Among the authors, who wrote in Sanskrit in the south, the earliest was perhaps Apatstamba who wrote the Srauta, Grihya and Dharma sutras. He belonged to the north eastern Deccan and to the 3rd century B.C.
The Satavahana king Hala wrote the Sattasai in Prakrit; it is an errotic poem in 700 verses, somewhat but not very much resembling the Aham poems of Tamil. If the present version of that poem can be assigned to the 3rd century AD, it is possible that it was influenced by the Tamil Aham literature.
Gunadya of the Satavahana court wrote the Brihatkatha in Paisachi language, a Prakrit but it is not extant now. It told the story of Naravahanadatta, a son of Udayana. It has been rendered into Tamil as Perunkathai,\he “great story’ by Kongvel.
The original seems to have been written well enough to receive praises from Bana and Dandin. We do not know if Paisachi was a rich enough dialect to permit of the production of an epic of this standard. A theory that Tamil was perhaps the paisachi referred to and that Perunkathai itself was the original and Brihatkatha was just the Sanskritisation of the original title deserves to be looked into.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
It is worth noting that in Sangam times in the Tamil country no Sanskrit work was written. Coming to Pallava times we know Bharavi’s famous Kirtarjuniya describing in 18 cantos the unequal fight between Siva and Arjuna, the latter getting the boon of the Pasupatha weapoon from the former. It is rumoured that Durvinita, the Ganga king, annotated the 15th canto of that poem.
Ravikirti’s Sanskrit eulogy of Pulakesin II in the Aihole inscription is in good enough style and ne could forgive the eulogist’s conceit that he was as good as Kalidasa or Bharavi. The medieval epigraphs do indulge in a sort of versification but to include it in poetry and treat it as if it were literature would be worthy only of a local brand of literary critic who makes no distinction between versification and poetry.
It is true that much of our devotional and didactic literature also deserves similar dismissal; but they are usually dismissed after notice. The Pallava king Mahendravarman I wrote two farces, Mattavilasaprahasanam and Bhagavad Ajjukiyam, eminently stageworthy even now besides providing the historian with considerable material for the reconstruction of contemporary social history.
Dandin, also associated with Bharavi and with the Pallava court, wrote the Kavyadarsa a sort of grammar on literary criticism, and the famous Tale of Ten Princes, the Dasakumara Charitram.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
To consider Bhavabhuti the famous author of the popular plays Malati-Madhavu and Uttararama Charita, a South Indian, would be wrong since he did all his literary work in the north. Kulasekara Alvar, the last of the twelve Alvars, wrote the Mukuntamala and patronised many Sanskrit poets. Many minor Sanskrit works were produced in Kerala. Sanskrit studies were systematically encouraged there.
Somadeva Suri of the court of a subordinate chieftain in the days of Rashtrakuta Krishna III wrote the Yasastilaka Champu and Nitivakyamrita. The Vikramangadeva Charita of Bilhana in eighteen cantos is tedious in description, deceptive in certitude and unsatisfactory as poetry. Chalukya Somesvara III wrote or persuaded one of his court poets to write the Manasollasa.
The Parvathi-Rukmaniya of Vidyamadava patronised by Somesvara II is a sustained pun and shows how artificial the so called poetry in Sanskrit could be. The quasi-historical Gadyakarnamrita was written by a poet in the Hoysala court. Sankara’s Sutra Bhashya, Ramanuja’s Sri Bhashya, Madva’s Bhashya, Vedantadesika’s numerous Sanskrit works for example, Yadavabhyudaya, Hamsasandesa, Padukasahasra (if poetry it be) and Sankalpa Suryodhya can be mentioned as medieval Sanskrit works created in South India.
Ravivarman Kulasekhara of Travancore, a warrior of meteoric fame, found time to write Pradyumgabhyudaya a drama in five acts. Religious works wirtten in Sanskrit are far too numerous to mention but they can be called literature only in an extended sense and by courtesy.