A History of Sanskrit Literature c21.s3.12

Language: English

c21.s3.12.1

Daṇḍin is unquestionably masterly in his use of language. He is perfectly capable of simple easy narrative, and in the speeches which he gives to his characters he avoids carefully the error of elaboration of language. But he is prepared to exhibit his talent and command of the language in descriptions and in these he is markedly an adherent of the Vaidarbha style, and excels, as a traditional estimate holds, in pleasing sound effects. He aims both at exactness of expression and clearness of sense, at the avoidence of harsh sounds and exaggeration or bombast; he attains beauty, harmony of sound, and effective expression of sentiment. He makes free use, but with reasonable moderation, of the right in prose to construct long compounds, but they in the main are not difficult of comprehension. His desire to vary his forms of description is marked and receives effective illustration. Twice he has to describe the beauty of a slumbering maiden; in the first case¹ he resorts to a complete catalogue of all her perfections as the hero gazes on her and notes them in minutest detail through her thin garments; in the second case there is no realistic description, but four similes from mythology and nature serve to express her loveliness.² Yet again a picture is given of beauty unveiled, but the occasion is different;

c21.s3.12.2

the hero sets up as an astrologer, and in this capacity has the privilege of inspecting youthful beauty presented to him to ascertain if it possesses the auspicious signs of suitability for marriage.³ Reference has already been made to the witty close of the description of the beautiful maiden of the underground dwelling, where the jest is given special point by following on several more stereotyped complimentary epithets.⁴ Another description is decidedly ingenious and is addressed to the lovely one herself: *bhāmini nanu bahv aparāddham bhavatyā cittajanmano yad amuṣya jīvitabhūtām Ratim ākṛtyā kadarthitavatī dhanuryaṣṭim bhrūlatābhyām bhramaramālāmāyīm jyāṁ nīlālakadyutibhir astrāṇy apāṅgavīkṣitavṛṣṭibhir mahārajanadhvajapaṭāñçukaṁ daçanacchadamayūkhajālaiḥ prathamasuhṛdam malayamārutam parimalapaṭīyasā niḥçvāsapavanena parabhṛtarutam atimañjulaiḥ pralāpaiḥ puṣpamayīm patākām bhujayaṣṭibhyāṁ digvijayārambhapūrṇa-* *kumbhamithunaṁ urojayugalena krīḍāsaro nābhimaṇḍalena saṁnāhyarathamaṇḍalaṁ çroṇimaṇḍalena bhavanaratnatoraṇa-stambhayugalam ūruyugalena līlākarṇakisalayaṁ caraṇatalapra-bhābhiḥ.* ‘Hast thou, gracious lady, not wrought much wrong on our lord Love? Hast thou not utterly eclipsed with thy form Rati, who is all his life to him; with thy creeper-like brows the staff of his bow; his bowstring formed of a row of bees with the flashings of thy dark locks; his arrows with the showers of thy sidelong glances;

c21.s3.12.3

the silk of his saffron-dyed banner with the ruddy rays darting from thy lips; his dearest friend, the wind from Malaya, with the sweet fragrance of thy breath; the Kokila with thy charming utterance; his flower ensign with the flagstaffs of thy arms; the two bowls which were filled when he started to conquer the world with thy two rounded breasts, the lake in which he plays with the circle of thy navel; the rounded frame of his battle-chariot with thy round hips; the twin pillars of the jewelled arch of his palace with thy twin thighs; the lotus behind his ear with which he plays with the gleaming red of the soles of thy feet?’ The same variety is seen in his many changes of expression in describing the dawn and the sunset, which he delights to do.

c21.s3.12.4

So Upahāravarman sees the dawn thus: *cintayaty eva mayi mahārṇavonmagnamār-taṇḍaturaṅgamaçvāsarayāvadhūteva vyavartata triyāmā samu-dragarbhavāsajaḍīkṛta iva mandapratāpo divasakaraḥ prādur āsīt.* ‘While yet I pondered, night passed away, as though wafted away by the hot breath of the steeds of the sun as he emerged from the mighty ocean, and the sun stood revealed, but yet feeble his might as though he had been paralysed by his dwelling within the bosom of the sea.’ There is a very effective example of the simplicity and vividness of his style in his account in the legend of Dhūminī of the appalling famine which led to the tragic events of that tale: *kṣīṇasāraṁ sasyam oṣadhayo bandhyā na phalavanto vanaspatayaḥ klībā meghā bhinnasrotasaḥ sravantyaḥ paṅkaçeṣāṇi palvalāni niḥsyandāny utsamaṇḍalāni viralībhūtaṁ kandamūlaphalam avahīnāḥ kathā galitāḥ kalyāṇot-savakriyā bahulībhūtāni taskarakulāny anyonyam abhakṣayan pra-jāḥ paryaluṇṭhann itas tato balākāpāṇḍurāṇi naraçiraḥkapālāni paryahiṇḍanta çuṣkāḥ kākamaṇḍalyaḥ çūnyībhūtāni nagaragrā-makharvaṭapuṭabhedanādīni.* ‘The corn lost all its strength, the herbs became barren, the trees bore no fruit, the clouds rained not, the beds of the streams became dry, the tanks were reduced to mud, the springs ceased to flow, bulbs, roots, and fruits were hard to find, all ceased to converse or celebrate auspicious events, hordes of robbers became more common, people ate one another in their hunger, men's skulls, bleached white as cranes, rolled about, great flocks of starving crows flew around, while cities great and small, market-places, villages, and other resorts of men were abandoned.' It is significant that the author of the Pūrvapīṭhikā is quite unable to vie in description with his model, though he exaggerates the length of his compounds and in the introduction commits himself to a stanza playing on Daṇḍin's name.

c21.s3.12.5

He commits also the grave fault of excessive use of alliterations, perpetrating the continuous riming effect of: *kumārā mārābhirāmā rāmādyapauruṣā ruṣā bhasmīkṛtārayo rayopahasitasamīraṇā raṇābhiyānena yānenābhyudayaçaṅsaṁ rājānam akārṣuḥ.* 'The princes, beautiful as Māra himself, with the heroism of Rāma and other heroes, reducing their enemies to ashes in their rage, in their swiftness defeating even the wind, advancing in their chariots to battle assured the king of victory.' It may be doubted whether it is not to his carelessness rather than to clerical errors or to learned pedantry that we should ascribe the incorrect forms *mahadāyudha*, *mahadabhikhyā*, *mahadāçā*, *āvoci*, *çāsan*, *adañci*, presented by manuscript tradition.¹ These are very different from the forms which have been censured in Daṇḍin, such as *āliṅgayitum*, *brāhmaṇabrūvaḥ*, *enam anuraktā*, which are clearly defensible as they stand.