The Karpuramanjari
Summary
The Karpuramanjari discusses Raghunatha Nayaka (10th character in Raghusatibhyudayanitaka) and Govimda Diksila, a minister of Katatha, noting Raghunitha's repute and statue at Pattidvaram's Shiva temple. His life details are in Saisirys-rainarara, written by his son, with one work commented by Appayya Diksita. Section 8 of Prof. Konow’s critical essay in The Karpuramanjari debates Rijasekhara’s Prakrit knowledge, particularly his use of / in Saurasent for yasti, permitted in Maharastri Prakrit (Vararuci, Hemacandra) but criticized by Markandeya. Srinivasachari argues these forms were current in Rijasekhara’s time, as they align with Hemacandra’s rules (flourishing 1088–1172 CE), who likely incorporated contemporary usages. Markandeya’s later (17th-century) Orissa-based perspective, absent Hemacandra’s influence, may explain his differing judgments. Konow also questions Rijasekhara’s use of -mmi in a-themes and -aptro for ablative singular, citing Markandeya’s rules. However, Hemacandra’s broader regional applicability (Gujarat near Sauraseni) supports these forms as permissible. The text emphasizes that literary Prakrit’s stereotyped nature by Markandeya’s era doesn’t negate its vitality in Rijasekhara’s time, aligning with Hemacandra’s contemporary evidence. Lanman’s English translation errors are noted,
AI-assisted summary, not yet checked. Consult the original PDF before citing.
Conclusion
This analysis challenges Konow's critique of Raghunatha Nayaka's Prakrit usage in the Karpuramanjari, arguing that his judgments overrely on Markandeya's grammar while undervaluing contemporary regional linguistic practices. The text demonstrates that Raghunatha's forms align with Maharastri Prakrit conventions current during his 9th-century context, particularly Hemacandra's later but geographically closer guidelines. The study emphasizes the unreliability of manuscripts and the need to consider socio-linguistic contexts over rigid grammatical prescripts. By re-examining Prakrit evolution through spatial and temporal lenses, the analysis defends Raghunatha's linguistic choices as consistent with his era's linguistic realities, urging a more nuanced evaluation of medieval Indian language dynamics.