Pramāṇa · Search · About · API

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c24: XI Dhananjaya And Dhanika

Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics v1.c24

Language
English

Contents

XI Dhananjaya And Dhanika

v1.c24.1

The date of Dhanañjaya may be taken as approximately settled. The author informs us (iv 80) that he was the son of Viṣṇu and that he flourished in the circle of distinguished literary men surrounding king Muñja, who himself seems to have been a man of taste and learning, as well as a patron of letters. We should not, with Peterson¹, confound this Muñja, better known as Muñja-vākpatirāja, with Vākpatirāja (or Bappai-rāa), the author of *Gauḍavaha*, who lived in the first half of the 8th century under king Yaśovarman of Kanauj and is referred to by Kalhaṇa (iv 144) and Rājaśekhara. Our Muñja appears to be the seventh ruler of the Paramāra dynasty of Mālava, who, as his own inscriptions record², came to the throne in 974 A.D., succeeding his father Harṣadeva Sīyaka, and reigned till about 995 A.D., when he was defeated, imprisoned and executed, as the Cālukya inscriptions attest³, by the Cālukya Tailapa II. Besides being known as Vākpatirāja¹, owing perhaps to the fact that he was himself a poet, he had several other *birudas*, such as Amoghavarṣa, Pṛthvī-vallabha, and Śrī-vallabha; and one of his inscriptions calls him Utpalarāja², a fact, overlooked by the editors of the Kāvyamālā Series (pt. i p. 131), made them confound him with Utpala, the Śaiva philosopher of Kashmir, who was Abhinavagupta's *parama-guru*. This ruler is mentioned by Śambhu³, as well as by Padmagupta⁴, as "a friend of poets" (*kavi-bāndhava* or *kavi-mitra*); and Bhoja, his nephew and successor, appears to have inherited these traits of his character.

v1.c24.2

¹ introd. to *Subhāṣ* p. 115.

v1.c24.3

² *Arch. Survey, Western Ind.* iii 100 = *IA* vi 48-51; *IA* xiv 159-60. See Bühler, *Das Navasāhasāṅka-carita* (transl. in *IA* xxxvi pp. 624-25), 1888, p. 116f.

v1.c24.4

³ *IA* xii 270, xvi 18, 23, xxi 167-68; *EI* ii 212 f. All the references (regarding Muñja's date) are collected together in Haas's introd. to his ed. of the *Daśarūpaka* (*q. v.*)

v1.c24.5

³ *Rājendra-karṇa-pūra*, śl 17, 36.

v1.c24.6

⁴ *Navasāhasāṅka*° i 7, 8, ii 93.

v1.c24.7

The *Daśarūpaka* of Dhanañjaya, in its treatment

v1.c24.8

1 Dhanika cites (on iv 54-55) one of Muñja's verses twice, citing him in the first instance as Muñja and in the other case as Vākpatirāja-deva; while Dhanapāla in his *Tilaka-mañjarī* uses both the names with respect to the same person. One of Muñja's descendants, Arjunavarman, who ruled in the beginning of the 13th century, reproduces one of Muñja's stanzas, with the remark that it was composed by one of his ancestors, "Muñja, whose other name was Vākpatirāja" (Comm. on *Amaru-śataka*, ed. Kāvyamālā 18, 1916, p. 23). This verse is attributed to Muñja also by Jalhaṇa 106a.

v1.c24.9

2 Kṣemendra quotes verses from Muñja, in his three works (*Aucit.vic. ad śl. 16*; *Kavi-kaṇṭhā*° under ii 1; *Suvṛtta-til.* under ii 6) referring to him as Utpalarāja. See also Śārṅgadhara (126 *vākpatirājasya*; 1017 *utpalarājasya*), Vallabhadeva (3414 *śrī-harṣadevātmaja-vākpatirājasya*), and Jalhaṇa (P 25b, 106a, *muñjasya*).

v1.c24.10

of Dramaturgy, is apparently based on the time-honoured authority of Bharata; but as Bharata's huge compendium, both from the practical as well as theoretical point of view, is discursive and cumbersome with its load of histrionic and other matters, Dhanañjaya attempts to sift the mass of details, and, limiting himself only to Dramaturgy, restates the general principles in the form of a practical, condensed and systematic manual. These features of the new contribution apparently obtained for it such reputation and currency that in course of time it seems to have superseded not only all other treatises on the subject but also the basic work of Bharata himself. Viśvanātha, for instance, refers now and then to Bharata and gives one or two (mostly conventional) quotations from his work; but in the main he bases his treatment of dramaturgic topics on Dhanañjaya; while Vidyānātha admits, in the nāṭaka-prakaraṇa of his own work, his indebtedness to the latter, with the remark eṣā prakriyā daśarūpóktarītyanusāreṇa (p. 131).

v1.c24.11

Dhanika, also described as the son of Viṣṇu, and author of the *Avaloka* commentary on Dhanañjaya, was probably one of Dhanañjaya's numerous illustrious contemporaries; for he may be assigned to the same period. Dhanika quotes from Padmagupta (also known as Parimala)¹, who wrote about 995 A.D., as well as from Muñja, and is quoted in his turn by Bhoja in his *Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa* in the first half of the 11th century. He is also described in one of the MSS¹ as holding the office of *mahāsādhyapāla* under king Utpalarāja, who is apparently our Muñja-vākpati, the patron of Dhanañjaya. The suggestion that the author and commentator of the *Daśarūpaka* are one and the same person, chiefly on the ground of the apparent similarity of names and the identity of the patronymic, as well as the inadvertant attribution of a verse of Dhanañjaya’s to Dhanika in some later works like the *Sāhitya-darpaṇa* (ad vi 64a = *Daśarūpaka* iii 29), need not be seriously considered². Jacobi, however, supports this suggestion³ by pointing out that there is no seperate *maṅgalā-caraṇa* to the commentary. This hypothesis, however, cannot altogether get rid of the fact that Dhanañjaya and Dhanika are indeed distinguished by some later writers. For instance, Vidyānātha, in his numerous references to the *Daśarūpaka*, cites the the *kārikā*-verses and never from the commentary¹, although his commentator, Kumārasvāmin, falls in one place² (p. 29) into the error of attributing one of Dhanañjaya’s verses (ii 23b) to Dhanika. It may also be urged that a *mangala*-verse to the *Avaloka*, occurring in one of the MSS, is rejected by Hall as spurious, chiefly on the ground that its style is “too pedestrian for so ornate a stylist as Dhanika” (p. 4 note). This ‘pedestrian’ stanza is apparently the same as that which occurs at the outset of Aufrecht’s Bodleian MS, noticed by him in his *Bod. Cat.* 203a. On the other hand, the absence of the *mangala*-verse need not in itself be taken as decisive; for while Mammaṭa has no separate *mangala*-verse to his *vṛtti*, we find them in Vāmana and Ruyyaka. Śārṅgadhara in his anthology attributes to Dhanika several verses (3417 and 3973), which the latter gives as his own in his commentary (on iv 3a and ii 10a). If, therefore, we suppose, as it is more likely, that the author and the commentator were not identical, then Dhanika may be taken as a brother of Dhanañjaya (a supposition which explains the apparent similarity of names and the identity of patronymic), who collaborated in the production of the work¹ by writing the commentary.

v1.c24.12

¹ on ii 37b = *Navasāhasāṅka* vi 42.

v1.c24.13

¹ Wilson, *Select Specimens*, 3rd ed. I xx, xxi, endorsed by Hall p. 3 notes. It is curious to note that Dhanika (on iv 23 ed Parab) quotes *nidrārdha°* which occurs in the *Caura-pañcaśikā* (ed. Solf no. 36) attributed to Bilhaṇa: but this anonymous quotation (which also occurs in Kuntala) does not of itself place Dhanika later than the middle of the 11th century, the date of Bilhaṇa; for the anthencity of the verse is not beyond question, as it is attributed to Kalaśaka in *Subhāṣ°* 1280 and Jalhaṇa 74a, and Bilhaṇa’s authorship is still open to question. It is not safe, therefore, to base any choronological conclusion on this quotation. Haas has not noticed the verse at all.

v1.c24.14

² Haas (Pref. to ed. *Daśarūpaka* xxxiv) is inaccurate in stating that there are in the commentary “a number of indications of a difference of authorship,” and in support of this he cites i. 20b-21a, iii 32b, iv 43c. Jacobi elaborately shows *GgA*, 1913, pp. 304f) that Haas has entirely misunderstood these passages.

v1.c24.15

³ *Op. cit.* p. 303. Also Lévi in *JA*, 1886, p. 221.

v1.c24.16

¹ p. 46. 101, 102, 104, 105, 114, 124, 131, 219, 221, 228.

v1.c24.17

² in other passages the citation appears to be correct, pp. 47, 128, 130, 221, 233, 235, - 59. Raṅganātha on *Vikramōr* (about 1656 A.D., p. 31 ed N. S. P. 1914) falls into the same mistake. Mallinātha on *Kumāra* i 4 and *Śiśu* vii 11 quotes *Daśarūpaka* correctly (ii 36b and ii 24a).

v1.c24.18

¹ This supposition does not militate against the passage (on iv 33), referred to by Jacobi, in which the commentator intimately identifies himself with the author saying *asmābhiḥ* .........*niṣidhyate*, meaning that the prohibition is made both by his author and himself.

v1.c24.19

From the *Avaloka* we learn that its author composed poems in Sanskrit and in Prakrit, and also wrote a treatise, entitled *Kāvya-nirṇaya* (on iv 35), which alludes to the *Dhvanyāloka* and apparently deals with the general topics of Poetics.

v1.c24.20

For other less known commentaries on *Daśarūpaka*, see Bibliography given below.

Bibliography

v1.c24.s1.1

Dhanañjaya

v1.c24.s1.2

Editions. (1) Bibl. Indica by Hall, 1865 (with *Avaloka*) (2) by Jīvānanda (a mere reprint of the above) Calcutta 1897 (3) by Parab, N. S. P., Bombay 1897, 1917 (with *Avaloka*). Transl. into English, with introd. and notes, by Haas in Indo-iranian Series (Columbia Univ.), New York 1912 (not very reliable, but exhaustive introd. and index). Our references are to Hall's edition. On Haas's ed. see criticisms of Jacobi in *GgA*, 1913, p. 302f, and Barnett in *JRAS*, 1913, p. 190f.

v1.c24.s1.3

MSS. Aufrecht i 247b, 789b; ii 53b; iii 53b; *SCC* vii 33, 34 *KBod* 484; *Madras Cat.* 12887, 12888-91 (with *Avaloka*).

v1.c24.s1.4

*Dhanika*

v1.c24.s1.5

Editions. Printed in Hall's and Parab's editions, with the text.

v1.c24.s1.6

MSS. Aufrecht i 248a, ii 53b, iii 53b; *SCC* vii 33, 34 (no *maṅgalâcaraṇa*); *Madras Cat.* 12888-91 (no *maṅgala-verse*). Dhanika's *Kāvya-nirṇaya* is probably lost.

v1.c24.s1.7

*Other Commentaries on Dhanañjaya*

v1.c24.s1.8

(1) comm. by Nṛsiṃhabhaṭṭa. Oppert 2615.

v1.c24.s1.9

(2) *Ṭīkā* by Devapāṇi (cited by Raṅganātha on *Vikramôrvaśī* ed. N. S. P. 1904, pp. 6, 31; cf *AFl* 444 and *ABod* 135b). No MSS discovered. This is the author who is wrongly called Pāṇi by Wilson (*Select Specimens*) and Aufrecht. Being anterior to Raṅganātha, his date should be earlier than 1656 A.D. Raṅganātha also refers to a *Sāhasâṅkīya-ṭīkā* in the same context (p. 31).

v1.c24.s1.10

(3) *Paddhati* by Kuravirāma. Ms in Hultzsch 554 (only three pages). Kuravirāma is a modern but fertile South Indian commentator who lived at the court of Zemindars of Kārvêtinagaram in North Arcot District, and wrote comms. also on two well-known poems, *Campū-bhārata* of Anantabhaṭṭa and *Viśvaguṇâdarśa* of Veṅkaṭa. He mentions in his comm. on the last named poem a commentary by himself on Appayya's *Kuvalayâ*, as well on Dhanañjaya. See Hultzsch i p. xi.

Linked texts (20)