________________
Sanskrit drama, inscriptions (praśasti) and letters of spiritual instruction ( lekha ). These two stateraents together give an accurate description of the material presented in the volume.
The author believes that classical poetry did not begin with epic works of considerable length, as has been usually assumed, but with laghukayya, above all with muktaka, the one-stanza poem. It is from here that the classical poetry blossoms into the mahakavyas composed in the sargas, from wbere it proceeds to the mahäkävyas in prose, ultimatley to end in the mixed variety known as Campū. Accordingly the author presents bis description and analysis of the material in the following order : Chapter III Poetry of the Minor Form, Chapter IV Poetry of the Major Form, Chapter V Poetry of the Major Form - Prose, and Chapter VI Poetry of the Major Form - Campū. His first two chapters are intended to offer a proper background to the create ment of the subject.
To his prefatory note (p. v) Lienhard observes that the General Editor of the scheme had told him that the volume was meant to be for both laymao and scholar alike. On going through a major portion of the work one can confidently say that the author has done full justice to the General Editor's request.
While writing on the beginning of the Kavya tradition (p. 53 ), Lienhard lists four arguments which are meant to demonstrate that the Rāmā. yana “can hardly be said to represent poetry of the major form in the narrow sease". Of these, only the first argument - the Rāmāyana does not consist of sargas but of kāņdas - seems to be relevant. It is not clear how his second argument that many parts of the Ramayana have been interpolated can have relevance for the point to be proved. His third argument that we know early kavyas that antcdate Valmiki's work will only show that the Råmāyaṇa may got be called the adikāvya, but this certainly cannot be used to disprove its being a mahakavya. His last argument that the form in which classical poetry arose was not mahäkā vya but laghukāvya will only show that such laghukā vyas antedate mahākāvyas but will not, on that account, disqualify the Rāmāyana being called a mahākāyva.
The author has profusely illustrated his work with citations from the different works dealt with by him and these citations have been translated into English. While these translations are, on the whole, good, occasоinally one comes across certain lapses. The word sikhă ( Raghuv. VI. 67 ) is better. rendered as filame' tbao as 'rays' (p. 36); similarly himadhaman (Sisup. IV, 20) is not place of cold' (p. 36), but whose rays are cool'. On
Madhu Vidyā/668
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
