The Parijataharanam and The Kavyalaksanam (Kavyadarsa)
Summary
The article discusses two 1957 publications edited by Prof. Anantalal Thakur and published by the Mithila Institute of Post-Graduate Studies and Research in Sanskrit Learning, Darbhanga: The Parijataharanam of Kavikarnapiira and The Kavyalaksanam (Kavyadarsa) of Dandin with Ratnasri of Ratnasrijiana of Ceylon, edited with an introduction and appendices by Prof. Anantalal Thakur and Prof. Upendra Jha. The first work is a readable and interesting mahakavya hitherto unpublished, providing important evidence of kavya composition in the late medieval period. It is described as chaste, lucid, and of the traditional pattern, but unaffected by the trammels of pedantry and ultralogical expression. The introduction supplies good information about the work, its author, and the story. The editor remarks that the work hardly presents anything connecting the author with the Vaisnavas of Bengal, though the solitary use of the expression Siva Siva proves nothing, as it is not a monopoly of Kavikarnapiira, and the counterpart Hari is frequently met with in the works of Rupa and Jiva. The author has drawbacks, including verbosity, copying of ideas and plans, a fondness for certain mannerisms and archaisms, and weak forms. The second work is a welcome addition to the commentarial literature on the Alankarastra, dealing with one of its well-known classics. Being an early work, it has freshness and authoritative value. The editors took great pains to present the text from a single, corrupt manuscript. The commentator characterizes his work as arthapradina and arthanvaya, though this is both a qualification and a disqualification. The student of Alankarastra would have reaped greater benefit if furnished with satisfactory proofs of the commentary being earlier than Vadijanghala, which refers to Alankarasastra. The major variants in the text of this popular manual should have been distinctly noted in a separate appendix. A fastidious critic would have insisted on extra-editorial notes by way of discussion, and printing mistakes in both volumes should have been carefully avoided. The two publications speak well of the editors, who accomplished their tasks with honesty, patience, and scrupulous care.
AI-generated summary, automatically checked against the article text.
Conclusion
The review of Prof. Anantalal Thakur and Prof. Upendra Jha’s 1957 publications highlights significant contributions to Sanskrit literary studies. *The Parijataharanam* is identified as a highly readable and interesting *mahakavya* from the late medieval period, offering crucial evidence of contemporary *kavya* composition. Despite minor stylistic flaws like verbosity, the work maintains a traditional pattern and lucid structure, largely free from pedantry. The *Kavyalaksanam (Kavyadarsa)* provides a valuable, early addition to the commentary literature on the *Alankarashastra*, possessing an authoritative freshness characteristic of early works. While the editors are commended for their honest and meticulous efforts in presenting these texts, the review notes certain shortcomings, including inadequate textual footnotes, a lack of variant readings in the appendix, and printing errors. Overall, the publications are recognized as important scholarly achievements that enrich the study of medieval Sanskrit poetics.