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

१०८ काव्यमीमांसायाम्

मृगलावरसाः शृतं च दुग्धं
सरसञ्जीवनमौषधं निदाघे ॥
जडचन्दनचारुवस्तरुण्यः
सजलार्द्राः सहतारहारमालाः ।
कदलीदलतल्पकल्पनस्थाः
स्मरमाहूय निवेशयन्ति पार्श्वे ॥
ग्रीष्मे चीरीनादवन्तो वनान्ताः
पङ्काभ्यक्ताः सैरिभाः सेभकोलाः ।
लोलजिह्वाः सर्पसारङ्गवर्गा
मूलस्रस्तैः पत्रिणश्चांसदेशैः ॥
हर्म्यं रम्यं चन्द्रिकाधौतपृष्ठं
कान्तोच्छिष्टा वारुणी वारिमिश्रा ।
मालाः कण्ठे पाटलामल्लिकानां
सद्यो ग्रीष्मं हन्त हेमन्तयन्ति ॥
ग्रीष्मः ॥
चतुरवस्थश्च ऋतुरुपनिबन्धनीयः। तद्यथा—सन्धिः, शैशवं, प्रौ-
ढिः, अनुवृत्तिश्च। ऋतुद्वयमध्यं सन्धिः। शिशिरवसन्तसन्धिर्यथा—
“च्युतसुमनसः कुन्दाः पुष्पोद्गमेष्वलसा द्रुमा
मनसि च गिरं गृह्णन्तीमे गिरन्ति न कोकिलाः।
अथ च सवितुः शीतोल्लासं लुनन्ति मरीचयो
न च जरठतामालम्बन्ते क्लमोदयदायिनीम् ॥”
वसन्तशैशवम्—
“गर्भग्रन्थिषु वीरुधां सुमनसो मध्येऽङ्कुरं पल्लवा
वाञ्छामात्रपरिग्रहः पिकवधूकण्ठोदरे पञ्चमः ।
किं च त्रीणि जगन्ति जिष्णु दिवसैर्द्वित्रैर्मनोजन्मनो
देवस्यापि चिरोज्झितं यदि भवेदभ्यासवश्यं धनुः ॥”

१ V सर्वसारङ्ग०. २ V किरन्ति.

कविरहस्ये अष्टादशोऽध्यायः । १०९
वसन्तप्रौढिः—
“साम्यं सम्प्रति सेवते विचकिलं षाण्मासिकैर्मौक्तिकैः
कान्तिं कर्षति काञ्चनारकुसुमं माञ्जिष्ठधौतातपात् ।
हूनीनां कुरुते मधूकमुकुलं लावण्यलुण्टाकतां
लाटीनाभिनिभं चकास्ति च पतद्वृन्ताग्रतः केसरम् ॥”
अतिक्रान्तर्तुलिङ्गं यत्कुसुमाद्यनुवर्त्तते ।
लिङ्गानुवृत्तिं तामाहुः सा ज्ञेया काव्यलोकतः ॥
वर्षासु ग्रीष्मलिङ्गाब्जविकासानुवृत्तिः ।
यथा—“खं वस्ते कलविङ्ककण्ठमलिनं कादम्बिनीकम्बलं
चर्चां पारयतीव दर्दुरकुलं कोलाहलैरून्मदम् ।
गन्धं मुञ्चति सिक्तलाजसदृशं वर्षेण दग्धा स्थली
दुर्लक्ष्योऽपि विभाव्यते कमलिनीहासेन भासां पतिः ॥”
एवमन्येऽपि ।
किञ्च—ग्रैष्मिकसमयविकासी कथितो धूलीकदम्ब इति लोके ।
जलधरसमयप्राप्तौ स एव धाराकदम्बः स्यात् ॥
यथा— “धूलीकदम्बपरिधूसरदिङ्मुखस्य
रक्तच्छटासुरशरासनमण्डनस्य ।
दीप्तायुधाशनिमुचो ननु नीलकण्ठ
नोत्कण्ठसे समरवारिधरागमस्य ॥”
जलसमयजायमानां जातिं यां काईमीति निगदन्ति ।
सा शरदि महोत्सविनी गन्धान्वितषट्पदा भवति ॥
यथा—“स्थूलावश्यायबिन्दुद्यु(द्रु)तिदलितबृहत्कोरकग्रन्थिभाजो
जात्या जालं लतानां जरठपरिमलप्लावितानां जजृम्भे ।
नानाहंसोपधानं सपदि जलनिधेश्चोत्ससर्पापरस्य
ज्योत्स्नाशुक्लोपधानं शयनमिव शशी नागभोगाङ्कमूर्तेः ॥
स्तोकानुवृत्तिं केतक्या अपि केचिदिच्छन्ति ।
१ V कर्दमेन जनयन्ति. २ CB ॰मुक्तोपधानं.

११२ अष्टादशोऽध्यायः।
लकुचाद्यन्तर्व्याजं तथा बहिर्व्याजमत्र मोचादि ।
आम्राद्युभयव्याजं सर्वव्याजं च ककुभादि ॥
पनसादि बहुव्याजं नीलकपित्थादि भवति निर्व्याजम् ।
सकलफलानां षोढा ज्ञातव्यः कविभिरिति भेदः ॥
एकद्वित्र्यादिभेदेन सामस्त्येनाथवा ऋतून् ।
प्रबन्धेषु निबध्नीयात्क्रमेण व्युत्क्रमेण वा ॥
न च व्युत्क्रमदोषोऽस्ति कवेरर्थपथस्पृशः ।
तथा कथा कापि भवेद् व्युत्क्रमो भूषणं यथा ॥
अनुसन्धानशून्यस्य भूषणं दूषणायते ।
सावधानस्य च कवेर्दूषणं भूषणायते ॥
इति कालविभागस्य दर्शिता वृत्तिरीदृशी ।
कवेरिह महान्मोह इह सिद्धो महाकविः ॥
इति राजशेखरकृतौ काव्यमीमांसायां कविरहस्ये प्रथमेऽधिकरणे
कालविभागो नाम अष्टादशोऽध्यायः ॥
समाप्तमिदं प्रथममधिकरणं कविरहस्यं काव्यमीमांसायाम् ॥
१ V कपिच्छादि.

EXPLANATORY NOTES.
Notes enclosed within square brackets [ ] belong
to preveious Editions.
Page 1

• [ l. 1. अथातः काव्यं मीमांसिष्यामहे. Hemacandra has named his
  work on Nyāya as प्रमाणमीमांसा. The first sūtra of his work is “अथ
  प्रमाणमीमांसा”. For the propriety of the words अथ and मीमांसा cf.
  Hemacandra’s vṛtti on the same.
  “अथेत्यस्याधिकारार्थत्वाच्छास्त्रेणाधिक्रियमाणस्य प्रस्तूयमानस्य प्रमाणस्याभिधानात्सकल-
  शास्त्रतात्पर्यव्याख्यानेन प्रेक्षावन्तो बोधिताः प्रवर्तिताश्च भवन्ति । आनन्तर्यार्थो वाऽथशब्दः । शब्द-
  काव्यच्छन्दोनुशासनेभ्योऽनन्तरं प्रमाणं मीमांस्यत इत्यर्थः । अनेन शब्दानुशासनादिभिरस्यैककर्तृ-
  कत्वमाह । अधिकारार्थस्य चाथशब्दस्यान्यार्थनीयमानकुसुमदामजलकुम्भादेर्दर्शनमिव श्रवणं
  मङ्गलायापि कल्पत इति । मङ्गले च सति परिपन्थिविघ्नविघातादक्षेपेण शास्त्रसिद्धिरायुष्मच्छ्रोतृकता
  च भवति । परमेष्ठिनमस्कारादिकं तु मङ्गलं कृतमपि न निवेशितं लाघवार्थिना शास्त्रकारेणेति ।
  प्रकर्षेण संशयादिव्यवच्छेदेन मीयते परिच्छिद्यते वस्तुतत्त्वं येन तत्प्रमाणम् । प्रमायां साधक-
  तमम् । तस्य मीमांसोद्देशादिरूपेण पर्यालोचनम् । त्रयी हि शास्त्रस्य प्रवृत्तिरुद्देशो लक्षणं परीक्षा च । तत्र
  नामधेयमात्रकीर्तनमुद्देशः यथेदमेव सूत्रम् । उद्दिष्टस्यासाधारणधर्मवचनं लक्षणम् । तद्द्वेधा सामान्यलक्षणं
  विशेषलक्षणं च । सामान्यलक्षणमनन्तरमेव सूत्रम् । विशेषलक्षणं विशदः प्रत्यक्षमिति । विभागस्तु
  विशेषलक्षणस्यैवाङ्गमिति न पृथगुच्यते । लक्षितस्येदमित्थं भवति नेत्थमिति न्यायतः परीक्षणं परीक्षा
  यथा तृतीयसूत्रम् । पूजितविचारवचनश्च मीमांसाशब्दस्तेन न प्रमाणमात्रस्यैव विचारोऽत्राधिकृतः ।
  किन्तु तदेकदेशभूतानां दुर्नयनिराकरणद्वारेण परिशोधितमार्गाणां नयानामपि । “प्रमाणनयैरधिगमः”
  इति हि वाचकमुख्यः । सकलपुरुषार्थेषु मूर्धाभिषिक्तस्य सोपायस्य सप्रतिपक्षस्य मोक्षस्य च । एवं हि
  पूजितो विचारो भवति । प्रमाणमात्रविचारस्तु प्रतिपक्षनिराकरणपर्यवसायी वाक्छलमात्रं स्यात् ।
  तद्विवक्षायां तु अथ प्रमाणपरीक्षेत्येव क्रियेत । तत् स्थितमेतत् प्रमाणनयपरिशोधितप्रमेयमार्गं सोपायं
  सप्रतिपक्षमोक्षं विवक्षितुं मीमांसाग्रहणमकार्याचार्येणेति ॥ १ ॥” For अथातः cf. also
  “अथातो ब्रह्मजिज्ञासा” ब्र. सू. 1-1-1 and the Bhāṣya. ]
  l. 1. अथातः । Generally original writers in the sūtra style
  begin their treatises with the words either अथातः or अथ. Āpastamba,
  Kaṇāda, Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa in their respective sūtra works
  use the words अथातः in the beginning, while Patañjali begins with
  अथ in his works on Yoga and Grammar. Eminent Bhāṣyakāras
  such as S'abarasvāmin, S'aṅkarācārya and Patañjali interpret the
  word अथ generally in two senses, i. e. आनन्तर्य and अधिकार. आनन्तर्य
  is meant when अथ is followed by the word अतः and in all other cases
  अधिकार. Others believe that the words अथातः joined together in the
  beginning of a work, mean nothing but आनन्तर्य. This view, held
  १५

114 EXPLANATORY NOTES
by Bhavadāsa and other Vṛttikāras on Jaimini earlier than S'abara
(cir. 500 A. D.), has been cited and refuted in the S'lokavārttika
by Kumārila (see Kārikās 1. 33, 34, 63).
Prabhākarabhaṭṭa also, while commenting on S'abarasvāmin
introduces this view of Bhavadāsa and refutes it in his work
entitled the Bṛhatī, saying: 'लोके' इत्यादिभाष्यस्याथातः शब्दस्यालौकिकार्थाशङ्का-
निवृत्तिः प्रयोजनम् । (1. 1. 1.)
Some Vṛttikāras, such as Rudradatta and others while
commenting on the first sūtra अथातो दर्शपूर्णमासौ व्याख्यास्यामः of the
Āpastambaśrauta, take the two words अथातः to mean only
आनन्तर्य following Bhavadāsa. S'abarasvāmin, however, refutes this
view of Bhavadāsa with care and establishes the meanings of आनन्तर्य
for अथ and हेतुभाव for the word अतः in the sūtra अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा of
Jaimini. Other commentators such as Dhūrtasvāmin, S'aṅkara-
miśra and others, in their works on Āpastamba and Kaṇāda, take
the word अथ to indicate 'Maṅgala'. But S'aṅkarācārya in his
Bhāṣya on Bādarāyaṇa sūtra disapproves of this and takes अथ
to mean only आनन्तर्य, saying: अर्थान्तरप्रयुक्त एव ह्यथशब्दः श्रुत्या मङ्गलप्रयोजनो
भवति । For other meanings of the word अथ reference may be made
to the verses:—
मङ्गलानन्तरारम्भप्रश्नकात्स्न्र्येष्वथो अथ । (Amarakośa 3. 246.)
and ओङ्कारश्चाथशब्दश्च द्वावेतौ ब्रह्मणः पुरा ।
कण्ठं भित्त्वा विनिर्यातौ तस्मान्माङ्गलिकावुभौ ॥
Rājaśekhara also begins his work with the words अथातः and
this shows that he intends to write his Kāvyamīmāṁsā in the
sūtra style. Here अथ cannot mean अधिकार because of the finite
verb मीमांसिष्यामहे, as also because it is followed by the word अतः.
आनन्तर्य alone, therefore, is better fitted here than अधिकार and हेतुभाव
for the word अतः। आनन्तर्य obviously connects two events and,
therefore, requires a previous event after which the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā may be composed by him. What then is that event
after which Rājaśekhara composed the Kāvyamīmāṁsā? The
previous event or circumstance in this case can only be suggested
as the author himself did not mention it. Many circumstances
such as शिष्यप्रश्न, देवताराधन, रसायनादिक्रिया, गुरुपर्वक्रम, etc. are suggested by
the commentators of the sūtras of Kaṇāda, Āpastamba and others
after which, they thought the work was composed by their
respective authors.

FIRST ADHYĀYA 115
It may be suggested here that गुरुपर्वक्रम is to be taken as the
previous event required by the word अथ, as Rājaśekhara himself
enumerates the teachers of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā in the sentence
beginning with यथोपदिदेश श्रीकण्ठः, etc. In this case, therefore, the
word अथ suggests that Rājaśekhara composed the Kāvyamīmāṁsā
after having been taught by his own Guru who was the last in the
list of teachers beginning with Śrīkaṇṭha. This is what is
called गुरुपर्वक्रम.
A suggestion of this kind is also made by Kumārilabhaṭṭa
while explaining the word अथ in the sūtra अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा of Jaimini,
and subsequently, the same is rejected by him on the ground that
the knowledge of this गुरुपर्वक्रम does not help the reader in any
way, and that the list of teachers also cannot be taken as entirely
accurate. In this connection Pārthasārathi's commentary on
Kumārila is noteworthy :—
“पर्वे अवच्छेदः । गुरुपर्वेणां क्रमः गुरुपर्वक्रमः । तद्यथा ‘ब्रह्मा प्रजापतये मीमांसां प्रोवाच ।
सोऽपीन्द्राय । सोऽप्यादित्याय । स च वसिष्ठाय । सोऽपि पराशराय । पराशरः कृष्णद्वैपायनाय । सोऽपि
जैमिनये । स च स्वोपदेशानन्तरमिमं न्यायं ग्रन्थे निबद्धवान्’ इति । सोऽयमेवंविधः संबन्धो निष्फलो
निर्हेतुकश्च । नह्यस्मिन् संबन्धे किंचित्प्रमाणमस्ति’ । इति । (Nyāyaratnākara, p. 8).
It is necessary, therefore, to find out a reasonable circum-
stance which may have preceded the composition of the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā. That circumstance seems to be the composition of
other earlier Kāvyas. Here the word अथ seems to indicate
that after composing the Kāvyas and Nāṭakas, the author begins
composing the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. It is easy now to understand
the meaning of the word अतः. This word indicates वृत्तस्य हेतुभाव.
Here वृत्त is काव्यनाटककरण. This is the exact event that precedes
the composition of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. To explain the necessities
of a poet and the method of composition which are treated of in
the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, a writer should first gain experience as a poet
and compose several works on different subjects. The words अथ
and अतः, therefore, indicate as follows :—
अथ=बालरामायणहरविलासादिदृश्यश्रव्यकाव्यकरणानन्तरम् ।
अतः=काव्यविचारात्मकमीमांसाशास्त्रस्य काव्यकरणानन्तरमेव सुकरत्वाद्धेतोः ।
The word अतः can, however, be explained from a different stand-
point. This word being derived from a सर्वनाम, is used here to
mean the desired object (बुद्धिस्थपरामर्शी). In that case अतः means
श्रीकण्ठमारभ्य प्रवृत्तस्य काव्यमीमांसाशास्त्रस्योच्छिन्नत्वाद्धेतोः । Therefore, the construc-

116 EXPLANATORY NOTES
tion of the further text from यथोपदिदेश to the end of the
sentence इत्थङ्कारं च प्रकीर्णत्वात् (P. 1. l. 14.) with this प्रतिज्ञावाक्य appears
quite logical and coherent.
l. 1. काव्यम्। This word denotes the purpose of this Mīmāṁsā-
śāstra. It is necessary that in the beginning of every work or
śāstra the result obtained from such work or śāstra should be
stated in order that those who read may readily be interested in it.
This practice is observed by all Sūtrakāras. Kumārilabhaṭṭa
explains this in the following Kārikā :-
सर्वस्यैव हि शास्त्रस्य कर्मणो वापि कस्यचित्। यावत्प्रयोजनं नोक्तं तावत्तत् केन गृह्यते ॥
(S'lokavārttika I. 12.)
l. 1. मीमांसिष्यामहे। This verb also indicates that Rājaśekhara
wrote his work in the sūtra style in the same way as other
S'rauta, Gṛhya and Dharmasūtras were written. Basing on one
of the two roots माङ् or मान, सन् प्रत्यय takes place according to the
rule of Pāṇini 3-1-6. and the meaning of the word मीमांसा is to be
taken as पूजितविचार. The result obtained from this Mīmāṁsā is
काव्यविद्यासिद्धि, just as धर्मज्ञान and ब्रह्मज्ञान are obtained from the पूर्वोत्तरमीमांसा।
l. 1. श्रीकण्ठः etc. Here Rājaśekhara intends to record the
गुरुपरम्परा of this Mīmāṁsāśāstra in order to impress that he is not
the sole originator of this S'āstra, as also to show the reason why
he had to compose this work while the Science had already been
well-established by his predecessors. S'rīkaṇṭha and Brahman are
considered by the author as the originators of this Mīmāṁsāśāstra
in the same way as Pāṇini and Kaṇāda are said to have obtained
the knowledge of their śāstras from Mahādeva, or as Dharma-
mīmāṁsā and Bharata's Nāṭyaśāstra are said to have originated
from Brahman.
l. 1. परमेष्ठि. S'rīkaṇṭha delivered lectures on Kāvyamīmāṁsā
or criticisms on Kāvyas to his 64 students headed by Brahman
and he, the self-born, also taught the same to his disciples who
were born from his mind. These disciples are the sages Bhṛgu
and others according to the Vāyupurāṇa (Adh. 65.) and the
same statement is made by Rājaśekhara following the same Purāṇa
on p. 28. l. 14 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā.

• [ l. 2. चतुःषष्टये शिष्येभ्यः। Cf. ब्रह्मविष्णुरुद्रगुहबृहस्पतिभार्गवादिशिष्येषु चतुः-
  षष्टाबुद्धिदं वचः पारमेश्वरम्। (Kāvyamīmāṁsā p. 29 ) ]

FIRST ADHYĀYA 117
l. 2. चतुःषष्टये। Here the number 64 is exceedingly interesting.
The Pāñcālas used the number 64 in their classifications. Ṛgveda
has been divided into 64 Adhyāyas comprising 8 Aṣṭakas of 8
Adhyāyas each. Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra mentions 64
Upavidyās of his own and 64 Kalās of the Pāñcālas and divides the
whole s'āstra into 64 Prakaraṇas (V. S. 1. 3. 14-17 and 2. 2. 3-4)
Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra enumerates 64 Nāṭyāṅgās and S'āradā-
tanaya divides countries in the Bhāratavarṣa into 64 in his
Bhāvaprakāśana. It seems to be a remnant of an old custom to
divide a subject into eight just as Pāṇini did in his Aṣṭādhyāyī.
In giving the number 64 to the disciples of S'rīkaṇṭha, it appears
that Rājaśekhara also followed the same tradition. His eight
kinds of poets and 32 kinds of Kāvyārthaharaṇas or plagiarisms
(p. 65) also show his leaning towards the same tradition.
l. 3. सारस्वतेयः etc. The story of Sārasvateya—Kāvyapuruṣa,
as one of the originators of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, seems to have
been borrowed by Rājaśekhara from the Harṣacarita of Bāṇa.
Bāṇa, in his auto-biography found a Sārasvateya the son of
Sarasvatī and Dadhīca Bhārgava, through whom Vatsa, the first
male representative of his family, got the knowledge of all sciences
and the Vedas.
The origin of this story of Sārasvateya is traceable in many
Purāṇas. But they differ from one another in many respects.
Bāṇa and Rājaśekhara seem to have mainly followed the Vāyu-
purāṇa for this idea of Sārasvateya as the version preserved
in this Purāṇa agrees mainly with that given in their works.
The special leaning of Rājaśekhara towards the Vāyupurāṇa is also
demonstrated by his references to that Purāṇa later on on page
28 l. 12. According to the Vāyupurāṇa Bhṛgu or Kavi, the first
son of Brahman, had Cyavana as his son through Paulomī, and
this Cyavana also had two sons Dadhīca and Ātmavāna through
Sukanyā. Dadhīca married Sarasvatī and got a Sārasvateya
as his son who was learned in all S'āstras through the blessings
of his mother, but was childless. Ātmavāna, the brother of
Dadhīca, on the other hand, got the sons Aurva and others and
through them the family of Bhṛgu expanded. In this family was
born Vatsa the Mūlapuruṣa of the Vātsyāyana Gotra to which
Bāṇa also belonged (vide, Vāyu. Adh. 65). Bāṇa followed the
same succession list as found in the Vāyupurāṇa in the 1st chap-

118 EXPLANATORY NOTES
ter of the Harṣacarita and adduced some reasons to explain why
Sarasvatī had to marry Dadhīca and how Vatsa, Bāṇa's Gotraguru,
was connected with Sārasvateya.
The Vāyupurāṇa and the Harṣacarita seem to have offered
materials to Rājaśekhara who while describing the story of
Kāvyapuruṣa, the son of Sarasvatī, makes him one of the earliest
exponents of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. For a complete description
and origin of Sārasvateya a reference may be made to the 3rd
chapter of the present work.
l. 3. वृन्दीयसाम्:—more important gods. The word वृन्दारक means
divine beings or Devas and it transforms itself into वृन्दीयस् in
comparative (vide Pāṇini 6-4-157).
l. 4. काव्यपुरुषः—Bhṛgu and S'ukra are known as Kavi.
Sārasvateya the descendent of their family is, therefore, called
Kāvyapuruṣa (vide Pāṇini 4. 1. 151).
l. 4. दिव्येन चक्षुषा:—through divine power. This accounts for
his knowledge of सर्वसमय and भविष्यदर्थ.
l. 6. काव्यविद्या:—science of poetical composition.
l. 6. अष्टादशाधिकरणी:—the collection of 18 Adhikaraṇas or
topics. The word Adhikaraṇa is interpreted in several ways, but
the following three may be said to be appropriate for the present
application of the word. (1) Each discussion regarding Dharma
and Brahma introduced by Jaimini and Bādarāyaṇa in their
Mīmāṁsāśāstras, is called an Adhikaraṇa. This technical dis-
cussion is defined as:—
विषयो विशयश्चैव पूर्वपक्षस्तथोत्तरः । प्रयोजनं च (संगतिश्चेति) पञ्चाङ्गं प्राञ्चोऽधिकरणं विदुः ॥
According to this definition an Adhikaraṇa must consist of
five limbs, namely, विषय etc., which constitute the actual discussion.
Though Rājaśekhara is not entirely in accord with this definition
in his Adhikaraṇa of Kavirahasya, his discussions have five limbs
such as विषय etc., particularly in respect of the nature of poets,
origin of poetry, etc. (2) Secondly, the word Adhikaraṇa means
the court of justice. Here Rājaśekhara records his own judgment
on several topics pertaining to Kavirahasya after stating the
different schools of thought started by the Ācāryas, Surānanda,
S'yāmadeva and others which he ultimately rejects. The division
into Adhikaraṇas found in the Arthaśāstra and the Kāmaśāstra

FIRST ADHYĀYA 119
is also planned according to this method where in the same
manner, the respective authors, while discussing the different topics,
state the views of earlier authors and ultimately reject them.
(3) Thirdly, the word Adhikaraṇa is used in a popular sense
signifying a full discussion of a particular topic (अधिक्रियन्ते प्रस्तूयन्ते
अर्थाः अस्मिन्निति अधिकरणम्). This explanation, of course, covers the
Adhikaraṇa division of the Artha and Kāma śāstras which are
divided respectively into 15 and 7 Adhikaraṇas, each having several
Adhyāyas. In the case the word is synonymous with the word
अध्याय or अधिकार, and does not include the technical Adhikaraṇa
of five factors: विषय, संशय etc.
l. 7. स्नातकेभ्यः. Snātakas are those who after studying the
Vedas, take the final bath or स्नान, live the life of a householder
and observe some rules for cleanliness as prescribed in the Dharma-
śāstras. (For the rules of a Snātaka, see for instance, Gautama's
Dharmasūtra, chapter 9). They belong to the order of a house-
holder and not of a Brahmacārin. Here Rājaśekhara points to
the divine Snātakas who after finishing the study of Kāvyavidyā
take a bath to follow the rules of a Snātaka. In this connection
it is to be remembered that Dharmamīmāṁsā is to be studied after
studying the Vedavidyā and before one becomes a Snātaka. (See
Jaimini's sūtra अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा। 1-1-1). In order that greater respect
may be shown to his Mīmāṁsā, Rājaśekhara mentions that the
Kāvyamīmāṁsa was taught to Kāvyavidyā-Snātakas. The reason
for this digression seems to be to indicate that discussion on poetics
is appreciated only by those who lead the life of a householder.
The words अष्टादशाधिकरणीं and स्नातकेभ्यः show that Kāvyapuruṣa taught
all the 18 Adhikaraṇas to a corsiderable number of divine Snātakas.

• [l. 8. 'सुवर्णनाभः। This name occurs also in the Kāmasūtra;
  “सुवर्णनाभः सांप्रयोगिकम् ।” (काम. सू. 1. 1-13).]
  l. 8. समाम्नासीत्. Out of those divine Snātakas who studied
  the Kāvyamīmāṁsā of 18 sections from Kāvyapuruṣa, Sahasrākṣa
  composed a treatise on the Kavirahasya only. The root म्ना
  preceded by सम् and आ indicates that the Snātakas separately
  composed different treatises dealing with each section of the Kāvya-
  mīmāṁsā; but it is not reasonable to infer from this use of the
  verb that Sahasrākṣa studied the Kavirahasya-section only under
  the guidance of Kāvyapuruṣa. This is supported by the passage
  at the end of this sentence, namely: इति ततस्ते पृथक् पृथक् स्वशास्त्राणि
  विरचयाञ्चक्रुः। l. 13.

120 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Subjects dealt with in these 18 sections are more or less
well known in the history of poetics. But the authors such as
Sahasrākṣa and others are entirely new in the field of Alaṅkāra
literature. Though some early writers on poetics, rhetoric and
dramaturgy such as S'ilāli, Kṛśāśva, Kāśyapa, Vararuci and
Medhāvin are known through the writings of Pāṇini, Bhāmaha
and Daṇḍin, none of them, however, is mentioned here as the
author of any subject. Rājaśekhara, indeed, mentions a few
names such as Bharata, Kucamāra, Suvarṇanābha and Nan-
dikeśvara who are fairly known, but the names of Sahasrākṣa and
others mentioned by him are entirely unknown. It is not proper
to say that these names are entirely imaginary, but it is very
probable that he recorded here a forgotten tradition handed down
from a source which remains yet unknown. But then, it has to be
explained how Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Udbhaṭa, Ānandavar-
dhana and Rudraṭa who were earlier than Rājaśekhara and dealt
with the same subjects with a special interest, did not care to mention
any of the earliest writers on these subjects. In this connection,
another point also is worthy of note that Rājaśekhara has made a
good use of the figure of speech known as Anuprāsa in selecting
the names of the authors of these chapters, and as such the names
may as well represent purely imaginary persons. This is borne out
by such combinations as :—कविरहस्यं सहस्राक्षः, औक्तिकमुक्तिगर्भः, निर्णयं सुवर्णनाभः,
चित्रं चित्राङ्गदः, श्लेषं शेषः, औपम्यमौपकायनः, etc.
Of course, we find mention in the Artha and the Kāma sāstras
of Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana, of similar names of authors such as
Bhāradvāja, Bṛhaspati, Viśālākṣa, Parāśara and others whose works
are either summarised or referred to in them. But we cannot
doubt the authenticity of the statements of Kauṭilya and Vātsyā-
yana because there are no works on Artha and Kāma earlier than
Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana available to-day, as it is in the case
of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. On the contrary, the existence of the
works of such authors as Bṛhaspati and Viśālākṣa can be proved
from quotations found in later works under their names (see Intro.
of the Arthaśāstra, Trivandrum edi. p. 6.).
l. 8. औक्तिकम्:—'different methods of expression from the
sentences'. They are वाच्य, लक्ष्य, गौण and व्यङ्ग्य of अर्थ, and वाचक, लक्षक,
गौण and व्यञ्जक of the शब्द. It is natural for Rājaśekhara to explain

FIRST ADHYĀYA 121
the nature of Dhvani in this chapter of औक्तिक which, as he says, was
composed by उक्तिगर्भ; but he does not expressly mention the school
of Dhvani as the subject of any one of his Adhikaraņas, probably
because it had recent origin in his time and also because he
belonged to the Rasa school of Bharata. He knew, however, the
view of Ānandavardhana, the chief exponent of the Dhvani school,
as he quoted a verse from his Dhvanyāloka (See p. 16. of this work).
Vakrokti which is included by Rudrața as a Śabdālaṅkāra must
have also been treated in this chapter of औक्तिक along with different
kinds of उक्तिs as explained by Bhojadeva in his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhā-
bharaṇa. (2. 39).
l. 8. रीतिनिर्णयम्। Discussions regarding the nature of the Rītis
are current from the very early stages of the science of poetics as
both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, the earliest writers on this subject,
mention them as already existing since a very long time (see
Bhāmaha's, K. A. 31-33 and Daṇḍin's K. A. 1-40). Vāmana, the
author of the Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra, improved upon them and stated
that Rīti alone is the soul of the Kāvya. (रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य। 1. 2. 6.).
l. 9. प्रचेतायनः। The earliest authors on poetics accept अनुप्रास
as one of the Alaṅkāras or figure of speech. Bhāmaha treats this
at the very outset while dealing with Alaṅkāras and divides it into
two kinds as Grāmya and Lāṭīya. Daṇḍin characterizes Anuprāsa
as an inferior method of writing which he attributes to the writers
in the Gauḍa country (see K. A. 1. 44-60). But the followers of
Bhāmaha have been able to discover several varieties of it in their
works. The original writer on अनुप्रास, as Rājaśekhara mentions, is
प्रचेतायन, very probably a member in the family of Pracetas, one
of the ten Prajāpatis. But the word प्रचेतायन does not seem to be
grammatically correct according to the rules of Pāṇini. Vālmīki,
the author of the Rāmāyaṇa, also is a Prācetasa. Rājaśekhara
perhaps means that Vālmīki was the original writer on Anuprāsa as
we frequently come across examples of this figure of speech in his
Rāmāyaṇa. It is curious, however, that Pracetas does not find
any place among the gotras and pravaras of the Brāhmins.
l. 9. यमकानि। The name of the original inventor of यमक is
omitted in all MSS. of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. Citrāṅgada cannot
be taken as the teacher of both the Yamaka and Citra. Firstly
because, the name is not in keeping with the Anuprāsa which
१६

122 EXPLANATORY NOTES
is strictly observed here in mentioning the subject and the author.
Under this Anuprāsa principle, Citrāṅgada can be the originator
of the Citra alone. Secondly because, Rājaśekhara subsequently
states that 18 chapters were separately composed by eighteen
authors : इति ततस्ते पृथक्पृथक् स्वशास्त्राणि विरचयाञ्चक्रुः । (p. 1. l. 13.)
Some scholars, however, suggest here a reading different
from the present one as आनुप्रासिकं प्रचेताः । यमो यमकानि । But this
reading is not warranted by the MS material available at present.
The form प्रचेतायन also does not seem to be grammatically
correct as the grammatical form in this case ought to be प्राचेतायन
or प्रचेतयनिः. Yamakas are very freely used in the Sanskrit
literature even from the time of the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata.
Kālidāsa also in the 9th sarga of the Raghuvaṁśa uses Yamaka
frequently but with care so as not to give rise to a feeling
of disgust in the mind of his readers. It is one of the four
Alaṅkāras mentioned with several varieties by Bharata, the earliest
writer on the science of poetics (see N. S. ed. 16th Chapter).
Amongst later writers, Bhāmaha was not satisfied with the
classification of Bharata, and he acknowledged only five varieties
instead. Though Daṇḍin has no special fondness for Yamakas in
the Kāvya, he, nevertheless, deals with the subject with its various
sub-divisions in a separate chapter (see K. A. 1. 61). It is,
therefore, clear that Yamakas had quite an early origin. Yama,
who is considered to be the original teacher of the Yamaka in the
emended reading given above is quite in keeping with the scheme
of Anuprāsa followed by Rājaśekhara in mentioning the subjects
and their teachers.
l. 9. चित्रं चित्राङ्गदः । Later writers on literary criticism use
the word चित्र to mean an inferior kind of poetry possessing
Guṇa and Alaṅkāra only, without any vestige of Dhvani. (see
Dhvanyāloka 3. 42 and Kāvyaprakāśa, 1. 5.). Rājaśekhara, here
does not refer to the चित्रकाव्य but to चित्र which is recognized as
one of the Śabdālaṅkāras by the early writers on Alaṅkāra.
Here by the word चित्र, is meant such peculiar combination of
words in poetry as to make up Bandhas such as चक्र, खङ्ग, मुरज,
etc. and other arrangements of words such as मात्राच्युतक, प्रहेलिका etc.
Rudraṭa is the first writer to include this kind of combination
of words in his list of Śabdālaṅkāras (2-13.) with the name
चित्र, and to deal with its various forms in the 5th chapter of

his Kāvyālaṅkāra although Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin mention this
kind only as another variety of Yamaka. It is curious that the
subjects of several Adhikaraṇas in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, should
be so arranged by Rājaśekhara as to appear as an imitation of
the system adopted by Rudraṭa. Rudraṭa gives in his Kāvyā-
laṅkāra the list of the S'abdālaṅkāras in the following verse:—
वक्रोक्तिरनुप्रासो यमकं श्लेषस्तथाऽपरं चित्रम् ।
शब्दस्यालंकाराः श्लेषोऽर्थस्यापि सोऽन्योऽस्तु ॥ (2. 13).
and treats of these Alaṅkāras in chapters 2-5 following the same
order. In the first and second chapters, Rudraṭa deals with
Kavirahasya and Rītinirṇaya. Now, it will be evident that
the order of subjects adopted by Rājaśekhara in the first 7
Adhikaraṇas is substantially the same as found in the work of
Rudraṭa. That Rājaśekhara also followed Rudraṭa in many im-
portant points will be shown in sequel.
l. 9. शब्दश्लेषम् । Following Rudraṭa's classification here शब्दश्लेष
is included among the शब्दालंकारs and अर्थश्लेष among the अर्थालंकारs.
Earlier writers such as Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana make no
such distinction between these two varieties of the S'leṣa but
include them both amongst the अर्थालंकारs. Rudraṭa for the first
time treats of these two separately in two different chap-
ters. Regarding the attribution of the original authorship of
the S'leṣa to S'eṣa no authority exists, and the word S'eṣa is
probably used since it is in accordance with the author's scheme of
Anuprāsa already referred to.
ll. 9–10. वास्तव, औपम्य, अतिशय and अर्थश्लेष । Here Rājaśekhara
begins his list of Arthālaṅkāras. This classification of the Arthā-
laṅkāras into the groups Vāstava etc. is found only in the Kāvyā-
laṅkāra of Rudraṭa; but the early writers on Alaṅkāra preceding
Rudraṭa do not seem to be aware of this system of grouping.
Rudraṭa classifies them in the following verse :—
अर्थस्यालंकारा वास्तवमौपम्यमतिशयः श्लेषः ।
एषामेव विशेषाः अन्ये तु भवन्ति निःशेषाः ॥ (K. A. 7. 9).
and deals with them in four chapters 7-10. Under the heads वास्तव,
etc. Rudraṭa includes respectively 23, 21, 12 and 10 figures of
speech as based upon the four definite principles, वास्तव, etc.
This shows that Rājaśekhara generally followed Rudraṭa in his

124 EXPLANATORY NOTES
classification of subjects. But the attribution of these four groups
of Alaṅkāras to four authors पुलस्त्य, औपकायन, पराशर and उतथ्य must
be an original contribution of Rājaśekhara. It is also possible
that Rājaśekhara and Rudraṭa followed a common source for
their materials which unfortunately does not exist now. In any
case it can safely be asserted that Rājaśekhara in the first 11
sections of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā closely follows the arrangement
of topics as found in the first 10 chapters of Rudraṭa's Kāvya-
laṅkāra. That Rājaśekhara was well acquainted with Rudraṭa's
work, is borne out by the fact that he quoted from Rudraṭa's
work in several places in his Kāvyamīmāṁsā. (Cf. p. 16. l. 5
and p. 31. l. 9 of K. M. with Rudraṭa 1. 18 and 2. 16).
l. 11. उभयालंकारिकम्। Two kinds of उभयालंकार seem to have been
treated in this chapter. The two Alaṅkāras संकर and संसृष्टि with
their varieties may be called उभयालंकारs, because they are known when
there is a combination of two or more Alaṅkāras belonging either
to Śabda or Artha. Rudraṭa deals with these अलंकारs in the 10th
chapter of his Kāvyālaṅkāra after अर्थश्लेष. Rājaśekhara also
takes up this subject in the same order after अर्थश्लेष. Another
kind of उभयालंकार which may form the subject matter of this chapter
includes those Alaṅkāras which beautify the poetry belonging to
both Śabda and Artha. Alaṅkāras such as Upamā, Punaru-
ktavadābhāsa, Samuccaya, Sahokti, Śleṣa, Vyatireka, Rūpaka,
Virodha, etc. come under this category. Cf. Rudraṭa's, K. A.
4. 32-34 and Udbhaṭa's, K. A. S. S. (gos. ed.) pp. 37-40.
There is another kind consisting of 24 उभयालंकारs which is
dealt with by Bhojadeva in the 4th chapter of his Sarasvatī-
kaṇṭhābharaṇa. These Alaṅkāras do not, however, form the
subject matter of this chapter because Bhoja's उभयालंकार includes
only Upamā, Rūpaka etc. which are already included in the
Aupamya group under the authorship of औपकायन in the previous
chapter of this work.
l. 11. वैनोदिकम्। Kāmadeva is mentioned as the author of
this chapter which deals with the Vinodas. Vātsyāyana in his
Kāmasūtra (1-4) gives a list of Vinodas for an accomplished
citizen or Nāgaraka who is required to indulge in these Vinodas in
the company of their ladies or dancing girls. The treatises Kandar-
pacūḍāmaṇi, etc. dealing with the subject Kāma also explain
the nature of these Vinodas for romantic couples. They are:—

FIRST ADHYĀYA 125

आपानकविधिः, उद्यानजलक्रीडा, कुक्कुटलावमेषयुद्धम्, द्यूतम्, यक्षरात्रिः, कौमुदीजागरः, सुवसन्तकः
etc. Bhojadeva in his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa gives a similar
list of Vinodas of lovers to be described by poets while dealing
with love affairs in their poetry.
Cf. अष्टमीचन्द्रकः कुन्दचतुर्थी सुवसन्तकः ।
आन्दोलनचतुर्थ्येकशाल्मली मदनोत्सवः ॥ etc.
Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa 5, 93-96.
These Vinodas are classified according to the different seasons
or Ṛtus by Śāradātanaya in his Bhāvaprakāśana as under:—
अष्टमीचन्द्रशक्राचवसन्तमदनोत्सवाः ।
बकुलाशाकविहतिः शाल्मलीमूलखेलनम् ॥
एते वासन्तिकाः प्रायो विनोदा रसिकोचिताः ।
उद्यानयात्रा सलिलक्रीडा पुष्पापचायिका ।
नवाग्रखादिका चूतमाधवीनवसंगमः ।
एते प्रायो विनोदाः स्युः निदाघे सुखभोगिनाम् ॥ etc. pp. 137-138.
In the Ratnāvalī, Śākuntala, etc. we find that Vinodas such
as the Kaumudīmahotsava, Manmathapūjā Vasantotsava, etc.
are introduced and prescribed for lovers. This chapter on Vinodas
is attributed by Rājaśekhara to Kāmadeva because these are
concerned with pure love.
l. 11. रूपकनिरूपणीयम्। The chapter where the different varieties
of Dramas or Rūpakas are explained, is attributed to Bharata
the author of the Nāṭyaśāstra. Here the word Rūpaka stands
for Nāṭya according to the definition of Śāradātanaya which is as
follows:—
रामादितादात्म्यापत्तिर्नटे या नाट्यमुच्यते ।
रूपकं तद्भवेद्रूपं दृश्यत्वात्प्रेक्षकैरिदम् ॥
रूपकत्वं तदारोपात्कमलारोपवन्मुखे । Bhāvaprakāśana p. 180
The fanciful identity of Naṭas on the stage with Rāma etc. is
known as Rūpaka because it is so witnessed by the audience. This
Nāṭya or Rūpaka is based on eleven fundamental principles as
stated by Bharata in the 6th chapter of his work. The relevant
quotation is given below:—
रसा भावा ह्यभिनया धर्मा वृत्तित्रवृत्तयः ।
सिद्धिः स्वरास्तथाऽऽतोद्यं गानं रङ्गश्च सङ्ग्रहः ॥

126 EXPLANATORY NOTES
The whole of the Nāṭyaśāstra of Bharata explains only these
11 principles one after another in 36 chapters.

1. 12. रसाधिकारिकम्। The section dealing with the Rasādhikāra
   or the explanation of Rasas is attributed to Nandikeśvara.
   Nandikeśvara is reputed to be the chief follower of Mahādeva
   and as one of the earliest writers of Kāmaśāstra in 1000 chapters.
   Cf. वात्स्यायन 1. 1. 8. 'महादेवानुचरश्च नन्दी सहस्रेणाध्यायानां पृथक्कामसूत्रं प्रोवाच'।
   This work of Nandī is said to have been summarised by many
   writers such as, औद्दालकि, श्वेतकेतु, बाभ्रव्य, पाञ्चाल and वात्स्यायन. Here the
   word Rasa indicates only the S'ṛṅgārarasa and not others
   namely, Vīra, Karuṇa, etc, which are recognized as Rasas only in
   Nāṭya. Because the Nāṭyarasas or the emotions produced on the
   audience while witnessing a drama, and explained by Bharata
   in the Nāṭyaśāstra, form the subject matter of the previous
   Adhikaraṇa रूपकनिरूपणीयम् of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. The actual
   Karuṇa, Vīra, Bībhatsa, etc. cannot be called Rasas or enjoy-
   ments as persons having these emotions do not get any enjoyment
   whatsoever. But when these Rasas Karuṇa etc. are enacted by
   skilful actors with histrionics on the stage, the corresponding emo-
   tions of the audience are roused in the form of joy and therefore
   may be called as Nāṭyarasas. According to this explanation,
   S'ṛṅgāra alone is the Rasa par excellence, and this is treated of by
   Nandikeśvara in this section. Regarding the authorship of Nan-
   dikes'vara, to a work dealing with S'ṛṅgāra, the commentator on
   Vātsyāyana (1. 1. 8) records a tradition which runs as follows:—
   “दिव्यं वर्षसहस्रमुमया सह सुरतसुखमनुभवति महादेवे वासगृहद्वारगतो नन्दी कामसूत्रं प्रोवाच”.
2. 12. दोषाधिकरणम्। The chapter in which Doṣas or blemishes
       in poetry are treated of is attributed to Dhiṣaṇa or Bṛhaspati. It
       is quite appropriate to attribute this chapter of Doṣa to Dhiṣaṇa
       not only because the intelligence of a very high order is required
       to find out the Doṣas but also because the word धिषण is suitable
       to the scheme of Anuprāsa adopted by the author. All writers on
       poetics beginning from Bharata to Mammaṭa excepting Udbhaṭa
       have dealt with the Doṣas in poetry in their respective treatises.
       *[1. 13. औपनिषदिकं कुचमारः cf. “कुचमार औपनिषदिकम् (काम. सू. 1-1-17).
       Thus it appears that Suvarṇanābha and Kucamāra wrote both
       on poetics and on erotics.]
3. 13. औपनिषदिकम्। This is a new chapter in the history of

FIRST ADHYĀYA 127
poetics, introduced by Rājaśekhara in accordance with the
Kāmasūtra of Vātsyāyana and the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya.
Kucamāra is mentioned as the original writer on this subject
both by Rājaśekhara and Vātsyāyana. The object of this chapter
must be the same as that of the औपनिषदिक chapter in the Arthaśa-
stra and the Kāmasūtra. Vātsyāyana describes in this chapter
of औपनिषदिक the ways and means to obtain the expected results
of Kāma through medicinal plants, Mantras and Tāntric practices.
This expediency is recommended by Vātsyāyana for those who fail
to gain the enjoyment of Kāma through ordinary means. Kauṭilya
also in his chapter of औपनिषदिक treats of similar Tantric practices to
be adopted by kings in order to subdue the enemies and protect
the subjects. Similarly, Rājaśekhara also might have dealt with
in this chapter the ways and means to obtain poetical excellence
by those who fail to gain it by ordinary methods. The underlying
motive which led the author to introduce this chapter in the
Kāvyamīmāṁsā, will become apparent if a reference is made to the
statements of Rājaśekhara on p. 11. l. 10, and p. 13. ll. 13, 15.
There it is said that a disciple who is devoid of poetical skill
either by birth or by training, is called दुर्बुद्धि. In order that he
may obtain poetical exellence the ways and means for attaining
it, are treated of in the chapter of औपनिषदिक. In the other place
(p. 12. l. 22) it is said that उपनिषच्छक्ति means मन्त्रतन्त्राद्युपदेशप्रभवा शक्तिः।
*[ll. 14–16. Cf. 'एवं बहुभिराचार्यैः तच्छास्त्रं खण्डशः प्रणीतमुत्सन्नकल्पमभूत् ।
'तत्र...संक्षिप्य सर्वमर्थमल्पेन ग्रन्थेन कामसूत्रमिदं प्रणीतम्॥' (काम. सू. 1. 1. 18 and 19)].
l. 15. प्रयोजका(ना)ङ्गवती। Here the original reading as found
in the MSS does not seem to be quite appropriate because प्रयोजक
is not an अङ्ग. The suggestion as प्रयोजनाङ्गवती seems to be more
suitable because प्रयोजन is considered as an important अङ्ग
for the प्रेक्षावत्प्रवृत्ति. That is to say, there must be some necessity
for composing a work, and this becomes an important factor
for the composition of that work. If there is no need for such a
work, neither the poet should waste his energy in its composition
nor the readers could be interested in a work of that kind. Here
in preparing his Kāvyamīmāṁsā, Rājaśekhara states the necessity
for composing the work by the words: प्रकीर्णत्वात् and उच्छिच्छिदे. In
this respect the author entirely follows Vātsyāyana and Kauṭilya
both in arrangement as also in ideas. Cf. Vātsyāyana:—
तत्रप्रजाचारायणः साधारणमधिकरणं प्रोवाच। सुवर्णनाभः साम्प्रयोगिकम्। घोटकमुखः कन्या-

128 EXPLANATORY NOTES
सम्प्रयुक्तकम् । गोनर्दीयो भार्याधिकारिकम् । गोणिकापुत्रः पारदारिकम् । कुचुमार औपनिषि-
कम् । एवं बहुभिराचार्यैस्तच्छास्त्रं खण्डशः प्रणीतमुत्सन्नकल्पमभूत् । + + + संक्षिप्य
सर्वमर्थमल्पेन ग्रन्थेन कामसूत्रमिदं प्रणीतम् (काम. सू. 1-1-18-19) Also cf. पृथिव्या
लाभे पालने च यावन्त्यर्थशास्त्राणि पूर्वाचार्यैः प्रस्थापितानि प्रायशस्तानि संहृत्यैकमिदमर्थशास्त्रं
कृतम् । तस्यायं प्रकरणाधिकरणसमुद्देशः ( Arthaśāstra 1. 1.)
l. 15. अष्टादशाधिकरणी । This is a compound word by Dvigusamāsa :
अष्टादशानामधिकरणानां समाहारः ।
*[l. 16. तस्या अयं प्रकरणाधिकरणसमुद्देशः । cf. “तस्यायं प्रकरणाधिकरणसमुद्देशः”
( काम. सू. 1-1-19 ) and अर्थशास्त्र ( 1-1.). शास्त्रसंग्रहः. cf. ( काम. सू. 1-1-20 );
also the शास्त्रसंग्रह in Amara's कविकल्पलता. Though the work contains
18 chapters, only 15 headings are here enumerated ].
l. 16. प्रकरणाधिकरणसमुद्देशः । Prakaraṇas are the sub-divisions of each
Adhikarana and they deal with the different topics coming under the
main subject of an Adhikaraṇa. It is to be understood by this remark
that Prakaraṇas of eighteen Adhikaraṇas in the Kāvyamīmāṃsā
are enumerated here. But contrary to this statement and to
the method adopted in the Kāma and the Artha s'āstras, we
find here enumerated only 15 subjects S'āstrasangraha, etc, of
the first Adhikarana Kavirahasya but not the Prakaraṇas of
other 17 Adhikaraṇas of the Kāvyamīmāṃsā. But it is to
be noted here that these 15 subjects cover all the 18 chapters
of the first Adhikarana. This difference in number between
the chapters and the subjects of the first Adhikarana requires
an explanation. It appears that in some places one subject
is treated of in more than one chapter and at others one chapter
deals with more than one subject. In this respect Rājaśekhara
differs from the method of the Kāma and the Arthas'āstras
while enumerating the Prakaraṇādhikaraṇas. In the enumeration
of these 15 subjects also he does not follow the exact order
adopted by him in the first Adhikarana. For example, वाक्यविधयः,
कविविशेषः and काकुप्रकाराः should go after पदवाक्यविवेक, and भुवनकोशः after
देशविभाग according to the order of the text. This deviation of
sequence in the enumeration may be explained by the fact that
probably Rājaśekhara did not anticipate this change when he was
engaged in composing the first chapter of this Adhikarana.
It may also be possible that Vātsyāyana and Kauṭilya did not
commit this mistake because probably they wrote their प्रकरणाधि-
करणसमुद्देश after the completion of their works.

FIRST ADHYĀYA 129
Page. 2.
l. 4. भुवनकोशः। A short description of the Bhuvanakośa is
found in the 17th chapter of this work where a geographical division
of countries is given. Rājaśekhara states on p. 98. l. 9. that for
full information regarding the geography of the world the reader
should refer to another work of his, entitled, the Bhuvanakośa.
It is, however, doubtful as to whether this Bhuvanakośa is entirely
a different work of Rājaśekhara or whether it represents the
subject matter of the 19th chapter of the present work which is
lost. It is, however, highly improbable that this should represent
an independent work composed by him. (For further information
see introduction).
l. 4. इत्यादि। In the corresponding chapters of the Kāmaśāstra
of Vātsyāyana and the Arthaśāstra of Kauṭilya, all Adhikaraṇas
of the complete work are enumerated along with their sub-
divisions. Rājaśekhara who generally follows them ought to have
mentioned in this chapter, all the eighteen Adhikaraṇas of the
Kāvyamīmāṁsā with their Prakaraṇas. But all MSS. of this
work now available omit the other Adhikaraṇas, and this omission
is evident by the word इत्यादि. It cannot also be definitely stated
that the author himself did not care to mention them here as he
was not sure of composing the next 17 Adhikaraṇas because such
statements as औपनिषदिके वक्ष्यामः, रीत्यस्तु पुरस्तात्, अलङ्कारव्याख्यानन्तु पुरस्तात्
etc. in different places of this work clearly show that Rājaśekhara
had a mind to complete this work and that he had already planned
it in eighteen Adhikaraṇas. It is likely therefore that the scribes
who wanted to preserve only the first Adhikaraṇa of Kavirahasya
out of the bulky volume containing the whole, did not mention
the other Adhikaraṇas and Prakaraṇas of the work but only
referred to the omitted portion by the word इत्यादि.

• [ P. 2. l. 5. व्याख्याभाष्यम्-व्याख्यारूपं भाष्यं or व्याख्या and भाष्यम्।
  separately ].
  l. 5. इति सूत्राणि। This remark shows that Rājaśekhara writes
  his work in the same Sūtrabhāṣya style as adopted by Vātsyāyana
  and Kauṭilya.
• [ Read lines 5-8 as—इति सूत्राण्यथैतेषां व्याख्याभाष्यं भविष्यति ।
  समासव्यासविन्यासः सैष शिष्यहिताय नः ॥
  चित्रोदाहरणैर्गुर्वी ग्रन्थेन तु लघीयसी ।
  इयं नः काव्यमीमांसा काव्यव्युत्पत्तिकारणम् ॥
  १७