________________
ANCIENT HINDU MUSIC
159
JULY, 1912.]
There is, however, no obligation to accept Mallinitha's interpretation, as the two varieties of the note, viz., (1) shalja and (2) shadja-sádhárana, mentioned in Bharata, are quite sufficient to explain the passage. Though the attempt to find out the priority of either of these works has thus failed, a comparison with the Amarakosa is apparently more successful. In Bharata occurs the worl kutapa (a band of musicians), but it is not found in the Amarakosa, though one might expect it, if it were in existence, along with the terms for specific collections (vrinlabhedah) given in slokas 41 and 42, Kanda II. 5, e. g., varga, sangha, etc. The word marjund occurs in Amara, but the technical meaning of it, as used in Bharata, viz., 'a mode of tuning the triad of drums' is not given. But still more to the purpose is the occurrence of the word kakali in the Amarakosa among the musical terms, but without the specific signification of the note between the nishala and the shudja,' which is assigned to it in Bharata and all later treatises on music. It would thus appear that probably the portion of the Bharatiy-natya sastra under consideration is of a later date than the Amaral 1. Unfortunately, the date of this lexicon cannot be ascertained, and the opinions of scholars differ. Thus Weber assigns it to the 11th century A. D., whereas Prof. A. A. Maclonell, with more show of reason, says that it was not improbably composed about 500 A. D.' But one of the words given above, viz., marjana, occurs in Kalidasa in the technical sense, but not in the Amarakośa, and if there be any force in the argument used above, the lexicon must be looked upon as prior to Kâlidâsa. Perhaps a slightly added strength is given to this view by the occurrence of the word mûrchhand both in Kâlidâsa and Bharata, and its absence from Amara, though it may be urged that one has not got the same right to expect this word in that lexicon as the other word marjana. According to the well-known tradition, Amara was the contemporary of Kâlidâss, who lived about the end of the fourth century, and this is the earliest date at present assigned to Amara. Even putting the date a century further back in compliance with this argument, the portion of the Bharatiya-natya sastra, which deals with music, cannot be assigned to an earlier period than the 4th century A. D.; and may indeed be of a later date. This of course does not mean that the music described in that work did not exist at an earlier period.
2. Sârigadeva's Samgita-ratnakara.-There is no difficulty now in fixing the date of this work. It must have been written between A. D. 1210 and A. D. 12475.
Sârigadeva mentions a large number of writers on sampita (dancing, singing and instrumental music) between Bharata's and his own times, but their works are no longer extant, and one has to be content only with the few quotations found in the writings of the commentators on Sârigdeva's own work. This is very much to be regretted, because the period between Bharata and Sârigadeva was a very long one-seven or nine centuries-and music had undergone a very great evolution, which it is impossible for us to follow without the missing links. Sârigadeva's work itself, though extremely valuable other wise, gives but little assistance in such a study, on account of the commonly accepted precept, that whenever there is a discrepancy between a sdstra (ancient rule) and a lakshya (actuality or actual practice), the former should be interpreted so as to tally with the latter (ride S. R., Adhy. vi. 331-311). It must be mentioned, however, that at times such discrepancies are noted by the author.
R. G. Bhandarkar-A Peep into the Early History of India, p. 45.
6 R. G. Bhandarkar-Early History of the Dekkan (2nd ed.), pp. 111-112. Hére also occurs the following remark There is a commentary on this work, attributed to a king of the name of Singa, who is represented as a paramount sovereign of the Andhra circle. This Singa appears in all likelihood to be Singhana; and the commentary was either written by him or dedicated to him by a dependant, as is often the oase. The fact, however, that this commentary mentions another, viz., that by Kallinatha, circa A. D. 1459, goes against this oonjecture. Further, it may be noted that in the portion of Simhabhupala's commentary published at Calcutta, there is no mention of the author being the paramount sovereign of the Andhra cirole as in the mannaarip! referred to in the Early History of the Dekkan.
