|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
LITERARY HISTORY Being inspired thereby (i.e. by Genius), a poet should live as an expert in delineation. His work is regarded as Kāvya.” We have already seen what admirable skill Harishēṇa has displayed in the art of delineation whether in the verse or prose portion of the praśasti. We have also pointed out that stanza 4 which describes the court scene where Chandragupta I abdicated the throne and installed his son Samudragupta is a masterpiece of miniature portrait. Similarly, his description of Samudragupta’s numerous and varied exploits is also a master-piece of delineation, which it is difficult to surpass in diction, phraseology and style. What stamps Harishēṇa as a kavi of no mean order is not simply the choice of words, or the manner of combining them into phrases, clauses and sentences but rather the development within the compass of this small composition, of an individualistic style of his own in accordance with the adage, “style showeth the man.” At any rate, he cannot be surpassed in the art of delineation so far as the prose part of his composition is concerned.
We shall now turn to other points connected with the Allahābād praśasti of Samudragupta. “Thus, this little composition of Harishēṇa,” says Bühler, “belongs to that class of mixed compositions which, in poetics, are called by the name of champū, while the oldest works preserved for us, such as the Vāsavadttā, Kādambarī, Harshacharita and Daśakumāracharita are called by the name of ākhyāyikā or kathā ‘a narration, a romance.” In a footnote he adds “See, for instance, Kādambarī, pp. 5-6, 53-56 (ed. Peterson); Harshacharita, pp. 162-79, 227-28, 267-71 (Kashmir edition) and especially Vāsavadattā, pp. 121-291 (ed. Hall), where, in the midst of prose, four verses have been interwoven.” If we read between the lines, what Bühler means is: (1) that Harishēṇa’s praśasti of Samudragupta is Champū in composition, (2) that the Kādambarī, Harshacharita and Vāsavadattā, though classed under Ākhyāyikā or Kthā, are also Champū and (3) that, in fact, any work in prose, if interwoven with verses, is a Champū. It is the last of these propositions that lies at the root of the whole of his erroneous view. If any composition, partly in prose and partly in verse, is a Champū, then such works as the Pañcha-tantra and the Hitōpadēśa, nay, all dramas have to be placed under this category. But no scholar, conversant with Sanskrit Poetics, can subscribe to this astounding assertion, because Ākhyāyikā, Kathā and Champū are terms technical to this Science and must be taken in the senses assigned to them in its treatises. Thus, the Sāhityadarpaṇa2 places Kathā in the category of gadya-kāvya and defines it as follows: (Text) ..................Kathāyāṁ sarasaṁ vastu gadyair=ēva vinirmitam / (Commentary) Yathā Kādambary-ādiḥ ...........................................(Translation) ..............................................(Text) âIn the Kathā (Tale), the plot (vastu) is set forth in prose. Sometimes the Āryā, and some- 1 This is a mistake for pp. 123-24.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|