North Indian Inscriptions

LITERARY HISTORY

first place, there is no such term as Varṇānuprāsa known to the science of poetics. The technical word used to denote ‘alliteration’ is simply Anuprāsa, which is described by Daṇḍin as varṇavṛittir=Anuprāsaḥ padēshu cha padēshu cha. As Anuprāsha is here defined as varṇa-vṛitti, it is possible that Bühler has jumbled the two together and invented the phrase varṇānuprāsa. Bühler, again, is wrong in saying that Anuprāsa does not occur many times even in the prose passage. As a matter of fact, it is found copiously not only in the prose but also in the verse portion of the praśasti. Anuprāsa is of five kinds: (1) Chhēk-Ānuprāsa, (2) Vṛitty-Anuprāsa, (3) Śruty-Anuprāsa, (4) Anty-Ānuprāsa and (5) Lāṭ-Ānuprāsa. Instances of almost all these varieties are found in this praśasti. To take only two, adbhut-ōdbhinna in verse 5 is an example of the first variety, namely of Chhēk-Ānuprāsa, and parākram-aika-bandhōḥ Parākramāṅkasya in line 17, of the last variety, Lāṭ-Ānuprāsa. “Of the Arthālaṁkāras,” Bühler further remarks, “he uses Rūpaka very often, and Upamā and Ślēsha more rarely.” Nothing is farther from the fact. As Bühler admits that Harishēṇa is fond of using Rūpaka, no instances need be cited here. We must, however, take note of one instance he has adduced in this connection, namely, sādhv-asādh-ūdaya-pralaya-hētu-purushaya (line 25), “of Purusha (Supreme Being), being the cause of the prosperity of the good and the destruction of the bad.” “The poetic figure used here,” says Bühler “is a Ślēsha- mūlaṁ Rūpakaṁ, i.e., a metaphor which is brought about by the double meaning of the words used.” Nothing is more untrue, because, in the first place, there is no ślēsha here at all, and, secondly, anybody who is well acquainted with the Science of Poetics will have no hesitation in saying that the passage just quoted is an example of Yathāsaṁkhy-ālaṁkāra. Again, Bühler is not correct in asserting that Harishēṇa seldom indulges in Upamā. As a matter of fact, the author of the praśasti not only uses Upamā frequently but displays many varieties of it. Thus amanuja-sadṛiśāni in stanza 5 is upamāna-luptā Upamā, Dhanada-Varuṇ-Ēndr-Āntaka-samasya in line 26 is dharma-luptā Upamā, whereas pṛithivyām=apratirathasya in line 24 is dharm-ōpamāna- luptā Upamā. The praśasti, again, is, by no means, conspicuous by the absence of other poetic figures, whatever Bühler may say to the contrary. Thus āchakshāṇa iva bhuvō bāhuḥ in line 30, which has already been cited in extenso, represents Utprēkshā, another variety of which, namely, pratīyamānā Utprēkshā is noticeable not only in samiddhasya vigrahavatō lōk-ānugrahasya in line 26 but also in sañchay-ōchchhritam etc., in stanza 9. Again, stanza 4, which begins with Āryy=aih= īty=upaguhya, which has rightly elicited so much encomium from the pen of Bühler and which we have discussed in full above, is itself an undoubted instance of Kāvyaliṅga. While this stanza represents one variety of this Figure, namely, pad-ārtha-gata, the other variety, vāky-ārtha-gata Kāvyaliṅga is represented by the verse preceding it, namely, stanza 3. Another poetic figure that we may note is Samuchchaya, which is found in stanza 8, beginning with dharma-prāchīra- bandhaḥ. This is just a brief survey of the Alaṁkāras which are noticeable in the panegyric.

       We have thus discussed the praśasti, bit, by bit, from the poetic point of view, pointing out the good and the bad points of its composition. Considered as a whole, the panegyric cannot but be regarded as a Kāvya. The author’s claim to this title for his production is thus well founded. Various definitions have been given of Kāvya by writers on Sanskrit Poetics. But, perhaps, the best of these is that cited by the Kāvyapradīpa which defines Kāvya as “the work of a poet who surpasses in delineation.” This is, perhaps, an epitome of Bhāmaha’s definition of Kāvya, namely,

..............................prajñā nava-nav-ōnmēsha-śālinī pratibhā matā /
..............................tad-anuprāṇanāj=jīvēd varṇanā-nipuṇaḥ kaviḥ //
..............................tasya karma smṛitam kāvyaṁ

“Imagination (prajña) possessed of ever-new flashes is considered to be Genius (pratibha).