काव्यमीमांसा (महाकवि राजशेखर - कवि-रहस्य एवं देश-विभाग सटीक)

ELEVENTH ADHYĀYA 211
आरं=अरिसंबन्धि । अरं=शीघ्रम् ।
The prose order of this line may be like this:—
राजन् आजौ आरं चक्रं अरं दहता तव खड्गेन हता अरिनारी चकन्द ॥
*[ll. 12-13. विशीर्यति and शीर्यति. Both the Mss have the
Parasmaipada while the correct form should be विशीर्यते and शीर्यते ।
The Mss of the Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka have the Ātmanepada.]
ll. 11-19. From the passages नन्विदममुपदेश्यमेव न भवति etc., it
appears that in the opinion of Avantisundarī, plagiarisms from
earlier authors of higher reputation were considered as much gre-
ater offence than ordinary thefts. But she permitted borrowings
from inferior authors by those who are superiar in reputation, etc.
*[l. 21. स पातु वो यस्य जटाकलापे quoted in सुभाषितावलि (No. 63.
कस्यापि).
l. 25. स पातु वो यस्य हतावशेषाः attributed to Candraka in सुभाषितावलि
(No. 30); also quoted in the commentary of ध्वन्यालोक ll. 6. ]
ll. 20-28. Ācāryas think that the borrowing of more than
three अश्लिष्ट words in sequence is to be considered as plagiarism.
An illustration of this is: स पातु वो यस्य borrowed in the second verse
where all the four words occur in the same order as in the first.
The two इव words, in the first verse, show the वाक्यार्थोपमा in
this verse. This figure is defined by Daṇḍin as एकानेकेवशब्दोत्था
वाक्यार्थोपमा द्विधा.
Kāvyādarśa. 2-43.
Cf. शरैरुत्सैरिवोदीच्यानुद्धरिष्यन् रसानिव ।
Raghu. 4-66.
Page. 58.
*[l. 3. इत्युक्तवानुक्तविशेषरम्यम् (किरात. III. 10).]
ll. 1-14. Rājaśekhara disagrees with the Ācāryas on this
point and thinks that any word used in a special expression in an
earlier poem, should not be borrowed by later poets; even a pāda
or one fourth of a metre consisting of one or two words which can
be readily recognized as the compositionof an earlier writer, should
be considered as an instance of plagiarism. इत्युक्तवानुक्तविशेषरम्यम् occu-
rring in these two verses, is an example of the second kind, while
शङ्करक्षीरसिन्धवे is an instance of the first kind. Here, the figure of