काव्यालङ्कार (आचार्य भामह - भारतीय काव्यशास्त्र एवं अलङ्कार-सिद्धान्त मूल महाग्रन्थ सटीक)

FIRST PARICCHEDA 21
who comes later is given in Verse 23. If a person
is not intended to last down to the end of a poem or
to be crowned with success, it will be useless to refer
to him at all at the outset; for, the readers' sympa-
thies first enlisted one way will meet with a rude
shock. Daṇḍin as a reformer in the field of literary
criticism attacks this theory of Bhāmaha which
imposes restraint on the freedom of an author to
place his hero anywhere he likes and endorses his
approbation of both the methods of the treatment of
a hero in the following extract:—
नायकं प्रागुपन्यस्य गुणतस्तेन विद्विषाम् ।
निराकरणमित्येष मार्गः प्रकृतिसुन्दरः ॥
वंशवीर्यश्रुतादीनि वर्णयित्वा रिपोरपि ।
तज्जयान्नायकोत्कर्षवर्णनं च धिनोति नः ॥
(Kāvyādarśa I—21 & 22).
The first method has been resorted to in the
first and foremost Kāvya viz., Rāmāyaṇa. Rāma's
qualities are described in the first two Kāṇḍas, the
mischief of the foes in the Āraṇya Kāṇḍa, and the
plot finally works its way to the crowning victory
of Rāma in the Yuddha Kāṇḍa. In Śiśupālavadha,
Māgha expatiates upon the exploits of Śiśupāla at
the outset and then gradually works up the theme
to the final victory of Kṛṣṇa. This represents the
second of the two methods referred to herein. In
Naishadha the first method is adopted. Nala's qua-
lities form the subject-matter of the earlier portion

22 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
of that Mahākāvya and through the intermediate
stages the final result is brought about viz., Nala’s
triumph over the gods at Damayantī’s svayaṁvara.
नाटकं द्विपदीशम्यारासकस्कन्धकादि यत् ।
उक्तं तदभिनेयार्थमुक्तोऽन्यैस्तस्य विस्तरः ॥ २४ ॥
24. Poetry that is fit to be staged comprises
Nāṭaka, Dvipadī, Śamyā, Rāsaka, Skandhaka and
the like. It is elaborately dealt with by others.
24. What is अभिनेयार्थ ? It is literature that can
be presented on the stage, a drama and the like.
This will fall under the purview of दृश्यकाव्य-literature
that can be seen on the stage as distinguished
from श्रव्यकाव्य—that which can only be heard or read.
Literature that can be presented on the stage is also
called रूपकं, of which नाटकं is the principal type. द्विपदी,
शम्या, रासक and स्कन्धक seem to be varieties of literature
presentable on the stage. They are now obscure.
उक्तोऽन्यैस्तस्य विस्तरः Bharata and other proficients in dra-
maturgy have elaborately dealt with it. The idea
is that the author does not propose to go into its de-
tails. Daśarūpaka of later origin is the most popu-
lar work of dramaturgy which holds the field.
For particulars about द्विपदी, शम्या, रासक and स्कन्धक,
see the following extracts from Bharatakośa edited:

FIRST PARICCHHEDA 23
by M. Ramakrishna Kavi, Venkateswara Research
Institute, Tirupati.
Page 290. द्विपदगं प्रबन्धः ।
त्रयो गणा गुरुश्चान्ते प्रथमेऽथ तृतीयेके ।
द्वितीये च तुरीये च द्वौ गणौ द्वौ गुरू तथा ॥
जगणो नात्र कर्तव्यो भागान्ते यमकं भवेत् ।
इति द्विपदगं नाम तस्योदाहृतिरुच्यते ॥
गातव्यः स्वरसंयुक्तः तालेन परिवर्जितः ।
प्रबन्धो द्विपदाभिख्यो गीतविद्याविशारदैः ॥ —सोमेश्वरः ।
द्विपदगस्य सारङ्गादिभेदाः सप्त वर्तन्ते ।
संगीतचूडामणौ स्पष्टं द्रष्टव्यम् ।
Page 290. द्विपदी—प्रबन्धः ।
शुद्धद्विपदिका पूर्वं पूर्णद्विपदिका ततः ।
मानवी चन्द्रिका चाथ धृतिस्तारस्ततः परम् ।
गेयमष्टप्रकारंयमस्या लक्ष्माथ कथ्यते ॥
अत्र भेदाः —शुद्धद्विपदी, पूर्णद्विपदी, मानवी, चन्द्रिका, स्मृतिः,
तारः, संचारिणी, मनोहारिणीति गम्यते ।
करणाख्येन तालेन गातव्यो गमकान्तरे ।
आभोगोऽनुपदैः कार्यो न्यासस्तालद्विमानतः ॥
द्विपदी च भवेदेवं ... ॥ —हरिपालः
Page 656. शम्या तालक्रिया ।
वामपाणितले पातो दक्षिणस्य करस्य यः ।
शम्येति सा निगदिता... —वेमः ।
Page 550. रासकः—प्रबन्धः ।
आदितालेन सहितो रहितो गमकैर्भवेत् ।
शेषो झोम्पटवद्रेयो रासकश्चेति लक्षितः ॥ —हरिपालः ।

24 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
Page 745. स्कन्धः ।
लोलितावुच्छितौ स्रस्तावैकोच्चौ कर्णलग्नकौ ।
नाम्नैव व्यक्तलक्षणौ स्कन्धौ पञ्चविधौ स्मृतौ ॥ —कुम्भः ।
Page 745.
उच्छ्रितस्वस्थ एकान्तः संलग्नो लोल एव च ।
स्कन्धः पञ्चविधः प्रोक्तो नृत्ते नाट्ये च कोविदैः ॥ —तोनेश्वरः ।
संस्कृतानाकुलश्रव्यशब्दार्थपदवृत्तिना ।
गद्येन युक्तोदात्तार्था सोच्छासाऽऽख्यायिका मता ॥ २५ ॥
वृत्तमाख्यायते तस्यां नायकेन स्वचेष्टितम् ।
वक्त्रं चापरवक्त्रं च काले भाव्यर्थशंसि च ॥ २६ ॥
कवेरभिप्रायकृतैः कथनैः कैश्चिदङ्किता ।
कन्याहरणसंग्रामविप्रलम्भोदयान्विता ॥ २७ ॥
न वक्त्रापरवक्त्राभ्यां युक्ता नोच्छ्वासवत्यपि ।
संस्कृताऽसंस्कृता चेष्टा कथाऽपभ्रंशभाक्तथा ॥ २८ ॥
अन्यैः स्वचरितं तस्यां नायकेन तु नोच्यते ।
स्वगुणाविष्कृतिं कुर्यादभिजातः कथं जनः ॥ २९ ॥
25. An Ākhyāyikā is a work of prose consist-
ing of words and ideas, flowing harmonious and
pleasant, couched in the Sanskrit language. It
should have a noble theme and be divided into chap-
ters known as Ucchvāsas.

FIRST PARICCHHEDA 25
26. In it the hero relates his own story. It
may contain occasionally verses in the Vaktra and
Aparavaktra metres forecasting future events.
27. It should be impressed with certain fa-
vourite expressions of ideas peculiar to the poet.
It should deal with abductions of maidens, battles,
separations of lovers and material progress.
28. A Kathā does not contain verses of the
Vaktra or Aparavaktra metre nor is it divided into
Ucchhvāsas. It might be couched in the Sanskrit
or Prākṛt language or in an Apabhraṁśa dialect.
29. In it the hero’s story is told by others, not
by the hero himself. How will a noble-born person
expatiate on his own virtues?
25 to 29. These verses deal with two species
of prose composition viz., आख्यायिका and कथा. This
twofold classification can be traced to Agni Purāṇa
which refers to आख्यायिका thus:—
कर्तृवंशप्रशंसा स्याद्यत्र गद्येन विस्तरात् ।
कन्याहरणसंग्रामविप्रलम्भविपत्तयः ॥
भवन्ति यत्र दीप्ताश्च रीतिवृत्तिप्रवृत्तयः ।
उच्छ्वासैश्च परिच्छेदो यत्र या चूर्णिकोत्तरा ॥
वक्त्रं चापरवक्त्रं वा यत्र साख्यायिका स्मृता ॥
And then Agni Purāṇa refers to कथा thus:—
श्लोकैः स्ववंशं संक्षेपात्कविर्यत्र प्रशंसति ।
मुख्यार्थस्यावताराय भवेद्यत्र कथान्तरम् ॥

26 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
परिच्छेदो न यत्र स्याद्भवेद्वा लम्भकैः क्वचित् ।
सा कथा ... ... ॥
From the foregoing quotations put together with
the verses of Bhāmaha under consideration it can
be gathered that according to the older school of
rhetoricians headed by Bhāmaha, there are six
points of distinction between आख्यायिका and कथा.
(1) In आख्यायिका the narration is made by the
hero himself—वृत्तमाख्यायते तस्यां नायकेन स्वचेष्टितम्; whereas
in कथा the narration is made by others—अन्यैः स्वचरितं
तस्यां नायकेन तु नोच्यते. आख्यायिका roughly corresponds to
autobiography in English literature.
(2) आख्यायिका is divided into chapters known as
Ucchvāsas—सोच्छ्वासाऽऽख्यायिका मता ; whereas in कथा
either there is no division at all or the division is
known as Lambaka—नोच्छ्वासवत्यपि and परिच्छेदो न यत्र
स्याद्भवेद्वा लम्भकैः क्वचित्.
(3) Verses of the Vaktra and Aparavaktra
metres forecasting future events are inserted in an
आख्यायिका—वक्त्रं चापरवक्त्रं च काले भाव्यर्थशंसि च ; whereas in
कथा, Vaktra and Aparavaktra metres should not
occur—न वक्त्रापरवक्त्राभ्यां युक्ता. But there is no objection
to Āryā and certain other metres. The definitions
of Vaktra and Aparavaktra are thus set out in
Vṛttaratnākara :—वक्त्रं नाद्यां नसौ स्यातामब्धेर्योऽनुष्टुभि ख्यातम् ।
अयुजि ननरला गुरुः समे तदपरवक्त्रमिदं नजौ जरौ ॥

FIRST PARICCHEDA 27
(4)' An Ākhyāyikā should be impressed with
certain favourite marks of the poet in ideas or
words. They are known as मुद्रा or अङ्क or कविसाहसाङ्क.
By way of illustration for मुद्रा may be cited the use
of the word लक्ष्मी in the concluding stanzas of all
sargas in Kirātārjunīya by Bhāravi, the word श्री
likewise in all the concluding stanzas of Śiśupāla-
vadha by Māgha and the phrase—नीलकण्ठमखिनिहितकारुण्य
in Nīlakaṇṭhavijaya by Nīlakaṇṭhadīkshita. This
distinguishing characteristic of Ākhyāyikā is thus
referred to by Bhāmaha:—कवेरभिप्रायकृतैः कथनैः कैश्चिदङ्किता.
(5) The next distinction relates to the topics in
Ākhyāyikā as contrasted with Kathā. कन्याहरणसंग्राम-
विप्रलम्भोदयान्विता. Ākhyāyikā deals with the kidnap-
ping of maidens, battles, separation of lovers, the
hero's material progress and so on.
(6) The next point of difference lies in the pre-
amble. An Ākhyāyikā should begin with a des-
cription of the author's heredity in prose and in ex-
tenso—कर्तृवंशप्रशंसा स्याद्यत्र गद्येन विस्तरात्; whereas Kathā
should begin with a description of the same in
verse and in brief, and further a preliminary story
should be introduced by way of preamble to the
principal narrative—
श्लोकैः स्ववंशं संक्षेपात्कविर्यत्र प्रशंसति ।
मुख्यार्थस्यावताराय भवेद्यत्र कथान्तरम् ॥

28 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
Daṇḍin's refutation of the said distinction is
set out in Kāvyādarśa thus :—
अपादः पदसंतानो गद्यमाख्यायिका कथा ।
इति तस्य प्रभेदौ द्वौ तयोराख्यायिका किल ॥
नायकेनैव वाच्याऽन्या नायकेनेतरेण वा ।
स्वगुणाविष्क्रियादोषो नात्र भूतार्थशंसिनः ॥
अपि त्वनियमो दृष्टस्तत्राप्यन्यैरुदीरणात् ।
अन्यो वक्ता स्वयं वेति कीदृग्वा भेदकारणम् ॥
वक्त्रं चापरवक्त्रं च सोच्छ्वासत्वं च भेदकम् ।
चिह्नमाख्यायिकायाश्चेत्प्रसङ्गेन कथास्वपि ॥
आर्यादिवत्प्रवेशः किं न वक्त्रापरवक्त्रयोः ।
भेदश्च दृष्टो लम्भादिरुच्छासो वास्तु किं ततः ॥
तत्कथाख्यायिकेत्येका जातिः संज्ञाद्वयाङ्किता ।
अत्रैवान्तर्भविष्यन्ति शेषाश्चाख्यानजातयः ॥
कन्याहरणसंग्रामविप्रलम्भोदयादयः ।
सर्गबन्धसमा एव न ते वैशेषिका गुणाः ॥
कविभावकृतं चिह्नमन्यत्रापि न दुष्यति ।
मुखमिष्टार्थसंसिद्धौ किं हि न स्यात्कृतात्मनाम् ॥ I—23 to 30.
Daṇḍin refers to all the said six points of dis-
tinction and attacks them on the ground that none
of them is a valid ground for distinction.
(1) Whether the story is related by the hero
himself or another, it makes little difference—अन्यो
वक्ता स्वयं वेति कीदृग्वा भेदकारणम् ।
(2) What does it matter if the narrative is
divided into Ucchvāsas or Lambakas or not divid-
ed at all ? भेदश्च दृष्टो लम्भादिरुच्छासो वास्तु किं ततः । Division is

a mere matter of convenience, and if divided into
chapters, Ucchvāsa and Lambaka are but different
nomenclatures.
(3) What is the rule that Vaktra and Apara-
vaktra metres alone should find a place in Ākhyā-
yikā, and Āryā and other metres in a Kathā? The
difference is extremely artificial. आर्यादिवत्प्रवेशः किं न
वक्त्रापरवक्त्रयोः.
(4) A poet is free to utilise his favourite ideas
and favourite expressions in any composition he
chooses Why should it be restricted to Ākhyā-
yikās? कविभावकृतं चिह्नमन्यत्रापि न दुष्यति.
(5) With regard to topics like कन्याहरण etc.,
Ākhyāyikā has obviously no monopoly. Are they
not found in Mahākāvyas which are classed under
poetry? If they be common to poetry and a species
of prose, why should the other species of prose
alone be deprived of those incidents? कन्याहरणसंग्राम-
विप्रलम्भोदयादयः । सर्गबन्धसमा एव न ते वैशेषिका गुणाः ॥
(6) How does a preamble alter the character
of a narrative? It is the genius of the author that
will decide the appropriate introduction to a story.
Men of genius will impart excellence into a work,
whichever way they begin. मुखमिष्टार्थसंसिद्धौ भवेत्किं न कृता-
त्मनाम्.
The distinction between Ākhyāyikā and Kathā
having thus been found to be baseless, there is no.

30 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
reason to divide prose into those two classes. Other
varieties of prose-composition seem to have been
recognised in the days of Daṇḍin and he says that
all of them can well be treated as representing one
species—अत्रैवान्तर्भविष्यन्ति शेषाश्चाख्यानजातयः.
However revolutionary might have been the
theory of Daṇḍin in his days, it should be admitted
that to the latter-day scholar and much more so to
the modern reader the whole controversy of Ākhyā-
yikā and Kathā is purely a matter of antiquarian
research. Viśvanātha in his Sāhityadarpaṇa makes
a feeble attempt to revive this distinction. But
we may take it that Daṇḍin's word is the last say
on the matter.
अनिबद्धं पुनर्गाथाश्लोकमात्रादि तत्पुनः ।
युक्तं वक्रस्वभावोक्त्या सर्वमेवैतदिष्यते ॥ ३० ॥
30. Sporadic poetry consists of songs, stray
verses and the like. It should contain a clever pre-
sentation and natural description. In fact this
feature applies to all the classes of poetry enume-
rated above.
30. अनिबद्धं Unconnected poetry—One or more
ślokas and the like. Bhāmaha takes care to point
out that a piece of poetry being sporadic does not
relieve it of the obligation to conform to the rules
of good poetry. युक्तं वक्रस्वभावोक्त्या Poetry, whether stray

FIRST PARICCHEDA 31
or connected must contain वक्रोक्ति and स्वभावोक्ति, A clever
presentation and a natural description. The refer-
ence here is not to the Alaṁkāras by that name.
But it may be pointed out that Alaṁkāras named
वक्रोक्ति and स्वभावोक्ति are also recognised by Bhāmaha.
Vide I—36 and II—93 and 94. युक्तं वक्रस्वभावोक्त्या has
to be repeated. The first one is to be taken along
with तत्पुनः in the first half where तत् refers to अनिबद्धं.
The second one is to be taken along with सर्वमेवैतदिष्यते
which refers to all the types of poetry enumerated
above. Thus the general characteristic of good
poetry is that it should contain वक्रोक्ति and स्वभावोक्ति
elucidated above.
वैदर्भमन्यदस्तीति मन्यन्ते सुधियोऽपरे ।
तदेव च किल ज्यायः सदर्थमपि नापरम् ॥ ३१ ॥
31. Other learned men hold,—There is a differ-
ent one, viz., the Vaidarbha or the poetry of Vidar-
bhas. Perhaps as they think, that alone is superior,
not any other poetry though possessed of good sense.
31. In this and the succeeding verses Bhāmaha
attacks the twofold classification of poetry into वैदर्भ
and गौडीय, which seems to have been in vogue in his
times. वैदर्भ is the type of poetry prevalent in the
Vidarbha Deśa, and Gauḍīya is that prevalent in
the Gauḍa Deśa. Vaidarbhas are described as दाक्षि-
णात्याs or the southern school to which Daṇḍin belongs
and to which evidently Bhāmaha did not belong.

32 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
Gauḍas represent the प्राच्यs, the eastern school. Bhā-
maha's attack is directed only against the twofold
classification of poetry. वैदर्भी and गौडी as the opposite-
types of रीति or style are recognised in later works
of rhetoric. रीति as a distinct entity in poetry seems
to be of later origin and perhaps it owes its origin
to Vāmana who says that रीति is the soul of poetry.
रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य. Vāmana supplements the two types
of वैदर्भी and गौडी by a third one named पाञ्चाली Viśva-
nātha adds one more, लाटी. Sarasvatī Kaṇṭhābharaṇa
gives two more—आवन्ती and मागधी. Of these the वैदर्भी
and गौडी styles represent two opposite extremes.
Simplicity and elegance are the essence of the वैदर्भी
style whereas verbal pomposity is of the गौडी style.
रीति is nowhere mentioned by Bhāmaha. If we bear
this in mind and note that his attack is directed
only against a division of poetry into Vaidarbha
and Gauḍa, all his discussion relating to the two
will become intelligible. मन्यन्ते सुधियोऽपरे betrays the
author's aversion to recognise Vaidarbha as a dis-
tinct type of poetry. तदेव च किल ज्यायः Vaidarbha
alone is superior. Is it not? This is said in ridi-
cule of the idea. सदर्थं अपि नापरम् Not anything else
though conveying good sense. Simply because it
does not bear the name of Vaidarbha.
गौडीयमिदमेतत्तु वैदर्भमिति किं पृथक् ।
गतानुगतिकन्यायान्नानाख्येयममेधसाम् ॥ ३२ ॥

FIRST PARICCHEDA 33
32. That this is the poetry of Gauḍas and this
the poetry of Vidarbhas—is there any such distinc-
tion? It need not be told that fools walk the trodden
path, blindly following the lead of the blind.
32. 'Gauḍīya and Vaidarbha' is a distinction
made by ignorant persons—अमेधसां. न अनाख्येयं There
is nothing to prevent them from making such a dis-
tinction; so they are free to say so. But why do
they at all say? गतानुगतिकन्यायात् Just as one follows
another blindly—अन्धेनेव नीयमाना यथान्धाः.
ननु चाश्मकवंशादि वैदर्भमिति कथ्यते ।
कामं तथास्तु प्रायेण संज्ञेच्छातो विधीयते ॥ ३३ ॥
33. (The objector says) Indeed Aśmakavaṁśa
and the like represent the Vaidarbha. (Answer) Be
it so. Generally a nomenclature is given at one's
own will.
33. The objector retorts. Why say the blind
following the blind? Are there not poems like अश्म-
कवंश which belongs to Vaidarbha type? Aśmaka
seems to be the name of a country whose king was
also called अश्मक, and अश्मकवंश deals with the history
of his dynasty just as Raghuvaṁśa deals with the
dynasty of Raghu. It should be confessed that a
work of that name is not available to us. The
answer is कामं तथास्तु Alright; let it be so. This is
3

34 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
said on the principle of तुष्यतु दुर्जनः. If you dub it with
the name of Vaidarbha we have no quarrel. Our
only contention is that we cannot recognise a poetry
as is referred to in the next verse and as such insipid.
अपुष्टार्थमवक्रोक्ति प्रसन्नमृजु कोमलम् ।
भिन्नं गेयमिवेदं तु केवलं श्रुतिपेशलम् ॥ ३४ ॥
34. If meagre in meaning and bereft of clever
expressions, though clear, straightforward and soft,
a ,composition is different from poetry, something
like music and merely appeals to the ear.
34. अपुष्टार्थं and अवक्रोक्ति refer to two defective fea-
tures of poetry. प्रसन्नं, ऋजु and कोमलं refer to its good
qualities. If a composition is possessed of these
three good features it will not amount to poetry if
it is tainted with the two defects mentioned first.
भिन्नं It is different from poetry. गेयमिव Simply like
music. केवलं श्रुतिपेशलं Appeals only to the ear. The dif-
ference between music and poetry is thus set out by
Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkshita—कर्णे गतं शुष्यति कर्ण एव संगीतकं सैकत-
वारिरीत्या । आनन्दयत्यन्तरनुप्रविश्य सूक्तिः कवेरेव सुधासगन्धा ॥
अलंकारवदग्राम्यमर्थ्यं न्याय्यमनाकुलम् ।
गौडीयमपि साधीयो वैदर्भमिति नान्यथा ॥ ३५ ॥
35. If endowed with Alaṁkāras, decent, preg-
nant with meaning, cogent and coherent, poetry,

FIRST PARICCHEDA 35
though it be of the Gauḍīya type, is preferable, not
the one which is called Vaidarbha but represents
the reverse of the said qualities.
35. A different type of poetry differing from
the one mentioned in the previous Verse No. 34 is
described in this verse. You may call it Gauḍīya as
you like; even then it is preferable. If you call it
Vaidarbha it is not going to alter its nature. Call
it what you may, it is good poetry. अलंकारवत् En-
dowed with figures of speech or simply literary em-
bellishments. अग्राम्यं Non-vulgar; decent. अर्थ्यं In
keeping with good sense. न्याय्यं Logical. अनाकुलं Un-
diffused.
न नितान्तादिमात्रेण जायते चारुता गिराम् ।
वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिष्टा वाचामलंकृतिः ॥ ३६ ॥
36. Merely by the use of soft words like Ni-
tānta and others, the beauty of speech does not arise.
A language composed of words embodying clever
ideas is preferable as an adornment of speech.
36. The mere use of soft words like नितान्त does
not contribute to the beauty of speech. नितान्त con-
tains nasals and unaspirated letters of the dental
class. But what is required to enhance the merit of
speech? वक्राभिधेयशब्दोक्तिः. It may be recalled that the
same feature has been referred to by the author in

36 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
—युक्तं वक्रस्वभावोक्त्या in Verse 30. We may conclude by
saying that Bhāmaha is justified in attacking Vai-
darbha and Gauḍīya as two different types of poetry.
But if they are to be treated as two different types
of style or diction as recognised in later days we do
not know what he would say. In fact Daṇḍin who
belongs to the Vaidarbha school elaborately esta-
blishes the distinction and it is whole-heartedly fol-
lowed by all later rhetoricians. This verse is cited
in Lochana, page 208.
षट् काव्यदोषाः ।
नेयार्थं क्लिष्टमन्यार्थमवाचकमयुक्तिमत् ।
गूढशब्दाभिधानं च कवयो न प्रयुञ्जते ॥ ३७ ॥
37. Poets avoid the use of language vitiated
by the faults—Neyārtha, Klishṭa, Anyārtha, Avā-
chaka, Ayuktimat and Gūḍhaśabdābhidhāna.
37. Bhāmaha gives a list of six Doshas or
literary defects in this verse, and in Verse 47 later
on gives another list of 4 Doshas. Apart from these
he devotes the entire 4th chapter of this work to the
treatment of other faults, 15 in number. Later
rhetoricians add many more Doshas. Kāvyaprakāśa,
the standard work in poetics in the 7th Ullāsa which
is exclusively devoted to Doshas gives 4 kinds of
literary faults—पददोष, वाक्यदोष, अर्थदोष and रसदोष and

FIRST PARICCHEDA 37
under each head gives a number of Doshas. Daṇḍin
enumerates 10 Doshas in Kāvyādarśa, 3rd Paricchhe-
da, Verses 125 & 126 and further on down to the end
of the work. The definitions of the several Doshas
given by Bhāmaha differ from those given by other
Ālaṁkārikas. Naturally the illustrations will also
differ. It is no use trying to understand Bhāmaha
in the light of the definitions of Doshas given by
later rhetoricians. From the next verse onwards
the author proceeds to deal with the said six Do-
shas separately in order with illustrations.
नेयार्थ दोषः (1)
नेयार्थं नीयते युक्तो यस्यार्थः कृतिभिर्बलात् ।
शब्दन्यायानुपारूढः कथंचित्स्वाभिसन्धिना ॥ ३८ ॥
38. Neyārtha occurs where the proper mean-
ing has to be squeezed out by clever persons accord-
ing to their own will with difficulty without any
basis on the rules of speech.
38. In a passage tainted with Neyārtha a
proper meaning does not appear on the face of the
expression. But it is somehow squeezed out by
importing an extraneous expression. It is शब्दन्यायानु-
पारूढः Not based on the rules relating to expressions.
स्वाभिसन्धिना According to one's own will; according to
the will of interpreters which may be supposed to

38 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
tally with that of the poet. युक्तः अर्थः नीयते A proper
meaning is forcibly dragged out. In the place of
युक्तः Mr. D. T. Tatacharya suggests that अयुक्तः will be
a better reading. In the next verse an example of
Neyārtha is given.
मायेव भद्रेति यथा सा चासाध्वी प्रकल्पना ।
वेणुदाकेरिति च तां नयन्ति वचनाद्विना ॥ ३९ ॥
39. Example :—‘Auspicious like jugglery.’
This is a wrong conception. By importing ‘Veṇu-
dāki’s’ they spell out a different sense without the
warrant of expression.
39. The meaning of this verse is shrouded in
mystery. We give in extenso the views of two com-
mentators. Mr. Naganatha Sastri says—
“Tr. For example (take the statement) ‘De-
ceit is auspicious.” This is an improper supposi-
tion. But (people) lead these words to some sense
by introducing the meaning Venudareh without
using the word.
“Note :—If we take वेणुदाकेः as वेणुदारेः then we can
guess a meaning. A Venudari is mentioned as the
son of Banasura. Being an Asura he must excel in
Maya (deceit). Deceit is never auspicious (=भद्रा).
So the statement ‘मायेव भद्रा’ = ‘auspicious as deceit’ is
an improper supposition. If however you introduce

the sense of वेणुदारेः (of Venudari) and understand the
Maya as belonging to Venudari, then there is some
sense. Because probably his deceit was useful for
some good purpose. No such story however is
available.”
Mr. D. T. Tatacharya says—मायेव भद्रेति यथा यादृशं
तादृशं नेयार्थमिति योजना। एवं सर्वत्र। सैषा वाक्यरचनाऽसाध्वी। न हि का
भद्रा कस्य सा मायेवेति किञ्चिदत्र प्रतीयते। तथा सति शब्दत उपादानमन्तरेणैव
वेणुदाकेर्भद्रा मायेवेति तां प्रकल्पनामुपपादयन्ति। वेणुदाकिः कस्यचित् प्रबन्धस्य
नायकः। भद्रा नायिका। सा तस्य मायेवाभूत्। तथाऽमूमुहदिति। तत्र कथा-
नायकस्योपादानं विना भद्रा मायेवेत्येतावन्मात्राभिधाने नार्थो बुध्यते। तत्र वेणु-
दाकेरित्‍ययमर्थ उन्नेतव्य इति नेयार्थमिदम्। तद्यथा खुरक्षुण्णनागासृग्लोहितादिति
वक्तव्ये लोहितादित्येतावन्मात्राभिधाने नेयार्थमिति दण्डिनोक्तं तादृगिदं द्रष्टव्यम्।
सोऽयमस्मदुपज्ञमर्थः।
We are inclined to observe that the first
commentary presumes that वेणुदाकेः is a scribe's mis-
take for वेणुदारेः. Perhaps so, for in Telugu manu-
script there is not much difference between रे and
के. According to the second commentary भद्रा वेणुदाकेः
मायेव would mean ‘Bhadrā was like an enchantress to
Veṇudāki.’ Then where is the need for importing
the words ‘to Veṇudāki?’ Without that addition the
sense is complete. Bhadrā was like an enchantress
in general. How will Neyārtha arise?
We may add one more suggestion. वेणुं दाकयतीति
वेणुदाकिः कृष्णः. दक is an onomotapoetic verb suggest-
ing the sound of a flute. Kṛṣṇa's deceitful tactics

40 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
contributed to the weal of the people. Or generally
Vishṇu's elusive role contributes to the people's
good.
क्लिष्टं अन्यार्थं च दोषौ (2 & 3)
क्लिष्टं व्यवहितं विद्यादन्यार्थं विगमे यथा ।
विजहुस्तस्य ताः शोकं क्रीडायां विकृतं च तत् ॥ ४० ॥
40. Klishṭa (strained) is what is intercepted
or remote. Anyārtha occurs where the intended
meaning appears by the omission of a part of an
expression. Example—Those ladies dispelled (sport-
ed) his grief by sports, and this was done by the
preposition Vi.
40. क्लिष्टं is defined as व्यवहितं Remote or obstruct-
ed. The author gives no example. Vāmana gives
an example of क्लिष्ट thus :—दक्षात्मजादयितवल्लभवेदिकानाम् mean-
ing चन्द्रकान्तवेदिकानाम्. But this will come under अवाचक
according to Bhāmaha. This verse also gives the
definition and illustration of the next Dosha—An-
yārtha. This Dosha arises where in order to make
sense some portion of the speech has to be dropped.
विगमः Dropping (of a part of an expression) e.g., ताः
तस्य शोकं क्रीडायां विजहुः. विजहुः would mean sported, which
does not fit in with the context. If you drop the
preposition वि, जहुः yields an agreeable meaning.