Sahrdayaloka Part 02

SR No.: 006909
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Tapasvi Nandi
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 2005
Total Pages: 642
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 288

Classification of Poetry
843 We have noted above that Hemacandra reproduces Bhoja's words on Sattaka and so also we read the same in the Nārya-darpana; and Vägbhata (II) also reads the same in his Kāvyānuśāsana (II. pp. 18, N.S. Edn. 1915 A.D.) : sattako’pi kaiścid uktah. tad yathā -
"viskambhakas tveka-rahito sa tv eka-bhāṣayā bhavati, a-prāksta-samskştayā
sa sațțako nātikā-pratibhah.” Vādijanghāla on Dandin I. 37 calls it as 'sattikā' and describes it as an apabhramśa composition. Thus, we have at least three names available such as, sattaka, sātaka and sattikā. As noted by Dr. Raghavan Prof. Chintaharan Chakravarti accepts the reading a-prākrta-samskrtayā and explains it as neither sanskrit nor prakrit. Perhaps Vādijanghāla therefore has called it to be in apabhramśa. The Nātyadarpaņa also calls it “sāțaka”. In the Karpūramañjarī the prāksta name reads sattaya and sanskrit rendering reads as sātaka. It may prove interesting to note that Śāradātanaya, at B.P. VIII. 158 (pp. 359, Edn. Agrawal, ibid) - observes :
"saiva (= nātikā eva) praveśakenā’pi viskambhena vinā krtā, anka-sthānīya-vinyastacatur yavanikántarā prakrsta-prākṣta-mayi
sattakam nāmato bhavet.” This means that for Śāradātanaya the nātikā itself is known to be sattaka when there is absence of either 'praveśaka' or 'viskambhaka'. In place of 'anka' there is provision of four yavanikās and this type of art-form is laid in the best of prākrta only. Now this goes against the view of Vādijanghāla and Prof. Chakravarti as seen above. In place of acts we have four yavanikántaras'. This is not clear to us, but perhaps they are minor divisions of a single scene conducted with the help of curtains to be held and shifted by actors as and when required. Bhoja does not mention this characteristic. He also does not insist that sattaka has to be in prakrta only, of course the best (prakrsta) of it.
Elsewhere Sāradātanaya observes about sattaka (pp. 393, Edn. Agrawal, ibid; B.P. IX. 57):