāṇavijayarājye ṣaṣṭha-sambatsare abhilikhyamāne yatrāṅke samvat 6 Kārttika-Kṛṣṇa-trayodaśyān = tithau maṅgala-vāreṇa bhaṭṭārikā-niṣpāditam = iti॥ Śrī Nālandāvasthita-Kalyāṇamitra-Cintāmaṇikasya likhita iti.[23]

This colophon proves that in the sixth year of Mahīpāla Nālanda was in his possession, and thus a part at least of Magadha was included in his dominions. Next in order comes an inscription incised on the pedestal of an image of Buddha, in the attitude of touching the earth (Bhūmisparśa mudrā). This image is now being worshipped as one of the five Pāṇḍus, in a small shrine just in front of the entrance of the great temple at Bodh-Gayā. The inscription consists of three lines, in an imperfect state of preservation, the first part of each line having lost a number of letters. It is dated in the eleventh year of the reign of Mahīpāla, presumably the first, as the letters still show signs of acute angles at their lower extremities. It has been referred to by Cunningham.[24] The text runs:—

1. Deya-dharmmoyam .......... tad-bhavatv = ācāry = opādhāya-mātā-pitṛ-pūrvvaṅgamaṁ kṛtvā sakala-satva-rāśer = anuttara-jñān = āvāptaya-iti॥ Mahā-
2. [rājādhirāja-Parameśvara-Pa]ramabhaṭṭāraka-Paramasaugata-Śrī-mān = Mahīpāladeva-pravarddhamāna-vijayarājye ekādaśame samvatsare abhilikhya[māne]
3. .......... pañcamyān = tithau gandha-Kūṭī-dvaya-sahitā……karitāv = iti.

The name of the donor of the two temples (Gandha-Kūṭīdvaya) and the image is unfortunately lost. As the name of the month in this inscription is illegible it is impossible to state whether it was incised before or after Balāditya's Nālandā inscription of the same year which has been placed next in order. This inscription was discovered by Broadley among the ruins of the great Vihāra at Nālandā where it was found on a door-jamb.

The restoration of the Great Vihāra at Nālandā.

According to this inscription the great temple at Nālandā was restored after being burnt down by a man named Bālāditya, a Jyāvisa of Telāḍhaka (modern Telara) who had emigrated from Kauśāmbī, in the eleventh year of Mahīpāladeva.[25]

The conquest of Northern Bengal must have taken place some years earlier. In his ninth year Mahīpāla granted the village of Kuraṭapallikā, with the exception of Cuṭapallikā, in the Gokalikā maṇḍala, Koṭivarṣa viṣaya of the Pauṇḍravarddhana bhukti to a Brāhmaṇa named Kṛṣṇādityaśarmaṇ. It has been proved by another inscription, the Maṇahali grant of Madanapāla, that the Koṭivarṣa viṣaya was situated in Northern Bengal, as both inscriptions have been discovered in the Dinājpur district.[26] An inscription incised on the pedestal of a colossal image of Buddha, still in situ, at Tetrawan, an ancient site six miles from Bihār in the Patna District of Bengal, contains the name of Mahīpāla, the rest having become illegible.[27] Most probably it was dedicated during the reign of Mahīpāladeva. The images discovered at Imādpur in the Muzaffarpur district of Bengal in 1881 were most probably dedicated in the 48th year of Mahīpāla I,[28] as Mahīpāla II had a very short reign. The 48th year of Mahīpāla I must have fallen before 1020 A.D., as in that year the Cedī Emperor Gāṅgeyadeva was in possession of Tīrabhukti or Tirhut. The last inscription of Mahīpāla is the Sarnath inscription of the Vikrama year 1083. This inscription was either posthumous, or incised when the city of Benares had passed from the hands of the Pālas to those of the Cedīs. The repair of the Wheel of Law and the building of the temple seem to have begun some time before and the work was completed either after Mahīpāla's death or in his last year, when he had lost Benares and Tirhut. Mahīpāla was succeeded by his son Nayapāla, called Nyāyapāla by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī, on some unknown authority. His minister's name was Vāmaṇabhaṭṭa, who is the Dūtaka of the Bangarh grant of this king called the Dinājpur grant by Dr. Kielhorn.

Nayapāla succeeded the throne of the Pālas some time between 1025—30 A.D. At that time the extent of the Pāla Empire had been considerably diminished by the loss of Benares and Tīrabhukti.

Nayapāla Acc. 1025—30 A.D.

Gāṅgeyadeva was succeeded by his son Karṇa, who with the help of some Southerners overran the whole Northern India. The Nāgpur praśasti of Udayāditya of Mālava speaks of him as one who, joined by the Karṇāṭakas, had swept over the earth like a mighty ocean:—

Tasmin = vāsava-vandhutām = upagate rājye ca kuly = ākule Magnasvāmini tasya vandhur = Udayādityo-bhavad-bhūpatiḥ
Yen = oddhṛitya mahārṇṇav = opama-mulat = Karṇṇāṭa-Karṇṇa-prabhum = urvvīpālakadarthitāṁ bhuvam = imāṁ Śrīmad-Varāhāyitaṁ—verse 32.[29]

According to the Bheraghat inscription of Alhaṇadevī, we find:—

Pāṇḍyaś = caṇḍimatām = mumoca Muralas = tatyāja garvva-grahaṁ
Kuṅgaḥ sadgatim = ājagāma cakape Vaṅgaḥ Kaliṅgaiḥ saha,
Kīra Kīravadāsa pañjaragṛhe Hūṇaḥ praharṣaṁ jahau
Yasmin = rājam Śaurya-bibhrama bharaṁ vibhraty-apūrvva-prabhe—verse 12.[30]

Karṇṇadeva is said to have subdued or held in check the Pāṇḍyas, Muralas, Kuṅgas, Vaṇgas, Kaliṅgas, Kīras and Hūṇas. In the Karanbel inscription of Jayasiṁhadeva it is stated that Karṇṇa was waited upon by the Coḍa, Kuṅga Hūṇa, Gauḍa, Gurjara and Kīra princes:—

Nīcaiḥ sañcara Coḍa-Kuṅga kim=idaṁ phalgu tvayā valgyate Hūṇ=aivam raṇituṁ na yuktam=iha te tvaṁ Gauḍa garvvan=tyaja,
m=aivaṁ Gurjjara garjja Kīra nibhṛto varttasva sevā-gatān=itthaṁ yasya mitho-virodhi-nṛpatīn dvāstho vininye janaḥ.—L. II—12.[31]

According to the Cedī inscriptions Karṇṇa subdued or defeated the king of Gauḍa, whoever he might be. Mr. Monmohan Cakravartti first of all pointed out mentions of a war between Nayapāla and the king of Karṇya. The term "king of Karṇya" seems to be a translation of the Sanskrit word "Karṇarāja," "the king Karṇa." The form Karṇya seems to be a mistake.[32] In his article on the Kṛṣṇadvārika temple inscription of Nayapāla Mr. Cakravartti has pointed out that Atīśa mediated between Nayapāla and the king of Karṇya about the year 1035 A.D. So the Cedī Emperor Karṇadeva, who is in reality the same person as the king of Karṇya of Tibetan literature, must have invaded Magadha some time before 1035 A.D.[33] The incidents of the campaign are mentioned in Rai Śarat Candra Dās Bahadur's article on the Life of Atīśa:—

Karṇadeva, the Cedī, invades Magadha.

"During Atīśa's residence at Vajrasena a dispute having risen between the two, Nayapāla, king of Magadha, and the Tīrthika, king of Karṇya of the West, the latter made war upon Magadha. Failing to capture the city, his troops sacked some of the sacred Buddhist institutions and killed altogether five (men) ………… Afterwards when victory turned towards (Nayapāla) and the troops of Karṇya were being slaughtered by the armies of Magadha, he took the king of Karṇya and his men under his protection and sent them away ………… Atīśa caused a treaty to be concluded between the two kings. With the exception of the articles of food that were destroyed at the time of war, all other things which had fallen in the hands of the parties were either restored or compensated for".[34]

Length of reign, Inscriptions and MS. Records.

Nayapāla must have reigned at least fifteen years as two of his inscriptions were incised in that year. The first is the Kṛṣṇa-dvārikā temple inscription, referred to above, which records the erection of a temple of Viṣṇu by a low class Brāhmaṇa named Viśvāditya, the son of Śūdraka and the grandson of Paritoṣa, in the fifteenth year of king Nayapāladeva. The verses were composed by a veterinary named Sahadeva and the engraving was done by the artisan Saṭṭasoma, son of Adhipasoma. The second inscription was discovered by Mr. Parameśvar Dayāl, then Court of Wards Head Clerk in Gayā, in 1884, inside the small temple of Narasiṁha in the Viṣṇupāda compound. It was pointed out by him to Mr. Cakravartti,[35] and to the late Dr. Bloch in 1902.[36] But as this inscription has never been properly edited I am taking this opportunity of transcribing it:—

(1) Oṁ Lakṣmīś=cirañ=jayati vāri-nidher-aneka-manthā-kulād-adhigatā puruṣottamasya। Snihyat=tirovalita-sammada ghūrṇṇamana-netrāvalokana nirasta-samasta vighnā॥

(2) S=eyaṁ vrahmapurī Gay=eti jagati khyātā svayaṁ vedhasā sthātuṁ brahmavidāṁ pur=īva ghaṭitā mokṣasya saukhyasya ca। vrumaḥ kiñ=ca bhavanti yatra pitaraḥ pretā-

(3) -layāvāsinaḥ pādaspṛṣṭa-jala-pradāna-vidhinā nāk=āṅganā-nāyakāḥ॥ Asyāṁ vabhūva puri vakragati-dvijihva-samrāḍ-bhujaṅga-ripur-acyuta-pādasevī। yo

(4) nāma viṣṇur-rathavad[37]-dvijarājavaryaḥ prītyā satāṁ ca Paritoṣa iti prasiddhaḥ॥ Tasmād=vidher=iva vabhūva sanatkumāraḥ Śrī Sūdrako vimala-vuddir=anekavidyaḥ।

(5) Bhūy-opi yena vidhin=aiva kṛtā Gay=eyaṁ vāhvor-valena suciraṁ paripālitā ca॥ Tasmād=ajāyata sutaḥ sutavad=dvijānāṁ yo-bhūt suvismaya-rasāvaha-kartaka-[38]

(6) ś=ca॥ Viśvāpakāraka-nirākṛtaye-vatīrṇṇaḥ Śrī Viśvarūpa iti kīrttita viśvarūpaḥ॥ Yaṁ prāpya c=ārthijana-vṛndam-akalpa-dānam=āpurbhavat[39] pulaka-jālam—ana-

(7) -nta-modaṁ। Sphīti-sphurad=dhana-kṛtārthatayā durāpa-cintāmaṇi-grahaṇakaṁ na kadāpi dadhmau॥ Yen=āsurāri-caritena mahodayena yantī rasātalam-iv-āvani-

(8) -r=uddhṛt-eyaṁ। Śrī-mad-Gayā-kali-mala-dvija-rāja-pakṣa-saṁkṣobha-kampita-tanur=bhuja-vikrameṇa॥ Yasmai viśuddha-caritāya nisagra[40]-sauryarāśi-priyāya vi-

(9) -nay-āmala-bhūṣanāya āvālyataḥ prabhṛti deva-manuṣya-loko vaddhāñjaliś=cirataraṁ spṛhayāṁ cakāra॥ Ten=emāñ=ca GADĀDHAR=ĀDI-nilayavyājena tāḥ kī-[41]

(10) kīrttayaḥ svetaṅśor=iva raśmayaḥ sughaṭitā[ḥ] santāpa-śāntyai sadā। Yatrāmbho-nidhi vīcivad=daśadiśām prakṣālan-aikacchaṭāḥ pātāla-prativāsi-ghora-timi-

(11) -ra-pradhvansa-dīpā iva॥ Etāḥ santu Gayāpurī sutaruṇī bhūṣāvalī kīrttayo yāvac=candra-divākarau ca gaganaṁ Śri-viśvarūp-āhvayaḥ Kartāsāṁ ca tathā pu-

(12) -rāṇa-puruṣān rājño-pi dhikkṛtya sad-yen-ākasmika-vismay-aika-rasiko loko muhur=murcchitaḥ। Dākṣiṇyād=uparuddhena prītis-timita cetasā। Praśastir-e-

(13) -ṣā vihitā VAIDYA ŚRĪ-VAJRAPAṆIṆĀ। Vijñāna-kauśal-ollāsa-jāta-naipuṇa karmmaṇā praśastir=eṣā likhitā Sarvvānandena dhīmatā। Kṣīrāmbho-nidhi-mekha-

(14) -lā-maṇi-guṇ-ālaṁkāritāyā bhuvo bharttuḥ ŚRĪ-NAYAPĀLA-DEVA-nṛpate rājñāśrīyaṁ vibhrataḥ saṁvṛtte tarasaiva PAÑCA-DAŚAME RĀJYASYA SAMVATSARE kīrttiḥ siddhim=upāgatā bhagavataḥ

(15) Śrī-mad-GADĀDHĀRIṆAḤ।

The main object of the inscription seems to be the recording of the ancestry and the name of the donor as well as the date of the building of the Temple of Gadādhara and several other minor temples of Viṣṇu. As the inscription itself was found in the temple of Narasiṁha which is only few paces behind that of Gadādhara at Gayā it seems certain that the ancient materials which have been profusely used in the modern temple of Gadādhara are the remains of the temple built by Viśvarūpa in the fifteenth year of the reign of Nayapāladeva.

The Kṛṣṇa-Dvārikā temple inscription referred to above also records the erection of temple of Viṣṇu in the fifteenth year of Nayapāla:—

Saptāmvu-rāśi-visarat (ac-ch) ślatha mekhalāya asyā bhūvaḥ kati na bhūmi-bhujo-vabhūvuḥ,
Siddhiṁ na kasyacid=agād=yad=analpa-kalpais=ten=ātra Kīrttanam=akāri Janārdanasya,—verse 17.[42]

The modern temple of Kṛṣṇa-dvārikā is built almost entirely of ancient materials and it is quite possible that these materials are the only remnants of Viśvāditya or Viśvarūpa's temple. The only other existing record of Nayapāla is in the colophon of a manuscript of Pañca-rakṣā in the collection of the Cambridge University:—

Deyadharmosyam=pravara-mahāyāna-yāyinyāḥ Paramopāsikā-Rājñī-Uddākāyā yad=atra puṇyan=tad=bhavatv=ācāry=opādhyāya-matā-pitṛ (pūrvaṅgama)ṅ-kṛtvā sakala-satva-rāśer-anuttara-jñān=āvāptaya iti॥ Paramasaugata-Mahārājādhirāja-Parameśvara Śrī-man=Nayapāladeva-pravarddhamāna-vijayarājye samvat 14 Caitra dine 27 likhit-eyaṁ bhaṭṭārikā iti.[43]

Nothing else is known about Nayapāla and his relations. He was succeeded by his son Vigrahapāla III. Nayapāla's reign most probably did not extend beyond the date of the Kṛṣṇa-dvārikā and Gadādhara temple inscriptions and seems to have come to an end some time between 1045 and 1050 A.D. It is said in a commentary on Cakradatta that Cakrapāṇi Datta was the kitchen superintendent of king Nayapāla.[44]

At the beginning of his reign Vigrahapāla came into conflict with his father's antagonist, the Cedī Emperor Karṇa. Karṇa's power at that time was at its lowest ebb.

Vigrahapāla III: his war.

He was being constantly defeated by the neighbouring princes. He had a very long reign, his own with that of his son having covered a century. In the height of his power he had overrun the whole of Northern India but in his old age he suffered many reverses. He was defeated by the Candella Kīrttivarman,[45] by Udayāditya of Mālava,[46] by Bhīmadeva I of Anahilvād, who is eulogised by the grammarian Hema-candra for having defeated Karṇa in battle,[47] and by the Western Cālukya Someśvara I, which is recorded by the poet Bilhaṇa in his Vikramāṇka-deva Carita, where Karṇa is mentioned as the god of death to the Lord of the Kalañjara mountains, e.g. the Caṇḍellas.[48]

Marriage with Princess Yauvanaśrī, the daughter of Karṇa.

In his last war with the Pālas, Karṇa was defeated and sued for peace. Vigrahapāla III married the aged king's daughter Yauvanaśrī. Karṇa's war with Vigrahapāla and his subsequent relationship was made known to us by Mahāmahopādhyāya Hara Prasāda Śāstrī's unique discovery, "The Rāmacarita of Sandhyākaranandi":—

Anyatra । yo Vigrahapālo Yauvanaśriyā Karṇasya rājñaḥ sutayā saha Kṣauṇīmudūdhavān। Sahasā valen=āvito-rakṣito raṇajitaḥ saṅgrāmajitaḥ Karṇo Dāhal=ādhipatir=yena। Raṇajita eva parantu rakṣito na unmūlitaḥ—Commentary on verse 9.[49]

It is evident from the commentary the Karṇa suffered a severe reverse at the hands of his future son-in-law and that though defeated he was not "uprooted," i.e. deprived of his kingdom. It may be that the proud Cedī gave his daughter to Vigrahapāla to avert a calamity. Vigrahapāla III probably had a very short reign, not exceeding thirteen years. Had he lived longer the Pāla Empire may have lasted for some time. His sons were continually quarrelling among themselves and reigned for very short periods. The subordinate princes eagerly availed themselves of the opportunity of throwing off the yoke and the Pāla princes never gained the opportunity of subjugating the territories lost at this time.

Three inscriptions of Vigrahapāla III have been discovered as yet, of which one is on a copper-plate and the other two on stone. The copper-plate is the well-known one from Āmgachi in the Dinājpur District. The inscription has been edited many times but the first twenty lines edited by the late Prof. Kielhorn[50] and the remaining portion by Dr. A. F. R. Hoernle[51] are the only reliable versions. A fresh edition of this important inscription is very urgently wanted. I hope to take up this work ere long and compare it with the Bangarh grant of Mahīpāla I as suggested by Mr. V. A. Smith.[52] The Āmgāchi plate records the grant of half of the village named Brāhmaṇī in the Koṭivarṣa viṣaya of the Pauṇḍravarddhana bhukti to a Brāhmaṇa named Khoddhata-devaśarman on the ninth day of Caitra in the 13th year of the king.[53] On the other two inscriptions of this king, the Akṣayavaṭa inscription is the most important. It was noticed by Cunningham in the third volume of his Reports. The late Dr. Th. Bloch published a summary of its contents but at that time the last lines of the inscription were covered with plaster and so he missed the name of the king and the date. After frequent trials I succeeded in removing the plaster and copying the entire inscription. The central part of the inscription has suffered seriously and is only partly legible. Otherwise the inscription is quite clear. It records the erection of a liṇga (Vaṭeśa) at Akṣayavaṭa and another called Prapitāmaheśvara close by, in the fifth year of the reign of Vigrahapāladeva. As the record has never been properly edited before I do so from the original stone:—

(1) Oṁ Oṁ namaḥ Śivāya॥ Dayābhāṇḍāgāraṁ niravadhi-jagad-doṣa-vijayi sphuraj=jñāna-jyotiḥ prasara-nihata-dhvānta-nicayaṁ। Kim-apy-antaḥ sāntaṁ sahaja-sukha-pīyuṣa-laharī ......

(2) -ra hṛdayamaṅgho haratu vaḥ॥ Āsandhāyā-kalaṅkān=prati-vapuṣa iva brāhmaṇān=avja-janmā svargga-dvār-ādhirohām=amṛta-pada-sukha-prāptaye pretya bhājaḥ। Sākṣāt saṁsāra-bhūṣāva ........

(3) Śrīmad-bhūmiṁ śaśvat=trailokya-lakṣmī=nilayam=iva purīṁ Śrī Gayām=eṣa cakre॥ Gayāyām=etasyāṁ puri sakala-saundarya nilaye dvijātīnāṁ mānyo dvija-pada-sarojāka ......

(4) -ma premnā parama-paritoṣasya jananād=abhūd=dhanyaḥ Śrīmān sa khalu Paritoṣ-āhvaya iti॥ Tasmād=abhūj=jalanidher=iva śītaraśmiḥ Śrī Śūdrako vimalakāntir=ananta-lakṣmī [ḥ] ......

(5) kaṇṭha-sravābhirāmam=ānanditāni yaśasā bhuvan-āntarani॥ Āsādy=āmara-rāja-rājya-padavīṁ devībhir=ākrīḍitaṁ divy-ātmatvam=anaṅga-darppa-dalan=odgār-aika-modaṁ vapu [ḥ ......

(6) -nti (?) kautuka-rasān=marttyo' vatīrṇṇas-tato jāto deva-kumāra-murttirasamaḥ Śrī Viśvarūp=āhvayaḥ॥ Yo vidhvasta-samasia-vairi-nivahaḥ sphuryat=pratāp-ānalaḥ saujanyasya nidāna ......

(7) -ma keli-drumaḥ॥ sāndrānandamayo nisargga-madhura-vyāhāra-ratnākaro dīn=ānātha-vipanna-cāraṇa-gaṇa-trāṇāya cintāmaṇiḥ॥ Gaṇḍasthale mṛgamad-āmala-patra-bhaṅgān svairaṁ ......

(8) -lekhanībhīḥ। Adyāpi yasya sura-kinnara-gīyamānāṁ devyaḥ śilāsu vijaya-stutim=ālikhanti॥ Dharmmeṇ=otsvasitaṁ mudā vihasitaṁ saṁloka maryādayā trayyā visphuritaṁ ......

(9) -ttribhir-jjṛmbhitaṁ। yasmin-āsvāmini sarvvataḥ samudaye tepy-arthinaḥ sāhasaṁ sāndrānandamayāḥ sva-dainya-virahān-nṛtyanti pūrṇṇāśayāḥ॥ N=occaiś-caṇḍa-karo na c=āpi vigata ......

(10) ten-āstam yāti jaḍātmabhiḥ pratihato n-ānyair=apūrṇṇo bhavaḥ। Jihvāgreṇa vināgasaḥ prati muhūrtt-āpya sthirān-agrahīn-naivāsaṁga-digamvar-aika nirato yo viśvarūpaḥ ..॥ ......

(11) -marādhipo pi cakito Vrahmāpi yad-vismito devo Viṣṇurapi sphuṭaṁ vihasito Rudropi romāñcitaḥ। Uddāma-prasarat-prasanna-vahule yat-kīrtti-kallolinī-gambhīr-āmbhasi majja ......

(12) -pi saṁvodhita॥ Yad=durggamaṁ sarati dūrataraṁ durāpaṁ yac=cetasā। yaṁ lavdha ...... ta .... āsīt। sahasra .... sramavirāhana caturdasyām- ārambha-rāma iti yaḥ sphuṭatām=upetaḥ॥ Asyāṁ bhū ............

(13) -pā dharmmeṇa maryādayā rājya-Śribhir-alaṁkṛtāḥ punar-amī bhog-aikadā ...... Śrī-viśvāvidhe (?) eṣa kīrttana-kathā gīya ......

(14) । Kīrtti .... tvām vismayakara ...... āpi sauryyād=asau .... nta। Śrīr-api ...... ni...ddhi punar-īdriśī bhavati kiṁ Śrī Viśvarūp=oddhṛta-rekh-eva pratipa ......

(15) yat-te..ādbhutā। asy-aiva .... Prapitāmahasya mahatīm-asthāpya kīrttiṁ ....... tataḥ sādhitaḥ। Uddhṛtārthi-nisargga-dharmma-nirato yo ......

(16) ...... siddhim-anayat-tām-eva kīrttim punaḥ॥ṁ Kim vrumaḥ ...... yasy-āsādhu-guṇasya nāsti mahataḥ ...... kinna ......

(17) rāśiḥ suviśṛtavayo yen-ākasmika-vismayena mukhar-ālokaḥ karttur-agri ...... nivasanaḥ sphurad-dhārāgāraṁ visṛja ......

(18) -vyāmvara-saṁcara-tṛptir-vvahu-manoja ......। praśamanaṁ surā-bhāṇḍaṁ jaladaḥ॥ kanakeśvara ...... jaladaḥ .... Śrī Viśvarūp-āvaro ......

(19) tya sadācarau suviditaḥ Śrī-satkulā .... sarvvaśaḥ satkulādṛto' kṣayavaṭo devo Vaṭeś-āhvayaḥ॥ Ity-ādyāḥ sumanonurūpa-racanā-ratnā ......

(20) -jñāṁ ca yaḥ। Yen-āty-adbhuta-vikramena tarasā Śrī-mad-Gaya-maṇḍale āsaṁsāram-udagra-dharmma-vijaya-stambhā iv-āropitaḥ॥ Ten-ā i ......

(21) -la visamaṁ nīhār-āvatārādbhutaṁ॥ Kirttiḥ Śveta-gabhasti-hasta-racite iti-rāja-tāṁ devasya Prapitā-mahasya mahatī Śrī-i ......

(22) -ti nāmadheya। Sattvaiva dhaninaḥ kimvā vahu vrumahe। kiṁ tv=īdṛg=yadi kirttanaṁ bhagavataḥ ken=āpi niṣpādita Śrī-Viśvāvi ......

(23) yaḥ svatvapa-mokṣa (?)। —yāvac-candra-divākarau surasarid-dhātrī nabho-maṇḍalaṁ। karttuṁ Kīrttikadamba {?) sva vijayī-Śrī-Viśvarūp-āhvaye ....

(24) gaṇitum-ālaṁkārito bhagavān bharttur-Vigraha-pāladeva-nṛpate rājyaśrīyaṁ vibhrataḥ। saṁprāpte tarasaiva pañch-gaṇite rajyasya samvatsare ......

(25) Viśvāditya-guṇ-otkṣepa prītis-timita-cetasā

(26) Praśastir-vvihitā c=aiṣā Vaidya-Śrī-Dharmmapāṇinā॥.

The original stone has suffered very much from the effects of weather so that it is almost impossible to decipher the central portions of the lines at the middle of the inscription. The only other known inscription of this king is the Bihar inscription of the twelfth year noticed for the first time by Cunningham.[54] He states that it is inscribed in the pedestal of an image of Buddha and belonged to the Broadley collection. The contents of the Broadley collection, afterwards called the Bihar Museum, were added to those of the Indian Museum at the request of the Government of Bengal in 1895 and the collection was transferred to Calcutta under the supervision of the late Babu Pūrṇa Chandra Mukharji. But this inscription could not be traced in the Indian Museum either by the late Dr. Bloch or by his successors. Mention should be made in this connection of an inscription on a stone on which the present image of Gadādhara at Gayā now rests. It seems to have been discovered by the late Babu Pūrṇa Chandra Mukharji and pointed out by him to the late Dr. Bloch.[55] As the image of Gadādhara cannot be moved without wounding the religious susceptibilities of the Hindu population of Gaya, only the first five lines could be copied:—

(1) Oṁ namo mārttaṇḍāya॥ Jāgartti yasmin-nudite prayāti c-āstantu śete janatā samastā। Trailokya dīpaṁ tam-ananta-mūrttim-avyāhatābhaṁ śaraṇaṁ prayāta॥ (1).

(2) S-eyaṁ vrahmapurī Gay-eti jagati khyātā svayaṁ vedhasā sthātuṁ vrahma-vidāṁ pur-īva ghaṭitā mokṣasya saukhyasya ca।

(3) Vrumaḥ kiñ-ca bhavanti yatra pitaraḥ pretālaya-vāsinaḥ pāda-spṛṣṭa-jala-pradāna-vidhinā nāk-āṅganā-nāyakāḥ॥ (2). Asyāṁ va-

(4) -bhūva purī vakragati dvijihva samrāḍ-bhujaṅga ripur-acyuta-pādasevī। Yo nāma viṣṇu-rathavad-dvijarāja-varyaḥ prītyā satāṁ ca Pa

(5) -ritoṣa iti prasiddhaḥ॥ Tasmād-vidheriva vahhūva ......

This inscription has been referred to the reign of Vigrahapāladeva because its writing resembles that of the Akṣayavaṭa inscription.

Nothing is known about the relations of Vigrahapāla III save his three sons Śūrapāla II, Mahīpāla II and Rāmapāla, all of whom succeeded him one after another.

Successors and relations.

The Rāmacarita mentions two uncles of Rāmapāla, Mahaṇa or Mathanadeva and his brother Suvarṇadeva, who belonged to the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family. So Vigrahapāla must have married another lady of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa family whose name has not come down to us. Rāmapāla was the son of the Rāṣṭrakūṭa princess and not of the Cedi princess Yauvanaśrī.

_______________

Notes:

1. Ind. Ant., Vol. I, pp. 127 and 227.
2. J.A.S.B., N.S., Vol. VII, p 619.
3. Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 465.
4. J.A.S.B., 1892, pp. 80 & 83.
5. Ind. Ant., Vol. XXI, p. 101, and J.A.S.B., 1892, p. 83, note 26.
6. J.A.S.B., 1892, pp. 8—84, II. 23-24.
7. Epi. Ind., Vol. III, p. 323.
8. Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 36.
9. Epi. Ind., Vol. App. p. 120, No. 733. Vol. VIII, App. II, p. 22, No. 11.
10. Ann. Rep. on Epigraphy Madras, 1906-07, p. 871.
11. J.A.S.B., N.S., Vol. V, p. 239.
12. Vaṅgīya Sāhitya Parishad Patrikā, Vol. XVII, p. 235.
13. Ibid., p. 235.
14. J.A.S.B., Vol. LXV,.1895, p. 250.
15. Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p 55.
16. J.A.S.B., Vol. LXII, 1893, p. 250.
17. As. Res., Vol. IX, p. 204.
18. Proc. A.S.B , 1881, p. 98.
19. Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 165, note 17.
20. Cat of Sans. MSS. in the Durbar Liby., Nepal. Hist. Intro., p. 18, and No. 1079 (kha), p. 34.
21. Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 300.
22. Bendall's Cat. of Buddhist Sans. MSS. in the Univ. Liby., Cambridge, p. 101.
23. Proc. A.S.B., 1899, p. 69.
24. Cunningham, Arch. Surv. Rep,, Vol. III, p. 122, No. 9, pl. XXXVII, No. 5.
25. J.A.S.B., Vol. IV, p. 106 No. IV, pl. VI.
26. Ibid., 1893, Pt. I, p. 77.
27. Arch. Surv. Rep., Vol. III, p. 123.
28. Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 105, note 17.
29. Epi. Ind., Vol. II, p. 185.
30. Ibid., p. 11.
31. Ind. Ant., Vol. XVIII, p. 217.
32. Jl. Bud. Text Soc., Vol. I, p. 9.
33. J.A.S.B., 1900, pt. I, p. 192.
34. Jl. Bud. Text Soc., Vol. I, p. 9, note.
35. J.A.S.B., 1900, pt. I, p. 191, note 1.
36. Proc. A.S.B., 1902, pp. 66-67.
37. va added afterwards.
38. Or—Kautaka—
39. Read—manalpa-dānam=āvirbhavat—
40. Read nisarga—
41. The last syllable of this line is superfluous.
42. J.A.S.B., 1900, pt. I, p. 184.
43. Bendall's Cat. Skt. MSS. in the Univy. Liby., Cambridge, p. 175. No. 1688.
44. Cakrapāṇi, Ed by Śivadāsa Sena, Calcutta, B. S. 1302, p. 407.
45. Epi. Ind., Vol. I, pp. 220, 326, 130, 132.
46. Ibid., Vol. II, p. 192.
47. Bühler—Über das Lebeu des Jaina Mouchs Hema-Chandra, p. 69.
48. Vikramanka deva-carita, I, 102 3, XVIII, 93.
49. Mem. A.S.B., Vol. III, p. 22.
50. Ind. Ant., Vol. XXI, p. 97.
51. Ibid., Vol. XIV, p. 166.
52. Ibid., Vol. XXXVIII, p. 240.
53. Ibid., Vol. XIV, p. 168.
54. Ind. Ant., Vol. XIV, p. 121, No. 7.
55. Annual Report of the Archl. Survey, E. Circle., 1901-2, p. 2.

[admin]

Āryāvarta
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/26/21


The approximate extent of Āryāvarta during the late Vedic period (ca. 1100-500 BCE). Aryavarta was limited to northwest India and the western Ganges plain, while Greater Magadha in the east was habitated by non-Vedic Indo-Aryans, who gave rise to Jainism and Buddhism.[1][2]


Cemetery H, Late Harappan, OCP, Copper Hoard and Painted Grey ware sites

Āryāvarta (Sanskrit: आर्यावर्त, lit. "abode of the Aryas" (noble or excellent ones),[web 1][web 2] Sanskrit pronunciation: [aːrjaːˈʋərtə]) is a term for northern parts of the Indian subcontinent in the ancient Hindu texts such as Dharmashastras and Sutras, referring to the area of the Indian subcontinent settled by Indo-Aryan tribes and where Indo-Aryan religion and rituals predominated. The limits of Āryāvarta extended over time, as reflected in the various sources, as the influence of the Brahmanical ideology spread eastwards in post-Vedic times.[3][4]

Geographical boundaries

Ganges-Yamuna doab


Course of the Ganges river; Ganges-Yamuna doab western part of the green area.


The Ganges-Yamuna doab.

The Baudhayana Dharmasutra (BDS) 1.1.2.10 (perhaps compiled in the 8th to 6th centuries BCE) declares that Āryāvarta is the land that lies west of Kālakavana, east of Adarsana, south of the Himalayas and north of the Vindhyas, but in BDS 1.1.2.11 Āryāvarta is confined to the doab of the Ganges-Yamuna. BDS 1.1.2.13-15 considers people from beyond this area as of mixed origin, and hence not worthy of emulation by the Aryans. Some sutras recommend expiatory acts for those who have crossed the boundaries of Aryavarta. Baudhayana Srautasutra recommends this for those who have crossed the boundaries of Aryavarta and ventured into far away places.[5]

The Vasistha Dharma Sutra (oldest sutras ca. 500–300 BCE) I.8-9 and 12-13 locates the Āryāvarta to the east of the disappearance of the Sarasvati River in the desert, to the west of the Kālakavana, to the north of the Pariyatra Mountains and the Vindhya Range and to the south of the Himalayas.[6]

Patanjali's Mahābhāṣya (mid 2nd century BCE) defines Āryāvarta like the Vasistha Dharmasutra.[citation needed] According to Bronkhost, he "situates it essentially in the Ganges plan, between the Thar desert in the west and the confluence of the rivers Ganges (Ganga) and Jumna (Yamuna) in the east."[3]

From sea to sea

See also: Sanskritization and Hindu synthesis

The Manusmṛti (dated between 2nd cent. BCE to 3rd cent. CE) (2.22) gives the name to "the tract between the Himalaya and the Vindhya ranges, from the Eastern Sea (Bay of Bengal) to the Western Sea (Arabian Sea)".[7][8]

The Manava Dharmasastra (ca.150-250 CE) gives aryavarta as stretching from the eastern to the western seas, reflecting the growing sphere of influence of the Brahmanical ideology.[9]

Loss of northwest India

The post-Vedic period of the Second Urbanisation saw a decline of Brahmanism.[10][11] With the growth of cities, which threatened the income and patronage of the rural Brahmins; the rise of Buddhism; and the Indian campaign of Alexander the Great (327-325 BCE), the rise of the Mauryan Empire (322-185 BCE), and the Saka invasions and rule of northwestern India (2nd c. BC - 4th c. CE), Brahmanism faced a grave threat to its existence.[12][13]

The decline of Brahmanism was overcome by providing new services[14] and incorporating the non-Vedic Indo-Aryan religious heritage of the eastern Ganges plain and local religious traditions, giving rise to contemporary Hinduism.[12]

Other regional designations

These texts also identify other parts of the Indian subcontinent with specific designations. The Manusmṛti mentions Brahmavarta as the region between the rivers Saraswati and Drishadwati in north-western India. The text defines the area as the place where the "good" people are born, with "goodness" being dependent on location rather than behaviour.[15] The precise location and size of the region has been the subject of academic uncertainty.[16] Some scholars, such as the archaeologists Bridget and Raymond Allchin, believe the term Brahmavarta to be synonymous with the Aryavarta region.[17]

Madhyadesa extended from the upper reaches of the Ganga and the Yamuna to the confluence of the two rivers at Prayaga, and was the region where, during the time of the Mahajanapadas, the Kurus and the Panchalas existed. The entire region is considered sacred in the Hindu mythology as gods and heroes mentioned in the two epics, the Ramayana and Mahabharata, lived here.

Rulers

The Gurjara-Pratihara king in the tenth century was titled the Maharajadhiraja of Aryavarta.[18]

See also

• Names of India
• Bharata Khanda
• Airyanem Vaejah, its Zoroastrian counterpart
• History of India

References

1. Bronkhorst 2007.
2. Samuel 2010.
3. Bronkhorst 2011, p. 4.
4. Scharfe, Hartmut (1989). Handbuch der Orientalistik: Indien. BRILL. p. 12. ISBN 9004090606.
5. Agarwal, Vishal: Is there Vedic evidence for the Indo-Aryan Immigration to India
6. Neelis 2010, p. 194.
7. Gopal, Madan (1990). K.S. Gautam (ed.). India through the ages. Publication Division, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government of India. p. 70.
8. Michael Cook (2014), Ancient Religions, Modern Politics: The Islamic Case in Comparative Perspective, Princeton University Press, p.68: "Aryavarta [...] is defined by Manu as extending from the Himalayas in the north to the Vindhyas of Central India in the south and from the sea in the west to the sea in the east."
9. Brinkhorst 2011, p. 4.
10. Michaels 2004, p. 37-39.
11. Bronkhorst 2017, p. 363.
12. Bronkhorst 2016, p. 9-10.
13. Michaels 2014.
14. Bronkhorst 2015, p. 2.
15. Killingley, Dermot (2007). "Mlecchas, Yavanas and Heathens: Interacting Xenologies in Early Nineteenth-Century Calcutta". In Franco, Eli; Preisendanz, Karin (eds.). Beyond Orientalism: The Work of Wilhelm Halbfass and Its Impact on Indian and Cross-cultural Studies. Motilal Banarsidass. p. 125. ISBN 978-8-12083-110-0.
16. Scharfe, Hartmut (1989). The State in Indian Tradition. BRILL. p. 12. ISBN 900-4-09060-6.
17. Allchin, Bridget; Allchin, Raymond (1982). The Rise of Civilization in India and Pakistan. Cambridge University Press. p. 250. ISBN 978-0-52128-550-6.
18. André Wink (2002). Al-Hind: Early medieval India and the expansion of Islam, 7th-11th centuries. BRILL. p. 284. ISBN 978-0-391-04173-8.

Sources

Printed sources

• Bronkhorst, Johannes (2007). Greater Magadha: Studies in the Culture of Early India. BRILL. ISBN 9789004157194.
• Bronkhorst, Johannes (2011), Buddhism in the Shadow of Brahmanism, BRILL
• Bronkhorst, Johannes (2017), "Brahmanism: Its place in ancient Indian society", Contributions to Indian Sociology 51, 3 (2017): 361-369, doi:10.1177/0069966717717587
• Michaels, Axel (2004). Hinduism. Past and present. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
• Samuel, Geoffrey (2010). The Origins of Yoga and Tantra. Indic Religions to the Thirteenth Century. Cambridge University Press.

Web-sources

1. Aryavarta, Monier Williams Sanskrit English Dictionary (1899)
2. Apte, Vaman Shivaram (1957). "Revised and Enlarged Edition of Prin. V. S. Apte's The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary". Retrieved 1 November 2018.

Further reading

• Kane, Pandurang Vaman (1962). History of Dharmaśāstra: (ancient and mediaeval religious and civil law in India). Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute.
• Neelis, Jason (19 November 2010). Early Buddhist Transmission and Trade Networks: Mobility and Exchange Within and Beyond the Northwestern Borderlands of South Asia. BRILL. ISBN 978-90-04-18159-5.

[admin]

Pala Empire
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 4/27/21

-- R. D. Banerji [Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay], by Wikipedia

-- Pala Empire, by Wikipedia

-- The Ramacaritam of Sandhyakaranandin, by Dr. R. C. Majumdar, M.A., Ph.D., Dr. Radhagovinda Basak, M.A., Ph.D., Pandit Nanigopal Banerji

-- The Pālas of Bengal, by Rakhaldas Bandyopadhyay [aka R. D. Banerji]

Pala Empire
8th century–12th century
The Pala Empire and neighbouring polities in the 9th century CE.[1]
Common languages: Sanskrit,[4] Proto-Bengali[5]
Religion: Mahayana Buddhism, Tantric Buddhism, Shaivism[6]
Government: Monarchy
Emperor
• 8th century: Gopala
• 12th century: Madanapala
Historical era: Post-classical
• Established: 8th century
• Disestablished: 12th century
Preceded by: Gauda Kingdom
Succeeded by: Chero dynasty; Sena dynasty
Today part of: Bangladesh; India; Nepal; Pakistan

The Pala Empire was an imperial power during the post-classical period in the Indian subcontinent,[7] which originated in the region of Bengal. It is named after its ruling dynasty, whose rulers bore names ending with the suffix Pala ("protector" in Sanskrit). They were followers of the Mahayana and Tantric schools of Buddhism. The empire was founded with the election of Gopala as the emperor of Gauda in 750 CE.[8] The Pala stronghold was located in Bengal and Bihar, which included the major cities of Gauda, Vikrampura, Pataliputra, Monghyr, Somapura, Ramvati (Varendra), Tamralipta and Jaggadala.

The Palas were astute diplomats and military conquerors. Their army was noted for its vast war elephant corps. Their navy performed both mercantile and defensive roles in the Bay of Bengal. They built grand temples and monasteries, including the Somapura Mahavihara, and patronised the great universities of Nalanda and Vikramashila. The Proto-Bengali language developed under Pala rule. The empire enjoyed relations with the Srivijaya Empire, the Tibetan Empire and the Arab Abbasid Caliphate. Abbasid coinage found in Pala archaeological sites, as well as records of Arab historians, point to flourishing mercantile and intellectual contacts. The House of Wisdom in Baghdad absorbed the mathematical and astronomical achievements of Indian civilisation during this period.[9]

At its height in the early 9th century, the Pala Empire was the dominant power in the northern Indian subcontinent, with its territory stretching across the Gangetic plain to include parts of modern-day eastern Pakistan, northern and northeastern India, Nepal and Bangladesh.[8][10] The empire reached its peak under Emperors Dharmapala and Devapala. The Palas also exerted a strong cultural influence under Atisa in Tibet, as well as in Southeast Asia. Pala control of North India was ultimately ephemeral, as they struggled with the Gurjara-Pratiharas and the Rashtrakutas for the control of Kannauj and were defeated. After a short lived decline, Emperor Mahipala I defended imperial bastions in Bengal and Bihar against South Indian Chola invasions. Emperor Ramapala was the last strong Pala ruler, who gained control of Kamarupa and Kalinga. The empire was considerably weakened by the 11th century, with many areas engulfed in rebellion.

The resurgent Hindu Sena dynasty dethroned the Pala Empire in the 12th century, ending the reign of the last major Buddhist imperial power in the Indian subcontinent. The Pala period is considered one of the golden eras of Bengali history.[11][12] The Palas brought stability and prosperity to Bengal after centuries of civil war between warring divisions. They advanced the achievements of previous Bengali civilisations and created outstanding works of arts and architecture. They laid the basis for the Bengali language, including its first literary work, the Charyapada. The Pala legacy is still reflected in Tibetan Buddhism.

History

Origins

According to the Khalimpur copper plate inscription, the first Pala king Gopala was the son of a warrior named Vapyata. The Ramacharitam attests that Varendra (North Bengal) was the fatherland (Janakabhu) of the Palas. The ethnic origins of the dynasty are unknown, although later records claim that Gopala was a Kshatriya or descended from the legendary Solar dynasty. The Ballala-Carita states that the Palas were Kshatriyas, a claim reiterated by Taranatha in his History of Buddhism in India as well as Ghanaram Chakrabarty in his Dharmamangala (both written in the 16th century CE). The Ramacharitam also attests the fifteenth Pala emperor, Ramapala, as a Kshatriya. Claims of belonging to the legendary Solar dynasty are unreliable and clearly appear to be an attempt to cover up the humble origins of the dynasty.[12] The Pala dynasty has also been branded as Śudra in some sources such as Manjushri-Mulakalpa; this might be because of their Buddhist leanings.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19] According to Abu'l-Fazl ibn Mubarak (in Ain-i-Akbari), the Palas were Kayasthas. There are even accounts that claim Gopala may have been from a Brahmin lineage.[20][21]

Establishment

After the fall of Shashanka's kingdom, the Bengal region was in a state of anarchy. There was no central authority, and there was constant struggle between petty chieftains. The contemporary writings describe this situation as matsya nyaya ("fish justice" i.e. a situation where the big fish eat the small fish). Gopala ascended the throne as the first Pala king during these times. The Khalimpur copper plate suggests that the prakriti (people) of the region made him the king.[12] Taranatha, writing nearly 800 years later, also writes that he was democratically elected by the people of Bengal. However, his account is in form of a legend, and is considered historically unreliable. The legend mentions that after a period of anarchy, the people elected several kings in succession, all of whom were consumed by the Naga queen of an earlier king on the night following their election. Gopal, however managed to kill the queen and remained on the throne.[22] The historical evidence indicates that Gopala was not elected directly by his citizens, but by a group of feudal chieftains. Such elections were quite common in contemporary societies of the region.[12][22]

Gopala's ascension was a significant political event as the several independent chiefs recognised his political authority without any struggle.[11]

Expansion under Dharmapala and Devapala


An illustration of the Kannauj triangle

Gopala's empire was greatly expanded by his son Dharmapala and his grandson Devapala. Dharmapala was initially defeated by the Pratihara ruler Vatsaraja. Later, the Rashtrakuta king Dhruva defeated both Dharmapala and Vatsaraja. After Dhruva left for the Deccan region, Dharmapala built a mighty empire in the northern India. He defeated Indrayudha of Kannauj, and installed his own nominee Chakrayudha on the throne of Kannauj. Several other smaller states in North India also acknowledged his suzerainty. Soon, his expansion was checked by Vatsaraja's son Nagabhata II, who conquered Kannauj and drove away Chakrayudha. Nagabhata II then advanced up to Munger and defeated Dharmapala in a pitched battle. Dharmapala was forced to surrender and to seek alliance with the Rashtrakuta emperor Govinda III, who then intervened by invading northern India and defeating Nagabhata II.[23][24][25] The Rashtrakuta records show that both Chakrayudha and Dharmapala recognised the Rashtrakuta suzerainty. In practice, Dharmapala gained control over North India after Govinda III left for the Deccan. He adopted the title Paramesvara Paramabhattaraka Maharajadhiraja.[11]

Dharmapala was succeeded by his son Devapala, who is regarded as the most powerful Pala ruler.[11] His expeditions resulted in the invasion of Pragjyotisha (present-day Assam) where the king submitted without giving a fight and the Utkala (present-day Orissa) whose king fled from his capital city.[26] The inscriptions of his successors also claim several other territorial conquests by him, but these are highly exaggerated (see the Geography section below).[12][27]

First period of decline

Following the death of Devapala, the Pala empire gradually started disintegrating. Vigrahapala, who was Devapala's nephew, abdicated the throne after a brief rule, and became an ascetic. Vigrahapala's son and successor Narayanapala proved to be a weak ruler. During his reign, the Rashtrakuta king Amoghavarsha defeated the Palas. Encouraged by the Pala decline, the King Harjara of Assam assumed imperial titles and the Sailodbhavas established their power in Orissa.[11]

Naryanapala's son Rajyapala ruled for at least 12 years, and constructed several public utilities and lofty temples. His son Gopala II lost Bengal after a few years of rule, and then ruled only Bihar. The next king, Vigrahapala II, had to bear the invasions from the Chandelas and the Kalachuris. During his reign, the Pala empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms like Gauda, Radha, Anga and Vanga. Kantideva of Harikela (eastern and southern Bengal) also assumed the title Maharajadhiraja, and established a separate kingdom, later ruled by the Chandra dynasty.[11] The Gauda state (West and North Bengal) was ruled by the Kamboja Pala dynasty. The rulers of this dynasty also bore names ending in the suffix -pala (e.g. Rajyapala, Narayanapala and Nayapala). However, their origin is uncertain, and the most plausible view is that they originated from a Pala official who usurped a major part of the Pala kingdom along with its capital.[11][12]

Revival under Mahipala I


Coin of the Pala Empire, Mahipala I and later. Circa 988-1161 CE

Mahipala I recovered northern and eastern Bengal within three years of ascending the throne in 988 CE. He also recovered the northern part of the present-day Burdwan division. During his reign, Rajendra Chola I of the Chola Empire frequently invaded Bengal from 1021 to 1023 CE to get Ganges water and in the process, succeeded to humble the rulers, acquiring considerable booty. The rulers of Bengal who were defeated by Rajendra Chola were Dharmapal, Ranasur and Govindachandra, who might have been feudatories under Mahipala I of the Pala Dynasty.[28] Rajendra Chola I also defeated Mahipala, and obtained from the Pala king "elephants of rare strength, women and treasure".[29] Mahipala also gained control of north and south Bihar, probably aided by the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni, which exhausted the strength of other rulers of North India. He may have also conquered Varanasi and surrounding area, as his brothers Sthirapala and Vasantapala undertook construction and repairs of several sacred structures at Varanasi. Later, the Kalachuri king Gangeyadeva annexed Varanasi after defeating the ruler of Anga, which could have been Mahipala I.[11]

Second period of decline


Bronze crowned Buddha, Bihar, Pala Empire, 10th-11th century

Nayapala, the son of Mahipala I, defeated the Kalachuri king Karna (son of Ganggeyadeva) after a long struggle. The two later signed a peace treaty at the mediation of the Buddhist scholar Atiśa. During the reign of Nayapala's son Vigrahapala III, Karna once again invaded Bengal but was defeated. The conflict ended with a peace treaty, and Vigrahapala III married Karna's daughter Yauvanasri. Vigrahapala III was later defeated by the invading Chalukya king Vikramaditya VI. The invasion of Vikramaditya VI saw several soldiers from South India into Bengal, which explains the southern origin of the Sena Dynasty.[30] Vigrahapala III also faced another invasion led by the Somavamsi king Mahasivagupta Yayati of Orissa. Subsequently, a series of invasions considerably reduced the power of the Palas. The Varmans occupied eastern Bengal during his reign.[11][12]

Mahipala II, the successor of Vigrahapala III, brought a short-lived reign of military glory. His reign is well-documented by Sandhyakar Nandi in Ramacharitam. Mahipala II imprisoned his brothers Ramapala and Surapala II, on the suspicion that they were conspiring against him. Soon afterwards, he faced a rebellion of vassal chiefs from the Kaibarta (fishermen). A chief named Divya (or Divvoka) killed him and occupied the Varendra region. The region remained under the control of his successors Rudak and Bhima. Surapala II escaped to Magadha and died after a short reign. He was succeeded by his brother Ramapala, who launched a major offensive against Divya's grandson Bhima. He was supported by his maternal uncle Mathana of the Rashtrakuta dynasty, as well as several feudatory chiefs of south Bihar and south-west Bengal. Ramapala conclusively defeated Bhima, and killing him and his family in a cruel manner.[11][12]

Revival under Ramapala


Maitreya and scenes from the Buddha's life. Folios were probably from the Pala period under Ramapala, considered the last great ruler of the Pala dynasty.

After gaining control of Varendra, Ramapala tried to revive the Pala empire with limited success. He ruled from a new capital at Ramavati, which remained the Pala capital until the dynasty's end. He reduced taxation, promoted cultivation and constructed public utilities. He brought Kamarupa and Rar under his control, and forced the Varman king of east Bengal to accept his suzerainty. He also struggled with the Ganga king for control of present-day Orissa; the Gangas managed to annexe the region only after his death. Ramapala maintained friendly relations with the Chola king Kulottunga to secure support against the common enemies: the Ganas and the Chalukyas. He kept the Senas in check, but lost Mithila to a Karnataka chief named Nanyuadeva. He also held back the aggressive design of the Gahadavala ruler Govindacharndra through a matrimonial alliance.[11][12]

Final decline

Ramapala was the last strong Pala ruler. After his death, a rebellion broke out in Kamarupa during his son Kumarapala's reign. The rebellion was crushed by Vaidyadeva, but after Kumarapala's death, Vaidyadeva practically created a separate kingdom.[11] According to Ramacharitam, Kumarapala's son Gopala III was murdered by his uncle Madanapala. During Madanapala's rule, the Varmans in east Bengal declared independence, and the Eastern Gangas renewed the conflict in Orissa. Madanapala captured Munger from the Gahadavalas, but was defeated by Vijayasena, who gained control of southern and eastern Bengal. A ruler named Govindapala ruled over the Gaya district around 1162 CE, but there is no concrete evidence about his relationship to the imperial Palas. The Pala dynasty was replaced by the Sena dynasty.[12]

Geography


Coin of the Palas, Bengal. Jagaddeva. 12th-13th centuries.

The borders of the Pala Empire kept fluctuating throughout its existence. Though the Palas conquered a vast region in North India at one time, they could not retain it for long due to constant hostility from the Gurjara-Pratiharas, the Rashtrakutas and other less powerful kings.[31]

No records are available about the exact boundaries of original kingdom established by Gopala, but it might have included almost all of the Bengal region.[11] The Pala empire extended substantially under Dharmapala's rule. Apart from Bengal, he directly ruled the present-day Bihar. The kingdom of Kannauj (present-day Uttar Pradesh) was a Pala dependency at times, ruled by his nominee Chakrayudha.[11] While installing his nominee on the Kannauj throne, Dharmapala organised an imperial court. According to the Khalimpur copper plate issued by Dharmapala, this court was attended by the rulers of Bhoja (possibly Vidarbha), Matsya (Jaipur region), Madra (East Punjab), Kuru (Delhi region), Yadu (possibly Mathura, Dwarka or Simhapura in the Punjab), Yavana, Avanti, Gandhara and Kira (Kangra Valley).[12][24] These kings accepted the installation of Chakrayudha on the Kannauj throne, while "bowing down respectfully with their diadems trembling".[32] This indicates that his position as a sovereign was accepted by most rulers, although this was a loose arrangement unlike the empire of the Mauryas or the Guptas. The other rulers acknowledged the military and political supremacy of Dharmapala, but maintained their own territories.[12] The poet Soddhala of Gujarat calls Dharmapala an Uttarapathasvamin ("Lord of the North") for his suzerainty over North India.[33]

The epigraphic records credit Devapala with extensive conquests in hyperbolic language. The Badal pillar inscription of his successor Narayana Pala states that by the wise counsel and policy of his Brahmin minister Darbhapani, Devapala became the suzerain monarch or Chakravarti of the whole tract of Northern India bounded by the Vindhyas and the Himalayas. It also states that his empire extended up to the two oceans (presumably the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal). It also claims that Devpala defeated Utkala (present-day Orissa), the Hunas, the Kambojas, the Dravidas, the Kamarupa (present-day Assam), and the Gurjaras:[11]

• The Gurjara adversary may have been Mihira Bhoja, whose eastward expansion was checked by Devapala
• The identity of the Huna king is uncertain.
• The identity of the Kamboja prince is also uncertain. While an ancient country with the name Kamboja was located in what is now Afghanistan, there is no evidence that Devapala's empire extended that far. Kamboja, in this inscription, could refer to the Kamboja tribe that had entered North India (see Kamboja Pala dynasty).
• The Dravida king is usually identified with the Rashtrakuta king Amoghavarsha. Some scholars believe that the Dravida king could have been the Pandya ruler Shri Mara Shri Vallabha, since "Dravida" usually refers to the territory south of the Krishna river. According to this theory, Devapala could have been helped in his southern expedition by the Chandela king Vijaya. In any case, Devapala's gains in the south, if any, were temporary.

The claims about Devapala's victories are exaggerated, but cannot be dismissed entirely: there is no reason to doubt his conquest of Utkala and Kamarupa. Besides, the neighbouring kingdoms of Rashtrakutas and the Gurjara-Pratiharas were weak at the time, which might have helped him extend his empire.[27] Devapala is also believed to have led an army up to the Indus river in Punjab.[11]

The empire started disintegrated after the death of Devapala, and his successor Narayanapala lost control of Assam and Orissa. He also briefly lost control over Magadha and north Bengal. Gopala II lost control of Bengal, and ruled only from a part of Bihar. The Pala empire disintegrated into smaller kingdoms during the reign of Vigrahapala II. Mahipala recovered parts of Bengal and Bihar. His successors lost Bengal again. The last strong Pala ruler, Ramapala, gained control of Bengal, Bihar, Assam and parts of Orissa.[11] By the time of Madanapala's death, the Pala kingdom was confined to parts of central and east Bihar along with northern Bengal.[11]

Administration

The Pala rule was monarchial. The king was the centre of all power. Pala kings would adopt imperial titles like Parameshwara, Paramvattaraka, Maharajadhiraja. Pala kings appointed Prime Ministers. The Line of Garga served as the Prime Ministers of the Palas for 100 years.

• Garga
• Darvapani (or Darbhapani)
• Someshwar
• Kedarmisra
• Bhatta Guravmisra

Pala Empire was divided into separate Bhuktis (Provinces). Bhuktis were divided into Vishayas (Divisions) and Mandalas (Districts). Smaller units were Khandala, Bhaga, Avritti, Chaturaka, and Pattaka. Administration covered widespread area from the grass root level to the imperial court.[34]

The Pala copperplates mention following administrative posts:[35]

• Raja
• Rajanyaka
• Ranaka (possibly subordinate chiefs)
• Samanta and Mahasamanta (Vassal kings)
• Mahasandhi-vigrahika (Foreign minister)
• Duta (Head Ambassador)
• Rajasthaniya (Deputy)
• Aggaraksa (Chief guard)
• Sasthadhikrta (Tax collector)
• Chauroddharanika (Police tax)
• Shaulkaka (Trade tax)
• Dashaparadhika (Collector of penalties)
• Tarika (Toll collector for river crossings)
• Mahaksapatalika (Accountant)
• Jyesthakayastha (Dealing documents)
• Ksetrapa (Head of land use division) and Pramatr (Head of land measurements)
• Mahadandanayaka or Dharmadhikara (Chief justice)
• Mahapratihara
• Dandika
• Dandapashika
• Dandashakti (Police forces)
• Khola (Secret service).
• Agricultural posts like Gavadhakshya (Head of dairy farms)
• Chhagadhyakshya (Head of goat farms)
• Meshadyakshya (Head of sheep farms)
• Mahishadyakshya (Head of Buffalo farms) and many other like Vogpati
• Vishayapati
• Shashtadhikruta
• Dauhshashadhanika
• Nakadhyakshya

Culture

Religion


Nalanda is considered one of the first great universities in recorded history. It reached its height under the Palas.


Atisha was a Buddhist teacher, who helped establish the Sarma lineages of Tibetan Buddhism.

The Palas were patrons of Mahayana Buddhism. A few sources written much after Gopala's death mention him as a Buddhist, but it is not known if this is true.[36] The subsequent Pala kings were definitely Buddhists. Taranatha states that Gopala was a staunch Buddhist, who had built the famous monastery at Odantapuri.[37] Dharmapala made the Buddhist philosopher Haribhadra his spiritual preceptor. He established the Vikramashila monastery and the Somapura Mahavihara. Taranatha also credits him with establishing 50 religious institutions and patronising the Buddhist author Hariibhadra. Devapala restored and enlarged the structures at Somapura Mahavihara, which also features several themes from the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. Mahipala I also ordered construction and repairs of several sacred structures at Saranath, Nalanda and Bodh Gaya.[11] The Mahipala geet ("songs of Mahipala"), a set of folk songs about him, are still popular in the rural areas of Bengal.

The Palas developed the Buddhist centres of learnings, such as the Vikramashila and the Nalanda universities. Nalanda, considered one of the first great universities in recorded history, reached its height under the patronage of the Palas. Noted Buddhist scholars from the Pala period include Atisha, Santaraksita, Saraha, Tilopa, Bimalamitra, Dansheel, Dansree, Jinamitra, Jnanasrimitra, Manjughosh, Muktimitra, Padmanava, Sambhogabajra, Shantarakshit, Silabhadra, Sugatasree and Virachan.

As the rulers of Gautama Buddha's land, the Palas acquired great reputation in the Buddhist world. Balaputradeva, the Sailendra king of Java, sent an ambassador to him, asking for a grant of five villages for the construction of a monastery at Nalanda.[38] The request was granted by Devapala. He appointed the Brahmin Viradeva (of Nagarahara, present-day Jalalabad) as the head of the Nalanda monastery. The Buddhist poet Vajradatta (the author of Lokesvarashataka), was in his court.[11] The Buddhist scholars from the Pala empire travelled from Bengal to other regions to propagate Buddhism. Atisha, for example, preached in Tibet and Sumatra, and is seen as one of the major figures in the spread of 11th-century Mahayana Buddhism.

The Palas also supported the Saiva ascetics, typically the ones associated with the Golagi-Math.[39] Narayana Pala himself established a temple of Shiva, and was present at the place of sacrifice by his Brahmin minister.[40] Queen of King Madanapaladeva, namely Chitramatika, made a gift of land to a Brahmin named Bateswara Swami as his remuneration for chanting the Mahabharata at her request, according to the principle of the Bhumichhidranyaya. Besides the images of the Buddhist deities, the images of Vishnu, Siva and Sarasvati were also constructed during the Pala dynasty rule.[41]

Literature

The Palas patronised several Sanskrit scholars, some of whom were their officials. The Gauda riti style of composition was developed during the Pala rule. Many Buddhist Tantric works were authored and translated during the Pala rule. Besides the Buddhist scholars mentioned in the Religion section above, Jimutavahana, Sandhyakar Nandi, Madhava-kara, Suresvara and Chakrapani Datta are some of the other notable scholars from the Pala period.[11]

The notable Pala texts on philosophy include Agama Shastra by Gaudapada, Nyaya Kundali by Sridhar Bhatta and Karmanushthan Paddhati by Bhatta Bhavadeva. The texts on medicine include

• Chikitsa Samgraha, Ayurveda Dipika, Bhanumati, Shabda Chandrika and Dravya Gunasangraha by Chakrapani Datta
• Shabda-Pradipa, Vrikkhayurveda and Lohpaddhati by Sureshwara
• Chikitsa Sarsamgraha by Vangasena
• Sushrata by Gadadhara Vaidya
• Dayabhaga, Vyavohara Matrika and Kalaviveka by Jimutavahana

Sandhyakar Nandi's semi-fictional epic Ramacharitam (12th century) is an important source of Pala history.

A form of the proto-Bengali language can be seen in the Charyapadas composed during the Pala rule.[11]

Art and architecture

The Pala school of sculptural art is recognised as a distinct phase of the Indian art, and is noted for the artistic genius of the Bengal sculptors.[42] It is influenced by the Gupta art.[43]

The Pala style was inherited and continued to develop under the Sena Empire. During this time, the style of sculpture changed from "Post-Gupta" to a distinctive style that was widely influential in other areas and later centuries. Deity figures became more rigid in posture, very often standing with straight legs close together, and figures were often heavily loaded with jewellery; they very often have multiple arms, a convention allowing them to hold many attributes and display mudras. The typical form for temple images is a slab with a main figure, rather over half life-size, in very high relief, surrounded by smaller attendant figures, who might have freer tribhanga poses. Critics have found the style tending towards over-elaboration. The quality of the carving is generally very high, with crisp, precise detail. In east India, facial features tend to become sharp.[44]

Much larger numbers of smaller bronze groups of similar composition have survived than from previous periods. Probably the numbers produced were increasing. These were mostly made for domestic shrines of the well-off, and from monasteries. Gradually, Hindu figures come to outnumber Buddhist ones, reflecting the terminal decline of Indian Buddhism, even in east India, its last stronghold.[45]


A basalt statue of Lalita flanked by Gaṇeśa and Kārttikeya


Carved shankhas


Sculpture of Khasarpana Lokesvara from Nalanda


Sculpture of Varaha avatar of Lord Vishnu


Jina Rishabhanatha

As noted earlier, the Palas built a number of monasteries and other sacred structures. The Somapura Mahavihara in present-day Bangladesh is a World Heritage Site. It is a monastery with 21 acre (85,000 m²) complex has 177 cells, numerous stupas, temples and a number of other ancillary buildings. The gigantic structures of other Viharas, including Vikramashila, Odantapuri, and Jagaddala are the other masterpieces of the Palas. These mammoth structures were mistaken by the forces of Bakhtiyar Khalji as fortified castles and were demolished. The art of Bihar and Bengal during the Pala and Sena dynasties influenced the art of Nepal, Burma, Sri Lanka and Java.[46]


Somapura Mahavihara, a World Heritage Site, was built by Dharmapala


Central shrine decor at Somapura


Ruins of Vikramashila

List of Pala rulers

Most of the Pala inscriptions mention only the regnal year as the date of issue, without any well-known calendar era. Because of this, the chronology of the Pala kings is hard to determine.[47] Based on their different interpretations of the various epigraphs and historical records, different historians estimate the Pala chronology as follows:[48]

RC Majumdar (1971)[49] AM Chowdhury (1967)[50] BP Sinha (1977)[51][failed verification] DC Sircar (1975–76)[52] D. K. Ganguly (1994)[47]
Gopala I 750–770 756–781 755–783 750–775 750–774
Dharmapala 770–810 781–821 783–820 775–812 774–806
Devapala 810–c. 850 821–861 820–860 812–850 806–845
Mahendrapala NA (Mahendrapala's existence was conclusively established through a copper-plate charter discovered later.) 845–860
Shurapala I 850–853 861–866 860–865 850–858 860–872
Vigrahapala I 858–60 872–873
Narayanapala 854–908 866–920 865–920 860–917 873–927
Rajyapala 908–940 920–952 920–952 917–952 927–959
Gopala II 940–957 952–969 952–967 952–972 959–976
Vigrahapala II 960–c. 986 969–995 967–980 972–977 976–977
Mahipala I 988–c. 1036 995–1043 980–1035 977–1027 977–1027
Nayapala 1038–1053 1043–1058 1035–1050 1027–1043 1027–1043
Vigrahapala III 1054–1072 1058–1075 1050–1076 1043–1070 1043–1070
Mahipala II 1072–1075 1075–1080 1076–1078/9 1070–1071 1070–1071
Shurapala 1075–1077 1080–1082 1071–1072 1071–1072
Ramapala 1077–1130 1082–1124 1078/9–1132 1072–1126 1072–1126
Kumarapala 1130–1125 1124–1129 1132–1136 1126–1128 1126–1128
Gopala III 1140–1144 1129–1143 1136–1144 1128–1143 1128–1143
Madanapala 1144–1162 1143–1162 1144–1161/62 1143–1161 1143–1161
Govindapala 1155–1159 NA 1162–1176 or 1158–1162 1161–1165 1161–1165
Palapala NA NA NA 1165–1199 1165–1200

Note:[48]

• Earlier historians believed that Vigrahapala I and Shurapala I were the two names of the same person. Now, it is known that these two were cousins; they either ruled simultaneously (perhaps over different territories) or in rapid succession.
• AM Chowdhury rejects Govindapala and his successor Palapala as the members of the imperial Pala dynasty.
• According to BP Sinha, the Gaya inscription can be read as either the "14th year of Govindapala's reign" or "14th year after Govindapala's reign". Thus, two sets of dates are possible.

Military

The highest military officer in the Pala empire was the Mahasenapati (commander-in-chief). The Palas recruited mercenary soldiers from a number of kingdoms, including Malava, Khasa, Huna, Kulika, Kanrata, Lata, Odra and Manahali. According to the contemporary accounts, the Rashtrakutas had the best infantry, the Gurjara-Pratiharas had the finest cavalry and the Palas had the largest elephant force. The Arab merchant Sulaiman states that the Palas had an army bigger than those of the Balhara (possibly the Rashtrakutas) and the king of Jurz (possibly the Gurjara-Pratiharas). He also states that the Pala army employed 10,000–15,000 men for fuelling and washing clothes. He further claims that during the battles, the Pala king would lead 50,000 war elephants. Sulaiman's accounts seem to be based on exaggerated reports; Ibn Khaldun mentions the number of elephants as 5,000.[53]

Since Bengal did not have a good native breed of horses, the Palas imported their cavalry horses from the foreigners, including the Kambojas. They also had a navy, used for both mercantile and defence purposes.[54]

See also

• Middle kingdoms of India
• Nalanda
• Vikramashila
• Somapura Mahavihara
• Jagaddala Mahavihara
• Odantapuri
• Kurkihar hoard

Sources

The main sources of information about the Pala empire include:[55]

Pala accounts

• Various epigraphs, coins, sculptures and architecture
• Ramacharita, a Sanskrit work by Abhinanda (9th century)
• Ramacharitam, a Sanskrit epic by Sandhyakar Nandi (12th century)
• Subhasita Ratnakosa, a Sanskrit compilation by Vidyakara (towards the end of the Pala rule)


Other accounts

• Silsiltut-Tauarikh by the Arab merchant Suleiman (951 CE), who referred to the Pala kingdom as Ruhmi or Rahma
• Dpal dus khyi 'khor lo'i chos bskor gyi byung khungs nyer mkh (History of Buddhism in India) by Taranatha (1608), contains a few traditional legends and hearsays about the Pala rule
• Ain-i-Akbari by Abu'l-Fazl (16th-century)

References

1. Schwartzberg, Joseph E. (1978). A Historical atlas of South Asia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 146, map XIV.2 (g). ISBN 0226742210.
2. Michael C. Howard (2012). Transnationalism in Ancient and Medieval Societies: The Role of Cross-Border Trade and Travel. McFarland. p. 72. ISBN 978-0-7864-9033-2.
3. Huntington 1984, p. 56.
4. Sengupta 2011, p. 102.
5. Bajpai, Lopamudra Maitra (2020). India, Sri Lanka and the SAARC Region: History, Popular Culture and Heritage. Abingdon: Taylor & Francis. p. 141. ISBN 978-1-00-020581-7.
6. The Śaiva Age: The Rise and Dominance of Śaivism during the Early Medieval Period. In: Genesis and Development of Tantrism, edited by Shingo Einoo. Tokyo: Institute of Oriental Culture, University of Tokyo, 2009. Institute of Oriental Culture Special Series, 23, pp. 41–350.
7. Sailendra Nath Sen (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. pp. 280–. ISBN 978-81-224-1198-0.
8. R. C. Majumdar (1977). Ancient India. Motilal Banarsidass. pp. 268–. ISBN 978-81-208-0436-4.
9. Raj Kumar (2003). Essays on Ancient India. Discovery Publishing House. p. 199. ISBN 978-81-7141-682-0.
10. Sailendra Nath Sen (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. pp. 280–. ISBN 978-81-224-1198-0.
11. Sailendra Nath Sen (1999). Ancient Indian History and Civilization. New Age International. pp. 277–287. ISBN 978-81-224-1198-0.
12. Sengupta 2011, pp. 39–49.
13. Bagchi 1993, p. 37.
14. Vasily Vasilyev (December 1875). Translated by E. Lyall. "Taranatea's Account of the Magadha Kings". The Indian Antiquary. IV: 365–66.
15. Ramaranjan Mukherji; Sachindra Kumar Maity (1967). Corpus of Bengal Inscriptions Bearing on History and Civilization of Bengal. Calcutta: Firma K.L. Mukhopadhyay. p. 11.
16. J. C. Ghosh (1939). "Caste and Chronology of the Pala Kings of Bengal". The Indian Historical Quarterly. IX (2): 487–90.
17. The Caste of the Palas, The Indian Culture, Vol IV, 1939, pp. 113–114, B Chatterji
18. M. N. Srinivas (1995). Social Change in Modern India. Orient Blackswan. p. 9. ISBN 978-81-250-0422-6.
19. Metcalf, Thomas R. (1971). Modern India: An Interpretive Anthology. Macmillan. p. 115.
20. André Wink (1990). Al-Hind, the Making of the Indo-Islamic World. Brill. p. 265. ISBN 90-04-09249-8.
21. Ishwari Prasad (1940). History of Mediaeval India. p. 20 fn.
22. Biplab Dasgupta (2005). European Trade and Colonial Conquest. Anthem Press. pp. 341–. ISBN 978-1-84331-029-7.
23. John Andrew Allan; Sir T. Wolseley Haig (1934). The Cambridge Shorter History of India. Macmillan Company. p. 143.
24. Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha (1977). Dynastic History of Magadha. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. p. 177. ISBN 978-81-7017-059-4. Dharmapāla after defeating Indrāyudha and capturing Kanuaj made it over to Cakrāyudha, who was a vassal king of Kanuaj subordinate to Dharmapāla ... Dharmapāla was thus acknowledged paramount ruler of almost whole of North India as the Bhojas of Berar, Kīra (Kangra district), Gandhāra (West Punjab), Pañcāla (Ramnagar area of U.P.), Kuru (eastern Punjab), Madra (Central Punjab), Avanti (Malwa), Yadus (Mathura or Dwarka or Siṁhapura in the Punjab), Matsya (a part of Rajputana) were his vassals.
25. Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha (1977). Dynastic History of Magadha. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. p. 179. ISBN 978-81-7017-059-4. Nāgabhaṭa-II defeated Cakrāyudha and occupied Kanauj ... battle between the king of Vaṅga and Nāgabhaṭa in which the latter emerged victorious ... may have been fought at Mudgagiri (Monghyr in Bihar). If so, it shows the utter humiliation of Dharmapāla and strengthens the suspicion that as a revenge he might have surrendered to and welcomed Govinda III when he invaded North India.
26. Bhagalpur Charter of Narayanapala, year 17, verse 6, The Indian Antiquary, XV p. 304.
27. Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha (1977). Dynastic History of Magadha. New Delhi: Abhinav Publications. p. 185. ISBN 978-81-7017-059-4.
28. Sengupta 2011, p. 45.
29. John Keay (2000). India: A History. Grove Press. p. 220. ISBN 978-0-8021-3797-5.
30. John Andrew Allan; Sir T. Wolseley Haig (1934). The Cambridge Shorter History of India. Macmillan Company. p. 10.
31. Bagchi 1993, p. 4.
32. Paul 1939, p. 38.
33. Bagchi 1993, p. 39–40.
34. Paul 1939, p. 122–124.
35. Paul 1939, p. 111–122.
36. Huntington 1984, p. 39.
37. Taranatha (1869). Târanâtha's Geschichte des Buddhismus in Indien [History of Buddhism in India] (in German). Translated by Anton Schiefner. St. Petersburg: Imperial Academy of Sciences. p. 206. hdl:2027/uva.x004196825. Zur Zeit des Königs Gopâla oder Devapâla wurde auch das Otautapuri-Vihâra errichtet.
38. P. N. Chopra; B. N. Puri; M. N. Das; A. C. Pradhan, eds. (2003). A Comprehensive History of Ancient India (3 Vol. Set). Sterling. pp. 200–202. ISBN 978-81-207-2503-4.
39. Bagchi 1993, p. 19.
40. Bagchi 1993, p. 100.
41. Krishna Chaitanya (1987). Arts of India. Abhinav Publications. p. 38. ISBN 978-81-7017-209-3.
42. Chowdhury, AM (2012). "Pala Dynasty". In Islam, Sirajul; Jamal, Ahmed A. (eds.). Banglapedia: National Encyclopedia of Bangladesh (Second ed.). Asiatic Society of Bangladesh.
43. Rustam Jehangir Mehta (1981). Masterpieces of Indian bronzes and metal sculpture. Taraporevala. p. 21. ISBN 9780865900479.
44. Harle, 212-216; Craven, 170, 172-176
45. Harle, 212; Craven, 176
46. Stella Kramrisch (1994). Exploring India's Sacred Art Selected Writings of Stella Kramrisch. Motilal Banarsidass Publishe. p. 208. ISBN 978-81-208-1208-6.
47. Dilip Kumar Ganguly (1994). Ancient India, History and Archaeology. Abhinav. pp. 33–41. ISBN 978-81-7017-304-5.
48. Susan L. Huntington (1984). The "Påala-Sena" Schools of Sculpture. Brill Archive. pp. 32–39. ISBN 90-04-06856-2.
49. R. C. Majumdar (1971). History of Ancient Bengal. G. Bharadwaj. p. 161–162.
50. Abdul Momin Chowdhury (1967). Dynastic history of Bengal, c. 750-1200 CE. Asiatic Society of Pakistan. pp. 272–273.
51. Bindeshwari Prasad Sinha (1977). Dynastic History of Magadha, Cir. 450–1200 A.D. Abhinav Publications. pp. 253–. ISBN 978-81-7017-059-4.
52. Dineshchandra Sircar (1975–76). "Indological Notes - R.C. Majumdar's Chronology of the Pala Kings". Journal of Ancient Indian History. IX: 209–10.
53. Paul 1939, p. 139–143.
54. Paul 1939, p. 143–144.
55. Bagchi 1993, pp. 2–3.

Bibliography

• Bagchi, Jhunu (1993). The History and Culture of the Pālas of Bengal and Bihar, Cir. 750 A.D.–cir. 1200 A.D. Abhinav Publications. ISBN 978-81-7017-301-4.
• Craven, Roy C., Indian Art: A Concise History, 1987, Thames & Hudson (Praeger in USA), ISBN 0500201463
• Harle, J. C., The Art and Architecture of the Indian Subcontinent, 2nd edn. 1994, Yale University Press. (Pelican History of Art), ISBN 0300062176
• Huntington, Susan L. (1984). The "Påala-Sena" Schools of Sculpture. Brill Archive. ISBN 90-04-06856-2.
• Paul, Pramode Lal (1939). The Early History of Bengal. Indian History. 1. Indian Research Institute. Archived from the original on 17 August 2016. Retrieved 28 March 2014.
• Sengupta, Nitish K. (2011). Land of Two Rivers: A History of Bengal from the Mahabharata to Mujib. Penguin Books India. pp. 39–49. ISBN 978-0-14-341678-4.

[admin]

Victor Bulwer-Lytton, 2nd Earl of Lytton
by Wikipedia
Accessed: 5/10/21

-- Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton, by Wikipedia

-- A Strange Story, by Edward Bulwer Lytton

-- The Coming Race, by Edward Bulwer-Lytton

-- Zanoni: A Rosicrucian Tale, by Edward Bulwer Lytton

-- Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton, by Wikipedia

-- Edith Bulwer-Lytton, Countess of Lytton [Edith Villiers], by Wikipedia

-- Victor Bulwer-Lytton, 2nd Earl of Lytton, by Wikipedia

The Right Honourable, The Earl of Lytton, KG GCSI GCIE PC DL
The Earl of Lytton.
Governor of Bengal
In office: 1922–1927
Monarch: George V
Preceded by: Earl of Ronaldshay
Succeeded by: Sir Stanley Jackson
Personal details
Born: 9 August 1876, Simla, British India
Died: 25 October 1947 (aged 71)
Nationality: British
Spouse(s): Pamela Chichele-Plowden ​(m. 1902; his death 1947)​
Relations: David Lytton-Cobbold, 2nd Baron Cobbold (grandson); Henry Crichton, 6th Earl Erne (grandson); Christopher Woodhouse, 6th Baron Terrington (grandson)
Children: 4
Parents: Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton; Edith Villiers
Residence: Knebworth House
Education: Eton College
Alma mater: Trinity College, Cambridge

Victor Alexander George Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 2nd Earl of Lytton, KG, GCSI, GCIE, PC, DL (9 August 1876 – 25 October 1947), styled Viscount Knebworth from 1880 to 1891, was a British politician and colonial administrator. He served as Governor of Bengal between 1922 and 1927 and was briefly Acting Viceroy of India in 1926. He headed the Lytton Commission for the League of Nations, in 1931–32, producing the Lytton Report which condemned Japanese aggression against China in Manchuria.

Early life

He was born in Simla in British India on 9 August 1876, during the time when his father was Viceroy of India. Lytton was the fourth, but eldest surviving, son of Robert Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Earl of Lytton and Edith Villiers, daughter of Edward Ernest Villiers and granddaughter of George Villiers. His six siblings were Edward Rowland John Bulwer-Lytton (who died young), Lady Elizabeth Edith "Betty" Bulwer-Lytton (wife of Gerald Balfour, 2nd Earl of Balfour, the brother of the future Prime Minister Arthur Balfour), Lady Constance Bulwer-Lytton (a prominent suffragette), Henry Meredith Edward Bulwer-Lytton (who died young), Lady Emily Bulwer-Lytton (who married architect Edwin Lutyens), and Neville Bulwer-Lytton, 3rd Earl of Lytton.

He was educated at Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge,[1] where he was secretary of the University Pitt Club.[2] In 1905 he was President of the Edinburgh Sir Walter Scott Club and gave the Toast to Sir Walter at the club's annual dinner.

Career


Lytton caricatured by Spy for Vanity Fair, 1906


Garter-encircled shield of arms of Victor Bulwer-Lytton, 2nd Earl of Lytton, KG, as displayed on his Order of the Garter stall plate in St. George's Chapel.

Lytton started his official career by filling various posts in the Admiralty between 1916 and 1920, before being appointed Under-Secretary of State for India, a post which he held between 1920 and 1922. He was made a Privy Counsellor in 1919. On 16 February 1922 he was posted as Governor of Bengal,[3][4] remaining there until 3 March 1927.[5][6]

For a short while, when there was a vacancy caused by change in incumbents in 1926, he functioned as Viceroy, his father's old post. After this he filled miscellaneous positions in various capacities when matters concerning India arose. He wrote two books, the first being a life of his grandfather Lord Lytton, while the other book dealt with his experiences in India and was called Pundits and Elephants, published in 1942. He was made a Knight of the Garter in 1933.[7]

He was chairman of London Associated Electricity Undertakings Limited from 1937 to 1947.[8]

Lytton is best known for his chairmanship of the Lytton Commission, which was sent by the League of Nations on a fact-finding mission to determine who was to blame in the 1931 war between Japan and China. The commission's Lytton Report, officially issued on 1 October 1932, blames Japanese aggression. In response Japan withdrew from the League of Nations.[9]

Personal life

On 3 April 1902, Lord Lytton was married to Pamela Chichele-Plowden (1874–1971) at St Margaret's, Westminster. Pamela was a daughter of Sir Trevor Chichele Plowden and Millicent Frances Foster (eldest daughter of Gen. Sir Charles John Foster KCB). Her elder brother was Alfred Chichele Plowden. She had been an early flame of Winston Churchill, but that relationship was amicably broken off when she decided to marry Lytton instead. Together, the couple were the parents of two sons, both of whom predeceased Lytton, and two daughters:[10]

• Antony Bulwer-Lytton, Viscount Knebworth (1903–1933), an MP for Hitchin who died aged 30 in an air crash while serving with the Auxiliary Air Force.[10]
• Lady Margaret Hermione Millicent Bulwer-Lytton (1905–2004), who married Cameron Fromanteel Cobbold, who became a Governor of the Bank of England, Lord Chamberlain and Baron Cobbold in 1960.[10]
• Lady Davidema Katharine Cynthia Mary Millicent Bulwer-Lytton (1909–1995), who married John Crichton, 5th Earl Erne in 1931.[11] After his death, she married Christopher Woodhouse, 5th Baron Terrington in 1945.[12]
• Alexander Edward John Bulwer-Lytton, Viscount Knebworth, MBE (1910–1942), who was killed in the Second Battle of El Alamein during World War II.[10]

Lord Lytton died in October 1947, aged 71. As neither of his sons had left a son, Lytton's titles were inherited upon his death by his younger brother Neville Bulwer-Lytton. Knebworth House passed to his daughter Lady Hermione Cobbold.[10]

References

1. "Bulwer-Lytton, Victor Alexander George Robert, Earl of Lytton (BLWR895VA)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge.
2. Fletcher, Walter Morley (2011) [1935]. The University Pitt Club: 1835-1935 (First Paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-1-107-60006-5.
3. "No. 32620". The London Gazette. 24 February 1922. p. 1611.
4. "No. 13791". The Edinburgh Gazette. 28 February 1922. p. 383.
5. "No. 33255". The London Gazette. 8 March 1927. p. 1526.
6. "No. 14320". The Edinburgh Gazette. 11 March 1927. p. 292.
7. "No. 33946". The London Gazette. 2 June 1933. p. 3801.
8. "London Associated Electricity". The Times. 5 April 1948. p. 7.
9. Arthur K. Kuhn, "The Lytton Report on the Manchurian Crisis." American Journal of International Law27.1 (1933): 96-100. in JSTOR
10. "Lytton, Earl of (UK, 1880)". cracroftspeerage.co.uk. Heraldic Media Limited. Retrieved 13 March 2020.
11. "Erne, Earl (I, 1789)". cracroftspeerage.co.uk. Heraldic Media Limited. Retrieved 13 March 2020.
12. "Terrington, Baron (UK, 1918)". cracroftspeerage.co.uk. Heraldic Media Limited. Retrieved 13 March 2020.

External links

• Victor Alexander George Robert Bulwer-Lytton at Find a Grave
• Portrait of Pamela Frances Audrey Bulwer-Lytton (née Chichele-Plowden), Countess of Lytton

[admin]

Part 1 of 4

Sankara-Dig-vijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri Sankaracharya
by Madhava-Vidyaranya
Translated by Swami Tapasyananda
Sri Ramakrishna Math
Madras, India
Printed in India at Sri Ramakrishna Math Printing Press
YEAR???

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.

-- Adi Shankara, by Wikipedia

-- Dashanami Sampradaya [Order of Swamis] [Naga Sadhus akharas], by Wikipedia

-- The Fighting Ascetics of India, by J.N. Farquhar, M.A., D. Litt. (Oxon.).

-- Akhāṛās: Warrior Ascetics, by Matthew Clark

-- Sankara-Dig-vijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri Sankaracharya, by Madhava-Vidyaranya, Translated by Swami Tapasyananda

Highlights:

A biography of Sri Sankara on modern lines is an impossible for want of exact data from contemporary writings. We have therefore to depend on the type of Sanskrit works called Sankaravijayas, the traditional lives of the Acharya, to know whatever is now possible to gather about this saintly philosopher…As these Vijayas have a mythological bias, they have their obvious defect in respect of chronology and recording of facts and events…

We are presenting this translation not because we consider it a proper biography in the modern sense, but because there is nothing better to offer on the life and achievements of Sri Sankara. Sri Sankaracharya is undoubtedly the most widely known of India’s saintly philosophers, both within the country and outside, and there is a constant enquiry for an account of his life.

The trouble does not actually lie with these scholars or the accounts they have given of Sankara’s life. It lies in the fact that there is absolute dearth of reliable materials to produce a biography of the modern type on Sankara, and the scholarly writer, if he is to produce a book of some respectable size, has no other alternative but to fill it with discussions of the various versions of the dates and of the incidents of Sankara’s life that have come down to us through that series of literature known as Sankaravijayas, which vary very widely from one another in regard to most of these details….

In a situation like this, a modern writer on Sankara’s life can consider himself to have discharged his duty well if he produces a volume of respectable size filled with condemnation of the old Sankara-vijayas — which, by the way, have given him the few facts he has got to write upon—for their ‘fancifulness, unreliability, absence of chronological sense’ and a host of other obvious shortcomings, and indulge in learned discussions about the date and the evidence in favour of or against the disputed facts, and finally fill up the gap still left with expositions of Sankara’s philosophy. In contrast to these are the traditional biographical writings on Sankara called Sankara-vijayas. All of them without an exception mix the natural with the supernatural; bring into the picture the deliberations held by super-human beings in the heavens; bring gods and dead sages into the affairs of men; report miraculous feats and occurrences; and come into conflict with one another in regard to many biographical details…

The trouble comes only when mythological accounts are taken as meticulously factual and men begin to be dogmatic about the versions presented in them. In the mythological literary technique, facts are often inflated with the emotional overtones and with the artistic expressiveness that their impact has elicited from human consciousness, and we have therefore to seek their message in the total effect they produce and not through a cocksure attitude towards the happenings in space and time…

this is only one of the following ten Sankara-vijayas listed on p. 32 of T.S. Narayana Sastri’s The Age of Sankara…Of these, the first two, the Brihat-Sankara-vijaya and Prachma-Sankara-vijaya are supposed to be the products of the contemporaries of Sankara, their authors being the Acharya’s disciples. Nothing can be said of this claim, as the texts are not available anywhere at present.' Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, the author of The Age of Sankara, claims to have come across what he calls a ‘mutilated copy’ of the second section, called Sankaracharya-satpatha, of Chitsukha’s work mentioned above. There is, however, no means to assess the authenticity of the claim on behalf of this mutilated copy, as it is not available anywhere…

there are only five of them available in printed form, and even most of them can be got only with considerable difficulty….

We are taking up for translation the last of these, namely, Madhava-Vidyaranya’s work, with the full awareness of its limitations, which may be listed as follows: It is not a biography but a biographical and philosophical poem, as the author himself calls it. There are many obviously mythological elements in it, like reports of conferences held in heavens, appearance of Devas and dead sages among men, traffic between men and gods, thundering miracles, and chronological absurdities which Prof. S. S. Suryanarayana condemns as ‘indiscriminate bringing together of writers of very different centuries among those whom Sankara met and defeated.’ But these unhistorical features it shares with all other available Sankara-vijayas, including that of Anantanandagiri….Ever since it was first printed in Ganapat Krishnaji Press in Bombay in the year 1863, it has continued to be a popular work on Sankara and it is still the only work on the basis of which ordinary people have managed to get some idea of the great Acharya, in spite of the severe uncharitable criticism1 [The motives behind the criticism of Madhviya-sankara-vijaya and the scurrilous nature of the criticism will be evident from the following extract from page 158 of The Age of Sankara by T. S. Narayana Sastri (1916): “We know from very reliable sources that this Madhaviya-Sankara-vijaya was compiled by a well-known Sanskrit scholar who passed away from this world just about eight years ago, under the pseudonym of ‘Madhava’— a 'synonym' for ‘Narayana’—specially to extol the greatness of the Sringeri Math, whose authority had been seriously questioned by the Kumbhakonam Math, the Acharyas of the latter Math claiming exclusive privilege of being entitled to the title of the 'Jagadgurus' for the whole of India as being the direct successors of Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada's own Math established by him at Kanchi, the greatness of which had been unnecessarily extolled by Rajachudamani Dikshita, Vallisahaya Kavi and Venkatarama Sarman in their respective works, Sankarabhyudaya, Achraya-dig-vijaya and Sankara-bhagavatpadacharitra. About fifty years ago, in the very city of Madras, as many may still remember, a fierce controversy raged between the adherents of the Kumbhakonam Math on the one hand, and those of the Sringeri Math headed by Bangalore Siddhanti Subrahmanya Sastri and two brothers —Kumbhakonam Srinivasa Sastri and Kumbhakonam Narayana Sastri—sons of Ramaswami Sastri, a protege of the Sringeri Math, on the other. We have very strong reasons to believe that this Sankara-dig-vijaya ascribed to Madhava, the Sankara-vijaya-vilasa ascribed to Chidvilasa, and the Sankara-vijaya-sara ascribed to Sadananda, had all been brought into existence by one or other of these three scholars, about this period, in answer to the Sankara-vijayas ascribed to Rajachudamani Dikshita and Vallisahaya Kavi.” Not satisfied with the above indictment, Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri gives the following bazaar gossip as proof of his contention on page 247 of his book, “The reader is also referred to an article in Telugu with the caption Sankara-vijaya-karthavevaru by Veturi Prabhakara Sastri of Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, published in the Literary Supplement of the Andhra Patrika of Durmathi Margasira (1921-22) where an interesting note about the author of the above mentioned ‘Sankara Vijaya’ (Sanakara-dig-vijaya of Madhava) is given. Here is an English rendering of a portion of that article: ‘I happened to meet at Bapatla, Brahmasri Vemuri Narasimha Sastri, during my recent tour in the Guntur District, in quest of manuscripts. I mentioned casually to him my doubts regarding the authorship of Madhaviya-sankara-vijaya. He revealed to me some startling facts. When he was at Madras some fifteen years ago, he had the acquaintance of the late Bhattasri Narayana Sastri who wrote the Sankara Vijaya published in the name of Madhava i.e., Vidyaranya, and that four others helped him in this production. The importance of the Sringeri Mutt is very much in evidence in this Sankara Vijaya (not correct). Taking a copy of the Vyasachala Grantha, available at Sringeri Mutt, Bhattasri Narayana Sastri made alterations here and there and produced the Sankara-vijaya in question. That he was an expert in such concoctions, is widely known among learned men.”…

The criticism of it is uncharitable because it is mainly born of prejudice, and it has extended beyond finding fault with the text, to the question of its authorship itself. The critics somehow want to disprove that this work is, as traditionally accepted, a writing of the great Madhava-Vidyaranya, the author of the Panchadasi, and a great name in the field of Indian philosophical and theological literature….Besides the support of tradition, the colophon at the end of every chapter of the book mentions its author’s name as Madhava, that being the pre-monastic name of Vidyaranya….

The identity of Madhava, the author of Sankara-dig-vijaya, with this Madhava-Vidyaranya is further established by the first verse of the text, wherein he pays obeisance to his teacher Vidyatirtha…The identity is further established by the poet Madhava’s reference to his life in the royal court in the following touching introductory verses of his work: “By indulging in insincere praise of the goodness and magnanimity of kings, which are really non-existent like the son of a barren woman or the horns of a hare, my poesy has become extremely impure. Now I shall render it pure and fragrant by applying to it the cool and fragrant sandal paste fallen from the body of the danseuse [a female ballet dancer] of the Acharya’s holy fame and greatness, as she performs her dance on the great stage of the world.”

Besides, the text is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy, which none but a great mind could have produced. But there are detractors of this great text who try to minimise its obvious literary worth by imputing plagiarism and literary piracy to its author. They claim that they have been able to show several verses that have entered into it from certain other Sankara-vijayas like Prachina-Sankara-vijaya and Vyasachala’s Sankara-vijaya. Though Prachina-Sankara-vijaya is nowhere available, T. S. Narayana Sastri claims to have in his possession some mutilated sections of it; but such unverifiable and exclusive claims on behalf of mutilated texts cannot be entertained by a critical and impartial student of these texts, since considerations other than the scholarly have entered into these criticisms, and manuscripts, too, have been heavily tampered with by Sanskrit Pandits. It can as well be that the other Vijayas have taken these from the work of Madhava. Next, even if such verses are there, and they are demonstrably present in regard to Vyasachala’s work, the author can never be accused of plagiarism, because he acknowledges at the outset itself, that his work is a collection of all the traditions about Sankaracharya and that in it all the important things contained in an extensive literature can be seen in a nutshell as an elephant’s face in a mirror…

Besides, it is forgotten by these critics that it is a literary technique of Vidyaranya, as seen from his other works also, to quote extensively from recognised authorities without specially mentioning their names, and that this feature of the present work goes only to establish the identity of its authorship with Vidyaranya….

There is also the view that the author need not necessarily be Madhava-Vidyaranya but Madhavacharya, the son of the former’s brother Sayana and the author of Sarvadarsana-Samgraha, a masterly philosophical text. To make this hypothesis even plausible, it has to be established that this Madhava was the disciple of Vidyatirtha, which the author of Sankara-dig-vijaya claims to be in the very first verse of the text…

Most of Vidyaranya’s other works are on high philosophical and theological themes, and if he has used methods and styles in such works differing from that of a historical poem like Sankara-dig-vijaya, it is only what one should expect of a great thinker and writer. That the author of this work has poetic effect very much in view can be inferred from his description of himself as Nava-Kalidasa (a modern Kalidasa) and his work as Navakalidasa-santana (offspring of the modern Kalidasa)…

Chronology and historicity did not receive much attention from even the greatest of Indian writers in those days.

Regarding the biographical details contained in different Sankara-vijayas, there are wide variations, as already pointed out. There is no way now of settling these differences…

Every date in ancient Indian history, except that of the invasion of Alexander (326 B.C.), is controversial, and Sankara’s date is no exception. Max Muller and other orientalists have somehow fixed it as 788 to 820 A.D., and Das Gupta and Radhakrishnan, the well-known writers on the history of Indian Philosophy, have accepted and repeated it in their books. To do so is not in itself wrong, but to do it in such a way as to make the layman believe it to be conclusive is, to say the least, an injustice to him. It is held by the critics of this date that the Sankara of 788-820 A.D. is not the Adi-Sankara (the original Sankara), but Abhinava Sankara (modern Sankara), another famous Sannyasin of later times (788-839), who was born at Chidambaram and was the head of the Sankara Math at Kanchipuram between 801 and 839. He was reputed for his holiness and learning and is said to have gone on tours of controversy (Dig-vijaya) like the original Sankara.

It is found that not only modern scholars, but even the authors of several Sankara-vijayas have superimposed these two personalities mutually and mixed up several details of their lives. The author of the concept of adhyasa himself seems to have become a victim of it! The cause of much of this confusion has been the custom of all the incumbents of the headship of Sankara Maths being called Sankaracharyas. To distinguish the real Sankara, he is therefore referred to as ‘Adi-Sankara' an expression that is quite meaningless. For, Sankaracharya was the name of an individual and not a title, and if the heads of the Maths of that illustrious personage were known only by their individual names like the heads of religious institutions founded by other teachers, probably much of this confusion could have been avoided….

Ullur S. Parameswara Iyer has pointed out in his great work that the sole support for the modern scholars’ view on Sankara’s date as 788 A.D. is the following incomplete verses of unknown authorship: "Nidhi nagebha vahnyabde vibhave sankarodayah; Kalyabde candranetranka vahnyabde pravisad guham; Vaisakhe purnimayam tu sankarah sivatamagat." Here the words of the first verse are the code words for the year 3889 of the Kali era, which is equivalent to 788 A.D. (It is derived as follows: nidhi: 9; naga: 8; ibha: 8; vahni: 3. Since the numbers are to be taken in the reverse order, it gives 3889 of the Kali era as the date of Sankara’s birth, its conversion into Christian era being 788 A.D. Kali era began 3102 years before the Christian era….

Traditional Indian dates are suspect because of the multiplicity of eras, of which about forty-seven have been enumerated by T. S. Narayana Sastri in his book, The Age of Sankara. So unless the era is specifically mentioned, it is difficult to fix a date in any understandable way. Two of these eras are famous—the Kali era, which started in 3102 B.C., and Yudhishthira Saka era which started 37 years after, i.e., in 3065 B.C. The calculation according to the latter era is, however, complicated further by the fact that, according to the Jains and the Buddhists, the latter era started 468 years after the Kali era, that is, in 2634 B.C.

Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, in his book, The Age of Sankara, argues the case for the traditional date, on the basis of the list of succession kept in Kamakoti Math and Sringeri Math, and what he has been able to gather from ‘mutilated copies’ of Brihat-Sankara-vijaya, Prachtna-Sankara-vijaya and Vyasachallya-Sankara-vijaya. Until authentic copies of these works are available, the information they are supposed to give is not acceptable…

44 B.C., the supposed date of the birth of Sankara according to Sringeri Math, might have been the result of the confusion of eras and calculations based on them. 2625 of the Kali era, the date of his death, must have been taken as referring to Buddhist-Jain era and then converted into Kali era by adding 468 to it, thus arriving at 3093 of Kali era (9 or 10 B.C.) as the date of Sankara’s death….

as stated in T. S. Narayana Sastri’s work, in the Kamakoti list Sankara occupied that Gaddi for three years (from 480 B.C. to 477 B.C.) and was followed by Sureswara for 70 years (477 B.C. to 407 B.C.), the Sringeri list maintains that Sankara occupied that Gaddi for six years (from 18 B.C. to 12 B.C.), and was followed by Sureswara for 785 years (from 12 B.C. to 773 A.D.)… The record of the Sringeri Math says that Sankara was born in the 14th year of the reign of Vikramaditya. Compilers wrongly referred this to the era of Vikramaditya of Ujjain, which was originally called Malava Samvat and later in the eighth century A.D. called the Vikrama Samvat. This took Sankara to the first century B.C. and necessitated the assignment of around 800 years to Sureswaracharya to agree with the later dates. Mr L. Rice points out that the reference is not to the Vikramaditya of Ujjain but to the Chalukya king Vikramaditya who ruled in Badami near Sringeri. Historians opine that Chalukya Vikramaditya ascended the throne during the period 655 to 670 A.D….

Such unbelievable inconsistencies have made modern historians totally reject the evidence provided by the chronological lists of the Maths. So Sri Ullur Parameswara Iyer, himself a pious Brahmana, maintains in his History of Kerala Sahitya (Vol. 1 p. 111) that it is easy to prove that most of these Math lists have been formulated so late as the 16th century A.D.

But a still greater difficulty posed for such an early date as 509 to 476 B.C. for Sankara is the proximity of this to the generally accepted date of the Buddha (567-487 B.C.). Sankara has criticised Buddhism in its developed form with its four branches of philosophy. A few centuries at least should certainly be allowed to elapse for accommodating this undeniable fact. Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri is, however, remarkably ingenious, and his reply to this objection is that the Buddha’s date was certainly much earlier. Vaguely quoting Prof. Wheeler, Weber and Chinese records, he contends that the Buddha must have flourished at any time between the 20th and the 14th century B.C. He challenges the fixing of the date of Buddha on the basis of the dates of Kanishka or of Megasthenes.3a [Kanishka’s date is variously stated as 1st century B.C., 1st century A.D., 2nd century A.D. and 3rd century A.D. The relevancy of his date to the Buddha’s date is that Hsuan Tsang, the Chinese traveller, states that the Buddha lived four hundred years before Kanishka. Some historians try to fix the date of the Buddha on the basis of this information as 5th century B.C. This view is not currently accepted, and the Buddha’s date is settled on other grounds as 567-487 B.C. It is fixed so on the basis of Asoka’s coronation in 269 B.C., four years after his accession. According to the Ceylon Chronicles, 218 years separate this event of Asoka’s coronation from the date of the Buddha’s demise. Thus we get 487 as the date of the Buddha’s demise, and as he is supposed to have lived 80 years, the date of his birth is 567. According to R. Sathianatha Ayyar, the date of 487 B.C. is supported by “the dotted record” of Canton (China); The traditional date according to the Buddhist canonical literature, however, is 623-543 B.C. Megasthenes comes into the picture, because he was the Greek Ambassador of Selukos Nickator at the court of Chandra Gupta Maurya (325 B.C.), who is described by him as Shandracotus. Now Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, with a view to push back the Buddha’s date, challenges this identification, and opines that this reference could as well be to Chandra Gupta or even to Samudra Gupta of the Gupta dynasty (300-600 A.D.), in which case the Mauryan age (325 to 188 B.C.) will have to be pushed further back into the 7th to 5th century B.C. and the Buddha (567-487 B.C.) too, into the 9th century B.C. at least. But Sri Sastri forgets that these contentions cannot stand, as the date of Megasthenes and of Chandra Gupta Maurya have necessarily to be related to the firm and unquestionable date of Alexander’s invasion of India (326 B.C.) Megasthenes was the ambassador at the Pataliputra court sent by Selukos Nickator (305 B.C.), the Satrap who succeeded to the Indian region of Alexander’s empire, which he had to give up to Chandra Gupta by a treaty. T. S. Narayana Sastri’s attempt to shift the Gupta period of India history, to the time of Alexander’s invasion (326 B.C.) by equating Shandracotus with Samudra Gupta of the Gupta period, is a mere chronological guess-work without any supporting evidence, as against several historical synchronisms which compel the acceptance of the currently recognised chronology. For example, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Fahien was in India in the Gupta age, from 399-414 A.D., and his description of India can tally only with that period and not with the Mauryan period. Besides, the Hun invasion of India was in the reign of Skanda Gupta, about 458 A.D., and this event cannot be put on any ground into the B.C.’s when Mauryans flourished, even with an out-stretched poetical imagination. So we have got to maintain that the Shandracotus who visited Alexander’s camp (326 B.C.) and who later received about 326 B.C. Megasthenes as the ambassador of Selukos Nickator, the successor to Alexander’s Indian province, can be none other than Chandra Gupta of the Mauryan dynasty (325 B.C. to 188 B.C.) Further, historical synchronisms, the sheet-anchor of the chronology of Indian history give strong support to the accepted date of Asoka (273-232 B.C.), the greatest of the Mauryan Emperors. His Rock Edict XIII mentions, as stated by Sathianatha Ayyar, the following contemporary personalities: Antiochus Teos of Syria (261-246 B.C.); Ptolemy Philadelphos of Egypt (285-247 B.C.); Antigonos Gonates of Macedonia (278-239 B.C.); Magas of Cyrene (285-258 B.C.), and Alexander of Epirus (272-258 B.C.). They are referred to as alive at the time of that Rock Edict. In the face of such historical synchronisms all attempts to push back the time of the Buddha by several centuries in order to substantiate the theory of 509 B.C. being Sankara’s date, is only chronological jugglery. So the Buddha’s date has to remain more or less as it is fixed today (568-487 B.C.). Sankara came definitely long after the Buddha.] The reference to Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador, who refers to the ruler to whom he was accredited as Shandracotus, need not necessarily be to Chandragupta Maurya but to the king of the Gupta dynasty (300-600 A.D.) with the same name, or even to Samudra Gupta. If this line of argument is accepted, the present dates of Indian history will have to be worked back to about three to four hundred years, which will land us in very great difficulties, as shown in the foot note….

there is another opinion that assigns Sankara to the 1st century B.C. This view is held by Sri N. Ramesam in his book Sri Sankaracharya (1971). His argument is as follows: Sankara is accepted in all Sankara-vijayas as a contemporary of Kumarila. Kumarila must have lived after Kalidasa, the poet, because Kumarila quotes Kalidasa’s famous line; Satam hi sandeha padesu vastusu pramanam antahkaranasya vrittayah. Now Kalidasa’s date has not been firmly fixed (first half of the 5th century A.D. according to some), but it is contended that it cannot be earlier than 150 B.C., as Agni Mitra, one of the heroes in a famous drama of Kalidasa, is ascribed to that date. So also, it cannot be later than the Mandasor Inscription of 450 A.D. So on the basis that Sankara and Kumarila were contemporaries and that Kumarila came after Kalidasa, we have to search for Sankara’s date between 150 B.C. and 450 A.D. Now to narrow down the gap still further, the list of spiritual preceptors that preceded Sankara is taken into consideration. Patanjali, Gaudapada, Govindapada and Sankara— form the accepted line of discipleship. Patanjali, Sri Ramesam contends, lived in the 2nd century B.C., a conclusion which, if accepted finally (?), gives much credence to his theory. Now, not less than a hundred years can be easily taken as the distance in time between Sankara and Patanjali in this line of succession, and thus we derive the time of Sankara as the 1st century B.C., which has the merit of being in agreement with the Kumarila-Sankara contemporaneity and the Kumarila-Kalidasa relationship. The 1st century hypothesis has also got the advantage of tallying with the Sringeri Math’s teacher-disciple list, according to which, as already stated, 12 B.C. is the date of Sankara’s demise. Sri Ramesam finds further confirmation for his theory in the existence of a temple on a Sankaracharya Hill in Kashmir attributed to Jaluka, a son of Asoka who became the ruler of Kashmir after Asoka’s demise, according to Rajaiarangini. Asoka passed away In 180 B.C. and it is very credible that Jaluka could have been in Kashmir when Sankara visited that region, provided Sankara’s life is fixed in the 1st century B.C. Further, Cunningham and General Cole are stated to assign the temple architecturally to the times of Jaluka…

Sri Ramesam also refutes the modern scholars’ view of Sankara’s date being 788-820 A.D. on the ground that this has arisen due to confusion between Adi-Sankara and Abhinava-Sankara (788-840 A.D.)… its credibility depends largely on the theory of 200 B.C. being the time of Patanjali and the acceptance of the Kumarila-Kalidasa relationship. If these are questioned, the whole theory falls. This is the case with most dates in Indian history, where the rule is to fix the date of one person or event on the basis of the date of another person or event, which itself is open to question….

Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier, Professor of Sanskrit (Rtd) in the Kerala University, in his learned Introduction to his translation of Sankara’s Brahma-sutra-bhashya into Malayalam… states that the Buddhist author Kamalasila has pointed out that Sankara has quoted in his Brahma-sutra-bhashya (B. S. II. 2-28) the following passage from the Alambanapariksha by Dingnaga, the celebrated Buddhist savant: 'Yadantarjneyarupam tat bahiryadavabhasate’. Dingnaga’s date, which Dr. Warrier links with those of Vasubandhu (450 A.D.) and Bhartrhari, is fixed by him as about 450 A.D. But that is not all. The following verse of Dingnaga’s commentator Dharmakirti is quoted by Sankara in his work Upadesa-sahasri: Abhinnopi hi buddhydtma viparyasitadarsanaih grahyagrahaka-samvitti bhedavaniva laksyate (ch. 18, v. 142). This reference is from Dharmakirti’s Pramana-virtischhaya. Dr. Warrier points out that Dharmakirti is described as a ‘great Buddhist logician’ by the Chinese pilgrim-traveller, It-sing, who was in India in 690 A.D. The implication is that Dharmakirti must have lived in the first half of the 7th century or earlier, and that Sankara came after him. It means that Sankara’s date cannot be pushed back beyond the 5th century A.D., or even beyond the 7th century A.D., if the Upadesasahasri is accepted as a genuine work of Sankara. As in the case of most dates in Indian history, the credibility of the view, too, depends on the acceptance of the dates of Dingnaga and Dharmakirti as 5th century and 7th century respectively, and that Upadesasahasri is really a work of Sankara, as traditionally accepted. Fixing dates on the basis of other dates, which are themselves open to question, can yield only possibilities and not certainties.

Probable dates suggested by other scholars are also the 6th century and the 7th century A.D. Sankara refers in his writings to a king named Pumavarman who, according to Hsuan Tsang, ruled in 590 A.D. It is, therefore, contended that Sankara must have lived about that time or after. Next Telang points out how Sankara speaks of Pataliputra in his Sutra-bhashya (IV. ii. 5) and that this will warrant Sankara having lived about a century before 750 A.D., by which time Pataliputra had been eroded by the river and was non-existent. Such references to names of persons, cities, rivers, etc. in philosophical writings can also be explained as stock examples, as we use Aristotle or Achilles in logic, and need not necessarily have any historical significance. Dr. T. R. Chintamani maintains that Kumarila lived towards the latter half of the 7th century A.D. (itself a Controversial point) and Sankara, being a contemporary of his, must have lived about that time (655-684 A.D.). It is also pointed out by him that Vidyananda, the teacher of Jainasena, who was also the author of Jaina-harivamsa (783 A.D.), quotes a verse4 ["Atmapi sadidam brahma mohat parosyadu sitam; Brahmapi sa tathaivatma sadvitiyatayesate."] from the Brihadaranyaka-vartika of Sureswara, disciple of Sankara. This is impossible to conceive without granting that Sankara and Sureswara lived, about a hundred years earlier to Jainasena who lived about the second half of the 8th century A.D.

Thus vastly varied are the views about Sankara’s date, ranging from 509 B.C. to 788 A.D., i.e., more than a millennium and a half…

Under the circumstances, all these complicated discussions of Sankara’s date culminate only in a learned ignorance. We have to admit that we have no certain knowledge, and it is, therefore, wise not to be dogmatic but keep an open mind….

It is pointed out in the monograph of P. Rama Sastry on The Maths Founded by Sankara that this four-Math theory has been propounded first in Chidvilasa’s Sankara-vijaya which, along with some other Sankara-vijayas, is, according to T. S. Narayana Sastri, a recent production and of little authority. It finds no support in the other Vijayas of its kind and perhaps not even in the more ancient Sankara-vijayas. Of course this view cannot be verified now, as the most ancient of these Sankara-vijayas are not available now….

Nothing more precise than this can be said about the question as to which are the Maths originally founded by Sankaracharya, or even whether he founded any Math at all. Different sectaries having varying traditions can stick to them with justification, provided they do not become too cocksure and dogmatic and deny a similar right to others who differ from them…

it is interesting to read the following statement issued by Sri T. N. Ramachandran, Rtd. Joint Director-General of Archaeology of India…“At Kedamath, on the way to Badrinath, there is a monument associated with the great Adi-Sankaracharya which His Holiness Sri Sankaracharya of Dwaraka Pith visited some time ago and expressed a desire to renovate (the memorial). His Holiness issued instructions to scholars of all parts of our country to ascertain the place of the Samadhi of the great Adi- Sankaracharya. On this Sri Sampurnanand, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, and myself bestowed some thought.

“After having arrived at some conclusion on the point by mutual correspondence, we are of the opinion, that Kedamath cannot be said to be the Samadhisthan (the final resting place) of the great Acharya….

‘‘The Memorial at Kedamath should at any rate be kept intact, and it is the duty of all who profess any interest in the hoary Religion and Philosophy of our land to join hands in the sacred endeavour of renovating the Adi-Sankara Memorial at Kedarnath, as chalked out by Sri Sampurnanand, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh, in his letter addressed to me…‘Dear Sri Ramachandra, Recently I had occasion to discuss the matter with the Sankaracharya of Dwaraka Pith also. In the first place the word ‘Samadhi’ is a misnomer in this connection. There is nothing to prove that Sri Sankaracharya died at this spot. All that tradition says is that he came to Kedarnath and, in modern phraseology, disappeared thereafter. So, what is "called Samadhi' is really not a Samadhi but a Memorial. I myself do not treat it as Samadhi and such proposals as I am considering are based on this information. What I propose is that instead of the wretched structure that passes as a Samadhi, a new Memorial should be built in memory of the great Acharya. It should not occupy the place of the present construction which is in danger of being overwhelmed by an avalanche any day. It should be built at a safer place somewhere near the temple. I am getting a design prepared by our State Architect. The Sankaracharya of Dwaraka Pith has given me his support in the matter’....”

This theory of Sankara having attained Siddhi (final end) at Kanchi is supported, according to T. S. Narayana Sastri in his book, The Age of Sankara, by the following texts: Brihat Sankara- vijaya, Vyasachala’s Sankara-vijaya and Anantanandagiri’s Sankara-vijaya, besides the Punyasloka Manjari, Jagat-guru-ratnamala and Jagat-guru-katha samgraha. On this it has to be remarked that from among the above-mentioned Sankara-vijayas one has only Anantanandagiri’s and Vyasachala’s works available for reference and corroboration. Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, however, claims to possess some extracts of mutilated sections of the first of the texts mentioned, which is considered by some as the most ancient and authoritative text. But no one can be sure of, much less accept, the claims of these mutilated manuscripts….

The attainment of Siddhi at Kanchi is further corroborated by Sivarahasya, a voluminous text of the Siva cult dealing with all the devotees of Siva, which is also quoted in the Madras University edition of Anantanandagiri. It has, however, to be remarked that, as pointed out by T. S. Narayana Sastri (pp. 287 of his work The Age of Sankara), there are conflicting readings on this point in different manuscripts of the text of Sivarahasya. In one it is: misran tato lokam avapa saivam. In another it is: misran sa kancyam. In still another it is: Kancyam Sive! tava pure sa ca siddhim apa. Evidently texts have been manipulated by interested Pandits, creating a very confusing and suspicious situation….

In the edition of it, recently published by the University of Madras under the editorship of Dr. Veezhinathan, the birth of Sankara is thus described…

But the first ever published edition of this work gives an entirely different version….

Now, in Dr. Veezhinathan’s edition, the above text is given as a footnote….he refers to ten manuscripts (A.Mss.) as supporting his version. Probably many of these manuscripts of both groups may be copies only, and from the numbers, their authenticity cannot be ascertained. Besides, several of them are not complete also…The Editors of the 1868 edition, Navadweep Goswami and Jayanarayana Tarkapanchanana, have stated in their Preface that ‘their edition had been prepared in the light of three texts they could get—one in Nagari letters which was procured with great difficulty; another in Telugu characters procured with equal difficulty; and still another in Bengali alphabets made on the basis of the above texts’. There is no reason why this text should not be given at least an equal place of importance as the one edited by Dr. Veezhinathan. According to the text of the Calcutta edition, Anantanandagiri is giving the history, not of ‘Adi-Sankara who was born at Kaladi’, but of a Sankaracharya ‘who was born immaculately to Visishta of Chidambaram’, who continued to live at Chidambaram itself, took Sannyasa there, and who went on Dig-vijaya tours that are entirely different from the routes that Adi-Sankara is supposed to have taken in several of the other Vijayas. This Sankara is very largely concerned with reforming the various cults that prevailed, in the country and very little with philosophy. The controversy with Mandana, which is one of the most glorious episodes in Adi-Sankara’s life, finds a casual mention in the form of a synopsis. In this, as also in entering into Amaruka’s body and in the writing of the Bhashyas, the two Sankaracharyas are mixed up….There is every possibility that this Chidambaram Sankaracharya is the Abhinava-Sankara whom even modern scholars have mistakenly identified with Adi-Sankara and given 788 A.D. as his time. Besides, Anantanandagiri, the author, calls the hero of his work his Parama-guru (his teacher's teacher). This makes the matter all the more confusing. For, no one has recorded that Adi-Sankara or his disciples had a disciple called Anantanandagiri. Anandagiri (quite different from Anantanandagiri) was Sankara’s disciple, and the Prachina-Sankara-vijaya attributed to him (a book quite different from Anantanandagiri’s) is not available anywhere now….no final view is possible with the existing information. The best that can be said is that it is one of the traditions….

We have shown above the confusion prevailing about the place of Sankara’s demise. The same extends to most events of his life, especially about the places where they happened and about the routes he took in his travels….

the custom of all the Heads of Sankara Maths being called as Sankara-charyas, as if it were a title, and not an individual’s name, was the main cause of much of this confusion of biographical and literary details connected with Sankara. This confusion has got worse confounded by the interference with manuscript copies in the past by the adherents of particular Sankara Maths in order to enhance the prestige and supremacy of the particular institution that patronised them. As a result, we have today only a lot of traditions about Sankaracharya, and he is a foolhardy man, indeed, who dares to swear by any of these traditions as truly historical and the others as fabricated…

Rightly does Dr. Radhakrishna offer the tribute of the Indian mind to the personality of the great Acharya in the following most beautiful and effective words in his book on Indian Philosophy: “The life of Sankara makes a strong impression of contraries. He is a philosopher and a poet, a savant and a saint, a mystic and a religious reformer. Such diverse gifts did he possess that different images present themselves, if we try to recall his personality. One sees him in youth, on fire with intellectual ambition, a stiff and intrepid debator; another regards him as a shrewd political genius (rather a patriot) attempting to impress on the people a sense of unity; for a third, he is a calm philosopher engaged in the single effort to expose the contradictions of life and thought with an unmatched incisiveness; for a fourth, he is the mystic who declares that we are all greater than we know. There have been few minds more universal than his.”

-- Sankara-Dig-vijaya: The Traditional Life of Sri Sankaracharya, by Madhava-Vidyaranya, Translated by Swami Tapasyananda

CONTENTS

• Introduction
• Canto No.
• 1. Prologue
• 2. Birth of Sankara
• 3. The Earthly Manifestation of Devas
• 4. Boyhood Days up to the Age of eight
• 5. Embracing Sannyasa
• 6. Establishment of The Pristine Philosophy of The Self
• 7. The Meeting With Vyasa
• 8. Controversy With Mandana
• 9. Establishing the Claim to Be The Master of All Learning
• 10. Acquirement of Knowledge of Sex-Love.
• 11. Encounter With The Fierce Bhairava
• 12. The Coming of Some Disciples
• 13. Preaching of Brahma Vidya
• 14. Pilgrimage of Padmapada
• 15. Triumphant Tour of The Land
• 16. Accession To Saradapitha

The Book

A biography of Sri Sankara on modern lines is an impossible for want of exact data from contemporary writings. We have therefore to depend on the type of Sanskrit works called Sankaravijayas, the traditional lives of the Acharya, to know whatever is now possible to gather about this saintly philosopher who has left so vivid an impression on the Indian mind. As these Vijayas have a mythological bias, they have their obvious defect in respect of chronology and recording of facts and events, but they got their excellences too.

Among the Vijayas available in print, Madhava-Vidyaranya’s Sankara-digvi-jaya excels all others as a philosophical and biographical poem of remarkable literary beauty and depth of thought. The present book is a free and complete English prose translation of this work, aiming chiefly at a very lucid account of the Acharya’s life and his achievements, without however omitting the highly poetical panegyric and description of Nature with which it abounds.   

To the Holy Being Ramakrishna, the Spiritual Swan
sporting in the lake of pious hearts,
Who embodied himself as the world-famous
scriptural commentator Sankara,
By whose efforts the sophistries of
atheistic thinkers were uprooted
And the way of Vedic wisdom cleared
and well-established --
To that Universal Being as Sankara,
my Salutation!

-- Swami Abhedananda

INTRODUCTION

Problems Connected with a Biography of Sri Sankara

An Introduction to an English translation of Madhava-Vidyaranya’s Sankara-dig-vijaya, known also as Samkshepa-sankara-vijaya, requires in the first place an explanation as to why it is undertaken. We are presenting this translation not because we consider it a proper biography in the modern sense, but because there is nothing better to offer on the life and achievements of Sri Sankara. Sri Sankaracharya is undoubtedly the most widely known of India’s saintly philosophers, both within the country and outside, and there is a constant enquiry for an account of his life. It is not that there are no lives, or rather life-sketches of his, in English, written by modern scholars, but they are extremely unsatisfactory in giving any adequate idea of the great Acharya or of his wonderful personality— of how he was able to make that great impact on the conscience of India, which has remained unfaded to this day. Like a rivulet starting with great promise but soon getting lost in a swampy morass, these modern writings end in learned date discussions and textual criticisms, which give the reader a sense of learned ignorance, but certainly no idea of what Sankaracharya was like.

The trouble does not actually lie with these scholars or the accounts they have given of Sankara’s life. It lies in the fact that there is absolute dearth of reliable materials to produce a biography of the modern type on Sankara, and the scholarly writer, if he is to produce a book of some respectable size, has no other alternative but to fill it with discussions of the various versions of the dates and of the incidents of Sankara’s life that have come down to us through that series of literature known as Sankaravijayas, which vary very widely from one another in regard to most of these details. The generally undisputed features of Sankara’s life seem to be the following: That he was born in Kaladi, Kerala, in a family of Nambudiri Brahmanas; that he left hearth and home as a boy to take to the life of a Sannyasin; that he was initiated into Sannyasa by Govindapada, the disciple of Gaudapada; that he wrote learned commentaries on the Vedantasutras and the ten principal Upanishads and the Gita; that he led a busy life travelling all over India refuting non-Vedic doctrines and establishing non-dualism as the true teaching of the Vedas; that he left four principal disciples to continue his mission; that he rid the various Indian cults of the influence of debased sectaries and infused into them the purity and idealism of Vedic thought; that he established centres of Advaitic learning in many places; and that he passed away at the early age of thirty-two at a place, the identity of which is yet to be established. When he was born; where he met his teacher; where he wrote his commentaries; what were the routes he took in his all-India journeys for preaching and teaching; who were all his opponents and where he met them; how and when he came across his disciples; what temples he visited or renovated; what Maths he founded or whether he founded any Math at all; where he passed away—all these are matters on which conflicting or widely differing views are expressed in the different traditional books concerned with him known as Sankara-vijayas.

In a situation like this, a modern writer on Sankara’s life can consider himself to have discharged his duty well if he produces a volume of respectable size filled with condemnation of the old Sankara-vijayas — which, by the way, have given him the few facts he has got to write upon—for their ‘fancifulness, unreliability, absence of chronological sense’ and a host of other obvious shortcomings, and indulge in learned discussions about the date and the evidence in favour of or against the disputed facts, and finally fill up the gap still left with expositions of Sankara’s philosophy. In contrast to these are the traditional biographical writings on Sankara called Sankara-vijayas. All of them without an exception mix the natural with the supernatural; bring into the picture the deliberations held by super-human beings in the heavens; bring gods and dead sages into the affairs of men; report miraculous feats and occurrences; and come into conflict with one another in regard to many biographical details. Yet their very so-called fancifulness, the poetic approach of at least some of them, their mythological setting and descriptive details, have given some of them a fullness and impressiveness which are far more educative than the few bald details and the futile discussions on their obvious deficiencies that one comes across in the modern biographical writings on Sankara.

The contrast may be better illustrated by an analogy. Suppose a few bones of a rare species of animal that lived in bygone times are obtained. A very learned discussion about the evolutionary background and the probable biological features of the fossilised bones can be instituted by biologists and anthropologists. A clever artist, on the other hand, can try to reconstruct the probable appearance of that extinct species of animals in some plastic material, based on the clues from the bony structures recovered. Now, in spite of the great erudition behind the first way of approach, it is the reconstructed model, despite its obvious fancifulness and imaginative make-up, that can give some plausible idea to the common man about that rare animal to which the bones belonged. The flourishing of a few bones and the learned discussions on them will leave no impression on the minds of any but specialists in the field. The attempted historical biographies of Sankara are just like the rattling of the few bones of facts available along with abstruse discussions about them, while the Sankara-vijayas are like the reconstructed model of the animal which may be fanciful but impressive and meaningful to the ordinary man. If we approach the Sankara-vijayas without forgetting that mythological elements have entered into them, they would enable us to get a much more vivid and flesh-and-blood picture of Sankara than these learned discussions on dates and on the credibility of various texts and some of the details contained in them.

The word ‘mythological’ is not used here in any sense of disparagement. A highly poetic and mythological narration of the lives of individuals or events marks the measure of the tremendous impact that these individuals and events have made on the racial mind of a people in those ancient days when correct recording was not much in vogue, and impressive events easily took a mythological turn. They are living traditions that transmit a little of their original impact to the generations that have come later, whereas pure historical productions are only like dead specimens and curios preserved in the corridors of Time’s museum. The trouble comes only when mythological accounts are taken as meticulously factual and men begin to be dogmatic about the versions presented in them. In the mythological literary technique, facts are often inflated with the emotional overtones and with the artistic expressiveness that their impact has elicited from human consciousness, and we have therefore to seek their message in the total effect they produce and not through a cocksure attitude towards the happenings in space and time. If we approach the Sankara-vijaya in this spirit, we shall understand more about Sankara and his way of life than through the writings of professors who disparage them for their defective chronology, their fanciful descriptions and their confusing statement of facts. Such being the position, a translation of a Sankara-vijaya is the only way to give some idea of Sankara, his doings, his personality and the times in which he lived.

Sankara-Vijaya literature

The translation given in this book is of Sankara-dig-vijaya or Samkshepa-Sankara-vijaya by Madhava-Vidyaranya. It is, however, to be remembered that this is only one of the following ten Sankara-vijayas listed on p. 32 of T.S. Narayana Sastri’s The Age of Sankara: (1) Brihat-Sankara-vijaya of Chitsukhacharya; (2) Prachma-Sankara-vijaya of Anandagiri; (3) Sankara-vijaya of Vidya Sankara alias Sankarananda, otherwise known as Vyasachaliya-Sankara-vijaya; (4) Keraliya-Sankara-vijaya by Govindanatha, also known as Acharya-charita ; (5) Sankarabhyudaya of Chudamani Dikshita; (6) Sankara-vijaya of Anantanandagiri (to be distinguished from Anandagiri) known also as Guru-vijaya or Acharya-vijaya; (7) Sankara-vijaya of Valllsahayakavi under the name Acharya-dig-vijaya; (8) Sankara-dig-vijaya-sara of Sadananda; (9) Sankara-vijaya-vilasa of Chidvilasa; and (10) Sankara-dig-vijaya or Samkshepa-Sankara-vijaya of Madhava-Vidyaranya. Of these, the first two, the Brihat-Sankara-vijaya and Prachma-Sankara-vijaya are supposed to be the products of the contemporaries of Sankara, their authors being the Acharya’s disciples. Nothing can be said of this claim, as the texts are not available anywhere at present.' Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, the author of The Age of Sankara, claims to have come across what he calls a ‘mutilated copy’ of the second section, called Sankaracharya-satpatha, of Chitsukha’s work mentioned above. There is, however, no means to assess the authenticity of the claim on behalf of this mutilated copy, as it is not available anywhere.

Regarding the remaining Sankara-vijayas, while some of them might be lying in some obscure corners of manuscript libraries, there are only five of them available in printed form, and even most of them can be got only with considerable difficulty. These are Sankara-vijaya of Anantanandagiri (quite different from the now defunct Anandagiri’s work with which it is confused even by scholars), Acharya-charita of Govindanatha, Sankara-vijaya of Vyasachala, Sankara-vijaya-vilasa of Chidvilasa, and Sankara-dig-vijaya of Madhava-Vidyaranaya.

[admin]

Part 2 of 4

The Authorship of Sankara-dig-vijaya

We are taking up for translation the last of these, namely, Madhava-Vidyaranya’s work, with the full awareness of its limitations, which may be listed as follows: It is not a biography but a biographical and philosophical poem, as the author himself calls it. There are many obviously mythological elements in it, like reports of conferences held in heavens, appearance of Devas and dead sages among men, traffic between men and gods, thundering miracles, and chronological absurdities which Prof. S. S. Suryanarayana condemns as ‘indiscriminate bringing together of writers of very different centuries among those whom Sankara met and defeated.’ But these unhistorical features it shares with all other available Sankara-vijayas, including that of Anantanandagiri. Though Wilson and Monier Williams find Anantanandagiri’s writing to be more authentic and ‘less fanciful’, it seems so only because, being a rather scrappy writing, more of the nature of a synopsis in modern Sanskrit prose, such fanciful features do not look highlighted in the way in which they do in a poetical and elaborate piece of literature like the work of Madhava-Vidyaranya, to which people will have to turn for the present to get some clear idea of Sankara and his doings. Ever since it was first printed in Ganapat Krishnaji Press in Bombay in the year 1863, it has continued to be a popular work on Sankara and it is still the only work on the basis of which ordinary people have managed to get some idea of the great Acharya, in spite of the severe uncharitable criticism1 [The motives behind the criticism of Madhviya-sankara-vijaya and the scurrilous nature of the criticism will be evident from the following extract from page 158 of The Age of Sankara by T. S. Narayana Sastri (1916): “We know from very reliable sources that this Madhaviya-Sankara-vijaya was compiled by a well-known Sanskrit scholar who passed away from this world just about eight years ago, under the pseudonym of ‘Madhava’— a 'synonym' for ‘Narayana’—specially to extol the greatness of the Sringeri Math, whose authority had been seriously questioned by the Kumbhakonam Math, the Acharyas of the latter Math claiming exclusive privilege of being entitled to the title of the 'Jagadgurus' for the whole of India as being the direct successors of Sri Sankara Bhagavatpada's own Math established by him at Kanchi, the greatness of which had been unnecessarily extolled by Rajachudamani Dikshita, Vallisahaya Kavi and Venkatarama Sarman in their respective works, Sankarabhyudaya, Achraya-dig-vijaya and Sankara-bhagavatpadacharitra. About fifty years ago, in the very city of Madras, as many may still remember, a fierce controversy raged between the adherents of the Kumbhakonam Math on the one hand, and those of the Sringeri Math headed by Bangalore Siddhanti Subrahmanya Sastri and two brothers —Kumbhakonam Srinivasa Sastri and Kumbhakonam Narayana Sastri—sons of Ramaswami Sastri, a protege of the Sringeri Math, on the other. We have very strong reasons to believe that this Sankara-dig-vijaya ascribed to Madhava, the Sankara-vijaya-vilasa ascribed to Chidvilasa, and the Sankara-vijaya-sara ascribed to Sadananda, had all been brought into existence by one or other of these three scholars, about this period, in answer to the Sankara-vijayas ascribed to Rajachudamani Dikshita and Vallisahaya Kavi.” Not satisfied with the above indictment, Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri gives the following bazaar gossip as proof of his contention on page 247 of his book, “The reader is also referred to an article in Telugu with the caption Sankara-vijaya-karthavevaru by Veturi Prabhakara Sastri of Oriental Manuscripts Library, Madras, published in the Literary Supplement of the Andhra Patrika of Durmathi Margasira (1921-22) where an interesting note about the author of the above mentioned ‘Sankara Vijaya’ (Sanakara-dig-vijaya of Madhava) is given. Here is an English rendering of a portion of that article: ‘I happened to meet at Bapatla, Brahmasri Vemuri Narasimha Sastri, during my recent tour in the Guntur District, in quest of manuscripts. I mentioned casually to him my doubts regarding the authorship of Madhaviya-sankara-vijaya. He revealed to me some startling facts. When he was at Madras some fifteen years ago, he had the acquaintance of the late Bhattasri Narayana Sastri who wrote the Sankara Vijaya published in the name of Madhava i.e., Vidyaranya, and that four others helped him in this production. The importance of the Sringeri Mutt is very much in evidence in this Sankara Vijaya (not correct). Taking a copy of the Vyasachala Grantha, available at Sringeri Mutt, Bhattasri Narayana Sastri made alterations here and there and produced the Sankara-vijaya in question. That he was an expert in such concoctions, is widely known among learned men.” The reader can easily grasp from this the scurrilous nature of the criticism, and the motives of the critics of this great work. As a general criticism of these remarks, we would like to point out that a perusal of Vyasachala’s work, (printed copies of which, published by the Madras University in 1954, are still available in a few libraries), will clearly show that there are quite many verses common to both the works, but at the same time a comparative study will also show that Madhava’s work is a much more elaborate and well-planned poem (with 1840 verses) while that of Vyasachala (with 1190 verses), though poetic, is scrappy and truncated in many of its descriptions and even incomplete in the narration of the main events of Sankara’s life. While there are some common features, there are great variations also in respect of the subject matter treated in the two books. Under the circumstances a critic who makes the irresponsible statement that Madhava’s work has been made by culling out verses from Vyasachala’s must not have even seen the latter text, or prejudice must have obscured his power of judgement. All that can be claimed legitimately is that Vyasachala’s work was one of the source books of Madhava’s Sankara-vijaya. There is nothing derogatory in this to the literary credentials of the author, because he has at the beginning itself admitted his indebtedness to all the literature on Sankara known at that time. See also footnote to Verse 17 of Canto 1.] directed against it by several scholars. But it has survived all these criticisms, and will be studied with interest for all time as a unique historical and philosophical poem in Sanskrit on one of the greatest spiritual luminaries of India.

The criticism of it is uncharitable because it is mainly born of prejudice, and it has extended beyond finding fault with the text, to the question of its authorship itself. The critics somehow want to disprove that this work is, as traditionally accepted, a writing of the great Madhava-Vidyaranya, the author of the Panchadasi, and a great name in the field of Indian philosophical and theological literature. For, if his authorship is accepted, the book will receive a high status, which some schools of thought do not like for reasons of their own. In fact, except in the eyes of a few such biased scholars, it has actually got that status at present, especially in the eyes of the followers of Sankaracharya in general; but this position is sought to be undermined by disputing its authorship on all kinds of flimsy and far-fetched grounds. Besides the support of tradition, the colophon at the end of every chapter of the book mentions its author’s name as Madhava, that being the pre-monastic name of Vidyaranya. Before he adopted Sannyasa under the monastic name of Vidyaranya, he was known as Madhavacharya, and was the chief minister of the great Vijayanagara kingdom under its first three rulers. He was born in the year 1295 in a poor Brahmana family near Hampi in the region of the river Tungabhadra. His father’s name was Mayana and mother’s Srimati. He had two brothers by name Sayana and Bhoganatha. Though brought up in poverty, all the brothers became versatile scholars in all branches of learning. Bhoganatha took to the Order of Sannyasa in early life, Sayana and Madhava were the authors of many works on religion and philosophy. The famous commentary of Rig Veda, though a work of Sayana, was probably a combined work of theirs, for it is said in its Introduction: “Kripalur-madha-vacaryah vedartham vaktum udyatah" and at the conclusion: “iti Sayanacarya viracite madhaviya ” etc.

For relief from poverty, Madhavacharya is said to have performed austerities at the shrine of Devi Bhuvaneswari at Hampi, but the Devi revealed to him that in that life he was not destined to be rich himself, but he would be able to help others to become rich. This was an indication of the great part he was to play in the political life of his times. In his fortieth year he became associated with the founders of the Vijayanagara empire—Hari Hara I and his brother Bhukka I—who began the consolidation of that State by 1336. He served under three successive kings as chief minister and built up the greatness and prosperity of that kingdom until he retired in about 1380 to take to the life of Sannyasa at the age of 85. He became the head of the Sringeri Math for a few years and passed away at the age of 91 in the year 1386.

The identity of Madhava, the author of Sankara-dig-vijaya, with this Madhava-Vidyaranya is further established by the first verse of the text, wherein he pays obeisance to his teacher Vidyatirtha. Vidyatirtha was the head of Sringeri Sankara Math during 1228 to 1333. He was succeeded by Bharatikrishna Tirtha (1333-1380), the immediate predecessor of Vidyaranya, who in turn succeeded him as the head (1380-1386) at a very advanced age. Thus, though not the immediate successor of Vidyatirtha, Madhava-Vidyaranya must have had his spiritual initiation from him in his pre-monastic life. The identity is further established by the poet Madhava’s reference to his life in the royal court in the following touching introductory verses of his work: “By indulging in insincere praise of the goodness and magnanimity of kings, which are really non-existent like the son of a barren woman or the horns of a hare, my poesy has become extremely impure. Now I shall render it pure and fragrant by applying to it the cool and fragrant sandal paste fallen from the body of the danseuse [a female ballet dancer] of the Acharya’s holy fame and greatness, as she performs her dance on the great stage of the world.”

Besides, the text is a masterpiece of literature and philosophy, which none but a great mind could have produced. But there are detractors of this great text who try to minimise its obvious literary worth by imputing plagiarism and literary piracy to its author. They claim that they have been able to show several verses that have entered into it from certain other Sankara-vijayas like Prachina-Sankara-vijaya and Vyasachala’s Sankara-vijaya. Though Prachina-Sankara-vijaya is nowhere available, T. S. Narayana Sastri claims to have in his possession some mutilated sections of it; but such unverifiable and exclusive claims on behalf of mutilated texts cannot be entertained by a critical and impartial student of these texts, since considerations other than the scholarly have entered into these criticisms, and manuscripts, too, have been heavily tampered with by Sanskrit Pandits. It can as well be that the other Vijayas have taken these from the work of Madhava. Next, even if such verses are there, and they are demonstrably present in regard to Vyasachala’s work, the author can never be accused of plagiarism, because he acknowledges at the outset itself, that his work is a collection of all the traditions about Sankaracharya and that in it all the important things contained in an extensive literature can be seen in a nutshell as an elephant’s face in a mirror. Is this not a general acknowledgement of dependence on earlier texts, and if quotations from them are found, where is the justification for accusing the author of plagiarism, unless the prejudice of such critics is accepted as sufficient reason?

Besides, it is forgotten by these critics that it is a literary technique of Vidyaranya, as seen from his other works also, to quote extensively from recognised authorities without specially mentioning their names, and that this feature of the present work goes only to establish the identity of its authorship with Vidyaranya. Comparing the text with Vyasachala’a work, it is obvious that many verses are common to both the texts. The author of the present work, however, seems to imply Vyasachala as one of the recognised authorities on this theme in the 17th verse of the 1st chapter.

There is also the view that the author need not necessarily be Madhava-Vidyaranya but Madhavacharya, the son of the former’s brother Sayana and the author of Sarvadarsana-Samgraha, a masterly philosophical text. To make this hypothesis even plausible, it has to be established that this Madhava was the disciple of Vidyatirtha, which the author of Sankara-dig-vijaya claims to be in the very first verse of the text.

The authorship of the book is questioned also from the point of view of style. Now views on style can be very subjective, and when one wants to dispute the authorship of any work, the easiest way is to adopt this line of criticism. In Sanskrit there are various types of style, and accomplished men of letters can vary the style according to the topic they deal with. According to the scholarly traditions of ancient India most of the philosophic, theological and even scientific subjects were expounded in metrical forms, but the styles employed for these have necessarily to be different from that for pure literary and poetical productions. Most of Vidyaranya’s other works are on high philosophical and theological themes, and if he has used methods and styles in such works differing from that of a historical poem like Sankara-dig-vijaya, it is only what one should expect of a great thinker and writer. That the author of this work has poetic effect very much in view can be inferred from his description of himself as Nava-Kalidasa (a modern Kalidasa) and his work as Navakalidasa-santana (offspring of the modern Kalidasa). So, difference in style, even if any, is not very relevant to the question of authorship, especially when the identity of the author is plainly mentioned in the book itself.

In place of taking the poet’s description of his work as a production of a Nava-Kalidasa in the proper light, these hostile critics have in a facile manner concluded that the name of the author must be Nava-Kalidasa, though such a conclusion is against all internal evidence. No one has heard of the name of such a Sanskrit poet. They also safely forget the highly metaphysical doctrines couched in cryptic but very attractive style in the discussions of Sankara with Mandana, the upholder of Purvamimamsa doctrine, and with Bhatta Bhaskara, the exponent of the Bhedabheda philosophy. These discussions have drawn the unstinted praise of an independent critic like Telang. If Nava-Kalidasa, who forged this book and imposed it on Vidyaranya, was a mere poet—and an unknown poet at that—an explanation has to be given for the impressive metaphysical wisdom, the dialectical skill, and the Vedantic technique of exposition displayed in these chapters. The genius of the author of Panchadasi is clearly reflected in them. In philosophical profundity, in literary excellence and non-partisan outlook, it is far superior to all other Sankara-vyayas. In the light of all this internal evidence, the disparaging criticism of this text, questioning its authorship itself, can be attributed only to the prejudice of the critics.

Acceptance of Vidyaranya’s authorship does not, however, in any way mean the denial of the mythical elements and the fanciful contemporaneity of various Indian philosophers found in it. These features it shares with all the other Sankara-vijayas. Chronology and historicity did not receive much attention from even the greatest of Indian writers in those days.

Date of Sankara

Regarding the biographical details contained in different Sankara-vijayas, there are wide variations, as already pointed out. There is no way now of settling these differences, although they can give fertile ground for endless and inconclusive discussions for learned men. Under the circumstances, Madhava-Vidyaranya’s Sankara-dig-vijaya, which has already stood the test of time and received recognition, may be taken as sufficient authority to give the layman much of the available information about Sankara. There are, however, three details of his life, which are highly controversial in nature, but to which we shall bestow some attention, not in the hope of arriving at any final conclusion, but to be appraised of the wide variations of views on them and the need, therefore, of avoiding dogmatic adherence to any particular view. The three' points that are taken for a brief and inconclusive discussion here are: (1) the date of Sankara (2) what institutions he founded and (3) where he passed away.

Every date in ancient Indian history, except that of the invasion of Alexander (326 B.C.), is controversial, and Sankara’s date is no exception. Max Muller and other orientalists have somehow fixed it as 788 to 820 A.D., and Das Gupta and Radhakrishnan, the well-known writers on the history of Indian Philosophy, have accepted and repeated it in their books. To do so is not in itself wrong, but to do it in such a way as to make the layman believe it to be conclusive is, to say the least, an injustice to him. It is held by the critics of this date that the Sankara of 788-820 A.D. is not the Adi-Sankara (the original Sankara), but Abhinava Sankara (modern Sankara), another famous Sannyasin of later times (788-839), who was born at Chidambaram and was the head of the Sankara Math at Kanchipuram between 801 and 839. He was reputed for his holiness and learning and is said to have gone on tours of controversy (Dig-vijaya) like the original Sankara.

It is found that not only modern scholars, but even the authors of several Sankara-vijayas have superimposed these two personalities mutually and mixed up several details of their lives. The author of the concept of adhyasa himself seems to have become a victim of it! The cause of much of this confusion has been the custom of all the incumbents of the headship of Sankara Maths being called Sankaracharyas. To distinguish the real Sankara, he is therefore referred to as ‘Adi-Sankara' an expression that is quite meaningless. For, Sankaracharya was the name of an individual and not a title, and if the heads of the Maths of that illustrious personage were known only by their individual names like the heads of religious institutions founded by other teachers, probably much of this confusion could have been avoided.

In the light of the Abhinava-Sankara theory, much of the data on which Adi-Sankara’s date is usually fixed by modern scholars lose their validity. The Cambodian inscription of Indravarman (878-887) which mentions the name of his preceptor as Sivasoma, the pupil of ‘Bhagavan Sankar’, can have reference only to Abhinava-Sankara. Next the ‘Dravida-sisu’ referred to in the Soundar-valahari, meaning Thirujnana-sambandhar, the great Saiva Saint who lived towards the middle of the 7th century, also loses its significance; for the Soundaryalahari could have been the composition of this later Sankaracharya, an obvious parallel to which may be found in the Devyaparadha-Kshamapana-stotra, a work generally attributed to Adi-Sankara, wherein the poet speaks of himself as over eighty-five years of age -- a fact that cannot be true of Sankara who lived for 32 years only. This confusion most probably extends to many minor works attributed to Sankaracharya chiefly because of the custom of all heads of Sankara Maths being called as Sankaracharyas, a point discussed already in the previous paragraph. Another objection to the 788 A.D. theory is that Sankara refers to the city Pataliputra, as if it were a city then existing. But this city, which was one of the very ancient capitals of India, had been submerged by the neighbouring river long before 750 A.D. All these data show that the modern scholars fixing of Sankara’s date as 788 A.D.,2 [Ullur S. Parameswara Iyer has pointed out in his great work that the sole support for the modern scholars’ view on Sankara’s date as 788 A.D. is the following incomplete verses of unknown authorship: "Nidhi nagebha vahnyabde vibhave sankarodayah; Kalyabde candranetranka vahnyabde pravisad guham; Vaisakhe purnimayam tu sankarah sivatamagat." Here the words of the first verse are the code words for the year 3889 of the Kali era, which is equivalent to 788 A.D. (It is derived as follows: nidhi: 9; naga: 8; ibha: 8; vahni: 3. Since the numbers are to be taken in the reverse order, it gives 3889 of the Kali era as the date of Sankara’s birth, its conversion into Christian era being 788 A.D. Kali era began 3102 years before the Christian era.)] cannot be accepted as an unchallengeable certainty.

The modern scholars in fixing Sankara’s date as 788 have totally rejected the traditional date derived from Sankara Math records and from Sankara-vijayas. Traditional Indian dates are suspect because of the multiplicity of eras, of which about forty-seven have been enumerated by T. S. Narayana Sastri in his book, The Age of Sankara. So unless the era is specifically mentioned, it is difficult to fix a date in any understandable way. Two of these eras are famous—the Kali era, which started in 3102 B.C., and Yudhishthira Saka era which started 37 years after, i.e., in 3065 B.C. The calculation according to the latter era is, however, complicated further by the fact that, according to the Jains and the Buddhists, the latter era started 468 years after the Kali era, that is, in 2634 B.C.

Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, in his book, The Age of Sankara, argues the case for the traditional date, on the basis of the list of succession kept in Kamakoti Math and Sringeri Math, and what he has been able to gather from ‘mutilated copies’ of Brihat-Sankara-vijaya, Prachtna-Sankara-vijaya and Vyasachallya-Sankara-vijaya. Until authentic copies of these works are available, the information they are supposed to give is not acceptable. Nevertheless, he maintains that, according to Brihad-Sankara-vijaya and Prachma-Sankara-vijaya, Sankara was born in 2593 of Kali era (509 B.C.) and passed away at the age of 32 in 2625 of Kali era (477 B.C.). He also maintains that this is more or less corroborated by the succession list of heads maintained at the Kamakoti, Dwaraka, Sringeri and other Maths, with, however, one complicating factor intervening. The complication is that in the Sringeri Math list the date of Sankara’s demise is given, according to Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri himself, as 12 B.C. and, therefore, his birth must have been in 44 B.C., or in 48 B.C., if he lived up to 36 years, as some hold. This one difference is sufficient to dismiss the evidence of the Maths, but Sri Sastri points out that the posteriority of the Sringeri version of the date can be accounted for by the confusion between the Kali and Yudhishthira Saka eras. (The Yudhishthira Saka era, according to Hindus, began 37 years after the commencement of the Kali era, while the Jains and the Buddhist writers calculate it as having begun 468 years after the start of Kali era i.e. in 2634 B.C.) It is held by Sri Sastri that in Mysore and the regions round about, the Jain influence was very great and the confusion between eras in this respect might have been widely prevalent also. Now, 44 B.C., the supposed date of the birth of Sankara according to Sringeri Math, might have been the result of the confusion of eras and calculations based on them. 2625 of the Kali era, the date of his death, must have been taken as referring to Buddhist-Jain era and then converted into Kali era by adding 468 to it, thus arriving at 3093 of Kali era (9 or 10 B.C.) as the date of Sankara’s death. He accounts for the small discrepancy of 3 or 4 years by referring to a tradition in Mysore that Sankara lived till the 36th year. While this is an ingenious way of reconciling the difference, one has to admit that there are too many ‘buts', ‘ifs’ and other suppositions to make it credible.

It is rather surprising to note that, while, as stated in T. S. Narayana Sastri’s work, in the Kamakoti list Sankara occupied that Gaddi for three years (from 480 B.C. to 477 B.C.) and was followed by Sureswara for 70 years (477 B.C. to 407 B.C.), the Sringeri list maintains that Sankara occupied that Gaddi for six years (from 18 B.C. to 12 B.C.), and was followed by Sureswara for 785 years (from 12 B.C. to 773 A.D.).3 [After the publication of the first edition of the book, the following letter was received from the Private Secretary to the Head of Sringeri Math, Sarada Peetham, on the present view held by that Math about the date of Sri Sankaracharya: “Nowhere have the Sringeri Math authorities themselves given the B.C. or A.D. period. The record of the Sringeri Math says that Sankara was born in the 14th year of the reign of Vikramaditya. Compilers wrongly referred this to the era of Vikramaditya of Ujjain, which was originally called Malava Samvat and later in the eighth century A.D. called the Vikrama Samvat. This took Sankara to the first century B.C. and necessitated the assignment of around 800 years to Sureswaracharya to agree with the later dates. Mr L. Rice points out that the reference is not to the Vikramaditya of Ujjain but to the Chalukya king Vikramaditya who ruled in Badami near Sringeri. Historians opine that Chalukya Vikramaditya ascended the throne during the period 655 to 670 A.D. This reference seems reasonable, as Badami is not very far off from Sringeri. Further as Sankara and Sureshwara quote Dharmakirti, and as Kumarila Bhatta quotes Bhartrhari, the dates of Dharmakirti and Bhartrhari being known, it is incorrect to assign Sankara to the B.C. period and to misquote the Sringeri Math record.”] During these 785 years, the Kamakoti list shows that about 33 Acharyas adorned that Gaddi. Such unbelievable inconsistencies have made modern historians totally reject the evidence provided by the chronological lists of the Maths. So Sri Ullur Parameswara Iyer, himself a pious Brahmana, maintains in his History of Kerala Sahitya (Vol. 1 p. 111) that it is easy to prove that most of these Math lists have been formulated so late as the 16th century A.D.

But a still greater difficulty posed for such an early date as 509 to 476 B.C. for Sankara is the proximity of this to the generally accepted date of the Buddha (567-487 B.C.). Sankara has criticised Buddhism in its developed form with its four branches of philosophy. A few centuries at least should certainly be allowed to elapse for accommodating this undeniable fact. Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri is, however, remarkably ingenious, and his reply to this objection is that the Buddha’s date was certainly much earlier. Vaguely quoting Prof. Wheeler, Weber and Chinese records, he contends that the Buddha must have flourished at any time between the 20th and the 14th century B.C. He challenges the fixing of the date of Buddha on the basis of the dates of Kanishka or of Megasthenes.3a [Kanishka’s date is variously stated as 1st century B.C., 1st century A.D., 2nd century A.D. and 3rd century A.D. The relevancy of his date to the Buddha’s date is that Hsuan Tsang, the Chinese traveller, states that the Buddha lived four hundred years before Kanishka. Some historians try to fix the date of the Buddha on the basis of this information as 5th century B.C. This view is not currently accepted, and the Buddha’s date is settled on other grounds as 567-487 B.C. It is fixed so on the basis of Asoka’s coronation in 269 B.C., four years after his accession. According to the Ceylon Chronicles, 218 years separate this event of Asoka’s coronation from the date of the Buddha’s demise. Thus we get 487 as the date of the Buddha’s demise, and as he is supposed to have lived 80 years, the date of his birth is 567. According to R. Sathianatha Ayyar, the date of 487 B.C. is supported by “the dotted record” of Canton (China); The traditional date according to the Buddhist canonical literature, however, is 623-543 B.C. Megasthenes comes into the picture, because he was the Greek Ambassador of Selukos Nickator at the court of Chandra Gupta Maurya (325 B.C.), who is described by him as Shandracotus. Now Sri T. S. Narayana Sastri, with a view to push back the Buddha’s date, challenges this identification, and opines that this reference could as well be to Chandra Gupta or even to Samudra Gupta of the Gupta dynasty (300-600 A.D.), in which case the Mauryan age (325 to 188 B.C.) will have to be pushed further back into the 7th to 5th century B.C. and the Buddha (567-487 B.C.) too, into the 9th century B.C. at least. But Sri Sastri forgets that these contentions cannot stand, as the date of Megasthenes and of Chandra Gupta Maurya have necessarily to be related to the firm and unquestionable date of Alexander’s invasion of India (326 B.C.) Megasthenes was the ambassador at the Pataliputra court sent by Selukos Nickator (305 B.C.), the Satrap who succeeded to the Indian region of Alexander’s empire, which he had to give up to Chandra Gupta by a treaty. T. S. Narayana Sastri’s attempt to shift the Gupta period of India history, to the time of Alexander’s invasion (326 B.C.) by equating Shandracotus with Samudra Gupta of the Gupta period, is a mere chronological guess-work without any supporting evidence, as against several historical synchronisms which compel the acceptance of the currently recognised chronology. For example, the Chinese Buddhist pilgrim Fahien was in India in the Gupta age, from 399-414 A.D., and his description of India can tally only with that period and not with the Mauryan period. Besides, the Hun invasion of India was in the reign of Skanda Gupta, about 458 A.D., and this event cannot be put on any ground into the B.C.’s when Mauryans flourished, even with an out-stretched poetical imagination. So we have got to maintain that the Shandracotus who visited Alexander’s camp (326 B.C.) and who later received about 326 B.C. Megasthenes as the ambassador of Selukos Nickator, the successor to Alexander’s Indian province, can be none other than Chandra Gupta of the Mauryan dynasty (325 B.C. to 188 B.C.) Further, historical synchronisms, the sheet-anchor of the chronology of Indian history give strong support to the accepted date of Asoka (273-232 B.C.), the greatest of the Mauryan Emperors. His Rock Edict XIII mentions, as stated by Sathianatha Ayyar, the following contemporary personalities: Antiochus Teos of Syria (261-246 B.C.); Ptolemy Philadelphos of Egypt (285-247 B.C.); Antigonos Gonates of Macedonia (278-239 B.C.); Magas of Cyrene (285-258 B.C.), and Alexander of Epirus (272-258 B.C.). They are referred to as alive at the time of that Rock Edict. In the face of such historical synchronisms all attempts to push back the time of the Buddha by several centuries in order to substantiate the theory of 509 B.C. being Sankara’s date, is only chronological jugglery. So the Buddha’s date has to remain more or less as it is fixed today (568-487 B.C.). Sankara came definitely long after the Buddha.] The reference to Megasthenes, the Greek ambassador, who refers to the ruler to whom he was accredited as Shandracotus, need not necessarily be to Chandragupta Maurya but to the king of the Gupta dynasty (300-600 A.D.) with the same name, or even to Samudra Gupta. If this line of argument is accepted, the present dates of Indian history will have to be worked back to about three to four hundred years, which will land us in very great difficulties, as shown in the foot note. Besides, arguments of this type are never conclusive; they can at best throw doubts on other theories accepted on uncertain grounds.

Without going so far as to challenge the accepted date of the Buddha, there is another opinion that assigns Sankara to the 1st century B.C. This view is held by Sri N. Ramesam in his book Sri Sankaracharya (1971). His argument is as follows: Sankara is accepted in all Sankara-vijayas as a contemporary of Kumarila. Kumarila must have lived after Kalidasa, the poet, because Kumarila quotes Kalidasa’s famous line; Satam hi sandeha padesu vastusu pramanam antahkaranasya vrittayah. Now Kalidasa’s date has not been firmly fixed (first half of the 5th century A.D. according to some), but it is contended that it cannot be earlier than 150 B.C., as Agni Mitra, one of the heroes in a famous drama of Kalidasa, is ascribed to that date. So also, it cannot be later than the Mandasor Inscription of 450 A.D. So on the basis that Sankara and Kumarila were contemporaries and that Kumarila came after Kalidasa, we have to search for Sankara’s date between 150 B.C. and 450 A.D. Now to narrow down the gap still further, the list of spiritual preceptors that preceded Sankara is taken into consideration. Patanjali, Gaudapada, Govindapada and Sankara— form the accepted line of discipleship. Patanjali, Sri Ramesam contends, lived in the 2nd century B.C., a conclusion which, if accepted finally (?), gives much credence to his theory. Now, not less than a hundred years can be easily taken as the distance in time between Sankara and Patanjali in this line of succession, and thus we derive the time of Sankara as the 1st century B.C., which has the merit of being in agreement with the Kumarila-Sankara contemporaneity and the Kumarila-Kalidasa relationship. The 1st century hypothesis has also got the advantage of tallying with the Sringeri Math’s teacher-disciple list, according to which, as already stated, 12 B.C. is the date of Sankara’s demise. Sri Ramesam finds further confirmation for his theory in the existence of a temple on a Sankaracharya Hill in Kashmir attributed to Jaluka, a son of Asoka who became the ruler of Kashmir after Asoka’s demise, according to Rajaiarangini. Asoka passed away In 180 B.C. and it is very credible that Jaluka could have been in Kashmir when Sankara visited that region, provided Sankara’s life is fixed in the 1st century B.C. Further, Cunningham and General Cole are stated to assign the temple architecturally to the times of Jaluka.

Like Sri Sastri, Sri Ramesam also refutes the modern scholars’ view of Sankara’s date being 788-820 A.D. on the ground that this has arisen due to confusion between Adi-Sankara and Abhinava-Sankara (788-840 A.D.).

Now this theory, unlike Sri Sastri’s, has the merit of not disturbing the accepted date of the Buddha. It has also the support of Rajatarangini and the Sringeri tradition. But its credibility depends largely on the theory of 200 B.C. being the time of Patanjali and the acceptance of the Kumarila-Kalidasa relationship. If these are questioned, the whole theory falls. This is the case with most dates in Indian history, where the rule is to fix the date of one person or event on the basis of the date of another person or event, which itself is open to question. There are, however, several pieces of internal evidence that go against even this date in B.C.’s, as will be seen from the succeeding paragraphs.

Yet another, and in fact an entirely new, clue based on internal evidence and in contradiction to the above theories of a B.C. antiquity to Sankara, is given by Dr. A. G. Krishna Warrier, Professor of Sanskrit (Rtd) in the Kerala University, in his learned Introduction to his translation of Sankara’s Brahma-sutra-bhashya into Malayalam. He states that the Buddhist author Kamalasila has pointed out that Sankara has quoted in his Brahma-sutra-bhashya (B. S. II. 2-28) the following passage from the Alambanapariksha by Dingnaga, the celebrated Buddhist savant: 'Yadantarjneyarupam tat bahiryadavabhasate’. Dingnaga’s date, which Dr. Warrier links with those of Vasubandhu (450 A.D.) and Bhartrhari, is fixed by him as about 450 A.D. But that is not all. The following verse of Dingnaga’s commentator Dharmakirti is quoted by Sankara in his work Upadesa-sahasri: Abhinnopi hi buddhydtma viparyasitadarsanaih grahyagrahaka-samvitti bhedavaniva laksyate (ch. 18, v. 142). This reference is from Dharmakirti’s Pramana-virtischhaya. Dr. Warrier points out that Dharmakirti is described as a ‘great Buddhist logician’ by the Chinese pilgrim-traveller, It-sing, who was in India in 690 A.D. The implication is that Dharmakirti must have lived in the first half of the 7th century or earlier, and that Sankara came after him. It means that Sankara’s date cannot be pushed back beyond the 5th century A.D., or even beyond the 7th century A.D., if the Upadesasahasri is accepted as a genuine work of Sankara. As in the case of most dates in Indian history, the credibility of the view, too, depends on the acceptance of the dates of Dingnaga and Dharmakirti as 5th century and 7th century respectively, and that Upadesasahasri is really a work of Sankara, as traditionally accepted. Fixing dates on the basis of other dates, which are themselves open to question, can yield only possibilities and not certainties.

Probable dates suggested by other scholars are also the 6th century and the 7th century A.D. Sankara refers in his writings to a king named Pumavarman who, according to Hsuan Tsang, ruled in 590 A.D. It is, therefore, contended that Sankara must have lived about that time or after. Next Telang points out how Sankara speaks of Pataliputra in his Sutra-bhashya (IV. ii. 5) and that this will warrant Sankara having lived about a century before 750 A.D., by which time Pataliputra had been eroded by the river and was non-existent. Such references to names of persons, cities, rivers, etc. in philosophical writings can also be explained as stock examples, as we use Aristotle or Achilles in logic, and need not necessarily have any historical significance. Dr. T. R. Chintamani maintains that Kumarila lived towards the latter half of the 7th century A.D. (itself a Controversial point) and Sankara, being a contemporary of his, must have lived about that time (655-684 A.D.). It is also pointed out by him that Vidyananda, the teacher of Jainasena, who was also the author of Jaina-harivamsa (783 A.D.), quotes a verse4 ["Atmapi sadidam brahma mohat parosyadu sitam; Brahmapi sa tathaivatma sadvitiyatayesate."] from the Brihadaranyaka-vartika of Sureswara, disciple of Sankara. This is impossible to conceive without granting that Sankara and Sureswara lived, about a hundred years earlier to Jainasena who lived about the second half of the 8th century A.D.

Thus vastly varied are the views about Sankara’s date, ranging from 509 B.C. to 788 A.D., i.e., more than a millennium and a half. Sri S. S. Suryanarayana Sastry’s contention that “for discarding the date generally assigned, viz., 788-820 A.D., no sufficient grounds have yet been given,” cannot stand today, since this date is proved to be the time of Abhirtava Sankara. Nor have the upholders of this view given sufficient justification for their view, or disproved the objections raised against it. Under the circumstances, all these complicated discussions of Sankara’s date culminate only in a learned ignorance. We have to admit that we have no certain knowledge, and it is, therefore, wise not to be dogmatic but keep an open mind. Most probably he must have lived somewhere between the 5th and the 7th century A.D., certainly much earlier than the end of the 8th century, his generally accepted date by modern scholars.

Maths founded by Sankara

Which are the Maths or monastic institutions that Sankara founded? This is another question on which there has been much dispute. Traditionally, four Maths are supposed to have been founded by Sankara at the four regions of India— at Sringeri in the south under Sureswara, at Dwarka in the west under Hastamalaka, at Badari in the north under Totaka, and at Puri in the east under Padmapada. It is pointed out in the monograph of P. Rama Sastry on The Maths Founded by Sankara that this four-Math theory has been propounded first in Chidvilasa’s Sankara-vijaya which, along with some other Sankara-vijayas, is, according to T. S. Narayana Sastri, a recent production and of little authority. It finds no support in the other Vijayas of its kind and perhaps not even in the more ancient Sankara-vijayas. Of course this view cannot be verified now, as the most ancient of these Sankara-vijayas are not available now. Leaving aside the unavailable Sankara-vijayas even most of the available ones, including those of Madhava, Anantanandagiri, Vyasachrlla and Govindanatha, do not hold any such restricted view like the four-Math theory. Madhava’s Sankara-vijaya, though a butt of criticism by a large number of people who dislike its popularity, seems to be non-partisan, and maintains only that Sankara in his last days sent several of his disciples to preach the doctrine at ‘Sringa-giri and other centres’. Though it gives special importance to Sringeri by naming it, it admits the existence of many other centres. Whether these were all Maths with resident Sannyasins is anybody’s guess. Anantanandagiri, as also texts like Sivarahasya, mention Kanchi as one of the centres he founded— in fact, as the Math where he finally settled down and passed away, thus giving it special importance.

Under the circumstances how the theory of four Maths came to have such popularity has to be explained. It cannot be merely because of the mention of it in Chidvilasa’s Sankara-vijaya. On the other hand, that text must have merely recorded the popular notion existing at the time. The theory seems to have originated from the fact that the Orders of Dasanami Sannyasins recognise and accept affiliation with only these four Maths— the Orders known as Puris, Bharatis and Saraswathis with Sringeri Math; Giris, Aranyas and Vanas with Jyothi Math; Ashramas and Tirthas with Dwaraka Math; and Parvatas and Sagaras with Puri Math. No other Math is recognised by them. Now, if there were more Maths of Sankara, why have the Dasanami Sannyasins limited their affiliation to these four Maths only? None of the protagonists of different Sankara Maths have answered this question. The affiliation, no doubt, is only a nominal one, and these Sannyasins neither take Sannyasa from these Maths nor follow any direction or control emanating from them. Still the question of how they came to be thus affiliated has to be answered. The advocates of more-than-four-Maths have given no explanation. In fact, they have not at all taken into account the evidence of Dasanami Sannyasins, who have played a more active role in propagating the institution of Sannyasa and the Advaita philosophy than the Sankara Maths. From what time -- whether it was from the time of Sankaracharya himself or in later times— the Dasanamis came into existence, cannot be ascertained now. Even assuming they came later, and also that Sankara started more than four Maths, their affiliation with these four Maths above mentioned establishes at least that, at the time these Sannyasin Orders took shape, only these four Maths were functioning effectively. The functioning of the Maths as also their popularity must have — depended largely on the eminence of the Heads at particular times. But this does not preclude the possibility of other genuine Maths, unnoticed and unrecognised by Sannyasins, functioning among non-Sannyasin communities. Nothing more precise than this can be said about the question as to which are the Maths originally founded by Sankaracharya, or even whether he founded any Math at all. Different sectaries having varying traditions can stick to them with justification, provided they do not become too cocksure and dogmatic and deny a similar right to others who differ from them.