North Indian Inscriptions

LITERARY HISTORY

kiraṇ–which occurs in line 4 of the same verse. In the stanza following is found the author’s favourite word naga which is used in the rare sense of ‘a tree’ and which is met with also in verses 9 and 32. Similarly, the words prakāśam and samētya occurring in stanza 5 are both taken by Bühler as devoid of real meaning. Though they may not be exactly meaningless, they are, at any rate, redundant and clumsy. Stanza 6, again, has, in the last line, tilaka-bhūtam in which bhūtam is superfluous and retards from the proper development of the alaṁkāra. Similarly, the anta in –tīr-ānta-, line 2, verse 7, is redundant. Tuly-ōpamānāni, in line 4 of verse 10, involves the fault of tautology. If tulya is retained, upamāna is unnecessary; and if upamāna is adopted, tulya becomes superfluous. In verse 12, the word prāsāda is found in line 1 and gṛihāṇi in line 4. Propriety would expect their position to be reversed. Samētya in line 1 of verse 15 seems, according to Bühler, to have been used as an expletive. The verse, again, has such qualifying expressions as pravijṛiṁbhita-sauhṛidāḥ, pratimānitāḥ and pramuditāḥ, but there is no viśēshya-pada or qualified word. If we now turn to stanza 18, we find, in the first place, that praṇayinām=upakāra-dakshāḥ and dṛiḍha-sauhṛidāś=cha mean practically the same thing and are, thus, tautologous expressions; and secondly that line 4 thereof has viśrambha-pūrvam which is a kriyā-viśēshaṇa without any kriyāpada as its viśēshya. If we proceed to the next stanza, we notice not only that the abhi of abhivighāti in line 4 is meaningless, but that vijita-vishaya-saṅgaiḥ and mukta-rāgaiḥ are tautologous phrases. Similarly, tatas=tu in line 4 of verse 22 are mere expletives. Stanzas 20 and 25 are unpoetic. To say that a woman is not an object of beauty with her youth and complexion but stands in need of the help of ornamentation and, above all, silk attirement, as Vatsabhaṭṭi has done in verse 20, is sheer bad taste. Similarly, a first-rate poet would write bhītasya abhaya-pradaḥ, and not bhītasya bandhu as Vatsabhaṭṭi has done in stanza 25.

>

Many other faults of this nature can be pointed out in his composition, but those that have been adduced are enough to show that Vatsabhaṭṭi is a third-rate poet. It is, therefore, no wonder if he has fallen into two solecisms, as remarked by Bühler. Thus, verse 15 has nyavasanta which is Imperfect Third Person Plural of ni+vas, in the sense of “(they) lived.” But vas in this sense is always First Conjugation Parasmaipada, never Ātmanēpada even with any preposition. Bühler thinks that Vatsabhaṭṭi has used the Ātmanēpadī from to suit the metre. It is, however, more probable that grammar was not his strong point. This inference is strengthened by the second instance of solecism adduced by Bühler. Thus, verse 38 has (nabhaḥ) spṛiśann=iva, which goes with gṛiham in the preceding one. It is true that Fleet proposes to correct in into spṛiśat=īva. But apart from the fact that this causes a caesura “the whole construction” rightly remarks Bühler “would not only be changed but broken up into pieces, because then the locatives in the verses 39-40 would be altogether hanging in the air.” The main question, however, is whether we at all can have such a form as spṛiśan. The root here is spṛiś, which belongs to the sixth conjugation, and the present participle Nominative Singular of this root even in the masculine gender must be spṛiśad, and never spṛiśan. And as Vatsabhaṭṭi has employed such an utterly ungrammatical form as spṛiśan, it confirms the conclusion that he was not well conversant with the Science of Grammar. Bühler, no doubt, supposes that “he might have been conscious of the fault but that he might have consoled himself with the beautiful principle: māsham=api mashaṁ kuryād=vṛitti-bhaṅgaṁ vivarjayēt, according to which the correctness of the metrical form precedes every other consideration. It is, however, difficult of agree with Bühler in this view. None of the two instances of solecism is of such a nature as to indicate that Vatsabhaṭṭi was conscious of them. Again, to drop one mātrā of māsha and alter it into masha to suit the exigencies of metre is one thing, but to employ an ungrammatical form covering many mātrās is entirely different. Similarly, to use an ungrammatical form like nyavasanta is not an unpardonable blunder, because writers sometimes confound between Parasmaipada and Ātmanēpada and sometimes take a root as belonging to both. But to use such