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

THIRD ADHYĀYA 139
He is the son of Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning, and is brought
up in the hermitage of Kavi. The author describes his marriage
with Aumeyī the embodiment of Sāhityavidyā or the science of
poetry. This Kāvyapuruṣa is described in the first chapter as the
earliest teacher of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā and as a divine being from
whom poetry took its origin.
l. 23. गुरुः। Kāvyapuruṣa was the preceptor of Dhiṣaṇa or
Bṛhaspati because he received instructions on the Kāvyamīmāṁsā
from Sārasvateya, and composed a chapter on it dealing with the
Doṣas (see p. 1. l. 12.)
बृहतां पतिः। The word Bṛhaspati is formed according to the
rule of Pāṇini (6-1-157) and thus it denotes a divine being.
l. 24. पुत्रीयन्ती=being desirous of a son.
तुषारगिरौ=mountain of snow i. e. the Himālayas.
Page. 6.
l. 1. To complete the quotation 'पुत्रं ते सृजामि' the word इति
is to be added at the end. But as in many places Rājaśekhara
overlooks this dictum, इति has been added in the present edition
wherever found necessary.
l. 2. छन्दस्वतीं वाचम्=metrical composition. In the mythologi-
cal story related by Rājaśekhara, the reason why Sarasvatī was
desirous of obtaining a son is not clearly explained. Moreover,
Brahmā is here mentioned as the creator of Sārasvateya. But
the story of the birth of Sārasvateya as recorded in such earlier
works as the Vāyupurāṇa, Mahābhārata and Harṣacarita differs
in some important points from the story recorded in the present
work by Rājaśekhara. Bāṇa in his Harṣacarita gives adequate
reasons why Sarasvatī came down to earth, married Dadhīca,
the son of Cyavana, and gave birth to Sārasvateya. These
reasons are not found in any of the Purāṇas. In the Vāyu-
purāṇa also, only the story of the marriage of Sarasvatī
with Dadhīca, son of Cyavana, and of the birth of Sārasvata
who became a master of all sciences through her blessings, is
recorded, mostly on the model of Bāṇa (see Vāyu-Adh. 65).
The fact that in this respect Vāyupurāṇa was followed by
Bāṇa is clearly apparent not only because that a number of

140 EXPLANATORY NOTES

quotations from that Purāṇa is to be found in the Harṣacarita,
but also because the name of that Purāṇa is definitely mentioned
by Bāṇa as पवमानप्रोक्तपुराण in the 3rd chapter.
The case of the Mahābhārata is altogether different. Here
various stories are recorded concerning the birth of Sārasvateya, the
son of Sarasvatī. All these authorities, however, are unanimous
in holding that he was vastly learned in the Vedas and that he
transmitted his knowledge to others. (see S'āntiparvan, Adh.
359 and S'alyaparvan Adh. 52. of the Mahābhārata). It is
said in the S'āntiparvan of the Mahābhārata that God created
a Sārasvata through Sarasvatī and asked him to learn the Vedas
himself and transmit his learning to others. This Sārasvata was
also known by the names of Vyāsa and Apāntaratamas, and he in
accordance with the above instruction, spread the knowledge of the
Vedas in the world.
A similar story is also found in the S'alyaparvan where it is
said that the creative energy of the sage Dadhīci was transmitted
to the river Sarasvatī when he was overpowered by passion
on seeing Alambuṣā a divine dancing girl. As a result, the
river Sarasvatī, obtained a son and he was carried by her to
Dadhīci, his father. This Sārasvateya taught the Vedas to the
sages when they forgot them owing to a severe famine which
lasted for 12 years. Aśvaghoṣa, in the first century A. D.
also records the same story regarding Sārasvateya in his Buddha-
carita (1-47.)

1. 3. यदेतत् etc. In the first half of this verse a clear
   exposition of the S'abdabrahmavāda as developed by Bhartṛhari
   in his Vākyapadīya, has been made. According to this school
   of philosophy, the S'abdabrahma or Nāda, which came out
   from God when he desired to create the world, is the cause of
   the universe which is enveloped in Vivarta or the illusory
   form of existence. When this illusion is removed by means of
   Vidyā or true knowledge there remains only the Nāda or
   S'abdabrahma. This Nāda is also called Parāvāk. From this
   Parāvāk, Paśyantī, Madhyamā and Vaikharī, the three other
   kinds of speech, are produced. Here Madhyamāvāk has the
   property of Sphoṭa which reveals the knowledge of Artha from

THIRD ADHYĀYA 141
the S'abda. The things that are known or meant by the words
have also no separate existence from the words, though they
appear to exist separately. In support of this theory, the following
verses appear in Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadīya:—
अनादिनिधनं ब्रह्म शब्दतत्त्वं यदक्षरम् ।
विवर्ततेऽर्थभावेन प्रक्रिया जगतो यतः ॥
यो वाऽर्थो बुद्धिविषयोऽबाह्यवस्तुनिबन्धनः ।
स बाह्यं वस्त्विति ज्ञातः शब्दार्थः सम्यगिष्यते ॥
शब्दोपहितरूपांश्च बुद्धेर्विषयतां गतान् ।
प्रत्यक्षामिव कंसादीन् साधनत्वेन मन्यते ॥
न सोऽस्ति प्रत्ययो लोके यः शब्दानुगमादृते ।
अनुविद्धमिव ज्ञानं सर्वं शब्देन भासते ॥
अत्यन्तासत्यपि ह्यर्थे ज्ञानं शब्दः करोति हि । etc.
For further information regarding the S'abdabrahma and
Vivartavāda a reference may be made to the Laghumañjūṣā of
Nāgeśabhaṭṭa.
विवर्तते । Vivarta is the illusory existence of a thing; for
example, as the illusory existence of a serpent in the rope when
it is mistaken for a snake.
l. 4. अस्मि। This is an indeclinable particle meaning 'I'—or अहम्.
l. 9. त्वदुपज्ञम् । etc. So long Vālmīki was considered to be the
first to write in the classical śloka metre, and the first composition
attributed to him is the verse: मा निषाद, etc. (See Rāmāyaṇa,
1–2.) According to Rājaśekhara, however, this verse of Vālmīki
is much later than the compositions of Kāvyapuruṣa and Uśanas
who were the two earliest inventors of the śloka metre.
l. 12. रस आत्मा । Rasa is the soul of the Kāvya. There are
several standards of literary criticism in the history of Sanskrit
poetics, and amongst them the theory of Rasa as the soul of
poetry may be considered to be the pre-eminent. This theory
was first conceived and developed by Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra
for the purpose of dramatic composition. The importance of Rasa,
however, was not fully recognized by later critics such as Bhāmaha,
Daṇḍin, and Vāmana as a standard of literary criticism
with reference to compositions other than the drama. But the
later critics advocated different theories of Alaṅkāra, Guṇa,

142 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Rīti, Dhvani, Vakrokti, Anumiti and Aucitya, and were
of opinion that these principles were the essential factors in the
best form of poetical composition other than the drama. During
this period, the theory of Rasa underwent many changes and
modifications in the hands of those who belonged to the other
schools of literary criticism. In the middle of the 9th century
Ānandavardhana revived the theory of Rasa and held that
Rasa Dhvani is the chief principle in all poetical compositions
including the drama. This theory of Dhvani though well
established by Ānanda did not meet with general approval
amongst a large number of critics during the period from 850
to 950 A. D. as they were content with the original Rasa school
of thought started by Bharata and applied the same principle to
both classes of the literature. Prominent among them were
Rudraṭa, Bhaṭṭanāyaka, Dhanañjaya, and Dhanika. Rājaśekhara
flourished during this period (cir 900 A. D.) and he was
led to adopt the trend of literary criticism as was prevalent in his
days. Thus, he held that the Rasa and not Dhvani is the soul of
the Kāvyapuruṣa. Again, at the end of the 10th century A. D.
the theory of Rasadhvani was revived once more by the great
Kashmirian scholar Abhinavagupta following in the foot-steps
of Ānandavardhana. Rājaśekhara did not even mention Dhvani
as a part of the Kāvyapuruṣa or as the subject-matter of any of his
eighteen chapters because in his time even the existence of
Dhvani in poetry was not recognised by critics. For further
information regarding the history of the Rasa school see the
introduction to the Bhāvaprakāśana (G.O.S. No. 45).
*[ l. 15 च॒त्वारि॒ शृङ्गा॒ त्रयो॑ अस्य॒ पादा॒ द्वे शी॒र्षे स॒प्त हस्ता॑सो अस्य ।
त्रिधा॑ ब॒द्धो वृ॑ष॒भो रो॑रवीति म॒हो दे॒वो मर्त्यां२॒ आव॑िवेश ॥
( ऋग्वेद 3-8-10-3 ).
For the different interpretations of this Ṛk see Sāyaṇa's
Bhāṣya, Yâska's Nirukta 13-18 and Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya पस्पशा.
Both the MSS. of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā read शृङ्गास्त्रयो and मर्त्यमा-
विवेश. cf. सप्त स्वराः, त्रीणि स्थानानि, चत्वारो वर्णाः, द्विविधा काकुः, षडलङ्काराः, षडङ्गानि इति ।
भरतनाट्यशास्त्र chapt. 17 ]
l. 20. उशना परिवृत्ते etc. The fact that Sārasvateya Kāvyapu-
ruṣa was brought up by Uśanas or Kavi, as mentioned by

THIRD ADHYĀYA 143

Rājaśekhara, not only shows that no rule of grammar (Pāṇini
4-1-151), is violated in the derivation of the word Kāvyapuruṣa
(the son of Kavi) but also proves the propriety of using the
famous name of S'ukra as Kavi (see. नामलिङ्गानुशासन. 1-3-25).
*[ll. 23-24. या दुग्धाऽपि न दुग्धेव found in some MSS. of दमयन्तीचम्पू
of त्रिविक्रम as मङ्गलश्लोक].
l. 25. तत्पूर्वकम्=after repeating this verse composed by
Uśanas.
ततः प्रभृति । After this event Uśanas is called Kavi because of his
paternal affection towards the young Kāvyapuruṣa and also
because he himself composed a verse या दुग्धापि न दुग्धेव etc.
l. 26. तदुपचारात् । Due to the secondary capacity of the words
(लक्षणा). Poets are called Kavīs because they are also engaged
in the composition of verses as Uśanas or Kavi did in olden days.

Page. 7.

l. 1. कवृ वर्णे । Pāṇinīyas take the word वर्ण here to represent
colour and derive words such as कर्बुर, कबरी etc. from this root कवृ.
The word Kavi is generally derived by them from the root कुङ् शब्दे;
इकार being added in accordance with the Uṇādi rule अच इः (4-138).
Ujjvaladatta in his Uṇādisūtravṛtti derives the word Kavi from
the roots कु वर्णे or कु शब्दे (sec. 4-138). But the Dhātupāṭha of
Pāṇini reads two roots कुङ् and कु and states शब्द only as their
meaning. Rājaśekhara, however, seems to derive the word Kavi
from the root कवृ वर्णे which is not possible according to the
Uṇādi rule अच इः and seems to take the word वर्ण to mean वर्णन or
description. Following the derivation of Ujjvaladatta on 4-138 of
Uṇādisūtra, the reading कवृ वर्णे may be changed here as कुङ् वर्णे.
l. 2. भक्त्या । भक्ति is the secondary capacity of the word called
the लक्षणा or गौणी. The word Kāvya signifies poetry through the
primary capacity known as शक्ति aud Sārasvateya through the
secondary capacity (लक्षणा) as he is the personification of poetry.
l. 4. वाल्मीकिः । Vālmīki also is brought here by Rājaśekhara
to play his role because the epithet of Kavi applies to
both S'ukra and Vālmīki (कविर्वाल्मीकिशुक्रयोः-मेदिनी) and particularly
to Vālmīki as he is designated by all poets as the आदिकवि.

144 EXPLANATORY NOTES
l. 5. भृगुसूनोः = of Śukra. Bhṛgu is the son of Brahman and
Śukra is Bhṛgu's son. This shows the source Vāyupurāṇa
from which the author conceived the idea underlying the story of
Sārasvateya. The Vāyupurāṇa and the Harṣacarita mention that
Bhṛgu's grandson Dadhīci obtained a son Sārasvateya through his
wife Sarasvatī. Sec. Vāyu. 65, 88-91. and Harṣacarita. I.
l. 7. अनुप्रेक्षितः = blessed by Sarasvatī.
l. 8. निषादनिहतसहचरीकं क्रौञ्चयुवानम्। Here Rājaśekhara states that
the female Krauñca was hit by the Niṣāda and the male
Krauñca was lamenting in the presence of Vālmīki. But this
statement goes against the description of the event recorded in the
Rāmāyaṇa.
Cf. तस्याभ्याशे तु मिथुनं चरन्तमपगायिनम् ।
ददर्श भगवांस्तत्र क्रौञ्चयोश्चारुनिःस्वनम् ॥
तस्मात्तु मिथुनादेकं पुमांसं पापनिश्चयः ।
जघान वैरनिलयो निषादस्तस्य पश्यतः ॥
तं शोणितपरीतांगं वेपमानं महीतले ।
भार्या तु निहतं दृष्ट्वा रुराव करुणां गिरम् ॥
Rāmāyaṇa 1. 2. 9-11.
There is a similar statement made by Ānandavardhana in his
Dhvanyāloka (p. 27) as under : संनिहि(ह)तसहचरीविरहकातरक्रौञ्चाक्रन्दजनितः शोक
एव श्लोकतया परिणतः । which also seems to go against the Rāmāyaṇa of
Vālmīki. Probably this passage of Ānandavardhana may be at the
back of Rājaśekhara's statement because the word संनिहित or संनिहत
construed with the word सहचरी gives a different meaning as
stated by him in the passage निषादनिहतसहचरीकम् । But
Abhinavagupta subsequently in his Locanā got over the dis-
crepancy by mending the passage of the Dhvanyāloka in the
following manner : संनिहतसहचरीविरहकातरक्रौञ्चेन आक्रन्देन च जनितः शोकः ।
In this emendation, the word संनिहत is construed not with
सहचरी but with क्रौञ्च who represents the विभाव, whereas the आक्रन्द of
the female क्रौञ्च is अनुभाव for the शोक of Vālmīki. Cf. Locanā :
संनिहतसहचरीति विभाव उक्तः । आक्रन्दितशब्देनानुभावः । (p. 28. l. 8.)
*[ l. 10. मानिषाद etc. Cf. ध्वन्यालोक 1-5. et. seq. ]

THIRD ADHYĀYA 145
l. 10. By introducing here this verse and the story of
Vālmīki, Rājaśekhara reminds us of a similar narrative found in
the beginning of the Rāmāyaṇa. It is said there that Brahman
induced Sarasvatī to bless Vālmīki with poetical skill. After
obtaining her blessings Vālmīki began his compositions, and this
verse मा निषाद etc. was his first metrical composition.
Cf. मच्छन्दादेव ते ब्रह्मन् प्रवृत्तेयं सरस्वती ।
रामस्य चरितं कृत्स्नं कुरु त्वमृषिसत्तम ॥
Rāmāyaṇa 1. 2. 31.
As Rājaśekhara wanted to trace the earliest history of metrical
composition in this chapter, it is but natural that he should bring
Vālmīki's composition after that of Kāvyapuruṣa and S'ukra.
According to Rājaśekhara, therefore, the first Kavi or author
of metrical composition is Kāvyapuruṣa ; the second is S'ukra
who brought up Kāvyapuruṣa in his hermitage and composed a
verse ; while the third is Vālmīki who led Sarasvatī to the place
of her son and began composing verses.
l. 21. कुमारः। Kārtikeya the son of Gaurī was a friend of
Kāvyapuruṣa and he felt very uncomfortable when the latter
made an attempt to run away.
l. 23. नान्यत्। In this connection, the verse occurring in this
work on page 66, is noteworthy :—
दृष्ट्वाऽप्येनं छेदमुत्पाद्य रज्वा यन्तुर्वाचं मन्यमानस्तृणाय ।
गच्छन्नग्रे नागराजः करिण्या प्रेम्णा तुल्यं बन्धनं नास्ति जन्तोः ॥
l. 25. अनुवर्तस्वैनं निवर्तय च। Sāhityavidyā is the realisation of the
connections that exist between the S'abda and the Artha. By
this statement, Rājaśekhara wants to convey that Sāhityavidyā
alone is able to revive the creative faculty in poets even when
poetry is extinct.
l. 26. काव्यविद्यास्नातकाः। Kāvyavidyāsnātakas are those who after
studying the Kāvyavidyā begin to compose poems.
Pages. 8-9.
*[ Read तत्राभियुञ्जाना तमौमेयी यं वेषं यथेष्टमसेविष्ट स तत्रत्याभिः स्त्रीभिरन्वक्रियत।
सा प्रवृत्तिरौड्रमागधी etc. This portion seems to have been based on
भरतनाट्यशास्त्र chapter. 13.
cf. चतुर्विधा प्रवृत्तिश्च प्रोक्ता नाट्यप्रयोक्तृभिः।
आवन्ती दाक्षिणात्या च पाञ्चाली चौड्रमागधी ॥
१९

146 EXPLANATORY NOTES
अत्राह—प्रवृत्तिरिति कस्मात् । उच्यते—पृथिव्यां नानादेशवेषभाषाचारवार्ताः ख्यापयतीति
प्रवृत्तिः । प्रवृत्तिश्च निवेदने । अत्राह—यदा पृथिव्यां नानादेशाः सन्ति, कथमासां चतुर्विधत्व-
मुपपन्नम् । समानलक्षणांश्चासां प्रयोग उच्यते । एवमेष समानलक्षणप्रयोगः । किंतु नानादेशवेष-
भाषाचारो लोक इति कृत्वा लोकानुमतेऽनुवृत्तिसंश्रितस्य नाट्यस्य मया चतुर्विधत्वमभिहितं भारत्यारभटी
सात्वती कैशिकी चेति । वृत्तिसंश्रितैश्च प्रयोगैरभिरता देशाः । यतः प्रवृत्तिचतुष्टयमभिनिर्वृत्तं
प्रयोगश्चोत्पादितः । तत्र दाक्षिणात्या भवेत् बहुगीतनृत्यवाद्या कैशिकीप्राया चतुरमधुर-
ललिताङ्गाभिनया । यथा—
महेन्द्रो मलयः सह्यो मेकलः पलपिञ्जरः ।
एतेषु संश्रिता देशाः स ज्ञेयो दक्षिणापथः ॥
कोशलास्तोशलाश्चैव कलिङ्गा एव गोशलाः ।
द्रविडान्ध्रमहाराष्ट्रा वैण्या वै वानवासजाः ॥
दक्षिणस्य समुद्रस्य तथा विन्ध्यस्य चान्तरे ।
ये देशास्तेषु युञ्जीत दाक्षिणात्यां तु नित्यशः ॥
आवन्तिका वैदिशिकाः सौराष्ट्रा मालवास्तथा ।
सैन्धवास्त्वथ सौवीराः आनर्तास्त्वार्बुदेयकाः ॥
दशार्णाश्चैपुराश्चैव तथा वै मार्तिका मताः ।
कुर्वन्त्यावन्तिमेते प्रवृत्तिं नित्यमेव तु ॥
सात्त्वतीं कैशिकीं चैव वृत्तिमेषा समाश्रिता ।
भवेत्प्रयोगो नान्यत्र स च कार्यः प्रयोक्तृभिः ॥
अङ्गा वङ्गाः कलिङ्गाश्च वत्साश्चैवोड्रमागधाः ।
पौण्ड्रनैपालिकाश्चैव अन्तर्गिरिबहिर्गिराः ॥
तत्र वङ्गसमा ज्ञेया मलदा मल्लवर्तकाः ।
ब्रह्मोत्तरप्रभृतयो भार्गवा मार्गवास्तथा ॥
प्राग्ज्योतिषाः पुलिन्दाश्च वैदेहास्ताम्रलिप्तकाः ।
प्राङ्गाः प्रावृत्तयाश्चैव युञ्जन्ति ह्यौड्रमागधीम् ॥
अन्येऽपि देशा एभ्योपि ये पुराणे प्रकीर्तिताः ।
तेषु प्रयुज्यते ह्येषा प्रवृत्तिस्त्वोड्रमागधी ॥
पाञ्चालमध्यमायां तु सात्त्वत्यारभटी स्मृता ।
प्रयोगस्त्वल्पगीतार्थ आविद्धगतिविभ्रमः ।
पाञ्चालाश्शौरसेनाश्च काश्मीरा हास्तिनापुराः ॥
बाह्लीकाः शाकलाश्चैव मद्रकौशीनरस्तथा ।
हिमवत्संश्रिता ये च गङ्गायाश्चोत्तरां दिशम् ॥
ये श्रिता वै जनपदास्तेषु पाञ्चालमध्यमा ।
The verses आर्द्रार्द्रचन्दन and आ मूलतो are quoted in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत (II–86
and 99) under Rājaśekhara.
P. 8. l. 23. A reads परिमण्डलितान्तरीयम् instead of परिमण्डलितोत्तरीयम्.
P. 9. l. 26. Read "अनन्तानपि हि देशांश्चतुर्धैवैकल्य कल्पयन्ति चक्रवर्तिक्षेत्रं समासेन ।
तदवान्तरविशेषैः पुनरनन्ता एव" इति यायावरीयः । ]

1. 3. अथ etc. After tracing the origin and history of
      metrical composition, the author in the next two pages (8-9)
      seeks to explain the varieties of poetical composition in
      accordance with the natural surroundings, and customs and
      manners of the different people. These are called styles and
      Rājaśekhara classifies them into four distinct groups. These
      four groups, each consisting of Pravṛtti, Rīti and Vṛtti, are already
      mentioned by Bharata in chapter 13 of his Nāṭyaśāstra. Rāja-
      śekhara adds to the description of the four groups, four verses of
      his own, describing women's dress in four parts of India with
      the preamble—तां ते मुनयोऽभितुष्टुवुः and seeks in these pages to discover
      scientific explanations for the different styles of writings which
      existed in early Sanskrit compositions. Incidentally, he mentions
      also the four Pravṛttis or वेषविन्यास, Vṛttis or विलास‌विन्यास and Rītis or
      वचनविन्यास adopted by the people living in the four divisions of India.
      In the eastern part of India, there are: Audramāgadhī
      Pravṛtti, Bhāratī Vṛtti and Gauḍīyā Rīti.
      In the Pāñcāla country, there exist: Pāñcālamadhyamā
      Pravṛtti, Sāttvatī and Ārabhaṭī Vṛttis and Pāñcālī Rīti.
      The countries of Avanti etc. have: Āvantī Pravṛtti,
      Sāttvatī and Kaiśikī Vṛttis.
      The Southern part of India has: Dākṣiṇātyā Pravṛtti,
      Kaiśikī Vṛtti and Vaidarbhī Rīti.
      Among the Pravṛttis, Vṛttis and Rītis mentioned above
      Rājaśekhara seems to attach a relative superiority to the Vaidarbhī,
      Kaiśikī and Dākṣiṇātyā style of the southern India; because he
      states that Kāvyapuruṣa was pleased and brought under control by
      Sāhityavidyāvadhū only through the style current in South India.
      It seems, however, strange that he failed to recognize the Lāṭīyā
      Rīti of the dialects of the countries Avanti etc. though the whole
      of the Avanti or Lāṭa country had been frequently described by
      him in his works. (See Kāvyamīmāṁsā p. 34. l. 7 and Bāla-
      rāmāyaṇa, act X). The reason for this, seems to be that he did
      not favour the idea of creating a new Rīti of Lāṭīyā as proposed
      for the first time by Rudraṭa, because there is not much difference
      between the two Rītis, Pāñcālī and Lāṭīyā. In the history of the
      development of Rītis, Bhāmaha did not acknowledge the existence

148 EXPLANATORY NOTES
of distinct classes of Rīti such as Gauḍīyā and Vaidarbhī; while
Daṇḍin in his work established the relative superiority of the
Vaidarbhī style over that of the Gauḍī. To these two, Vāmana
added a third, the Pāñcālī, and Rudraṭa a fourth, the Lāṭīyā.
Thus four Rītis were acknowledged by critics in the period when
Rājaśekhara flourished; but he recognized only three Rītis after
omitting the Lāṭīyā. This fact he again mentions on p. 10, l. 5.
Page 10.
l. 2. For the complete description of the Cakravartikṣetra,
see p. 92 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
l. 3. Beyond the Cakravartikṣetra, there are the lands called
Harivarṣa and Kimpuruṣavarṣa which are the abodes of divine
beings.
l. 5. तिस्रः। Rudraṭa who flourished before Rājaśekhara and
who is often quoted in this work, had acknowledged four Rītis
including the Lāṭīyā in his Kāvyālaṅkāra (2. 4-6.). The reason
why Rājaśekhara did not recognise the fourth Rīti is already
mentioned.
पुरस्तात् । Rītis are proposed to be treated of in the third Adhi-
karaṇa 'Rītinirṇaya' as enumerated on the first page of the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā. This statement also clearly shows that Rājaśekhara
wanted to complete this work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas. For the
three Rītis see p. 31. l. 6. of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā.

• [ l. 6. वत्सगुल्मम् । cf. अभूतां दाक्षिणात्यस्य द्विजातेः सोमशर्मणः ।
  वत्सगुल्माभिधौ पुत्रौ...... ॥ (बृहत्कथामञ्जरी. 1. 3. 4.) ]
  दक्षिणापथे सोदर्यौ राजपुत्रौ वत्सगुल्मौ । ताभ्यामध्यासितो देशो वत्सगुल्मक इति प्रतीतः ।
  ( Jayamangalā on Kāmasūtra 5. 6. 36. ) (?) ]
  l. 6. वत्सगुल्मम् । Rājaśekhara thinks that Vatsagulma is a city
  in the country of Vidarbha. This Vatsagulma may be identified
  with the Vaṁśagulma which is situated near the source or first
  fall of the river Narmadā. Cf. Mahābhārata, Vana. cha. 83. 9.
  But Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra (5. 6.) mentions Vatsagulma and
  Vidarbha as two distinct countries. Cf. प्रेष्याभिः सह तद्देशाच्चागरकपुत्रान्
  प्रवेशयन्ति वात्सगुल्मकानाम् । ३५ । स्वैरेव पुत्रैरन्तःपुराणि कामचारैर्जननीवर्जमुपभुज्यन्ते
  वैदर्भकाणाम् । ३६ । This Vatsagulma of Kāmasūtra may represent the
  kingdom of Udayana Vatsarāja.

FOURTH ADHYĀYA 149
l. 9. संबन्धिन्यौ। Gaurī and Sarasvatī are related to each other
because the daughter of Gaurī was given in marriage to the son
of Sarasvatī.

• [l. 14. प्रेत्य चेह च नन्दति। Cf. स्वधर्मं संदधानो हि प्रेत्य चेह च नन्दति ।
  (अर्थशास्त्र 1. 3.)]
  l. 14. Thus, he who knows the origin and development of
  poetical composition, feels happy both here and hereafter.
  Adhyāya IV.
  l. 17. पदवाक्यविवेकः । This subject comprises three chapters
  4, 5 and 6. The fifth chapter which deals with the Kāvya-
  'pāka must also be taken as a sub-division of the main subject
  पदवाक्यविवेक; because काव्यपाककल्प is nothing but the selection of such
  words and sentences as may be appropriate to the Rasa. पाठप्रतिष्ठा
  the subject of the seventh chapter, therefore, is mentioned after
  the पदवाक्यविवेक in the first chapter, while enumerating the subjects
  treated of in this work.
• [l. 18. बुद्धिमानाहार्यबुद्धिश्च। Cf. बुद्धिमानाहार्यबुद्धिर्दुर्बुद्धिरिति पुत्रविशेषाः ।
  शिष्यमाणो धर्मार्थावुपलभते चानुतिष्ठति च बुद्धिमान् । उपलभमानो नानुतिष्ठत्याहार्यबुद्धिः । अपाय-
  नित्यो धर्मार्थद्वेषी चेति दुर्बुद्धिः । (अर्थशास्त्र. 1-17.)]
  l. 18. शिष्यम् । Vāmana divides poets into two classes as अरोचकि
  and सतृणाभ्यवहारि, and mentions only the first among the two as
  शिष्य or one who is fit to receive instructions. (See. Kāvya. Sūtra.
  1-2.) Rājaś'ekhara follows both Vāmana and Kauṭilya in this
  respect and divides poets into three classes as बुद्धिमान्, आहार्यबुद्धि and
  दुर्बुद्धि. The first two only are stated by him as शिष्य or competent
  to receive instruction.
  Page. 11.
  l. 5. अन्यथावृत्तिः=quite contrary to the preceding two.
  प्रतिपत्तिः=right observation.
  A student who is intelligent hears from others but once and
  forthwith brings the precepts into practice. He is required to go
  to his teacher only for advanced studies.
  l. 10. सारस्वतोनुभावः=literary intelligence and activities.
  औपनिषदिके। The methods by which he also can get it, will be
  explained in the Aupaniṣadika or the last Adhikaraṇa of the

150 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Kāvyamīmāṁsā. This statement also indicates that Rājaśekhara
wanted to complete the work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas.

• [ l. 13. Cf. 'चित्तैकाग्र्यमवधानम्। अवहितं हि चित्तमर्थान् पश्यति।' वामनीया-
  लङ्कार 1. 3. 17 ].
  l. 15. यद्गोचरे च विदुषां निपुणैकसेव्यम्। Construe:—विदुषां गोचरे यत् निपुणैक-
  सेव्यम्। The words विदुषां गोचरे refer to the subjects to be mastered
  by scholars.
  Among the subjects to be learnt by scholars, the literary
  secrets should be attempted only by the most clever persons.
  Śyāmadeva who is represented here by Rājaśekhara as laying
  a special stress on the doctrine of Samādhi as the main factor
  in poetical composition, may be identified with Śyāmilaka, the
  author of the Pādatāḍitakabhāṇa. For the view of Śyāmilaka on
  this subject, see the following verse:
  इदमिह पदं मा भूदेवं भवत्विदमन्यथा कृतमिदमयं ग्रन्थेनार्थो महानुपपादितः।
  इति मनसि यः काव्यारम्भे कवेर्भवति श्रमः सनयनजलो रोमोद्भेदः सतां तमपोहति॥ ३॥
  Śyāmilaka’s Pādatāḍitaka.
• [ l. 18. Cf. अभ्यासो हि कर्मणां निरतिशयं कौशलमाधत्ते। Ibid. 1-3-24 ].
  ll. 19–23. This distinction between समाधि and अभ्यास as inward
  and outward activities, does not appear to be quite clear. For
  both are mental activities according to the definitions मनस एकाग्रता and
  अविच्छेदेन शीलनम्. But the author seems to indicate that समाधि relates
  to the thinking mind while अभ्यास is constant practice. Yāyāvarīya
  thinks that these two faculties only strengthen the literary power
  or शक्ति which alone can create poetry. This power is different from
  प्रतिभा and व्युत्पत्ति; because they are the effects of the same power.
  Here Rājaśekhara follows the view of Rudraṭa.
  Cf. मनसि सदा सुसमाधिनि विस्फुरणमनेकधामिधेयस्य ।
  अक्लिष्टानि पदानि च विभान्ति यस्यामसौ शक्तिः॥ ( K. A. 1-15. )
  Rudraṭa differs in this respect from Daṇḍin and Vāmana
  both of whom hold that प्रतिभा is the chief requisite in poetical
  compositions. Cf. नैसर्गिकी च प्रतिभा. (Daṇḍin 1–103.) कवित्वबीजं प्रतिभानम्.
  (Vāmana. 1-3-16.)
  l. 25. प्रतिभा is another mental faculty by which those things
  that are not even perceived by poets are easily conceived and
  expressed. This is called mental perception or मानसप्रत्यक्ष.

FOURTH ADHYĀYA 151
Page. 12.
*[l. 1. मेधाविरुद्र was a rhetorician too. cf. ननु दण्डिमेधाविरुद्रभामहादि-
कृतानि सन्त्येवालङ्कारशास्त्राणि। नमिसाधु's commentary on Rudraṭālaṅkāra p. 2.
His name occurs in भामह too.]
l. 1. Both Medhāvirudra and Kumāradāsa were born blind
but became great poets. Kumāradāsa is well known as the author
of the Jānakīharaṇa, an excellent but long Kāvya work comprising
20 Sargas. He is said to have ruled over Ceylon and is believed
to be a contemporary of Kālidāsa. Two incomplete editions of the
Jānakīharaṇa have been published, one from Jaypore in 1893
and the other from Bombay in 1907. The undernoted verse
also occurs in the Sūktimuktāvali regarding the poetic skill of
this blind author :
जानकीहरणं कर्तुं रघुवंशे स्थिते सति ।
कविः कुमारदासश्च रावणश्च यदि क्षमः ॥
Medhāvirudra is known from the references of Namisādhu and
Bhāmaha, but more as a rhetorician than as a poet. It is also
doubtful whether Medhāvirudra is the name of a single person or
of two, namely Medhāvi and Rudra. The single name of Medhāvi
is mentioned by Bhāmaha, while that of Rudra appears as the
name of the author of the S'ṛṅgaratilaka where the author exhibits
his skill as a poet.
l. 2. In this sentence, the meaning of किञ्चन is doubtful because
of the two constructions किंच न and किंचन. In fact, the author here
makes an attempt to prove his contention with two arguments. He
seeks to prove that poets endowed with प्रतिभा can mentally conceive
everything that they want to describe without ever actually
perceiving them. To prove this, he first points out that even those
who were born blind have become excellent poets. If we take
two words as किञ्च and न, the second argument will be in the form of
a question: Do the poets not visualize and describe the customs
and manners of the people belonging to other countries and
islands without the personal knowledge of those things ?. The
obvious answer is : they do so describe with the faculty of their
प्रतिभा. This fact is stressed upon in the following verses taken
at random from the works of Kālidāsa. If the word किंचन is taken
as one word, it should be construed as an adjective to the word
व्यवहृतिम्.

152 EXPLANATORY NOTES
*[ l. 4. प्राणानामनिलेन (अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तल VII. 12.) ]
l. 4. In this verse Kālidāsa describes the sages practising
penance on the mount Hemakūṭa situated in the land of Kimpu-
ruṣavarṣa which could not conceivably be seen by him from
Bhāratavarṣa (see p. 92 of this work).
*[ l. 8. अनेन सार्ध (रघुवंश. VI. 57.) ]
l. 8. Here also Kālidāsa describes the condition of an island
on the opposite side of the country of the king in question and
refers to the Lavaṅga flower grown in that island. Did he actually
visit the place?.
*[ l. 12. हरोऽपि (कुमार. III. 67.) ]
l. 12. Again, the same poet describes the conduct of
Mahādeva when he falls in love with Pārvatī. Can such scenes
be envisaged?.
*[ l. 16. तथागतायाम् । (रघु. VI. 82.) ]
l. 16. The feelings of a lady for the first time in the presence
of her lover, and the behaviour of her maid servant at that time,
are fully described here by the same poet, who, being a male, is not
expected to know the true feelings of a female mind.
Page. 13.
l. 1. Three kinds of neophytes develop into three different
types of poets as under :—
Śiṣya Poet
बुद्धिमान् = सारस्वतः ।
आहार्यबुद्धिः = आभ्यासिकः ।
दुर्बुद्धिः = औपदेशिकः ।
l. 4. तन्त्रशेषम् । Several efforts through the aid of Mantras and
some Tāntric practices.
l. 5. फाणितम् = raw sugar.
l. 10. उत्कर्षः । Yāyāvarīya thinks that eminence or superiority
is always preferable and that the combination of several qualities
brings forth eminence.
*[ l. 19. एकस्य. Read न्यस्य विदग्धवदनेषु. cf. तत्काव्यमारोप्य पदं विदग्धवक्त्रेषु
विश्वं परिभ्रमतीति ॥ (रुद्र-शृङ्गारतिलक. II. 70.) ]
l. 19. All MSS read न्यस्याविदग्धवदनेषु etc. If this reading is
accepted the meaning of the second half would be : good poetry, while
travelling, tramples upon the faces of the uncultured people with its

FOURTH ADHYĀYA 153
footsteps (words) like one eager to see the world. Here the
introduction of uncultured people does not militate against the
context because such men are unable to distinguish between good
or bad poetry. Compare also the verse of the Śṛṅgāratilaka above
quoted. A better reading as न्यस्यद्विदग्धवदनेषु, therefore, is suggested
here instead of न्यस्याविदग्ध etc.
l. 21. भावक is a critic or a सहृदय.
l. 23. कः पुनः । There is no real difference between these two
functions of कारयित्री and भावयित्री because a poet himself may be a
good critic or vice versa.
l. 26. भावकस्तु कविः = that poet who is himself a critic. This
remark supports the contention of the Ācāryas stated in line 23.
Page. 14.
l. 1. Kālidāsa is here represented as refuting the view
accepted by the Ācāryas. He seems to be of opinion that the
critical and poetical faculties are quite distinct and are found rarely
combined in one and the same person. But Rājaśekhara does not
mention the place where Kālidāsa must have expressed this view.
Very probably the underlying idea has been drawn from the follow-
ing verse occurring in his Śākuntala.
आ परितोषाद्विदुषां न जातु मन्ये प्रयोगविज्ञानम् ।
बलवदपि शिक्षितानामात्मन्यप्रत्ययं चेतः ॥ 1-2.
From this, it appears that Kālidāsa was of opinion that poets
do not feel at ease until their composition is well-received by
critics. Similar expressions are also made by him in his Raghu-
vaṁśa and Mālavikāgnimitra.
Cf. तं सन्तः श्रोतुमर्हन्ति सदसद्व्यक्तिहेतवः ।
हेम्नः संलक्ष्यते ह्यग्नौ विशुद्धिः श्यामिकाऽपि वा ॥ Raghuvaṁśa 1-13.
and सन्तः परीक्ष्यान्यतरद्भजन्ते मूढः परप्रत्ययनेयबुद्धिः । Mālavikāgnimitra. I.
l. 3. This verse also strengthens the view that these two
faculties of composition and criticism seldom combine in one
person.

• [l. 7. Two verses of मङ्गल are quoted in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत—
  यदाख्यानात्सङ्गादुपसि पुनते वाचमृषयो यदीयः संकल्पो हृदि सुकृतिनामेव रमते ।
  स सार्वः सर्वज्ञः पथि निरपवादे कृतपदो जिनो जन्तूनुच्चैः दमयतु भवावर्तपतितान् ॥
  निष्किञ्चनत्वाद्विधुरस्य साधोरभ्यर्थितस्यार्थिजनस्य किञ्चित् ।
  नास्तीति वर्णा मनसि भ्रमन्तो निर्गन्तुमिच्छन्त्यसुभिः सहैव ॥ 5–290.
  २०

154 EXPLANATORY NOTES
अरोचकिनः सतृणाभ्यवहारिणश्च etc.
Cf. अरोचकिनः सतृणाभ्यवहारिणश्च कवयः ॥ १ ॥ इह खलु द्वये कवयः संभवन्ति ।
अरोचकिनः सतृणाभ्यवहारिणश्चेति । अरोचकिसतृणाभ्यवहारिशब्दौ गौणार्थौ । कोऽसावर्थः । विवे-
क्तित्वमविवेकित्वं चेति । यदाह—
पूर्वे शिष्या विवेकित्वात् ॥ २ ॥ पूर्वे खलु अरोचकिनः शिष्याः शासनीयाः । विवेकित्वात्
विवेचनशीलत्वात् ।
नेतरे तद्विपर्ययात् ॥ ३ ॥ इतरे सतृणाभ्यवहारिणः न शिष्याः । तद्विपर्ययात् । अविवेचन-
शीलत्वात् । नच शीलमपाकर्तुं शक्यम् । ( वामनालङ्कार 1. 2. 3 ) ]
l. 7. The Bhāvakas or critics are divided into two distinct
classes by Maṅgala as अरोचकि and सतृणाभ्यवहारि. In Vāmana's Kāvyā-
laṅkārasūtra, the same division is found with reference to poets
but not critics. It may be surmised from this statemant of
Rājaśekhara : “कवयोऽपि भवन्ति । इति वामनीयाः” that Maṅgala was earlier
than Vāmana (cir. 800 A. D.).
ll. 10–17. Yāyāvarīya disagrees with the contention of
Vāmana regarding the division of poets, and sticks to his
original classification given in the beginning of the chapter as
बुद्धिमानाहार्यबुद्धि etc. He advances two important arguments in
rejecting Vāmana's classification of poets. Firstly, that if the qua-
lity of अरोचकिता is inherent from birth it cannot be changed by
human effort. Secondly, that if it springs through the medium
of the knowledge of reality, it is not likely to take effect when
a good piece of poetry is placed before him. Similarly, the other
quality of सतृणाभ्यवहारिता is common to all in the beginning, but it
disappears when one begins to discriminate the best from the worst
by virtue of deeper study.
l. 20. Scholarship without jealousy is a rare virtue. It is a
truism and with this the author feintly hints at Bāṇa who in his
Harṣacarita 6th Ucchvāsa writes as follows:—
कपिरचपलः कविरमत्सरः वणिगतस्करः + + +
× × राजसूनुरदुर्विनीतकश्च जगति दुर्लभः ।
Page. 15.
l. 4. This line must be construed as :—
भावकः कवेः यन्न भवति तत् किम् । ही चित्रम् । .
l. 5. Cf. किं कवेस्तस्य काव्येन सर्ववृत्तान्तगामिनी ।
कथेव भारती यस्य न व्याप्नोति जगत्त्रयम् ॥
Harṣacarita 1–10.
*[ l. 7. Cf. सत्यं सन्ति गृहे गृहे सुकवयो ( शृङ्गारतिलक. 1–17 ) ].

FIFTH ADHYĀYA 155
l. 7. Bāṇa has expressed a similar sentiment in the following
verse :—
सन्ति श्वान इवासङ्ख्या जातिभाजो गृहे गृहे ।
उत्पादका न बहवः कवयः शरभा इव ॥
Harṣacarita 1-6.
*[ l. 10. सर्वाभिनयनिर्णीतौ दृष्टा नाट्यसृजा न याः । नाट्यसृजा । ब्रह्मणा ।
नाट्याख्यं पञ्चमं वेदं सेतिहासं करोम्यहम् । ( नाट्यशास्त्र. 1-15 ) ].
l. 10. Construe as:—
याः सर्वाभिनयनिर्णीतौ नाट्यसृजा न दृष्टाः ताः विक्रियाः उल्लसन्ति ।
l. 11. वाग्भावकः and हृदयभावकः । Some critics seem to appreciate
poetry and express their appreciation while others appreciate at
heart but do not express. Some scholars, however, are inclined to
interpret the sense of these two terms in a somewhat different
manner. The Vāgbhāvakas are those who are apt to lay much
stress on the words of poetry, while the Hṛdayabhāvakas are
disposed to lay an emphasis on the essence of poetry.
l. 14. Some critics, while going through a poem, discover
simultaneously the existence of qualities that are to be praised and
the non-existence of the blemishes to be condemned.
l. 18. सात्मानम् । This should be separately read in prose as : सः
आत्मानम् । For similar usages refer to सैष दाशरथी रामः and सैष शिष्यहिताय नः ।
l. 21. All MSS. read पदान्तरम् । But यदा is here suggested as
it is followed by तदा in the next half. The general purport of the
whole chapter is stated in this verse.
l. 23. It has already been said that the two qualities of प्रतिभा
and व्युत्पत्ति, essential for poetical excellence, arise from the S'akti or
the power of imagination with which only a few are blessed.
प्रतिभा has been discussed in this chapter while व्युत्पत्ति will follow in
the next.
Adhyāya V.
Page. 16.
ll. 2–5. बहुज्ञता । Ācāryas define व्युत्पत्ति as बहुज्ञता. Here the word
बहु or ‘many’ represents the subjects such as लोकविद्याप्रकीर्णक
etc., a knowledge of which is imperative on a poet who makes an
attempt at writing poetry. A list of these subjects, probably for

156 EXPLANATORY NOTES
the first time, is given by Vāmana in his Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra.
(1. 3. 1-20.) The knowledge of these subjects is known as Vyut-
patti and is an essential factor in the composition of poetry.
This has been acknowledged by such early writers on poetics as
Daṇḍin, Vāmana and others. (See Kāvyādarśa 1–103, and Kāvyā-
laṅkārasūtra 1-3-1.) Abhinavagupta, however, holds a different
view regarding the definition of Vyutpatti. He says in his
Locana (p. 137. N. S. ed.) समस्तवस्तुपौर्वापर्यपरामर्शकौशलं व्युत्पत्तिः ।
While Mammaṭa defines this Vyutpatti as निपुणता, he does
not add any further explanation. Rājaśekhara, however, differs
from the Ācāryas, and is inclined to take the subjects लोक, विद्या,
प्रकीर्णक etc., as the source of काव्यार्थ or the theme of poetry but
not the cause of poetry itself. (See chapter 8th of this work).
While defining Vyutpatti he follows Rudraṭa and characterises
it as उचितानुचितविवेकः ।
Cf. छन्दोव्याकरणकलालोकस्थितिपदपदार्थविज्ञानात् ।
युक्तायुक्तविवेको व्युत्पत्तिरियं समासेन ॥
Rudraṭa 1. 18.
In the works of Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta the
definition of Vyutpatti is similar to that of Rudraṭa. (See
Dhvanyāloka p. 137) According to Rājaśekhara, therefore, the
faculty of discrimination which is effected by the study of छन्दो-
व्याकरण etc, is known as Vyutpatti.

• [ll. 6—10. आनन्द is आनन्दवर्धन the author of ध्वन्यालोक.
  ध्वनिनाऽतिगभीरेण काव्यतत्त्वनिवेशिना ।
  आनन्दवर्धनः कस्य नासीदानन्दवर्धनः ॥
  ( राजशेखरस्य )
  Cf. द्विविधो हि दोषः कवेरव्युत्पत्तिकृतोऽशक्तिकृतश्च । तत्राव्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शक्तितिरस्कृ- •
  तत्वात्कदाचिन्न लक्ष्यते । यस्त्वशक्तिकृतो दोषः स झटिति प्रतीयते ।
  परिकरश्लोकश्चात्र :—
  अव्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शक्त्या संव्रियते कवेः ।
  यस्त्वशक्तिकृतस्तस्य स झटित्यवभासते ॥
  ( ध्वन्यालोक. तृतीयोद्योत. )
  This verse is quoted by Hemacandra in his काव्यानुशासनविवेक. ]
  ll. 6-14. In order to decide the superiority among these two
  factors: Pratibhā and Vyutpatti, Rājaśekhara quotes here the
  views held by two earlier writers Ānandavardhana and Maṅgala on

FIFTH ADHYĀYA 157
the same question. Ānandavardhana records his view on this question
in his Dhvanyālokā (pp. 137 and 147). He holds that Pratibhā is more
important to a poet than Vyutpatti and proves his contention by
citing an instance from the Kumārasambhava, where Kālidāsa des-
cribes the amorous sports of Pārvatī and Śiva. This description, he
seems to think, is improper and is the result of the poet's want of
Vyutpatti, but the propriety of this portion has been maintained
admirably by poet's Pratibhā or genius (Śakti). Here, it may be
noted that Ānandavardhana uses the word Śakti to mean Pratibhā
while Rājaśekhara limits the use of Śakti to denote the cause of
Pratibhā. (See page 11. l. 22) In support of this view of Ānanda-
vardhana, Rājaśekhara cites another instance by a verse एतत्कि
etc. Here, impropriety due to want of Vyutpatti, may be discovered
because the son Kārtikeya is said to have asked his mother Pārvatī
certain questions regarding his father when he had the quarters
as his garments (दिगम्बर). This impropriety does not find full ex-
pression owing to the Pratibhā of the poet who concludes the topic
by saying that the Devī smiled and stopped her son from asking
further questions of an improper nature, thus diverting the attention
of the reader.
ll. 15–22. Maṅgala, another expert on poetics, however, held
a different view which made Vyutpatti more important than
Pratibhā for a poet. Here all the MSS. read: वैदग्धीचित्तचित्तानाम् ।
The word वित्त or चित्र may be read in the place of चित्त. If this
suggestion is accepted, the passage will mean that the readers,
while appreciating a poet's वैदग्धीवित्त or चित्र which is the effect of his
Vyutpatti, do not care much for his want of erudition in शब्दार्थ-
गुम्फना which depends on his Pratibhā. This view is illustrated
by means of the verse: कृतः कण्ठे निष्को नहि etc. In this verse the
poet exhibits his power of discrimination or Vyutpatti when he
states that a lady removes heavy ornaments, dress, etc. from her
body but puts on a light neglige' in silk when directly she engages
herself in amorous sports.
This descriptive skill arises out of the poet's Vyutpatti which
is the result of his study of the Kāmasūtra (4. 1.) where we meet
with the following passages :
बहुभूषणं विविधकुसुमानुलेपनं विविधाङ्गरागसमुज्ज्वलं वास इत्याभिगामिको वेषः ॥ २४ ॥

158 EXPLANATORY NOTES
प्रतनुश्लक्ष्णालपदुकूलता परिमितमाभरणं सुगन्धिता नात्युल्बणमनुलेपनं तथा शुक्लान्यन्यानि
पुष्पाणीति वैहारिको वेषः ॥ २५ ॥
In this verse readers appreciate the Vyutpatti of the poet
and do not denounce him for his lack of Pratibhā or शब्दार्थगुम्फना ।
Page. 17.

• [ l. 1. जङ्घाकाण्डो also in काव्यप्रकाश VII. ]
  ll. 1-4. In this verse, the poet has exhibited both Pratibhā
  and Vyutpatti, and Rājaśekhara thinks that the poet who
  possesses both the faculties, is the best. Here, the poet's Vyutpatti
  of Nāṭya can be discovered by referring to the definition of Daṇḍa-
  pāda, a kind of dancing described in the Nāṭyaśāstra and the
  Saṅgītaratnākara. cf. Nāṭyaśāstra-( G.O.S. No. 36. )
  नूपुरं चरणं कृत्वा दण्डपादं प्रसारयेत् ।
  क्षिप्ताविद्धकरं चैव दण्डपादं तदुच्यते ॥
  and 4-143.
  चारी नूपुरपादोऽथ दण्डपादाहृतः करः ।
  दण्डवच्च्यस्यते यत्र दण्डपादं तदुच्यते ॥
  सूरयो विनियुञ्जन्ति तत्साटोपपरिक्रमे ॥
  Saṅgītaratnākara 7-711.
  The Pratibhā of the poet also is well exhibited here by his
  excellent description of the dance of the Devī in the most
  appropriate words.
• [ l. 20. लोलल्लाङ्गूल also in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. Read मालंध्योत्ताल. ]
  ll. 20-24. Bhojadeva quoted this verse in his Sarasvatī-
  kaṇṭhābharaṇa ( 2-69 ) to illustrate पदरचना. How the poet here
  zealously observes the methods of रचना may be gathered from the
  remarks of Bhojadeva :
  अधिकानामपुष्टार्थानामपि पदानामनुप्रासाय छन्दःपूरणाय चार्थानुगुण्येन रचितत्वादियं पदरचना ।
  l. 25. In this verse, the author illustrates the skill of a poet
  in composing complete sentences only with nouns without using
  any verb.
  Page. 18.
  *[l. 11. देवी पुत्रमसूत attributed to योगेश्वर in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत; also in
  सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. ]