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

Introduction to the Third Edition.
A. Rājaśekhara—the Author.
I. His Time.
Many details are given by the author himself regarding the
place and period in which he flourished, and in fact, in this respect,
he is more prolific than any other Sanskrit dramatist of ancient
times. Rājaśekhara wrote not less than four dramas and from
these we can gather that he was a teacher of the king Nirbhaya-
Mahendrapāla, and was patronized by his son Mahīpāla who ruled
over the country of Madhyadeśa with its capital at Kanauj. From
the Asni inscription dated Vikrama Saṁ. 974=A. D, 917–918 and
the Siyodoni inscription (E. I. Vol. I. p. 171) we can ascertain that
the two kings Mahendrapāla and his son Mahīpāla of Kanauj
belonged to what is known as the Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty.
From historical and archaeological evidences, it has been possible to
assign the period 890–908 A. D. to Mahendrapāla, and 910–940
A. D. to his son Mahīpāla with certainty. It is thus probable
that Rājaśekhara belonged to the courts of these two kings, but
the major part of his life was spent in the court of Mahendrapāla
who is said to be his disciple in all his plays. Mahīpāla (A. D.
910–940) seems to have maintained Rājaśekhara only in the
earlier part of his reign, since the Bālabhārata the only drama
to be performed in his presence remains incomplete, and appears
to be the last composition of the author. It is thus not unrea-
sonable to assign a period of 880–920 A. D. to Rājaśekhara, the
present author.
His connections with Āryakṣemīśvara, the author of the
drama Caṇḍakauśika, may be found interesting in this connection.
It was supposed that Kṣemīśvara belonged to the court of King
Mahīpāla (A. D. 974–1026) of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal.¹
But from the evidences recorded below, it will be found that he
belonged to the court of king Mahīpāla of the Gurjara Pratīhāra
1 Kṣemīś'vara speaks of one Mahīpāla as his patron king in the prelude
to the Caṇḍakauśika. This king did not belong to the Pāla dynasty as is
sometimes supposed. See R. D. Banerji: Pālas of Bengal, p. 73 and Pāla

INTRODUCTION. XIII
dynasty and was a junior contemporary of Rājaśekhara; and
very probably joined the court of king Mahīpāla after the death
of Rājaśekhara.
There are good reasons to identify the Mahīpāla of Kṣemīśvara
with the king Mahīpāla of the Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty. Kṣe-
mīśvara mentions that Mahīpāla defeated Karṇāṭas, and thus
followed Candragupta Maurya of old in his foot-steps, who up-
rooted the Nandas with the lead of Cāṇakya.¹ This, in all pro-
bability, alludes to the incidents to which a reference has been
made in the Cambay Plates of Govinda IV and the Khajuraho
inscription (E. I. Vol. VII, pp. 26-47). From these we learn
that the Rāṣṭrakuṭa king Indra III (c. 915-917) defeated king
Mahīpāla of Kanauj in battle, and that the latter had great diffi-
culties in regaining his throne; he could succeed only through the
kind offices of one Chandēlla king Harṣadeva. Ārya Kṣemīśvara
apparently alludes to this victory of his patron king over the
Rāṣṭrakuṭas with the help of the Chandēlla king, and rightly
compares this with the victory obtained over the Nandas by
Candragupta through the assistance of Cāṇakya.² But it may,
however, be noticed that this incident is not alluded to by Rāja-
śekhara, and this fact makes it probable that the fight with the
Rāṣṭrakuṭas took place much later in Mahīpāla’s reign. On the
other hand, Kṣemīśvara who mentions this incident in his drama,
in all probability belonged to the court of Mahīpāla when Rāja-
śekhara was either dead or no longer there.
There are further literary evidences in support of the period
880-920 A. D. assigned to Rājaśekhara. Ānandavardhana who
flourished in a period between 857-884 A. D. is quoted by Rāja-
śekhara,³ while Rājaśekhara is quoted by Somadeva,⁴ Soḍḍhala⁵
and Abhinavagupta⁶ who flourished in the later half of the
10th century.

1 यः संश्रित्य प्रकृतिगहनामार्थचाणक्यनीतिं जित्वा नन्दान् कुसुमनगरं चन्द्रगुप्तो जिगाय ।
कर्णाटत्वं ध्रुवमुपगतानद्य तानेव हन्तुं दोर्दर्पाढ्यः स पुनरभवच्छ्रीमहीपालदेवः ॥
Caṇḍakaus’ika, I
2 See J. O. R. Madras, VI. pp. 191-198.
3 See Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 16.
4 See Yas’astilakacampū, IV. 11. p. 113.
5 See Udayasundarī Kathā, VIII.
6 See Abhinavabhāratī, p. 42. G.O.S. ed.

XIV INTRODUCTION.
II. His Works.
Rājaśekhara himself informs us in his prelude to the Bāla-
rāmāyaṇa that he composed six works. While replying to his
critics who alleged that his drama was abnormally lengthy, he
incidentally requests his readers to peruse the six works already
composed by him in case there was any virtue in them.¹ From
this statement it would appear that Rājaśekhara composed six
works already before his Bālarāmāyaṇa was taken up in hand.
Prof. Sten Konow² believes that the Karpūramañjarī was his
first composition on the ground that it was staged at the request
of his wife Avantisundarī, which is rather unusual since all others
were performed at the request of his patron kings. This is further
strengthened by the fact that it was composed at a time when he
had attained the position of a Kavirāja or a prince among poets.³
The Viddhaśālabhañjikā and the Bālarāmāyaṇa must have
been composed afterwards when the author gained greater re-
putation and maturity. The Bālabhārata probably was his last
work, since it is found to be incomplete in two acts instead of the
usual five or more, and since the Bharatavākya showing the com-
pletion of the drama is absent.
To these four works, we have to add two more, namely,
the present work Kāvyamīmāṁsā and the Haravilāsakāvya, the
existence of which is borne out through quotations made in
later works.⁴
According to his own admission, the Kāvyamīmāṁsā was
projected by Rājaśekhara in 18 lengthy Adhikaraṇas each con-
taining several Adhyāyas; but unfortunately, the whole of this
work is not found except the first, the Kavirahasya. It will be

1 ब्रूते यः कोऽपि दोषं महदिति सुमतिर्बालरामायणेऽस्मिन्
प्रष्टव्योऽसौ पटीयानिह भणितिगुणो विद्यते वा नवेति ।
यद्यस्ति स्वस्ति तुभ्यं भव पठनरुचिर्विद्धि नः षट् प्रबन्धान्
नैवं चेद्दीर्घमास्तां नटवटुवदने जर्जरा काव्यकन्था ॥
Bālarāmāyaṇa 1. 12.
2 Karpūramañjarī, Harvard Oriental Series edi, p. 184.
3 Ibid. 1–9.
4 Hemacandra's Kāvyānuśāsana pp. 334–335; Ujjvaladatta II. 28.

INTRODUCTION. XV
rather difficult to declare that Rājaśekhara left both the works
Bālabhārata and Kāvyamīmāṁsā unfinished. We would rather
have to assume that at least the Kāvyamīmāṁsā was completed
by him, since he refers frequently to the subject matter of sub-
sequent chapters in the earlier portion of the Kavirahasya.¹ In
that case, the probability that the Bālabhārata was his last work,
will be great.
If that be so, we are inclined to believe that the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā was composed at a time when his three dramas were
already in existence, and this is corroborated by the fact that the
Kāvyamīmāṁsā contains numerous quotations from only two
of his Sanskrit dramas, namely the Bālarāmāyaṇa and the
Viddhaśālabhañjikā.²
The case of the Haravilāsa, however, is somewhat different,
and we can understand from stray quotations in later works that
it was a Mahākāvya, and probably, was composed before any
of his dramas were written. In this connection it is interesting to
note that if an author wants to attain the position of a Kavirāja,
he has first to pass through the stage of a Mahākavi, or in other
words, he has first to write a Mahākāvya³ before he is able to
handle more sublime themes and thereby attain the position
of a Kavirāja (see the names of 10 stages of a poet, infra,
text, p. 19).
From the above, it will be patent that only four works were
in existence at the time when his Bālarāmāyaṇa was composed,
and not six, as mentioned by the author. But since Rājaśekhara
mentions six, we are led to assume that at the time of writing, he
may have taken into account two of his projected works, namely,
the Kāvyamīmāṁsā and the Bālabhārata.
Now, the question arises as to whether Rājaśekhara wrote
any other work besides the six already known. The later antho-
logies do not mention or quote from any other work of Rājaśekhara

1. See Kāvyamīmāṁsā: p. 3. l. 10. अलङ्कारव्याख्यानन्तु पुरस्तात्। p. 10. l. 5.
   रीतयस्तिस्रस्तास्तु पुरस्तात्। p. 11. l. 10. तमौपनिषदिके वक्ष्यामः। etc.
2. The Nāndī verse of the Bālabhārata (ये सीमन्तित) may have been taken
   from the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 71.
3. योऽन्यतरप्रबन्धे प्रवीणः स महाकविः। यस्तु तत्र तत्र भाषाविशेषे तेषु तेषु प्रबन्धेषु तस्मिंस्तस्मिंश्च
   रसे स्वतन्त्रः स कविराजः। Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 19.

XVI INTRODUCTION.
besides the six already referred to.¹ In this connection attention
of scholars may be drawn to a statement made by Rājaśekhara at
the end of the 17th chapter of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, to the effect
that if more information is needed on the subject of world geo-
graphy, a reference should be made to his Bhuvanakośa.² This
has led some to conclude that Rājaśekhara wrote a separate work
called the Bhuvanakośa besides the six already known.
But this does not seem to be correct. The Bhuvanakośa
here mentioned is the title of the 19th or the last chapter of
the 1st Adhikaraṇa, and this chapter along with the other 17
Adhikaraṇas is entirely lost. If a reference is made to the list of
subjects given in the first chapter of the Kavirahasya,³ it will
be readily observed that Bhuvanakośa is the title of the last
chapter of the first Adhikaraṇa which the author names as
Kavirahasya.
It may, however, be suggested that the portion of the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā beginning from the 19th chapter of the 1st Adhikaraṇa
to the end was never written, and that he did not live to complete
his encyclopaedic work. If this position is accepted we may hope
to find one day the missing acts of the Bālabhārata from some
of the still undiscovered MSS. Libraries, for it is hardly possible
that our author would leave two of his works unfinished. It
may be possible in modern days, but it was not so at least in
ancient days.
B. The Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
I. Significance of the subject matter.
The 7th and the 8th centuries of the Christian era in India was
a period of feverish literary activity. In this period stalwarts of
literature were busy in writing comprehensive works in order to
reduce the different branches of study into a system. This period
saw the birth of Uddyotakara, Kumārila and Śaṅkarācārya, the
writers, famous for their philosophical and polemical works in
Hinduism. While, on the other hand, in the field of Buddhism we

1. Many verses quoted in the anthologies may be traced out in his extant
   dramas and others probably belong to his lost work Haravilāsa.
2. इत्थं देशविभागो मुद्रामात्रेण सूत्रितः सुधियाम्। यस्तु जिगीषत्यधिकं पश्यतु मद्भूवनकोशमसौ ॥
3. देशकालविभागः, भुवनकोशः इति कविरहस्यं प्रथममधिकरणमित्यादि.

notice the towering figures of Dharmakīrti, Śāntarakṣita and
Kamalaśīla. This period was immediately preceding the period
in which Rājaśekhara was born and flourished, and it is very
unlikely that he would not be influenced by the endeavours of his
predecessors in writing a comprehensive work and reduce the
Alaṅkāra literature to a system. The time was also not unripe
for such an attempt. Round the classical work of Bharata, already
had grown a considerable literature which was enriched with the
contributions of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Rudraṭa and Ānandavardhana.
Such a rich material on the one hand pressing for a com-
prehensive review, and the comprehensive works of the philo-
sophical systems on the other, must have created an enthusiasm
in the mind of Rājaśekhara and actuated him to make an attempt
to reduce the Alaṅkāra literature to a system by writing an
encyclopædic work like the present one-the Kāvyamīmāṁsā-
which was to treat the different methods of poetics and the schools
of literary criticism, with a view to put everything on a tho-
roughly scientific basis. In doing so, he not only followed in the
footsteps of Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana, in arranging the subject-
matter, but also the great authors of Dharmamīmāṁsā and Brah-
mamīmāṁsā; and this is evident from the very title of his work,
the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. He also ascribes to his Kāvyamīmāṁsā, a
divine origin following in the wake of other great systems, and
gives for the first time a legendary list of succession of Gurus and
disciples, and of the progenitors of the different branches of the
science of poetics.
The division of his subject-matter in eighteen branches like
the eighteen points of law is not only novel but also interesting
and systematic. In this, however, Rājaśekhara was forestalled
to a certain extent by Rudraṭa,¹ but nevertheless his classification
is much fuller and much more exhaustive. Rudraṭa, for instance,
had no knowledge of such branches as Vainodika, Aupaniṣadika,
etc. which were Rājaśekhara's own. The Aupaniṣadika chapter
occurs also in the Arthaśāstra and the Kāmasūtra, and this may
have induced the present author to include a chapter on Aupa-
niṣadika in his Alaṅkāra work, giving directions to dullards as to
how through Mantras and such other mystic means one may
attain poetical eminence, when natural gifts are entirely wanting.

1. See. Infra Notes. pp. 123-124.
   3

XVIII INTRODUCTION.
Nevertheless marked similarity also is noticeable in the
method of treatment here with that of Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana.
For instance, the full list of subjects, treated of in the Arthaśāstra
and the Kāmasūtra, appears at the end of the first chapter and
here, likewise it is given at the end of the first chapter Śāstra-
saṅgraha. It is a matter of regret, however, that all MSS. of
the text do not contain the full list of subjects treated in all the
eighteen Adhikaraṇas; instead, we find the list complete only for
the first Adhikaraṇa or Kavirahasya with the significant remark
इत्यादि at the end.
Since the whole work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas is not found, it
is very difficult to understand the working of the author's mind in
the commencement of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā; but from the imperfect
materials thus at our command, it can be asserted, somewhat hesi-
tatingly, that the first three Adhyāyās or chapters of the first
Adhikaraṇa are intended by the author to serve as a general
introduction to the whole work of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā in eighteen
Adhikaraṇas. The first Adhikaraṇa or the Kavirahasya under
the circumstances begins from the fourth Adhyāya.
In the first of the three Adhyāyas, the author treats of the
origin of the science of poetics, and gives a comprehensive list of
subjects included therein. In the second Adhyāya, he makes an
attempt to determine the exact position of the science of poetics in
relation to the Vedas and post-Vedic literature, and declares that the
science dealt with by him should be regarded as the seventh
Vedāṅga and the fifteenth Vidyāsthāna. It is well known that the
Vedāṅgas in Sanskrit literature are six in number, and the number
of sciences has been fixed at fourteen, and in none of these lists
the science of poetics is included. In support of his contention,
Rājaśekhara goes on to say that the science of poetics has the
function of correctly interpreting the Vedic texts, and thus serves
the purpose of an auxilliary to the Vedas in the same way as the
other Vedāṅgas. He further asserts that the function of the
fourteen Vidyāsthānas, is to impart the knowledge of the Dharma
and Artha, and since from the science of poetics or Kāvyavidyā
the same result is obtained, it should also be regarded as one of
the Vidyāsthānas, and should not be distinguished from the
other fourteen sciences.

INTRODUCTION. XIX
Rājaśekhara goes a step further and declares that the science
of poetics leads the way to emancipation or Mokṣa, and as such
its status is not different from the six systems of philosophy. In
the third or the last Adhyāya of the introduction, Rājaśekhara
shows how emancipation can be obtained by poets and how they
can experience immense bliss and freedom from worldly troubles,
through the correct understanding of the Sāhityavidyā and
Kāvyapuruṣa, which are primarily designed for the emancipation
of man. The systems of philosophy advocate the real knowledge
of Dharma or Brahman as means of obtaining salvation; even
so, the correct knowledge of Kāvyapuruṣa, the son of Brahman
and Sarasvatī, leads to the realisation of Brahman and the
consequential emancipation from the chain of existence.
To return to the subject matter, the third chapter treats of
the origin of the Kāvyapuruṣa, his connection with Kavi, Vālmīki
and Vyāsa, his marriage with Sāhityavidyā, his wanderings with
her throughout India, the creation of Vṛttis, Pravṛttis and Rītis at
different places and the resolve of the couple to reside permanently
in the minds of poets. While concluding the chapter, the author
declares that those poets who become immortal by virtue of their
compositions enjoy eternal bliss in heaven in a divine form; and
those who can realise the Kāvyapuruṣa, obtain emancipation both
here and hereafter.¹
As has been said already, the subject-matter of the first
Adhikaraṇa or the Kavirahasya commences from the fourth chapter
and may be sub-divided under three broad heads: (1) the equip-
ments necessary for a poet, (2) the rules to be observed by him,
(3) and the methods harmful to him. The first subject is treated
of in six chapters (4–9) where such topics as Padavākyaviveka,
Pāṭhapratiṣṭhā, Kāvyārthayoni, and Arthavyāpti are dealt with.
The second subject as stated above is covered by the tenth
chapter which is one of the most interesting chapters of the
Kavirahasya. This chapter commences with the remark² that

1. Cf. तयोश्च कविलोकस्वर्गसर्गं तमकल्पयेताम् । यत्र काव्यमयेन शरीरेण मर्त्यमपिवसन्तो दिव्येन
   देहेन कवय आकल्पं मोदन्ते ।
   इत्येष काव्यपुरुषः पुरा सृष्टः स्वयंभुवा । एवं विभज्य जानानः प्रेत्य चेह च नन्दति ॥ p. 10.
2. Cf. इत्थंकारं घनैर्यत्नैर्व्युत्पन्नमनसः कवेः । दुर्गमेऽपि भवेन्मार्गे कुण्ठिता न सरस्वती ॥
   गृहीतविद्योपविधः काव्यक्रियायै प्रयतेत । p. 49.

XX INTRODUCTION.
when a poet is armed with all the equipments necessary as pointed
out previously, he may commence to write and while doing so,
observe certain rules of discipline. Thereafter, in the same chapter
the routine to be followed by a poet for all the twenty four hours
is given along with certain secret hints, which may be found very
instructive. Among others, this chapter lays down that (i) a poet
should not read his composition to others so long as it is in an
incomplete stage; (ii) he should not be vain on account of his
good composition; (iii) he should obtain the opinion of his
superiors on his own composition before publication; (iv) he
should not create an enmity with impostrous poets ( v ) and he
should prepare several transcripts of his composition as soon as
final touches had been given.
At the end, the author lays down special rules to be observed
by a king when he himself happens to be either a poet or a patron
of the men of letters.
The third subject is dealt with in eight chapters (11-18) where
the author enumerates various methods considered to be definitely
injurious to the reputation of a poet, and gives copious instances
to illustrate his view-point. This part deals with plagiarism,
conventions of ancient poets, Indian geography and the geography
of the world, ancient methods of description of incidents, places
and men, computation of time, and seasonal changes. While con-
cluding, the author reminds his readers that the methods adopted
by ancient writers are the best and should be adhered to, while
modern methods which run counter to the usage established by
the ancients¹ should be abandoned. How immensely helpful these
hints are, can be realized only too well by one who can detect the
unruly tendencies in modern literature in the extreme pursuit of
the phantom of realistic art !
II. Historical Data.
As has been shown already, the contributions of the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā to the elucidation of the cultural history of India, are
many and varied. No less important are its contributions to the
political history of Mediæval India. While illustrating the

1. Cf. देशेषु पदार्थानां व्यत्यासो दृश्यते स्वरूपस्य। तन्न तथा बध्नीयात्कविबद्धमिह प्रमाणं नः॥ p. 111.
   अनुसन्धानशून्यस्य भूषणं दूषणायते। सावधानस्य च कवेर्दूषणं भूषणायते॥ p. 112.

different topics of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, Rājaśekhara cites examples
and verses from earlier works, which throw a flood of light on the
problems of political history. And, here, it is proposed to give a
few examples which definitely show that the Kāvyamīmāṁsā is
able to help historical studies.
The verse दत्त्वा रुद्धगतिः etc. occurs on p. 47 of this work, and
this is given manifestly as an example of Muktaka or a detached
verse. But the verse alludes to a very important historical fact.
On information obtained from this verse and other sources such
as the fragments of the Devīcandragupta¹ of Viśākhadatta, the
Sañjan Copper-plates of Amoghavarṣa² I, (A. D. 873), Bāṇa's
Harṣacarita,³ Śṛṅgāraprakāśa⁴ of Bhoja, the Cambay plate of
Govinda⁵ IV, the Nāṭyadarpaṇa of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra,⁶
scholars have come to certain conclusions regarding the history of
the Gupta period, and these may be summarised as follows. There
was a king called Rāmagupta who succeeded his father Samudra-
gupta and preceded his brother Candragupta II, and ruled for a
short time. Dhruvadevī was the queen of Rāmagupta originally.
This king encountered a certain Khasa or Śaka king in the
Himālayas and was defeated. He saved himself and his kingdom
by entering into an ignominious treaty with the victor. According
to the terms of the treaty he was to surrender his queen Dhruva-
devī to the Khasa or Śaka king in return for the liberty of
himself and his kingdom. The humiliating treaty enraged his
brother Candragupta, who, disguised himself as Queen Dhruvadevī,
went to the enemies' camp at Alipura and killed the Khasa
or Śaka king. On his return, he killed his brother Rāmagupta
also and married his widowed queen Dhruvadevī.
There is a general agreement amongst scholars regarding the
historical facts just mentioned, but on certain details there still
rages a great controversy. The controversy centres round the

1. Portions from this drama are found quoted in the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa
   and the Nāṭyadarpaṇa (G. O. S. edi. ).
2. E. I. Vol. XVIII p. 248.
3. अरि(लि)पुरे च परकलत्रकामुकं कामिनीवेषगुप्तश्चन्द्रगुप्तः शकपतिमशातयत् ।
4. स्त्रीवेषनिह्नुतश्चन्द्रगुप्तः शत्रोः स्कन्धावारं अलिपुरं शकपतिवधायागमत् ।
5. E. I. Vol. VII, p. 36.
6. G. O. S. edi.

XXII INTRODUCTION.
name of Khasādhipati or S'akādhipati, his identity and the iden-
tification of his capital Alipura, the author of the verse in question,
and the king to whom it is addressed.
The verse in question makes it clear that the engagement
between the Gupta and Khasa kings took place in the Himālayan
region, and thus it can be said that Alipura, the capital of the
Khasa or S'aka king, was situated somewhere in the Himālayas.
Moreover, according to Rājaśekhara's version the victor is
called the Khasādhipati, and the Gupta king is named as S'arma-
gupta or Senagupta instead of S'akādhipati and Rāmagupta ob-
tained from sources other than the Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
There seems to be an agreement at least on one point, namely,
that the S'aka or Khasa king referred to in the passage in question,
should represent a Kushāṇa king of the Punjab but not a S'aka
Satrap of either Malwa or Mathura. But in this connection,
attention of scholars is required to be invited to the form Khasā-
dhipati as recorded in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. This particular word
means a king of the Khasas or the Khasa tribes the existence of
which is made well-known by the Rājatarangiṇī of Kalhaṇa. Sir
Aurel Stein located the tribe in the widely distributed regions of
the western Himālayas flanking the boundaries of Kashmir with
their capital at Rajapuri also known as Khasālaya or Khasālī.
The Khasas before the fifth century A. D. became very powerful
and seized the kingdom of Kashmir and ruled over it.¹ Is it not
possible to identify this Alipura with Khasālī, the capital of
the Khasas ?
Let us now discuss the question regarding the identity of the
person to whom the verse in question is addressed. Various
scholars have advanced different opinions, and let us examine them
in detail and make an attempt to discover whether any finality
can be reached. A clue to this vexed question is, however, supplied
by the verse itself in its fourth line: गीयन्ते तव कार्त्तिकेयनगरस्त्रीणां
गणैः कीर्तयः ।
In interpreting this line Prof. Altekar² has fallen into the
regrettable error of taking the word Kārttikeya in the vocative
and in assuming that the verse is addressed to Kārttikeya who is
obviously the Kumāragupta I of the Gupta dynasty.

1. M. A. Stein. Rājatarangiṇī translation. Vol. I. 317.
2. J. B. O. R. S. Vol. xiv. p. 223.

INTRODUCTION. XXIII
Mr. K. P. Jayaswal disagrees¹ with the above and points out
that the word Kārttikeya goes with the word Nagara, and adds
that "no poet would have mentioned so irreverently about Kumā-
ragupta's own mother to him."
Against this, it may be pointed out that the verse does not
show any irreverence on the part of the poet whose business
obviously is to eulogise his patron king Kumāragupta or Skanda-
gupta of the Gupta dynasty. For, the weakness of Rāmagupta
was already made known by Candragupta, also by Dhruvadevi
who discarded her worthless husband and married his brother.
Moreover, the descendants of the Gupta dynasty out of disrespect
for Rāmagupta never mentioned him in the inscriptions as one of
their ancestors. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar who discussed the question
later on,² is disposed to agree with Mr. Jayaswal in considering
the word Kārttikeyanagara as the name of a town, and identified
it with the ancient village of Vaijanātha in Almora District U. P.
on the authority of the Pāṇḍukeśvara copper plate and the Tāle-
śvara charters.³ Dr. Bhandarkar believes, however, that the
verse is addressed to Candragupta, though he is not named
expressly therein.
If this position is accepted, Mr. Jayaswal's objection of
showing irreverence to Kumāragupta's mother or Dhruvadevi is
set at rest. Prof. V. V. Mirashi,⁴ however, remarks that the
view held by Dr. Bhandarkar is hardly convincing, because the
verse quoted here is a Muktaka or a detached stanza which should
not only be complete in itself but also contain the name of the king
addressed to. He, thus, commits the same mistake as Prof. Altekar,
and takes the word Kārttikeya in the vocative, but advances the
new theory that the word stands for the king Mahīpāla of the
Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty, the patron of Rājaśekhara. In support
of this, he further adds that Kṣemīśvara in the Bharatavākya of
his drama Caṇḍakauśika similarly calls his patron Mahīpāla as

1. J. B. O. R. S. Vol. XVIII, p. 20.
2. Malaviya Commemoration Volume. p. 194.
3. I. A. XXV. 178, and E. I. Vol. XIII, pp. 115-118.
4. I. A. 1932, p. 201.

XXIV INTRODUCTION.
Kārttikeya.¹ According to him the verse, in question, was either
Rājaśekhara's own or a composition of one of his contemporaries
in the court of the king Mahīpāla which he inserted in his
Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
Against Prof. Mirashi's theory, it may be pointed out that if
the word Kārttikeya is taken out, the word Nagarastrīṇām will
have to be taken as a separate and independent word. No poet,
howsoever dull, would ever think of saying that the fame of a king
was sung by women of the town and afterwards would leave the name
of the particular town undisclosed. Nor does it seem reasonable
to suppose the poet to be so particular as to exclude the village-
women from participating in the praising or singing campaign, by
specially naming the women of the town. It is not also possible
to suppose that it is the women of the towns who took part in
singing eulogies, while the village-women refrained from doing so!
The expression स्त्रीणां गणैः is sufficient to include all women, both of
towns and villages, and why should it be necessary to qualify स्त्रीणां
with the word नगर which reduces the value of the eulogy?
It is not also correct to assume that the Muktaka verse which
should be complete in itself should also contain the name of the
person to whom the Muktaka is addressed. On the same page 47,
there are five other examples of Muktaka verse, and in none of
these there is any mention of the name of the person addressed to.
Under the circumstances we can only confirm the view of
Messrs. Jayaswal and Bhandarkar both of whom rightly take
Kārttikeyanagara as one word and identify it with the place where
Rāmagupta first sustained a defeat, and later, the Khasa king
was killed by Candragupta II in whose praise the verse in question
is composed. Accordingly, the last lines of the verse, in question,
may be translated thus:
"Your fame is sung today by the women of the Kārttikeya-
nagara in the same Himālayas which is resonant with the singing
of the Kinnaras living in the hollows of spacious caves."

1. येनादृश्य प्रयोगं घनपुलकभृता नाटकस्यास्य हर्षात्
   वक्षालङ्कारहेम्नां प्रतिदिनमकृशा राशयः सम्प्रदत्ताः ।
   तस्य क्षत्रप्रसूतेः भ्रमतु जगदिदं कार्तिकेयस्य कीर्तिः
   पारे क्षीराख्यसिन्धोरपि कवियशसा सार्धमग्रेसरेण ॥

INTRODUCTION. XXV
From the foregoing discussion, it is easy to discover that
the verse in question is addressed to Candragupta Vikramāditya
by a contemporary poet, and is quoted by Rājaśekhara in his
Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
The second marriage of Dhruvadevī with Candragupta is also
to be taken as a settled historical fact, on the authority of the
Sañjan¹ copper plate of Amoghavarṣa I and the Cambay² plate of
Govinda IV.
Two more verses are quoted by Rājaśekhara on pp. 60-61
of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, which throw a flood of light on the vexed
question of the date of Kālidāsa. The verses in question record a
conversation between a king and his messenger. Identical verses
are subsequently quoted by Bhoja in his S'r̥ṅgāraprakāśa with
the remark that here the king represents Vikramāditya and the
messenger, Kālidāsa.³ The verses in question refer to a message,
conveyed by Kālidāsa from the king of Kuntala to Vikramāditya
who approves of the request made by the Kuntala king. Tradition
ascribes to Kālidāsa a work called the Kuntaleśvaradautya, and as
the subject-matter of the verses quoted here relates to the dip-
lomatic communications of the king of Kuntala, it is not un-
reasonable to suppose that the verses belonged to the now lost
work Kuntaleśvaradautya of Kālidāsa. A verse from the same
work quoted in the Aucityavicāracarcā by Kṣemendra refers to the
fact that Kālidāsa as an envoy of Vikramāditya was not respected
in the court of the Kuntala king who made him sit on the ground
and did not offer a seat.⁴ It thus transpires that Kālidāsa was
sent as an envoy to the court of the Kuntala king Pr̥thvīṣeṇa
Vākāṭaka, a subordinate of the Gupta kings, by Candragupta II
Vikramāditya and that on account of Kālidāsa's mediation friendly
relations were established between the two royal houses. This
embassy further helps us in fixing a suitable date for Kālidāsa,
and once for all ends the controversy regarding his time, raging

1. हत्वा भ्रातरमेव राज्यमहरद्देवीं च दीनस्तथा लक्षं कोटिमलेखयत्किल कलौ दाता स गुप्तान्वयः ॥
   E. I. Vol. XVIII, p. 248
2. सामर्थ्ये सति निन्दिता प्रविहिता नैवाग्रजे क्रूरता बन्धुस्त्रीगमनादिभिः कुचरितैरावर्जितं नायशः ।
   शौचाशौचपराङ्मुखं न च भिया पैशाच्यमङ्गीकृतं त्यागेनासमसाहसैश्च भुवने यः साहसाङ्कोऽभवत् ॥
   E. I. Vol. VII, p. 36.
3. See. infra. Notes. p. 215.
4. Ibid.
   4

XXVI INTRODUCTION.
for the last fifty years or more, in which celebrated scholars have
taken part. Kālidāsa must be a contemporary of Candragupta
Vikramāditya and the Vākāṭaka Pṛthvīṣeṇa, and thus he should
be assigned a period corresponding to the last quarter of the fourth
century A. D.¹
While mentioning the four boundaries of the city of Kanauj,
the capital of his patron kings Mahendrapāla and Mahīpāla, Rāja-
śekhara clears up several topographical problems connected with
the city, and helps us in identifying certain well-known names of
places, identifications of which were open to doubt for a long time.
On page 94 he mentions four places: Vāmanasvāmī, Gādhipura,
Kālapriya and Brahmaśilā, and all of them seem to be situated
in the four directions of the city of Kanauj. Thus, we can under-
stand that these four well-known places in literature were the
suburbs of the city of Kanauj. For further details the attention
of readers is invited to the page 243, of the explanatory notes
appended to this edition.
III. The Geography of Bhāratavarṣa.
Rājaśekhara's fondness for geography is borne out by the
numerous references to geographical names mentioned in his works,
and the ancient notions regarding world geography find a lucid
expression in these productions. He gives geographical references
in abundance, particularly in two works, namely, the Bālarāmāyaṇa
and the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. In the former work, while staging the
Sītāsvayaṁvara, a short drama supposed to be a composition of the
sage Bharata, and while describing the aerial flight of Rāma to
Ayodhyā from Laṅkā, he mentions a large number of places in
succession, and these references enable us to fix their location with
a fair degree of exactitude.
In the 17th chapter of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, the author gives
by far the most prolific geographical information regarding the
divisions of the world, and the details of the Bhāratavarṣa, and this
represents the expert knowledge of geography as prevalent in his
time. The earth, he says, is divided into seven great islands
encircled by seven oceans. Among these the Jambūdvīpa is

1. For further information on the date of Kālidāsa and his connections
   with Vākāṭaka kings, see my Paper entitled “King Pravarasena and Kālidāsa”
   in the Proceedings of the Seventh All-India Oriental Conference, 1933.

INTRODUCTION. XXVII
situated in the centre and its chief mountain is Mahāmeru. The
Mahāmeru, again, is surrounded by the country called the
Ilāvṛtavarṣa. The third country to the south of the Mahāmeru is
called the Bhāratavarṣa.
The Bhāratavarṣa is divided into nine parts, and the Kumā-
rīdvīpa, one among them, corresponds with the present India
from Cape Comorin to the Himālayas. This country is also
known as the Cakravartikṣettra. One who holds sway over the
whole country is called a Cakravartin, while the king who is
able to conquer all the nine parts of the Bhāratavarṣa is called
a Samrāṭ.
The author mentions the seven Kulaparvatas of the Kumā-
rīdvīpa, and says that the Āryāvarta is a part of this Dvīpa.
Kumārīdvīpa is again subdivided into five parts with Madhyadeśa
in the middle, and four other countries in the four directions of
the middle country, which according to him is bounded by the
Prayāga, the Vindhya range, the Vinaśana and the Himālayas.
He places the other four countries as follows: from Benares in the
east, from Māhiṣmatī in the south, from Devasabhā in the west
and from Pṛthūdaka in the north, all extending to the extreme
limits of India.
In the same chapter Rājaśekhara gives innumerable details
regarding the countries, rivers, mountains and the agricultural
products of all the five divisions of the Kumārīdvīpa. These
geographical names have been collected together in an appendix
in which an endeavour has been made to identify the places
mentioned by him, as far as practicable, since it has now
become difficult to trace the old sites. It is noteworthy, however,
that Rājaśekhara includes such countries as Arabia, Persia and
Afghanistan in the northern India, and distinguishes Siṁhala
from Laṅkā. Moreover, he includes in his list many new names
not known to the Purāṇas, or the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahā-
bhārata, or even to the Greek or Arabic historians and the Chinese
travellers, as will be seen from the appendix already referred to.

Introduction to the First Edition.
The author of this first work in the Gaekwād’s Oriental Series,
now presented before the public, is Rājaśekhara, the well-known
author of the four dramas, Bālarāmāyaṇa, Bālabhārata, Viddha-
śālabhañjikā and Karpūramañjarī.
Rājas'ekhara's Ancestry. Rājaśekhara calls himself in the
Kāvyamīmāṁsā as Yāyāvarīya¹ (born in the Yāyāvara family).
He seems to have been better known as Yāyāvara to his successors.
Dhanapāla in the introductory verses to his Tilakamañjarī refers to
him as Yāyāvara Kavi.² The author of the Udayasundarī refers to
him simply as Yāyāvara³ and praises him for his dramatical skill.
1 यायावरीयः सङ्क्षिप्य मुनीनां मतविस्तरम् । p. 2. l. 11.
“पञ्चमी साहित्यविद्या” इति यायावरीयः । p. 4. l. 14.
2 समाधिगुणशालिन्यः प्रसन्नपरिपक्रमाः ।
यायावरकवेर्वाचो मुनीनामिव वृत्तयः ॥ Tilakamañjarī 33.
3 यायावरः प्राज्ञवरो गुणौघैराशंसितः सूरिसमाजबंधैः ।
नृत्युदारं भणिने रसस्था नटीव यस्योदरसा पदश्रीः ॥
Udayasundarī 8th Uchchhvāsa.
This Udayasundarī is a Champūkathā composed by Soḍḍhala, a Vālabha
Kāyastha of Lātades'a, in emulation of Bāṇa's Harshacharita, about Saṁvat
1050, in the reign of Vatsarāja and under the patronage of king Mummuṇirāja
of Koṅkaṇa. The author has, over and above his own caste and lineage, given
about 25 verses in praise of old poets. It will be instructing to quote these
verses; such verses are rare in Sanskrit literature.
लक्ष्मीभुजो भुवि सभापतयः क नाम सन्तीह सम्प्रति गुणेष्वनुरागवन्तः ।
ये हि प्रलीनखलरोलभराः सुखेन शृण्वन्ति संसदि कवीन्द्रसुभाषितानि ॥
श्रीविक्रमो नृपतिरत्र पतिः समानामासीत्स कोऽप्यसदृशः कविमिश्रनामा ।
यो वार्धमात्रमुदितः कृतिनां गृहेषु दत्वा चकार करटीन्दुघटान्धकारम् ॥
हाले गते गुणििन शोकमराद्बभूवुरुच्छिन्नवाग्व्ययजडाः कृतिनस्तथाऽमी ।
यत्तस्य नाम नृपतेरनिशं स्मरन्तो हेत्यक्षरं प्रथममेव परं विदन्ति ॥
श्रीहर्ष इत्यवनिवर्तिषु पार्थिवेषु नाम्नैव केवलमजायत वस्तुतस्तु ।
गीर्हर्ष एष निजसंसदि येन राज्ञा सम्पूजितः कनककोटिशतेन बाणः ॥
सृष्टं तदत्र युवराजनरेश्वरेण यद्दुष्करं किमपि येन गिरः श्रियश्च ।
प्रत्यायनं स्फुटमकारि निजे कवीन्द्रमेकासने समुपवेशयताऽभिनन्दम् ॥

INTRODUCTION. XXIX
Some particulars about the ancestry of the author can be gathered
from his dramas. He is very proud of his family and his literary
देव्याः सरोजदलधामनि हंसपृष्ठे लीलायितं चरणयोर्दितयेन यस्याः ।
सा किं रमाभिषनिषण्णविलोचनेषु चिल्हाविषेषु ............टं करोति ॥
योऽप्यस्ति लोकतिलकः क्षितिषेषु कश्चिदेकः कृती स्वयमसावनुपासितोऽपि ।
निर्मथ्य पन्नगधनाथ इव द्विजिल्हान् क्षिप्तामृतं नभसि नेष्यति काव्यकुम्भम् ॥
ये नाम केचिदमुना कवितारसेन व्यासादयः कृतधियो भुवनेषु सिद्धाः ।
तेषामुपासितपदाः कवयः किमन्यदासादयन्ति परमत्र सुवर्णसिद्धिम् ॥
बाणस्य हर्षचरिते निशितामुदीक्ष्य शक्तिं न केऽत्र कवितास्त्रमदं त्यजन्ति ।
मान्यं न कस्य च कवेरिह कालिदासवाचां रसेन रसितस्य भवत्यवृष्यम् ॥
1 Uchchhvāsa.
आसीदसीमस्फुरितोरुधामा वाल्मीकिरग्रण्यतमो मुनीनाम् ।
निर्वाणमार्गैकमहाध्वगोऽपि सम्पर्कतः कापि न यो रजोभिः ॥
ब्राह्मीनिवासात्सुमितः स साक्षाद्देवः स्वयंभूरिति कीर्तितो यः ।
कोऽन्यः क्रमस्थापितवर्णसारां सृष्टिं कृती काव्यमयीं चकार ॥
छन्दोविचित्रेर्निहितैः क्रमेण पदैः समन्तान्मसृणीकृतोऽन्तः ।
निषेव्यते वर्णमहाटवीषु यस्यैष दिग्व्यैरपि काव्यमार्गः ॥
वंशः कवीनामुदियाय तस्मान्मूर्ध्ना धृतो भूमिभृतां गणेन ।
अच्छिद्रितेऽपि त्रिदशप्रतोर्ष्या वाणीगुणः स्फूर्जति कोऽपि यत्र ॥
यस्मिन्नभूदग्रभवः कवीनां व्यासो मुनिर्यस्य गुणैर्विजेतुः ।
ध्वजच्छटेवोन्नतसोमवंशमालम्बिता वल्गति भारते गीः ॥
कविर्गुणाढ्यः स च येन सृष्टा बृहत्कथा प्रीतिकरी जनानाम् ।
या संविधानेषु सुसन्धिवन्ध्यैः निपीड्यमानेव रसं प्रसूते ॥
स कश्चिदालेख्यकरः कविले प्रसिद्धनामा भुवि भर्तृमेण्ठः ।
रसप्लवेऽपि स्फुरति प्रकाभं वर्णेषु यस्योज्ज्वलना तथैव ॥
ख्यातः कृती सोऽपि च कालिदासः शुद्धा सुधास्वादुमती च यस्य ।
वाणीमिषाच्चण्डमरीचिगोत्रसिन्धोः परं पारमवाप कीर्तिः ॥
बाणः कवीनामपि चक्रवर्ती चकास्ति यस्योज्ज्वलवर्णशोभम् ।
एकातपत्रं भुवि पुष्पभूतिवंशश्रयं हर्षचरित्रमेव ॥
मान्यो जगत्त्यां भवभूतिरार्यः सारस्वते वर्त्मनि सार्थवाहः ।
वाचं पताकामित्र यस्य दृष्ट्वा जनः कवीनामनुपृष्ठमेति ॥
सामन्तजन्मापि कवीश्वराणां महत्तमो वाक्पतिराजसूरिः ।
यश्छाययाप्यन्यमपीडयन्सन्नुत्पादयत्यर्थमनन्यदृष्टम् ॥
वन्द्यः स विद्वानभिनन्दनामा विश्रम्भपात्रं च वचोधिदेव्याः ।
समर्पिता यस्य खलु स्वकीयकोशाधिकारेषु सुवर्णमुद्रा ॥
यायावरः प्राज्ञवरो गुणज्ञैराशंसितः सूरिसमाजवर्यैः ।
नृत्यत्युदारं भणिते गुणस्था नटीव यस्योदरसा पदश्रीः ॥
बभूवुरन्येऽपि कुमारदासभासादयो हन्त कवीन्दवस्ते ।
यदीयगोभिः कृतिनां द्रवन्ति चेतांसि चन्द्रोपलनिर्मलानि ॥
तस्मिन्सुवंशे कविमौक्तिकानामुत्पत्तिभूमौ कचिदेकदेशे ।
किञ्चित्कविः सोढल इत्यजातनिष्पत्तिरासीज्जलबिन्दुरेव ॥
यो वत्सराजेन वरेण राज्ञां लाटावनीमण्डननायकेन ।
सूक्ष्मावृढस्तोकगुणाश्रितोऽपि मिश्रीकृतो भानुमतेव पद्मः ॥

XXX INTRODUCTION.
forefathers.¹ Akālajalada his great-grandfather was famous for
his poetical gems.² His verses were plagiarized by Kādambarīrāma
in his drama.³ Surānanda, Tarala and Kavirāja also belonged to
this family. Surānanda seems to have been famous at the court
of Chedi.⁴ It appears from his opinion quoted in the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā that he had written some work on poetics. ⁵Tarala was
also a poet of some eminence. Nothing is known about Kavirāja.
Rājaśekhara's father Durduka or Duhika was a great minister
(Mahāmantrī), and his mother's name was Śīlavatī.
Rājaśekhara's caste. We have seen that Rājaśekhara
belonged to the Yāyāvara family, but it is not clear whether he
was a Brāhmaṇa or a Kshatriya. His position as the Upādhyāya
of King Mahendrapāla speaks in favour of his being a Brāhmaṇa;
while the name Rājaśekhara and the fact that his wife was of the
Chahuāna⁶ family may lead one to think that he was a Kshatriya.
Rājaśekhara not a Sectarian. As the author of the
Haravilāsa, Rājaśekhara might be regarded to have been a staunch
Śaiva, but from the quotations in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā⁷ in praise of
Vishṇu, it seems that he was not a sectarian. On the other hand,
from the Maṅgala verse of the Haravilāsa, it is clear that he believed
जडेन तेनोदयसुन्दरीति कथा दुरालोकिनि काव्यमार्गे ।
सारस्वतालोकलबैकदृष्ट्या सृष्टा कविम्मन्यमनोरथेन ॥
सा चात्र देवीभवने निवृत्तशापार्तिना बाणकवीश्वरेण ।
कविश्रमोद्धूतकृपेण सम्यक् श्रुता धृता हृद्यभिनन्दिता च ॥
वागीश्वरं हन्त भजेऽभिनन्दमर्थेश्वरं वाक्पतिराजमीडे ।
रसेश्वरं स्तौमि च कालिदासं बाणं तु सर्वेश्वरमानतोऽस्मि ॥ 8th Uchchhvāsa.
1 स मूर्तो यत्रासीद्गुणगण इवाकालजलदः सुरानन्दः सोऽपि श्रवणपुटपेयेन वचसा ।
न चान्ये गण्यन्ते तरलकविराजप्रभृतयो महाभागस्तस्मिन्नयमजनि यायावरकुले ॥
Bālarāmāyaṇa I, 13.
2 अकालजलदेन्दोः सा हृद्या वचनचन्द्रिका । नित्यं कविचकोरैर्य्या पीयते न च हीयते ॥
Rājaśekhara quoted in the Sūktimuktāvalī.
3 अकालजलदश्लोकैश्चित्रमात्मकृतैरिव । जातः कादम्बरीरामो नाटके प्रवरः कविः ॥ Ibid.
4 नदीनां मेकलसुता नृपाणां रणविग्रहः । कवीनां च सुरानन्दश्चेदिमण्डलमण्डनम् ॥ Ibid.
5 यायावरकुलश्रेणेर्हारस्यैष मण्डनम् । सुवर्णवर्णरुचिरस्तरुलस्तरलो यथा ॥ Ibid.
6 चाहुआणकुलमोलिमालिआ राजसेहरइन्दगेहिणी ।
भत्तुणो कइमवन्दिसुन्दरी सा पउञ्जयिदुमेअमिच्छइ ॥ Karp. 1, 11.
7 pp. 42, 43.

INTRODUCTION. XXXI
in the unity of the three godheads. It appears from the ¹Yaśas-
tilaka Champū of Somadeva that in Rājaśekhara's works honour
was done even to Jinās when occasion arose.
His wife an accomplished lady. Rājaśekhara quotes thrice²
in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā the opinion of his wife Avantīsundarī. It
would thus appear that she had composed some work on rhetorics.
The Karpūramañjarī was also first acted at her desire.
Rājaś'ekhara's date. It is understood from the prologues
of Rājaśekhara's dramas that he was the Upādhyāya of Mahēndra-
pāla, king of Kanouj, and was also patronized by his son and
successor Mahīpāla. The Siydoni inscription tells us that king
Mahēndrapāla was reigning in 903 and 907 A. D. and Mahīpāla in
917 A. D. (Epigraphia Indica Vol. I, p. 171). Independent of his
references to king Mahēndrapāla of Kanouj in his works, we can fix
his date from other sources too. He quotes in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā
Vākpatirāja,³ the author of Gauḍavaho, and also Udbhaṭa⁴ who
was the Sabhāpati of Jayāpīḍa, king of Kashmir, who reigned from
779 to 813 A. D., and quotes Ānandavardhana⁵ who flourished in
the reign of Avantivarmā of Kashmir (857-884 A. D.). Rāja-
śekhara is also referred to by Somadēva in the Yaśastilaka Champū
which was completed in 960 A. D. and praised by Soṭṭala who
flourished about 990 A. D. From this we can conclude that
Rājaśekhara lived about 880-920 A. D.
1 तथा उर्व्वभारविभवभूतिभर्तृहरिभर्तृमेण्ठकण्ठगुणाढ्यव्यासभासवासोस्कालिदासबाणमयूरनारायण-
कुमारमाधराजशेखरप्रदिमहाकविकाव्येषु, तत्र तत्रावसरे भरतप्रणीते काव्याध्याये, सर्वजनप्रसिद्धेषु तेषु
तेषूपाख्यानेषु च कथं, तद्विषया महती प्रसिद्धिः ।
( 4th Ās'vāsa, pt. II, p. 113.
2 "इयमशक्तिर्न पुनः पाकः" इत्यवन्तिसुन्दरी । p. 20
"विदग्धभणितिनिवेशं वस्तुनो रूपं न नियतस्वभावम्" इति अवन्तिसुन्दरी । तदाह-
'वस्तुस्वभावोऽत्र कवेरतन्त्रो गुणागुणावुक्तिवशेन काव्ये ।
स्तुवन्निबध्नात्यमृतांशुमिन्दुं निन्दंस्तु दोषाकरमाह धूर्तः ॥' p. 46.
"अयमप्रसिद्धः प्रसिद्धिम्रानहम्, अयमप्रतिष्ठः प्रतिष्ठावानहम्, अप्रक्रान्तमिदमस्य संविधानकं प्रक्रान्तं
मम, गुडूचीवचनोऽयं मृद्वीकावचनोऽहम्, अनादृतभाषाविशेषोऽयम् अहमादृतभाषाविशेषः, प्रशान्तशातृकमिदम्,
देशान्तरितकर्तृकमिदम्' उत्सन्ननिबन्धनमूलमिदम्, म्लेच्छितकथानिबन्धनमिदमित्येवमादिभिः कारणैः शब्दहरणे
अर्थहरणे चाभिरमेत" इति अवन्तिसुन्दरी । p. 57
3 "न" इति बाक्पतिराजः p. 62.
4 "तस्य च त्रिधाऽभिधाव्यापारः" इत्यौद्भटः pp. 22 and 44.
5 "प्रतिभाम्युत्पत्त्योः प्रतिभा श्रेयसी" इत्यानन्दः p. 16.