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

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. ]

FIFTH ADHYĀYA 159
l. 11. The verse देवी पुत्रमसूत etc. is quoted by Bhojadeva in
his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa (4–176). This verse is also found in
the Sūktimuktāvalī and is attributed to Trivikramabhaṭṭa. Bhoja
finds in this verse a variety of Parikarālaṅkāra while Rājaśekhara
quotes this verse to illustrate an Arthakavi.
ll. 15–19. In this verse न प्राप्तम् etc. यमकशब्दालङ्कार is illustrated
by repetition of two words विषभरणम् and भागीरथ्याम् in two different
senses. In the verse भ्रान्त etc. रूपकालङ्कार is illustrated.
*[ l. 21. Read as स्तनतटपरिणाहो दोर्लतालेह्यसीमा । प्रतीच्छत्याशोकी also in
सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण ].
l. 20–25. Here उक्ति indicates a beautiful presentation of
certain ideas. For an attractive presentation, poets must make
use of the quality or गुण known as Samādhi. This is considered by
Daṇḍin as the most important among the Guṇas.
cf. तदेतत्काव्यसर्वस्वं समाधिर्नाम यो गुणः ।
कविसार्थः समग्रोऽपि तमेनमुपजीवति ॥ Kāvyādarśa. 1–100.
The two verses quoted here to illustrate an उक्तिकवि indicate
that समाधि is the chief factor in उक्ति. Samādhi has been defined
by Daṇḍin, Bhoja and others as अन्यधर्मस्यान्यत्रारोपणम् । Bhoja, in the
second verse प्रतीच्छति etc. illustrates Samādhi. In these two verses
such words as लाघ्य, लेह्य, निपेय and प्रतीच्छति, अनुवदति, अवतरति, denote
the quality known as Samādhi.
Page. 19.
*[ ll. 3. 7. मूलं वालक. (विद्धशालभञ्जिका IV. 5.) ]
l. 3. In this verse, the skill of a Rasakavi is illustrated.
Here, a poet describes the beauty of the river Tāmraparṇī and its
water which transforms itself into pearls and adorns the breasts
of beautiful ladies. The poet thereby gives vent to his inner feeling
of S'ṛṅgāra.
l. 7. मार्गकविः । The word ‘Mārga’ denotes here the Rītis
वैदर्भी, गौडी etc. See Daṇḍin 1. 40. This verse represents the
Vaidarbhī style which has been acknowledged by early writers
as the best.
*[ l. 11 आत्माराम। वेणीसंहार. 1–23. ]
l. 22. पौरस्त्यानाम् । The Gauḍas are generally called Paurastyas
and their छाया or style is known as the Gauḍīyā style. Daṇḍin

160 EXPLANATORY NOTES
in his Kāvyādarśa uses this word पौरस्त्य to represent the Gauḍas
and calls their Rīti as गौडीया. (see 1-50.)
l. 23. प्रबध्नाति=author of a Mahākāvya.
l. 24. अन्यतर=Saṁskṛta or one of the Prākṛta dialects.
Page. 20.
*[ ll. 5.-6. cf. सुपां तिङां च व्युत्पत्तिं वाचं वाञ्छन्त्यलङ्कृतिम् ।
तदेतदाहुः सौशब्द्यं नार्थव्युत्पत्तिरीदृशी ॥ (भामह. 1-14).
व्युत्पत्तिः सुप्तिङां या तु प्रोच्यते सा सुशब्दता । सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण I.
आवापोद्धरणे and यत्पदानि (वामन 1-3-15); सति वक्तरि (Ibid. 1-2-11).
For the text of वामनीयालङ्कार the commentator सहदेव says as under:—
वेदिता सर्वशास्त्राणां भट्टोऽभून्मुकुलाभिधः ।
लब्ध्वा कुतश्चिदादर्शं भ्रष्टानायं समुद्धृतम् ॥
काव्यालङ्कारशास्त्रं यत्तेनैतद्रामनोदितम् ।
असूया तन्न कर्तव्या विशेषालोकिभिः क्वचित् ॥
आकर्ण्य भवतस्तस्मादयितस्य विधीयते ।
विवृतिः सहदेवेन वामनीयस्य सम्प्रति ॥
pp. 20-21. For सहकारपाक and वृन्ताकपाक cf. वामन (3-2-14).
गुणस्फुटत्वसाकल्ये काव्यपाकं प्रचक्षते ।
चूतस्य परिणामेन स चायमुपमीयते ॥
सुसिद्धसंस्कारसारं यत्क्लिष्टवस्तुगुणं भवेत् ।
काव्यं वृन्ताकपाकं स्याज्जुगुप्सन्ते जनास्ततः ॥
p. 21. l. 4. कुकविना हि सोच्छ्वासं मरणम् ।
cf. कुकवित्वं पुनः साक्षान्मृतिमाहुर्मनीषिणः । भामह 1-12.
For कपित्थपाक cf. अदृष्टमसुनिर्मेदं रसवत्स्वेऽप्यपेशलम् ।
काव्यं कपित्थपाकं तत् केषांचित्सदृशं यथा ॥ (भामह V-62). ]
ll. 4-23. In three chapters 4-6, the author treats of
पदवाक्यविवेक and other subjects connected with it. Thus, naturally
the topic of पाकप्रतिष्ठा which is subordinate to the main subject
of पदवाक्यविवेक is introduced in the 5th chapter. After discussing
the nature of Pratibhā, Vyutpatti, and classification of poets,
the author starts a discussion in order to determine the nature
of the Kāvyapāka, and records the opinions of earlier authorities
on that point. Pāka in poetry means 'maturity' and it originates
from the constant practice of composing poems. Maṅgala is
of opinion that this maturity consists in the knowledge of nouns
and verbs, obtained by constant hearing, and that this kind of
knowledge is also called Vyutpatti. The Ācāryas differ from

SIXTH ADHYĀYA 161
Maṅgala and define Pāka as the competency of a poet to selcot
suitable words and to put them in appropriate places. This view
of the Ācāryas is also referred to and, as Rājaśekhara states,
rejected by Vāmana in his Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra (1-3-15) where he
calls this faculty of poets as अवेक्षण. To him शब्दपाक is something
different and he defines this in the verse यत्पदानि etc. (Ibid. 1-3-15).
Avantisundarī ridicules this view of the Vāmanīyas, but extends
the sphere of Pāka further to include the propriety of Guṇa,
Alaṅkāra, Rīti, ideas, words and their senses in consonance
with the Rasas. Rājaśekhara definitely favours the view of
Avantisundarī and quotes a well-known verse in its support. This
verse सति वक्तरि etc. is also quoted by Vāmana in order to prove the
superiority of the Vaidarbhī style, but not to characterise Pāka.
This very Pāka has been designated by Ānandavardhana and
Kṣemendra by the term of औचित्य or "propriety" in their works.
(See Dhvani. p. 145, and Aucityavicāracarcā. 1-3.) Vāmana's
definition of Kāvyapāka is given in the following verse:—
गुणस्फुटत्वसाकल्ये काव्यपाकं प्रचक्षते ।
चूतस्य परिणामेन स चायमुपमीयते ॥
(see 3-2-14.)
Page. 21.
ll. 3-9. Altogether nine varieties of Pāka are recognized and
these may be classified under the following three heads:—
High. Middling. Low.
मृद्वीकापाकः बदरपाकः पिचुमन्दपाकः
सहकारपाकः तिन्तिडिकापाकः वार्त्ताकपाकः
नालिकेरपाकः त्रपुसपाकः क्रमुकपाकः
Generally, later writers on poetics recognize only two Pākas
मृद्वीका and नालिकेर as the best, and again, among the two the former
as superior to the latter.
Adhyāya. VI.
l. 16. पदवाक्यविवेकः । In this chapter, the author explains
the nature of words and sentences and shows how they constitute
poetry. Both these topics relate to the main subject of पदवाक्यविवेक.
In the two previous chapters, the faculty by which good words
and sentences are distinguished from bad ones has been dealt with.
२१

162 EXPLANATORY NOTES
l. 17. व्याकरणस्मृति। Grammar also is considered as one of the
Smṛtis because the grammarians distinguish the correct words
from their incorrect forms with the help of memory; and also
because they think that by using correct words merit is obtained
in the next world. As grammar is regarded one of the Smṛtis
from very early times, Jaimini also discussed its validity on
Dharma in his chapter on Smṛtis पू. मी. 1. 3. (see Kumārila's
Tantravārtika on Jaimini 1-3-25 and the Paspaśāhnika of
Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya.)
निरुक्तनिघण्टू । Etymological derivation and interpretation of the
words are called निरुक्त. निघण्टु is a glossary of words.
शब्दः । Words are of two kinds, namely, वैदिक and लौकिक.
l. 18. तौ पदम् । According to the Naiyāyikas पद is a word
with a meaning while grammarians consider it as सुप्तिङन्तम् ।
वृत्ति means प्रवृत्ति (शब्दप्रवृत्ति); and five kinds of Vṛtti are recognized.
l. 22. असत्त्ववचनाः=अद्रव्यवचनाः लिङ्गसंख्याकारकानन्वयिनः ।
This includes also चादि which is known as निपात or अव्यय.
अव्यय is defined thus:—
सदृशं त्रिषु लिङ्गेषु सर्वासु च विभक्तिषु ।
वचनेषु च सर्वेषु यन्न व्येति तदव्ययम् ॥
l. 23. कर्मप्रवचनीयाः । This term applies to certain words in the
प्रादि group. As these words are responsible for certain peculiarities
in the construction of sentences, they are grouped separately.
For the term of Karmapravacanīya see Pāṇini 1-4-83.
Page. 22.
*[l. 3. द्वन्द्वोऽस्मि is attributed to Bhaṭṭamuktikalaśa in the
Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa 5th Samdhi. ]
˙l. 3. The object in quoting this verse द्वन्द्वोऽस्मि is two-fold;
first, to name the six compounds in one verse and secondly, to
compose a humorous sentence with the help of the names of these
compounds. This verse is attributed by Kṣemendra to Bhaṭṭa-
muktikalaśa who is also known as the great-grand-father of the poet
Bilhaṇa the author of the Vikramāṅkadevacarita (See. 18. 75).
The reading of this verse in the Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa is as follows:
द्विगुरपि सन्द्वन्द्वोऽहं गृहे च, etc. The reading preferred here:

SIXTH ADHYĀYA 163
द्वन्द्वोऽस्मि द्विगुरस्मि च गृहे न मे etc. is from the B. Ms. and the meaning
of the verse will be this:—The house-holder says that though
his family consists only of two members and a couple of cows,
there is no reduction in household expenditure; he asks his
servant, therefore, to work more in order that his labour may
enrich him with a good quantity of paddy. This idea is not
brought out by any other reading of this verse now available.
*[ l. 12. Cf. एवं हि श्रूयते-बृहस्पतिरिन्द्राय दिव्यं वर्षसहस्रं प्रतिपदोक्तानां शब्दानां
शब्दपारायणं प्रोवाच। नान्तं जगाम। बृहस्पतिश्च प्रवक्ता। इन्द्रश्चाध्येता। दिव्यं वर्षसहस्रमध्ययनकालः।
न चान्तं जगाम। प्रियतद्धिता दाक्षिणात्याः ( महाभाष्य-पस्पशा ) ].
l. 17. तेषाम etc.—These five kinds of words, when used in
constructions according to special rules for their application,
enrich the sentence. Here and in the next verse the word आख्यात
denotes a sentence and it is not used in its usual signification
of a verb.
ll. 21–25. Here, the author defines वाक्य or sentence which
according to him is an arrangement of words capable of conveying
to others the desire of the composer. The followers of Udbhaṭa
are of opinion that sentences have three distinct functions in
expressing their meanings. These three functions, interconnect the
meanings of words or पदार्थ and this connection is known as वाक्यार्थ.
The connecting links of the words are supplied by the case-
terminations or विभक्तिs which are either present, or absent at the
end of the words as required by Samāsa rules. उपपदविभक्ति is a case-
ending which is due to the presence of another noun; such as the
चतुर्थी, due to the combination of nouns नमः स्वस्ति etc. कारकविभक्ति is a
case-ending which has direct connection only with the verb.
*[ l. 26. नमस्तस्मै. No. 7. of the सुभाषितावलि ].
Page. 23.
l. 1. The power, inherent in the words without case-endings
as in a compound, to express the sense of the omitted case-termi-
nations etc. is what is called here the S'akti. In this verse, there
are six words in the बहुव्रीहि compound and they retain the power
of expressing अन्यपदार्थ with the meaning of one or the other of the
six case-endings from द्वितीया to सप्तमी. e. g. वित्रस्ताः शत्रवः यस्मात् । स्पृहयालुः
लोकः यस्मै । प्रपन्नाः सामन्ताः यम् ।
l. 5. In this verse also, the connecting case-terminations of the
words कण्ठ, दोलायित etc. are supplied by the same words which retain

164 EXPLANATORY NOTES
the power to express the meaning of the case-endings though they
are absent in compound forms.
ll. 17–24. मन्थगिराम्=the noise produced by the churning of the
sea. This variety of अनेकाख्यात is called सान्तर because verbs are
here interrupted by nouns. The other variety known as निरन्तर is
so called because verbs are not so interrupted. The root of the
verb सरस्यसि in line 23 is not found in the धातुपाठ of Pāṇini. It may
be, therefore, read as समस्यसि.
ll. 25–27. Bhojadeva in his S'r̥ṅgāraprakāśa ( 3rd prakāśa )
states the same ten-fold division of sentences as found here and
illustrates the different varieties with the same verses as are quoted
here. He also enters into a very lengthy discussion which is mainly
based on the two views held by the Ācāryas and Yāyāvarīya as
stated here. The Ācāryas maintain that अनेकाख्यातवाक्य cannot be
considered as one sentence when it includes several verbs, because
one verb connecting some nouns constitutes a complete sentence.
After advancing this view of the Ācāryas along with several
authorities from Vararuci's Vārttika, Bhoja, following in the foot-
steps of Pāṇini and Patañjali, up-held the view of Yāyāvarīya as
correct and denounced the view of the Ācāryas based on Vararuci's
theory. Yāyāvarīya holds that there may be one sentence with
many verbs provided that all of them are connected with nouns,
and provided that the import of the sentence is one.
Cf. S'r̥ṅgāraprakāśa :—
ननु च निरन्तराख्यातं समुच्चिताख्यातमेकार्थाख्यातमावृत्ताख्यातमित्यादयो वाक्यविकल्पा
नोपपद्यन्ते । वाक्यकारो हि मन्यते नास्त्येव तिङन्तयोः संबन्धः । तथा च तिङतिङः इत्यत्रातिङ्वचन-
मनर्थकम् । समानवाक्याधिकारात् । इत्यतिङ्वचनं प्रत्याचष्टे । नह्येकत्र वाक्ये द्वे तिङन्ते स्त इति । एवं
च वाक्यलक्षणं करोति—आख्यातं साव्ययकारकविशेषणम् ।
After advancing this theory with several authorities, Bhoja-
deva concludes thus :—
तदेषं सूत्रकारस्य भाष्यकारस्य च दर्शनेऽस्ति क्रियायाः क्रियान्तरेण संबन्धः । वार्त्तिककारस्तु
युष्मदस्मदादेशनिघाताद्यर्थमाख्यातं साव्ययकारकविशेषणं वाक्यम् एकतिङ्ङवयवमित्यन्यदेव लौकिका-
त्पारिभाषिकं वाक्यलक्षणमारभते । न च तेन लौकिको व्यवहारः सिद्धयतीत्युपेक्ष्यते । तदुक्तम्—
निघातादिव्यवस्थार्थं शास्त्रे यत्पारिभाषिकम् ।
साकाङ्क्षावयवं तेन न सर्वं तुल्यलक्षणम् ॥
Page. 24.
l. 2. Cf. Ibid—जयन्ति मृगलोचनाचलदपाहृतह्रिकमाः ।

SIXTH ADHYĀYA 165
l. 9. Cf. Ibid—ते च चैत्रे विकीर्णैलाकङ्कोलीकेलयोऽनिलाः ॥
*[ l. 10. चरन्ति चतुरम्भोधि. also in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. ]
l. 12. See Śrṛṅgāraprakāśa for the other example:—
तामवातारयत्पत्नीं रथादवततार च ।
l. 13. गन्त्री=a car drawn by oxen.
l. 17. Construe as यदग्रे=यस्या दंष्ट्राया अग्रे and यच्छ्वासैः=यस्य देवस्य श्वासैः ॥
गिरिगड्डुक=‘a ball’ used in play.
l. 18. In this verse the verbal form भवतु should be added to complete the sentence.
*[ l. 20. अभिमुखे मयि. ( शाकुन्तल. II. 45. ) ]
*[ l. 24. कियन्मात्रम् occurs also in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण ]
*[ l. 26. गुणवदलङ्कृतं च वाक्यमेव काव्यम् । Cf. काव्यशब्दोऽयं गुणालङ्कारसंस्कृतयोः शब्दार्थयोः वर्तते । वामन 1-1-1.
गुणालङ्कारचारुत्वयुक्तमप्यधिकोज्वलम् ।
काव्यमाश्रयसम्पत्या मेरुर्णवामरद्रुमः ॥ भट्टोद्भटः ॥ Contrast with this the later developments in the definition of काव्य. ]
l. 26. After explaining पदवाक्यविवेक, the author concludes the topic and declares the result. A Kāvya, according to Rājaśekhara, is nothing but a sentence having Guṇas and Alaṅkāras. All early authors on poetics from Bhāmaha onwards have attached equal importance to both the words and their meanings, in the composition of a Kāvya. Rājaśekhara differs from them and holds that words alone are important in the constitution of the Kāvya. In this connection the definitions of Viśvanātha and Jagannāthapaṇḍita are noteworthy ; because they also hold that sentences alone are the chief constituents of a Kāvya. Cf. वाक्यं रसात्मकं काव्यम्. ( Sāhityadarpaṇa ) and रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादकः शब्दः काव्यम् ( Rasagaṅgādhara. )
l. 27. Here Rājaśekhara elaborately discusses the point raised by Vāmana in his first sūtra काव्यं ग्राह्यमलङ्कारात्. He records all the arguments adduced by previous authorities for or against the view above stated. Three arguments have been advanced in this connection by those who wanted to denounce the merits of, and to state the disadvantages in the study of, the Kāvyas. These arguments are: first, that Kāvyas should not be

166 EXPLANATORY NOTES
taught to any one because they contain several untrue statements;
secondly, because they encourage immoral practices; and thirdly,
because they give teachings on indecent practices. In support of
these three arguments they quoted several examples from the
Kāvyas. Rājaśekhara refuted all these hostile views on the
Kāvya and proved that the study of Kāvya is irreproachable in
every way because of its special merits.
Page. 25
ll. 1-4. स्लेमः=moisture. Here the poet has employed the
figure of speech known as अतिशयोक्ति in describing the fame of
a king.
ll. 5-9. Here also अतिशयोक्ति is employed in describing the
army of a king. The word पातालतालु is also used by Vāmana. (See
Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra 1-3-23.)
ll. 10-14. The words वाचाल and तुङ्ग are used here to indicate
the imperfection of वार्ता and पुराण in stating real facts. The word
अव्याहतं should be pronounced with the काकु (intonation) which indicates
interrogation.
l. 15. The reading in this line is defective in all MSS. It
may be emended as:—
नासत्यमस्ति किञ्चन काव्ये स्तुत्यर्थमर्थवादोऽयम् ।
*[l. 17. पुष्पिण्यौ. ऐतरेयब्राह्मण 7-15-2. (33-3) शतपथब्राह्मण. 15-19. ]
l. 17. This ṛk occurs in the शौनःशेपाख्यान where Indra advises
Rohita, the son of Hariścandra to wander again in the jungle, and
this the boy actually did. This ṛk is in eulogy of the wanderer.
शेरे=शेरते । प्रपथे=प्रकृष्टे तीर्थक्षेत्रादिमार्गे ।
Here wandering is praised in order that Rohita may be
tempted to accept this novel career. It is, therefore, called
प्रशंसार्थवाद which may contain untrue statements also.
ll. 19-22. This is also another प्रशंसार्थवाद which praises grammar
as superior even to Vedas. In this connection the Vedic view of
Arthavāda is noteworthy. Vedic scholars are inclined to think
that the chief object of अर्थवाद is only to praise the action prescribed
in the form of विधि or निषेध in order to attract the performer; and,