365bet娱乐

692 CHAPTER FIFTEEN: THE TILAKAMANJARI AS A PROSE POETIC WORK OR A KATHA (GADYA-KAVYA-PRABANDHA) (An estimate in view of Dhanapala's contemporary literary standards.)鈥擨: INTRODUCTORY REMARKS:鈥�(i) HISTORICAL CRITICISM A NECESSITY鈥擶arton has cautioned that in reading the works of an author who lived in a remote age, it is necessary that we should look back upon the customs and manners which prevailed in his age%3B that we should place ourselves in his situation and circumstances. Taine also has suggested that in order to comprehend a work of art, an artist or a group of artists, we must clearly comprehend the general social and intellectual condition of the times 2 to which they belong.² It is only thus, It is only thus, affirms John Dewey, that we can hope to understand what it was that the authors 1. LC,p.526. 2. Taine quoted in VT,p.96,ft.nt.

693 or the makers of art intended to express and to interpretab this intention in the light of their interest and cultural background.' It is, therefore, imperative that Dhanapala's work should be viewed in the light of his contemporary literary standards, especially when we find that hoary tradition of both the Sanskrit literary criticism and of Sanskrit literary art was being continuously moulded and nurtured, on the one hand by veteran Sanskrit critics from Bharata to Bhoja and, on the other hand, by poets from Valmiki to Padmagupta alias Parimala, during the millenium which immediately preceded the advent of our poet, Dhanapala, who himself had also formulated some specific standards as a result of his intimate study of the prose works of Bana and others. Moreover, inspite of the tremendous developments in the field of Sanskrit literary criticism, as has been pointed out by Dr. R.S.Valimbe, none of the rhetoricians ever took up one single literary work to thoroughly apply the prevalent norms to it and bring out its literary worth in the contemporary context. The present chapter is an humble, though feeble, attempt in this direction so far as Dhanapala's Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala is concerned. 4. VT,p.4 5. cf. Sanskrit Poetics,pp.58-59. 4

694 (ii) STANDARDS SET BY SANSKRIT RHETORICIANS Right from Bhamaha to Bhoja, Sanskrit critics regarded Poetry to be the coexistance of word and meaning in an organic whole, and they were all the while conscious that both word (sabda ) and meaning (artha) together constitute the body of Poetry, the soul being the poetically suggested feeling or aesthetic relish(rasa). " Bhoja, 5 the veteran critic-cum-poet and a contemporary of Dhanapala, maintained that poetic expression is one which gives parity and equal importance to both word and meaning (ubhaya-pradhana), as both are equally important in the poetic concritisation%3B but neither meaning nor sound has any intrinsic value, which is created by the poetic action (kavi-vyapara), as is evident from the outcome of the speculations on the excellances (gunas) and defects (dosas) of poetry. 6 .7 Dr. K. Krishnamoorthy has aptly remarked that Indian writers on Poetics presumed that there is, and turned to investigate the broad principals of, beauty in literature. Their method was one of formal definition, classification and illustration, using as few words as p鈼妔sible. The business of Indian theorists was to classify only in order to clarify. The first principles formulated 5.cf. Sanskrit Poetics,pp.58-59. 6.cf. op. cit., pp. 71-73. 7.Essays in Sanskrit Criticism,pp.22-27.

695 by Sanskrit theorists on the art of literature have stood the test of time. The technique of Sanskrit poets directly derived from their material on the one hand, and the standards fixed by grammar, prosody, etc., on the other. The one consideration central to Sanskrit criticism was impeccability. As on the absence of palpable defects, so does, Sanskrit theory insisted on the presence of positive excellences (gunas) in all the recognisable elements of a composition. While the Gunas formed a pre-requisite condition in the equipment of a poet as well as of a trained critic, there was another equally important condition, viz., Rasa or aesthetic emotion (distinct from personal emotion) which is a part of one's innate endowment, and not an acquired sensibility. The critic's first function was to recognize this underlying unity in the work of poetry before he passed to appreciate its excellences in particular elements. (iii) DHANAPALA'S OWN NORMS :Dhanapala had most of these specific literary standards in view when he composed his Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala in the early decades of the eleventh century A.D. His close study of the performance of his highly venerated literary predecessors had enabled him to determined a few norms of his own too. His intention was to compose a major prose-romance, a

696 8 i Gadya-kavya of the 'Katha' type, a model of which form was, in his opinion, perfectly chiselled by Bana, who, he knew, had captivated the heads and hearts of the literary elite 9 7 of his days. However, our poet had some reservations regarding some of the aspects of Bana's literary workmanship. Thus, in view of the taste of his audience, he was not in favour of incessant prose, nor too much of verse, nor of too much double-entendre. His chief anxiety was to avoid the situation in which the interest or emotion on would tend to flag. For this reason he maintained that three things were a must for a major work like a Katha, viz., (i) a good story (sat-katha), (ii) sustained interest or suspense (katha-rasa), and (iii) proper delineation of various sentiments (rasa). And he aspired to prove his proficiency in the utilisation of word, meaning, interest in the narrative as also in the delineation of various poetic emotions, and 11 in poetic excellences. He was prepared to offer his work to scrutiny at the hands of poets who had the capacity to feel and judge the inner meaning of poetry and who would 10 8. Tilakamanjari, p. 7, vs. 50d: sphutadbhutarasa racita kathyam | 9. ibid, p. 4, vs. 27 : kadambari sahodargha sudhya vaibudhe hrdi | harsakhyayikaya khyatim bano 'bdhiriva labdhavan || 10. ibid.,p.3,vs.18: satkarasavandhyesu nibandhesu niyojitah| nice- sviva bhavantyah prayo vairasya hetavah || 11. ibid.,p.5,75037: vayaste kakyom kapayah kavya paramartha visaradah | visvarayanti ye dosan gunamsva gatamatsamsah || keciduyasi vacye 'nye ke 'pyam sunye katharase| ke cidune prasadadau dhanyah sarvatra kecana ||

697 discuss the excellences as well as the defects with perfect impartiality. For the carping hair-splitter, however, he had thorough contempt, since like a black-faced rogue 13 goldsmith such a critic was but a/nough in his opinion. His chief test of the worth of poetry was with reference 路 th its effectiveness with the understanding listeners, who, he maintained, must be completely swayed by its sweet 14 intoxicative delight%;B not only that, the rival poets must also feel this beauty and hang their heads in acknowledgement of its unquestionable superiority. We shall now proceed to evaluate Dhanapala's performance in the light of the above discussion.