Two Musical References in Māgha’s Śiśupālavadham

Sanskrit literature of the genre of long poetry, known as mahākāvya is known for its elaborate, craft – detailed and ornate descriptions spanning multiple cantos. This genre, much like other works also contains a supertext of ‘commentary’ or vyākhya or bhāṣya. While the verse forms and sūtra celebrate brevity with detail, commentaries with their expositional styles provides an insight into the method and meaning behind the verses and are a rich source of reference material. They also provide extensive supporting information in the form of quotations from related texts ranging from grammar to music. The musical references in the works of Kālidāsa have been dealt with by scholars. (Katz, 1981), (Raghavan, 1987). Śiśupālavadham of Māgha, placed around the eighth century is another long poem, that contains some interesting references to music. This text has several commentaries. Chief among them are Vallabhadeva’s Sandehaviṣauṣadi and Mallinātha’s Sarvāñkaśa. Vallabhadeva, the Kashmirian commentator is placed in the early quarter of the tenth century (De 1957) and thus belongs to the Pre-Ratnākara period. Kolacela Mallinātha’s timeframe is pegged around 1400 AD and corresponds to the Vijayanagara period, in terms of the history of Indian music. It must be noted that Mallinātha predates both Rāmāmātya and Kallinātha who wrote the Kalānidhi commentary on the Ratnākara and lived during the regnal period of Immāḍi Devarāya.

I propose to examine two musical references in the text one occuring in the first chapter (1.9 and 1.10) and another occurring in the eleventh chapter. The first sarga or chapter of this work narrates the sequence of how Nārada descends from the heavens carrying Devendra’s message for Kṛṣṇa. The appearance of Nārada with his musical instrument is described in this context.

ajasramāsphālitavallakīguṇakṣatojjvalāṅguṣṭanakhāṁśubhinnayā 1.9

Nārada’s thumbnail appears red which makes his japamāla seem as though it was interspersed with coral. This is due to the thumb in constant friction with the strings of his instrument – the Vallaki. The nature and construct and the number of strings of the mythical Nārada’s instrument has been alluded to variously in various texts. There is a frequent intermixing of the apocryphal and the mythic with the realworld reference. For example, Aṭiyārkkunallār’s commentary of Tamil text Cilappatikāram, refers to śatatantri vīṇa or the Nāradapperiyāzh with one hundred strings. However, in this context, based on evidence from other supporting texts, we may infer that the thumb was used in the playing of the instrument Vallaki. Many of the ancient lutes and harps require the use of thumb unlike instruments such as the Sarasvati vīṇa.

Vallabhadeva here gives us specific information on Nārada’s vīṇa namely Mahati as a ‘sapta tantrī vīṇa’ or a vīṇa with seven strings. Mallinātha on the other hand, due to the passing of centuries, simply attempts to explain this as ‘the use of the thumb to check the tuning of strings is well-known’. The next verse continues adding additional detail,

रणद्भिराघट्टनया नभस्वतः पृथग्विभिन्नश्रुतिमण्डलैः स्वरैः । स्फुटीभवद्ग्रामविशेषमूर्च्छनामवेक्षमाणं महतीं मुहुर्मुहुः ॥ 1.10 ॥

Nārada, looks down at the Mahati, which was playing the svaras with the various groups of śrutis, in particular grāmas and svara-sequences due to the impact of the wind touching on it.

Vallabhadeva in this verse, makes extensive use of Dattilam and early works as the supporting musical texts and Mallinātha makes extensive use of Saṅgītaratnākara for explaining the musical content of this verse. Vallabhadeva specifically mentions gāndhara, ṣaḍja and madhyama grāmas and their mūrcchanas. Vallabhadeva also quotes a slight variant of the familiar verse from Nāradīya śikṣa,

saptasvarāstrayo grāmā mūrccanāstvekaviṁśatiḥ
tānā ekona pañcāśasdityetatsvara maṇḍalam

Vallabhadeva’s commentary provides the following verses from the Dattilam – again with slight variation from the Trivandrum and the IGNCA editions of the text*

Nāradamata?

The Kashi Sanskrit Series edited by Anantarama Sastri Vetal, 1929 provides us with two additional verses here that are not in the Kashmir edition of Vallabhadeva’s commentary that provide an additional list of the eleven mūrcchanas , that do not form part of the list of ṣaḍja and madhyamagrāma mūrcchanas or with the gāndhāragrāma mūrcchanas . The only other text that lists these, is the Nāradīya śikṣa which classifies them as ‘pitri mūrcchanas’ in the context of the gāndhāramūrcchana and mentioning a nāradamata.

arāvinī viśvabhṛtā cāndrī hemā kapardinī
maitrī bārhaspatā caitāstvekaviṁśatimūrchanāḥ

The above verse is listed in Vallabhadeva’s commentary. As a commentator belonging to the post-Saṅgītaratnākara period, Mallinātha begins his commentary with definition of śruti from the Saṅgītaratnākara and the etymological derivation of the word śruti, the definition of grāma, the measures of the śruti intervals of the svaras and also adds the svara-sankhyas or mnemonics of sa ri ga ma pa dha ni as well and reproduces the standard definition of mūrcchana as the ordered sequence of svaras. He then quotes the verse that is found in the Gītālaṅkāra:

नन्द्यावर्तोऽथ जीमुतः सुभद्रो ग्रामकस्त्रयः

षड्जमध्यमगान्धारस्त्रयाणां जन्महेतवः

for the śruti intervals between the svaras. Since this is a period where the understanding of the older grāma system is all but lost the focus of the commentator begins from the svaras and śrutis. Interestingly unlike the two commentators of the Saṅgītaratnākara – Kallinātha and Simhabhupāla who are closer to him in terms of both time and geography, do not touch upon the names jīmuta, nandyāvarta and Subhadra.

The key aspect here is that both commentaries reference a topic that is absent in major treatises and is found only in a small number of texts namely Saṅgītaśiromaṇi(SS) and the Gītālaṅkāra. The other texts that refer to these concepts seem to vādimattagajāṅkuśa of the 13th century and Saṅgītasāgara of Pratāpasimha and these texts repeat the same statements. The interesting question to raise here, is that why are these two commentators separated by several centuries compelled to mention either the three grāmakas or these seven mūrcchanas in the context of Nārada?

These seven mūrcchanas are mentioned in SS and Gītālaṅkāra as the seven mūrcchanas of the jīmūta grāma. Further, nandyāvarta, jīmūta and subhadra are also associated with the three grāmas,. ie nandyāvarta with the ṣaḍjagrāma, jīmūta with madhyamagrāma and subhadra with gāndhāra grāma.Both the above texts specifically states that some people call the three grāmās while others state that these are grāmaka-s or sub-grāmas from which the grāmas are born.

Alan Danielou concludes, that nandyāvarta, jīmūta and subhadra as the basic tetrachords and predecessors of the grāmas, while Dr.Nijenhuis based on the verses in the SS that define nandyāvarta as a specific sequence of tuning beginning with ṣaḍja, then proceeding to dhaivata and pancama and fixing the ṣaḍjagrāma by these notes concluding with niṣāda ie that these are tuning devices for the three grāmas. However the text also specifically talks of seven mūrcchanas in the jīmūta grāma.

s-p-d-n (nandyavarta)

s-r-m-p-n (jīmūta )

g-s-r-d (subhadra)

SS also mentions that in the jīmūta grāma there is a mūrcchana on each of the seven notes in regular order and there are seven mūrcchana. If the term grāma-ka, by definition is taken to refer to a part or a portion of a grāma, then Danielou’s assesment of the jīmūta , nandyavarta and subhadra as basic sub-unit (rather than use the word tetrachord) constituting the grāma would violate several other fundamental assumptions regarding the basic understanding of the grāma system with the non-omissibility of the madhyama svara and the absence of the role of tetrachords in that system. The other question of how seven mūrcchana could be generated out of a tetrachord would also remain unanswered.

On the other hand, if we were to go with the understanding that the mūrcchanas are emphasized more in the context of instrumental music in particular – based on Bharata’s sañgraha listing of topics for the śārīri and dārāvi vīṇas then, it is possible to make the conclusion that these are specific tuning systems as Dr.Nijenhuis does (Dr.Nijenhuis, 2000). Even, if these were to be taken as a specific tuning system or device, then the description of such a system appears inadequate and incomplete to explain the tuning of the other strings and the question of how the seven mūrcchanas of jīmūta are different from the seven mUrchanas of the ṣaḍjagrāma still remains at large.

The third possibility, is that these are remants of a variant school or mata of music attributed to a legendary or a real Nārada that was not accepted by the mainstream texts and lakṣaṇakāras – which perhaps tried to take a fresh look at the grāma system under the influence of Greek or other systems of music and had its own alternate naming conventions and variations that are lost to us over time. The existence of this tradition of a Nārada mata and these concepts in that mata and carried as oral legend associated with the mythological Nārada would then provide the motivation for a commentator to bring up these concepts in the context of the mythological Nārada referred in the verse.

Lost Contexts through time?

One of the ongoing challenges a writer of a musical text faces, is to reconcile the moving target of prayoga with the fixed nature of śāstra. Since many of these text writers borrow from the texts of the predecessors, they are faced with the task of carrying over old ideas and making sense of them in the new world order. Here , we see an instance of a commentary writer being influenced by the primary musical text of his own times, when interpreting the musical reference of a verse situated in a very different context.

This verse occurs in the eleventh sarga of this epic, and the context is the arrival and description of dawn, where the poet describes the singing in early morning for Mādhava.

श्रुतिसमधिकमुच्चैः पञ्चमं पीडयन्तः सततममृषभहीनं भिन्नकीकृत्य षड्जम् | प्रणिजगदुरकाकुश्रावकस्निग्धकण्ठाः परिणतिमिति रात्रेर्मागधा माधवाय || 11.1 ||

bhinnaṣaḍja devoid of ṛṣabha and pañcama , obtained by modification is being sung in a voice free of vocal blemishes such as kākisvara and pleasant and with a creamy tonal quality, for Madhava.

Here, we see that Vallabhadeva is able to explain the musical aspect referred to in the verse because of his chronologically closeness to the text. Vallabha explains this as the bhinna form that is obtained by a modification in the ṣaḍjagrāma (jāti) ie by varjita of the pañcama svara. The commentator adds that ‘catuhśrutikam’ of ṣaḍja is alluded to by the term, ‘śrutisamādhikam’ and is mentioned thus to indicate that the bhinna form is not of the madhyamagrāma but that of ṣaḍjagrāma and then says that the word ‘satatam’ refers to the fact that the lakṣaṇa states that ṛṣabha is always avoided, whereas the pañcama may at times be employed.

We find a matching definition to this in the Bṛhaddeśi where, Bhinnaṣaḍja is said to be born of ṣaḍjodīcyavatī and belongs to the ṣaḍjagrāma. Its graha and amśa is dhaivata and it is sung devoid of ṛṣabha and pañcama and is an auḍuva or pentatonic form. Its application or viniyoga is at the entry of a hero engaged in helping everyone. Bhinna refers to modification either with respect to śruti, jāti, from the śuddha and in svara.

pañcamasya sthāne sthāne vivāditvena gṛhīto bhavati. pañcamasya śca samvāditvena varjyate

ie pañcama is employed in places in its vivādi capacity.

Mallinātha, on the other hand, approaches this verse in a tangential manner and does not attempt to explain the musical sense of the verse. He takes the meaning of this verse in a literal sense where each svara has a characteristic, a phala and has certain times of the day when they have to be avoided – ṣaḍja, pañcama and ṛṣabha are to be avoided in the morning. In support of this, he quotes a verse attributed to Bharata.

प्रभाते सुतरां निन्द्य ऋषभः पञ्चमोऽपि च ।
जनयेत् प्रधनं ह्यक्षा पञ्चत्वं पञ्चमोऽपि च ॥
पञ्चमस्य विशेषोऽयं कथितः पूर्वसूरिभिः
प्रगे प्रगीतो जनयेत् दशनस्य विपर्ययं

It is interesting to note that this quotation attributed to Bharata also occurs in an anonymous and incomplete commentary of the Kāvyādarśa – the hṛdayangama, but cannot be found in any of the published editions of the NS. In addition, the commentator goes into other statements and repeats the definition of śruti and the measures of śruti intervals, in the ṣaḍjagrāma and the attribution of various animal or bird sounds to the svaras and explains the varjya saying that the note is avoided because of the prohibitory injunction. It is interesting to observe how the passage of time obscures certain musical ideas in the original texts to certain commentators while commentary writers closer to the time when a text is recorded, are closer to the musical context.

Note:

• uttaramandrā rajanī tṝtīyā bhūttarāyatā |
  caturthī śuddhaṣaḍjā tu pañcamī matsarīkṛtā ||
  aśvakrāntā tu ṣaṣṭī syātsaptamī cābhirudgatā |
  svarakramagatā vidyāt saptaitāḥ ṣaḍjamūrcchanāḥ ||
  sauvīrī madhyamagrāme hāriṇāśvā tathaiva ca |
  syātkalopanatā caiva caturthī śuddhamadhyamā ||
  mārgī ca pauravī caiva hṛśyakā ca yathākramam |
  sarvāstu pañcaṣaṭ sapta sādhāraṇakṛtātsmṛtāḥ ||

[See Dattilam 22-25]

ṣaḍjatvena gṛhīto yaḥ ṣaḍjogrāmadhvanirbhavet
tatascordhvaṁ tṛtīyaḥ syādṛṣabho nātra saṁśayaḥ
tato dvītīyo gāndhāraścaturtho madhyamastataḥ
pañcamātpañcamastadvat tṛtīyo dhaivatastataḥ [hā]
niṣādato dvitīyastu tataḥ ṣaḍjaścaturthakaḥ
pañcamo madhyame grāme madhyamādyastṛtīyakaḥ
evaṁ dhvaniviśeṣānya sarvān ṣaḍjādisaṁjñitān
vyavasthitāntarānvetti sa vetti svaramaṇḍalam

[See Dattilam 11-15]