5. Speeches and Dialogues

Dialogue in a story, opines Kobald Knight, must be crisp, to the point, and not too longwinded, and it must always be in keeping ■ with the character. It must lend an illusion of being a faithful reproduction of human speech. The forms of sentences and paragraphs should be varied. Like description, it must mingle with the action of the story and never stay that action. At the same time, a story must not be all dialogue, obviously, or it becomes a kind of play rather than a story. But dialogue may be introduced frequent- 309. Tilakamanjari,407(14-15). 311. ibid.,p.409(16-17); 410(12-13). 312. Gui.Fict.Wr.,pp.102-105. / 310. ibid.,p.407(14); 40 (18 (8-16).

954 with action, since, when we hear the characters talking in addition to seeing them act and move, we are all the more readily persuaded to that illusion of reality which is so essential to our enjoyment of the yarn. Dhanapala has the habit of putting long-wounded dialogues amounting to monologues in the mouth of his characters. The prominent instances of such long ineia speeches in dialogue are the following ones : 313 King Meghavahana's words welcoming the Vidyadhara Muni the king's and the latter' long reply and his account of the lack of male-child and the Muni's advice and imparting of Aparajita 314 Vidya. The account of Meghavahana's lack of a son assumes the form of a monologue when the king, describing how difficult it was to convince the queen, reports the speeches of both himself and his queen alternately. The dialogue is more dramatic, natural and full of li- 315. ght satire when the king encounters the Vetala. The sentences are crisp and here the dialogue assumes a highly natural touch. Similar is the case about the dialogue between the Goddess Sri and King Meghavahana wherein, though the speech of 313. Tilakamanjari, pp.26(2-14); 26(14)- 27(13). 314. ibid., pp.27(17)-30(1); 30(3)-31(3); 31(13)-32(5). 315. ibid.,pp.49(2)-52(16). 316. ibid.,pp.(55(12)- 61(5).

955 the goddess is rather long-wounded and at times quite rhetorical, it is in harmony with the grand offers she makes to the king before granting the boon; and there is a charmingly natural light touch in it. 317 The exchanges between Vajrayudha and Samaraketu during the latter's night-attack is marked with forcefulness expressive of the haughty and proud dispositions of both the warriors, and they are fittingly interspersed with the description of the battle. 318 The long speech by Kamalagupta' calculated to humour Samaraketu, is, though long-wounded, quite interesting as it embodies the subtle tenor of psudo-philosophical discourse, feigned anger and underlying humour. 319. is The brief dialogue between Taraka and Priyadarsana in harmony with the shrewdly innocent character of Taraka and of the bashful boldness of Priyadarsana respectively. The picture of hullabaloo preceding the landing of naval forces' consists of a series of mutual, though unrelated instructions of the members of naval crew and stands out as a peculiar type of dialogue by itself. Taraka's speech in support of his wish to return to the 321 camp and Samaraketu's speech expressive of his dialemma are as good as monologues revealing their mental attitudes as regards the same situation. 317. Tilakamanjari,pp.90(5)-91(19). / 318. ibid.,pp.lll(10)-113(4). 319. ibid., pp.128(4)-129(2). / 320. ibid.,pp.139(5)-140(6) 321. ibid., pp.147(10)-150(11).

956 The speech by Vajrargala addressed to Harivahana 1322 is a report incorporating a short dialogue between herself and Gandharvaka. The long-drawn adjectives qualifying Meghavahana, though unnatural, are meant to impress upon the mind of Gandharvaka the majesty of the king. 323 By far the most successful dialogue is the one between Vicitravirya and Malayasundari where every sentence of the latter enhances the suspence while intended to be an answer to a query from the former. The sentences are short and sharp and there is a dramatic element in it. The monologue comprising Taraka's pretended invocation 324 to the boat is a master-piece of paronomasia and highly interesting in the situation, intended as it is for Malayasundari. Similarly, the sentences expressing the annoyance of Gandharvaka as his aeroplane is abruptly stopped and the 325 angry speech of Mahodara in reply are not dialogues but rather monologues, as they are too long to be termed exchanges. I In fact sharp and real dialogues are few and far between in Sanskrit prose-romances; like medieval European Romances they predominate in narrative and descriptive passages. Wherever the dialogues occur they are generally too long and breath-taking to give a semblance of day-to-day human talk. 322. Tilakamanjari, pp.162(17)-163(22)./323. ibid., pp.270(9)-274(8). 324. ibid., pp.283(5)-286(6).. /325. ibid., pp.381(16)-383(6).

957 Even then the dialogues, speeches and monologues in the Tilakamanjari of Dhanapala are never at variance or discord with the mental make up of the concerned characters, and reveal the inner workings of their mind.