|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
LITERARY HISTORY ments. In illustration of this statement of Daṇḍin, Bühler quotes the following stanza (verse 26) from Vatsabhaṭṭi’s praśasti: ..........................Tasy=ātmajō sthairya-nay-ōpapannō âThe first three pādas,” says Bühler, “describe Bandhuvarman’s wisdom and goodness, the last his terribleness in war with enemies. Corresponding to this, the words in the first three quarters of the verse consist of syllables which are soft or light to be pronounced, in considera- tion of the necessity of the alliteration of the name of Bandhuvarman. The fourth pāda, on the other hand, where the Raudra rasa prevails, contains only hard sounding syllables and agrees quite well with Daṇḍin’s typical illustration, Kāvyādarśa, I. 72: nyakshēṇa kshapitaḥ pakshaḥ kshatriyāṇāṁ kshaṇād=iti.â The next important internal characteristic of Artificial Poetry is the use of Alaṁkāras, which are of two kinds: Śabd-ālaṁkāra and Arth-ālaṁkāra. As regards the former we will leave aside the wrong use of the phrases Varṇānuprāsa and Padānuprāsa by Bühler, which are unknown to treatises on rhetoric. We have already animadverted upon it. One variety of Alliteration, namely, Chhēk-ānuprāsa, is noticeable in almost every stanza of this poem. An instance of another variety, namely, Lāṭ-ānuprāsa is furnished by verse 26 cited above, where the word bandhu is repeated thrice. Further instances of the same variety are supplied by siddhaiś=cha siddhy-arthibhiḥ in verse 1, kiṁnara-naraiḥ in verse 2, prathit-ōruvaṁśā vaṁś-ānurūpā0 in verse 18, =anātha-nāthaḥ in verse 25 and =aty-udāram=udārayā in verse 37. Of the Arth-ālaṁkāras, says Bühler, Vatsabhaṭṭi uses only the most familiar ones, namely Upamā, Utprēkshā and Rūpaka. Nothing, however, is more untrue. Thus, stanza 5 contains an illustration of Kāvyaliṅga, stanza 6 of Samāsōkti, stanza 7 of Svabhāvōkti, stanza 19 of Kāvyaliṅga and Samuchchaya, stanza 27 of Viśēshōkti, Utprēkshā and Vibhāvanā, stanza 42 of Mālōpamā, and so on and so forth. It will thus be seen that a plethora of Arth-ālaṁkāras is noticeable in the panegyric of the Sun temple by Vatsabhaṭṭi and not simply the most familiar, Upamā, Utprēkshā and Rūpaka, as Bühler gives us to understand.
If we now consider the contents of Vatsabhaṭṭi’s composition, we find that it contains many images and turns of expression characteristic of the Kāvya style. One has only to turn to verse 7-9 where the lakes and gardens of Daśapura are described or to verses 10-13 which give as account of its building. In fact, one may turn to any section of this pūrvā of Vatsabhaṭṭi âto a description of the Guild (verses 14-22), of the Winter Season when the Sun Temple was consecrated that (verses 30-35) or of the Spring when it was renovated (verses 36-42), —and be convinced that Vatsabhaṭṭi wrote at a time when the science of Indian Poetics had evolved itself to an eminent degree. We may proceed one step further; Vatsabhaṭṭi was a third-rate poet. The presumption therefore is that he must have borrowed many ideas and much phraseology from the contemporary and earlier poets of great renown. Can we make good this presumption? This will also prove that Vatsabhaṭṭi lived at a time when Artificial Poetry was in full swing. Let us, however, see, in the first place, what Bühler has to say on this point. In regard to the very first two of the three stanzas which form the Maṅgala or benediction and with which the panegyric begins, he remarks: “Amongst the court-poets there is one Mayūra, in whose Sūryaśataka, a prayer addressed to the Sun, we have almost every one of the ideas contained in the verses above, repeated and with much the same form of expression.” Bühler, no doubt, tries to expatiate on the point but does not seem to have made it out in a satisfactory
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|