Dhanañjaya

“ Very probably Dhanika was a poet of some repute and belonged to the literary circle at King Muñja’s court, [63] for we find his name mentioned with those of Other poets (Kālidāsa, Amara, Sundara, and Śaṅkha) in an anonymous stanza recorded by Cowell. [64]
Character and value. Although professedly an aid to the understanding of the text, the commentary leaves much to be desired and is not nearly so helpful as the average work of its kind. At times it explains what is so clear as to require no comment (this is, however, frequently the case in Hindu glosses) ”

“ This supposition is confirmed by the quotations in Dhanika’s commentary, which must be from an earlier Hanuman-nāṭaka than the known recensions, since it is hardly probable that all of the five stanzas, occurring at as many different places, are later interpolations. As has previously been pointed out, the four lines quoted at DR. 1. 129 from Kṣemendra’s Bṛhatkathāmañjarī (a work about half a century later than DR.) are doubtless to be regarded as an interpolation. ”

“ The poet Kṣemendra (fl. 1037–1066 A. D.) quotes three different stanzas by ‘Śrīmad-Utpalarāja,’ in as many of his works. [17] Two of these, found respectively in the Suvṛttatilaka and the Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa, are not otherwise known; the third, a well-known stanza beginning ahau vā hāre vā, recurs in one of the Centuries attributed to Bhartṛhari, where it is probably to be regarded as an interpolation. [18] Vallabhadeva included this same stanza and one other in his anthology, [19] and two further specimens of the royal author’s verses are found in the Śārṅgadharapaddhati (c. 1363 A. D.) . ”

“ He and his commentary will be specially referred to below, in the second part of this Introduction. Next may be mentioned the lexicographer and poet Dhanapāla, son of Sarvadeva, who lived at Dhārā, [23] the Mālava capital, under Vākpati and his predecessor Sīyaka. [24] He was the author of the Pāïyalacchī, a Prākrit vocabulary, completed in 972–973 A. D., [25] and, after his conversion to Jainism, of the Ṛṣabhapañcāśikā, fifty verses in Prākrit in honor of Ṛṣabha, the first prophet of the Jains. A work named Tilakamañjarī is also ascribed to him. ”

“ This statement, together with the fact that the work contains (at 2. 65) a quotation from Padmagupta’s Navasāhasāṅkacarita (a poem published after 995 A. D., in the reign of Sindhurāja) , enables us to assign Dhanika’s commentary approximately to the end of the tenth century. [54] It is consequently not at all impossible (though I do not regard it as probable) that our commentator is the same person as the Dhanika Paṇḍita to whose son Vasantācārya a tract of land was granted in 974 A. D. by King Vākpati (=Muñja) . ”

“ Transitional phrases (such as atha lakṣaṇam) , which occur in the Bhāratīyanāṭyaśāstra with almost unfailing regularity, are similarly but little employed, the two chief cases being at 1. 38 and 1. 67. Great advantage in versification is gained also by the alternation of such verbs and verbal forms as syāt, bhavet, iṣyate, smṛta, mata, and parikīrtita. Another device, which is especially helpful in the metrical adjustment of enumerations and lists of technical terms, is the arbitrary grouping of words into copulative compounds. ”

“ Its importance in the eyes of Indian students of the drama is further attested by the numerous citations of its rules and allusions to them in later rhetorical and dramaturgic treatises and in the native commentaries on Hindu plays. In the Pratāparudrīya, for example, we find ten quotations from the Daśarūpa, [39] the source being indicated in all but one of the cases; three other passages, also ascribed to the Daśarūpa, are not to be found in our text. ”

“ They are in most cases of no special importance. In addition to differences of wording, which constitute the largest part of these variations, we find also instances of transposition of the lines of stanzas [92] and of assignment of speeches to characters other than those indicated in the printed texts. [93] In some cases Dhanika does not repeat dramatic quotations in full, but gives merely the first and last words of the passage to which he refers; see, for example, the commentary on DR. 1. ”

“ Hall’s edition. The earliest edition of the Daśarūpa (so far as I am aware) , and the only one of any independent value, is that of Fitzedward Hall, [97] published at Calcutta in 1865 in the Bibliotheca Indica. The text, as well as the commentary of Dhanika, which accompanies it, was based on a collation of six manuscripts, five of them complete (see Hall, pp. 35–36) , and is in general very satisfactory. ”

“ For the shorter form, which I use throughout in referring to the work, we have, as Hall observed (p. 4, notes) , the warrant of Dhanaṃjaya himself in his concluding lines (4. 91) , as well as the ‘implied support of Dhanika,’ who gave his commentary the title Daśarūpavaloka. Cf. also the parallel forms Daśarūpa-ṭīkā and Daśarūpaka-ṭīkā noted as names of another commentary by Aufrecht, Cat. Cod. Oxon. p. 135 b. ↑ See Bühler (and Zachariae) , ‘Ueber das Navasāhasāṅkacharita des Padmagupta oder Parimala,’ in Sb. der phil.-hist. Classe der kais. Akad. der Wiss. ”

“ Ant. 19. 361; Hertel, WZKM. 17. 105–134. The text of this work has been published by Schmidt and Hertel in ZDMG., vols. 59 and 61, and also by Bhavadatta Śāstrī and Parab, Bombay, 1903 (Kāvyamālā series, no. 82) . ↑ On this work see Mironow, Die Dharmaparīkṣā des Amitagati. Leipzig. 1903 (dissertation) . ↑ Cf. DR. 1. 4 d: kiṃ cit praguṇaracanayā lakṣaṇaṃ saṃkṣipāmi. ↑ Cf. DR. 1. 4 c: pratipadam aparaṃ lakṣma kaḥ kartum īṣṭe. ↑ The chief points to be noted, with the sections of DR. concerned, are: variations in terminology: 1. 31, 79, 80, 96, 107, 120; 2. 80, 86; divergencies in definition: 1. ”

“ Bh. 18. 3 b; 18. 40; et passim. ↑ Cf. Bh. 18 112 b; 19. 83, 84; et passim. ↑ For examples of the occasional use of transitional phrases see DR. 1. 38 (atha lakṣaṇam) ; 1. 67 (lakṣaṇam ca praṇīyate) . ↑ Cf. DR. 1 61, 68, etc. ↑ Such explanations are frequently met with in the Upaniṣads; cf., for example, Bṛhad-Araṇyaka Up. 1. 2. 7; 1. 3. 22, 23; 1. 4. 1; Chāndogya Up. 1. 2. 10–12. ↑ See my notes on DR. 2. 45. ↑ Cf. DR. 2. 11, com. ↑ Hall (p. 4, notes) records that one of his manuscripts has, in one place, the variant form Daśarūpāloka. ”

“ DR. 4. 61 (Viddhaśālabhañjikā 1. 31) . ↑ DR. 1. 94 (Veṇī. 5, pp. 149–150) ; DR. 3. 10 (Veṇī. 1. 7, p. 10) . ↑ At DR. 2. 1 (this stanza recurs in Rājaśekhara’s Bālarāmāyaṇa, 4. 60) , 5 (repeated at 2. 19) , 18; 4. ”