North Indian Inscriptions

LITERARY HISTORY

is called prasāda.” This prasāda which consists in the quick, clear and easy perception of the sense conveyed by words is conspicuous by its absence in this stanza. This is the reason why its last lines have led astray, not only Fleet, but even Bühler. The latter translates them as follows: “. . puts an end to the war between good poetry and prosperity and thus enjoys in the world of the learned, a far-extending sovereignty whose shining glory endures in many poems.” And, further, he draws the specious conclusion that Samudragupta is here represented to have put an end to the old antagonism between the Muses and Plutus. To put the same thing in other words, Bühler thinks that here we have got an allusion to the favourite allegory of the Sanskrit poets which depicts perpetual animosity between Śrī and Sarasavatī and which condemns the poet and the literate to a life of indigence and misery and renders the rich incapable of rendering service to Art and Learning. If these lines are translated as Bühler has done, the second half of the stanza remains utterly unconnected with the first half. Above all, his rendering fails to explain how Samudragupta has established ‘a far-extending sovereignty’ based upon his many poems by removing the opposition that exists between the Goddess of Learning and the Goddess of Wealth in the case of the other poets. The last two lines have, therefore, to be so translated as to show he has come to enjoy this Kīrti-rājya through his own poetry. This can only be done by translating them as we have done, in other words, by saying that he rigorously followed the canons of Poetic Excellence laid down by experts in poetics. To come back to our original point, this stanza, especially the second half of it, lacks prasāda, that is, artha-vaimalya, ‘Perspicuity of Sense’. Again, the phrase sat-kāvya-śrī-virōdhān (line 3) of this stanza contains the Poetic Imperfection Adhika-pada, as the words sat and śrī mean practically the same thing. The omission of any one of them would have augmented the excellence of this verse.

       The case, however, is different in regard to the stanza following. It says: “(Exclaiming) ‘come, Oh worthy (son)’ and embracing (him) with hair standing on end which indicated (his) feeling, (his) father, perceiving (him) with an eye, overcome with affection (and) heavy with tears (of joy), (but) scanning the truth, said to him ‘do protect the whole earth’, while he was being looked up with sad faces by others of equal birth, (but) while the courtiers were breathing forth (cheerful) sighs.” According to the Kāvyapradīpa, Poetry (kāvya) is lōkōttara-varṇanā-nipuṇa-kavi-karma, ‘the production of a poet proficient in wonderful delineation.’ This definition of Poetry fits this stanza most excellently. It is therefore not a matter of surprise if Bühler has gone into raptures over it. “It is not possible,” says he, “to have a more concise and a more graphic picture of the situation. There is not a word which is unnecessary; and one believes as if he sees the scene with his own eyes, how the old Chandargupta, in the presence of his sons, each of whom hoped to have the highest fortune, and of his court who were afraid lest the choice may fall on an unworthy person, turns round to his favourite son. This verse is one of the best productions the Indians have given us, in the domain of miniature-portraits, which is their forte.” “This very example,” Bühler adds, “would also illustrate Harishēṇa’s special care for the choice and arrangement of words”, which constitutes a merit of poetry called udāttatā which the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa explains as Ślāghya-viśēshaṇa-yōgyatvam, “compatibility of apt attributives.” This good quality of a poem is well-exhibited by the use of such words as utkarṇṇitai rōmabhiḥ, snēhavyāluḷitēna, and, above all, udvīkshitaḥ. The preposition ud in udvīkshita indicates beautifully the feelings of nirvēda and vishāda described by the authorities on Sanskrit poetics. Here nirvēda is a saṁchārī and not a sthāyī bhāva and is self-disparagement caused by īrshyā or bitter jealousy manifested in the gesture, viȥ., the raising of the neck involved in udvīkshaṇa.¹ Vishāda is “a loss of vigour (or despondency) arising from the absence of ex-
________________________________________________

¹ Sāhityadarpaṇa (Nirṇaya Sagar, 1936 edn., p. 146), Parichchhēda III, kārikā 141.