Tilakamanjari

SR No.: 022659
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dhanpal, Sudarshankumar Sharma
Publisher: Parimal Publications
Publication Year: 2002
Total Pages: 504
Language: English, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 15 MB

Page 31

DHANAPALA AS A PROSE WRITER
17
Śrīpālita praised by Dhanapala in his Tilakamañjarl' and by Abhinanda in his Ramacaritam (a contemporary of Halasātavāhana) (7A.D.) and not available in MSS form. Similarly Trailokyasundari a 'Katha' referred to by Dhanapala is not available in MSS form. Its author is styled as Rudra.2
Works such as Satkarṇiharana and Namovantikatha written at the time of the Andhrabhṛtyas are also mere names to us, as also Manovati referred to by Dandi' and Bhoja and the Sätakiharana mentioned by the latter.
Bāna has referred to Bhattaraharicandra as the author of a prose Kavya of excellent merit. Prakrit poet Vākpatirāja has mentioned Bhaṭṭāra Haricandra along with Kälidäsa, Subandhu and Bāņa in his Gaudhavaho (9 the Cent. A.D.).
These works though defunct cannot preclude the possibility of the existence of innumerable works of this important branch of Sanskrit literature. Rather they vouchsafe the emergence and growth of ornate prose Kavya in a steady chain of antiquity. The forms as enunciated by Dandi and Bhanmaha certainly do not keep in view the works of Subandhu and Bana. but many more specimens existing in carlier stages of evolution marked out in respect of this literary norm.
According to Dr. D. K. Gupta.
"The older form of prose Kävya reflected in these early theorists seems to have been replaced by the newer one, evidently on the line of the model set by Bana in his two romances, the chief characteristics of which were generalised into definite rules to be universally followed. These specific rules, on their part, finally stereotyped the two forms of prose Kavya in Sanskrit literature."
The earlier specimens gone defunct, it becomes immensely difficult to determine the precise conception and original character of this form of literature, though it is definite that it hardly stands in need of beating any standard of comparison in point of origin and development from the
1. प्रसन्नगम्भीरपथा रथाङ्गमिथुनाश्रया ।
पुण्या पुनाति गङ्गेव गां तरङ्गवती कथा । TM Intro. V.23. p. 25 Botad ed.
2. समदान्धकविध्वंसी रुद्रः कैर्नाभिनन्द्यते।
सुश्लिष्टललिता यस्य कथा त्रैलोक्यसुन्दरी ॥ - Ibid. Intro. V.35
Rafa
-Ask. Intro. V. 21. P. 3.
3.
4. 16. HC. Intro. V. 12. p. 3 JNVSE
5. Gauḍavaho. V. 800 Rajasekhara also refers to him. Kāv. MTM p.
6. 18. A Study of Dandin. p. 311.