|
The Indian Analyst
|
North Indian Inscriptions |
LITERARY HISTORY ever, is not correct; and, as a matter of fact, the three parts comprise two separate sentences. The first of these covers the first eight verses. Every one of these contains the relative vocable yaḥ or yasya. So also verse 8 also has yaḥ, but corresponding to it is the demonstrative pronoun asya which occurs in the third line of that stanza. This shows that these eight verses together comprise one sentence. The second sentence is represented by the prose passage and the concluding verse. It commences with tasya in line 17 which is further connected with the relative pronoun yasya in line 30 at the prose passage, which, together with the concluding stanza forms one clause, the relative clause. Thus, the second sentence covers lines 17 to 31. The postscript of the author (lines 31-33) informs us that he looked upon the whole of this record as kāvyam. It runs as follows: “And may this poetic composition (kāvya) of Harishēṇa, the slave of the very same venerable Bhaṭṭāraka, whose mind has expended through the favour of remaining near (him), who is the Sāndhivigrahika, Kumārāmātya (and) Mahādaṇḍanāyaka, (and who is) a native of Khādyaṭapāka,1 and son of the Mahādaṇḍanāyaka Dhruvabhūti, lead to the welfare and happiness of all beings.” This smacks a little of self-conceit. It is true that Harishēṇa was Minister for Peace and War and was thus no small officer. It is also true that as Sāndhivigrahika he was expected to be a poet just as the Sāndhivigrahika of Chandragupta II, Vīrasēna Śāba, was. Nevertheless, it is somewhat strange that a poet of this early period claims for his composition the title of kāvya, especially as it is of such a small length. Kālidāsa nowhere speaks of any one of his compositions as a kāvya. Even Vālmīki, who is the author of the Rāmāyaṇa which has been designated the ādi-kāvya, does not call his work a kāvya though it is a very extensive production, but is content with saying: .................prāpta-rājyasya Rāmasya Vālmīkir=bhagavān=ṛishiḥ /
It is Māgha who is the first poet to call his composition a mahākāvya. But Māgha flourished in the eighth century, and his work is much greater in length than the praśasti composed by Harishēṇa. However, taking this praśasti to be a kāvya, let us examine it in detail, nothing its good and bad points. The first two verses of this praśasti are well-nigh effaced. Stanza 3 says; “Whose mind is
surcharged with happiness in consequence of his association with the wise, who is accustomed
to retain the truth and meaning of sciences, . . . . . . fixed . . . . . . upraised . . . . . . . . . . , who,
putting down obstructions to the grace of good poetry, through the very canons (ājña) of
(Poetic) Excellence, clustered together (guṇita) by the connoisseurs (or rhetoric), enjoys, in
the literate world, extensive sovereignty in consequence of fame for much and lucid poetry.”
This is not a very happy stanza and lacks prasāda which is considered to be an essential feature
of good poetry. According to Vāmana’s Kāvyālaṁkāra-sūtravṛitti, prasāda is artha-vaimalyaṁ,
‘Perspicuity of Sense’. The Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa says: Yat = tu prākatyam=arthasya prasādaḥ
sō=bhidhīyatē. Malllinātha also in one place in his commentary on the Kirātārjunīya quotes
prasiddh-ārtha-padatvaṁ yat=sa prasādō nigadyatē, âThe use of words with well-established sense Contd. from page 148
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| > |
|
>
|