A History of Sanskrit Literature, Classical Period (Review)
Summary
In this review A. N. Upadhye evaluates the first volume of “A History of Sanskrit Literature, Classical Period”, edited by S. N. Dasgupta with contributions by Dasgupta and S. K. De. He notes that the Calcutta University undertook this project after the death of M. Winternitz, whose monumental German‑language “Geschichte der Indischen Litteratur” remains the standard reference. The aim of the new volume was to provide a systematic literary history of Sanskrit literature written by Indian scholars. Upadhye praises the encyclopaedic scope of the work but criticises its lack of unity; the contributions by Dasgupta and De sometimes overlap or even contradict each other. He points out that Dr. De’s sections were likely written before Dasgupta completed his introductory essays, leading to repetition and inconsistent chronology. The review highlights particular disagreements over the dates of authors such as Bhāmaha and Kālidāsa and the evolution of ornate Sanskrit poetry. Upadhye commends Dr. De for avoiding mere cataloguing and instead offering literary criticism that explains how plays and poems balance narrative, character and aesthetic values. De’s description of the causes of artificiality in kāvya—restrictions on social interaction and the absence of foreign influences—is summarised, as are his analyses of Aśvaghoṣa and Bhāsa. Despite its shortcomings, the volume is recognised as a valuable reference. It provides extensive bibliographies, discusses contributions of minor authors and surveys works on alaṅkāra (poetics) and kāvya. Upadhye hopes that subsequent volumes will address criticisms by improving organisation, removing repetitions and incorporating omitted topics such as prose narratives and scientific literature.
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
The review acknowledges the first volume of “A History of Sanskrit Literature” as an important attempt by Indian scholars to offer a comprehensive literary history. While praising the depth of analysis and the emphasis on literary criticism, the reviewer calls for greater editorial coordination to avoid overlap and inconsistencies. The work’s value as a reference is clear, but future volumes should strive for a more coherent structure and fuller coverage of neglected genres.