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

ELEVENTH ADHYĀYA 209
as the teacher of Pāṇini in the Kathāsaritsāgara. Pāṇini and
Piṅgala are the Sūtrakāras on grammar and prosody.
Vyāḍi is the author of a work called "Saṅgraha" which is
quoted by Patañjali and Bhartṛhari. cf. संग्रहो व्याडिकृतो लक्षश्लोकसंख्याको
ग्रन्थ इति प्रसिद्धिः (Nāgeśa's Uddyota on Mahābhāṣya Kaiyaṭa 1-1-1).
Adhyāya XI.
Page. 56.
Rājaśekhara deals in the following three chapters with the
subject of शब्दार्थहरण or plagiarism of both words and ideas. It is in-
teresting to note that no author before Rājaśekhara had dealt this
subject with such a wealth of detail as is done here. Only
Vāmana and Ānandavardhana touched this subject and warned
the poets to be very careful in ridding themselves of this pernicious
practice. It is, therefore, difficult to discover the source of Rāja-
śekhara's information. Among later writers, Kṣemendra treats
of this subject in his Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa with different details,
while Hemacandra incorporates all these three chapters in his
commentary on the Kāvyānuśāsana. (pp. 8-10.)
l. 4. Examples of plagiarism in respect of वृत्त or metre and
प्रबन्ध or lengthy poem are not cited in this connection. The view
attributed here to the Ācāryas, is traceable in Ānandavardhana's
work as well as in the commentary thereon.
Cf. अक्षरादिरचनैव योज्यते यत्र वस्तुरचना पुरातनी ।
नूतने स्फुरति काव्यवस्तुनि व्यक्तमेव खलु सा न दुष्यति ॥
Dhvanyāloka 4-15.
But Rājaśekhara differs from him on certain points.
*[Borrowed in the काव्यानुशासनविवेक.
Cf. छायोपजीवी पदकोपजीवी पादोपजीवी सकलोपजीवी ।
भवेदथ प्राप्तकवित्वजीवी स्वोन्मेषतो वा भुवनोपजीव्यः ॥
कविकण्ठाभरण, संधि II.
दुराकृष्ट is quoted in कविकण्ठाभरण by Kṣemendra.]
ll. 7-12. Here the words शिलीमुखम् and किंकिरातान् having two
meanings are plagiarised in the second verse मा गाः पान्थ etc.
ll. 13-19. An example of borrowing of a part of a द्व्यर्थ word
in the same sense is given in these two verses. The second line
२७

of the first verse has two meanings. The first is: how one who
favours low class people can make use of me. The second is:
how one without hunger can make use of the mutton. These
two meanings are made possible from the combination of the word
मां and the letter सो (मांसोपयोगम्=मां सोपयोगम्। क्षुत् रहितः=क्षुद्रहितः।). From
this combination, a part मां is borrowed by another poet in the next
verse and combined with सरसं to express the identical meanings as
shown above (मांसरसम्=मां सरसम्।).
ll. 20-27. Here the word निरवधीरितम् has two meanings:
(1) 'repelled' and (2) 'unlimited spreading'. These two senses
are expressed with reference to (1) the army of the Asuras and
(2) the fame of Baladeva. The word हल in the first line may be
read as बल and the words आसुर and अपारपयोनिधिविस्तृतम् may be connected
with that as adjective. The same word निरवधीरितम् and the two
other words आकुल and आसुर which also have two meanings owing
to श्लेष with reference to the army and fame in the first verse,
are borrowed in the next verse which forms an example of यमक
and expresses the same sense.
Page. 57.
ll. 1-4. Here the word कर्णायतेक्षणम् is श्लिष्ट and as such this
line bears the following two meanings: (1) the crowd of
paramours is behaving for the moment in the same manner as
Karṇa and (2) the face of the lady has eyes long up to her ears.
The same word कर्णायतेक्षणम् is borrowed in the next verse to
supply an answer to the three questions put forth in the same
verse. The first two questions are "what does the paramour do in
the house of a prostitute and for what time?" The answer is:
कर्णायते, क्षणम्. He acts as Karṇa and for a moment. The third
question is "what kind of face he looked at?" The answer is
कर्णायतेक्षणम् i. e. the eyes of which are long enough to reach the ears.
*[l. 6. वरदाय नमो हरये पतति जनो यं etc. occurs as the first verse
in वृन्दावनयमककाव्य of मानाङ्क.
l. 8. चक्रं दहतारम् (रुद्रटकाव्यालङ्कार. III. 4.)].
ll. 5-10. Rājaśekhara's suggestion that Rudraṭa in his verse
चक्रं दहतारम् etc. borrowed words from the Mānāṅka's verse वरदाय नमो
हरये etc, makes it probable that the poet Mānāṅka the author of
the Vṛndāvanayamakakāvya (printed in the Kāvyasaṅgraha by
Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara) flourished before Rudraṭa (cir. 850-900).

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

212 EXPLANATORY NOTES
speech known as रूपक applies to both शङ्कर and क्षीरसिन्धु which have
several adjectives each with two meanings. This is the special
feature of a particular poet. The same idea finds expression in
the work of a later poet in the second verse, though only
one word शङ्करक्षीरसिन्धवे is borrowed from the former verse. The
reading नाप्रत्यभिज्ञायातः as found in the A and B MSS, however, gives
quite a different meaning, and this is almost diametrically oppo-
site to the meaning given above. According to this the sentence
should be construed as :—
अप्रत्यभिज्ञायातः पादोऽपि न परिहरणीयः । तस्यापि साम्ये न किञ्चन दुष्टं स्यात् ।
That being the case, the pāda इत्युक्तवान् etc, is not to be
considered as an instance of actual borrowing. The reading of
the C. MS, is adopted here because of the context in which Rāja-
śekhara particularly refutes the view of the Ācāryas who maintain
that for the purposes of plagiarism the number of words should be
more than three. It may be noted here that the pāda इत्युक्तवान्
etc. has only three words and according to the Ācāryas this is not
an example of plagiarism. But Rājaśekhara thinks that this
also is to be avoided.
ll. 15–25. Here also Rājaśekhara rejects the view held by
the Ācāryas. The line may be construed as अन्यथात्वकरणकारणं पादः नैव
हरणम् । अपि तु स्वीकरणम् । The same pāda त्यागो हि सर्वव्यसनानि हन्ति used in
the first verse in praise of त्याग is quoted in the next verse in order
to denounce it. The verse त्यागो हि सर्वव्यसनानि हन्तीत्यलीकमेतत्. etc is
attributed to S'ūdraka in the Subhāṣitāvali but it cannot be traced
to his Mṛcchakaṭika. The Ācāryas hold that this is not an
example of plagiarism, but only an adaptation of a pāda from
an earlier verse by a later writer. Rājaśekhara's view is that
such adaptations without acknowledgment also are to be avoided.
Page. 59.
ll. 1–6. Rājaśekhara exemplifies here another instance of
plagiarism. Here, out of the two halves of the verse, the first half
पादस्ते नरवर etc, is taken over bodily and the second is changed by a
later writer. सीवनी=a line connecting the scrotum and anus.
*[ l. 8. तत्तावदेव attributed to प्रकाशदत्त ।
l. 17. अरण्ये निर्जने, Subhāṣitāvali (No. 555). ]

ELEVENTH ADHYĀYA 218
ll. 16-23. These are instances where later writers have
borrowed the same verse composed by earlier authors after
changing only one pāda which may either be the 3rd or 4th.
This also comes under the list of borrowings.
The verse अरण्ये निर्जने etc. is quoted from the Nāradasmṛti, 2. 30.
For साहस. cf. सहसा क्रियते कर्म यत्किञ्चिद्बलदर्पितैः ।
तत्साहसमिति प्रोक्तं सहो बलमिहोच्यते ॥
मनुष्यमारणं स्तेयं परदाराभिमर्शनम्।
पारुष्यं द्विविधं ज्ञेयं साहसं च चतुर्विधम् ॥
Nāradasmṛti. 14, 1-2.
Page. 60.
*[ l. 9. कुमुदवनमपश्रि. ( माघ. XI. 64 ). ]
ll. 1-16. In striking contrast to the above citations of
plagiarisms, Rājaśekhara treats of here one peculiar case which he
considers as original even though there is promiscuous borrowing.
In the fourth verse, three pādas are taken from three different
verses mentioned above and are connected with one pāda which
alone is composed by the author.
*[ l. 18. या व्यापारवती. ध्वन्यालोक III. आनन्दवर्धन says that the
verse is his own.
For अन्यथाकरण of पद and पाद, cf.
अपरे पुनः पठितिमन्यथा कथयन्ति ॥
पदपादार्धभाषामान्यथाकरणेन यः ।
पाठः पूर्वेक्तसूक्तस्य पठितिं तां प्रचक्षते ॥
तत्र पदान्यथाकरणं द्विधा —प्रकृतितो विभक्तितश्च ॥
तत्र प्रकृतितो यथा—
असकलहसितत्वात् क्षालितानीव कान्त्या
मुकुलितनयनत्वाद्व्यक्तकर्णोत्पलानि ।
पिबतु(ति)मधुसुगन्धीन्याननानि प्रियाणां
त्वयि विनिहितभारः कुन्तलानामधीशः ॥
अत्र त्वयीत्यस्य स्थाने यदा मयीति पठ्यते तदैतत्प्रार्थनावाक्यमपि अनुमतिवाक्यं भवति ॥
पादान्यथाकरणत्वेन यथा,—
एकान्ते विजने रात्रावन्तर्वेश्मनि साहसे ।
न्यासापह्नवे चैव दिव्या सम्भवति क्रिया ॥

214 EXPLANATORY NOTES
अत्र यदा तृतीयपादस्थाने तन्वङ्गी यदि लभ्येतेति पाठो भवति तदैतत् परीक्षौपयिकमपि
कामौपयिकं भवति ॥
अर्धान्यथाकरणेन यथा,—
तत्तावदेव शशिनः स्फुरितं गरीयो
यावन्न तिग्मरुचिमण्डलम्अभ्युदेति ।
अभ्युद्यते सकलधामनिधौ तु तस्मिन्
इन्दोः सिताभ्रशकलस्य च को विशेषः ॥
अत्र यदा मध्यमपादयोः स्थाने "यावन्न ताः किमपि गौरतरा हसन्ति । ताभिः पुनर्विहसिता-
ननपङ्कजाभिः" इति पठ्यते तदैतद्वीरार्थोक्तिरूपमपि शृङ्गारोक्तिरूपं सम्पद्यते ॥
पादत्रयान्यथाकरणेन यथा,—
त्यागेन युक्ता दिवमुत्पतन्ति त्यागेन हीना नरकं व्रजन्ति ।
न त्यागिनां दुष्करमस्ति किञ्चित् त्यागो हि सर्वव्यसनानि हन्ति ॥
अत्र यदा तुरीयपादमेवादाय पादत्रयान्यथाकरणेन वक्ष्यमाणः पाठो भवति, तदैतत्त्याग-
प्रशंसार्थमपि त्यागनिन्दार्थमपि जायते ।
तद्यथा—
त्यागो हि सर्वव्यसनानि हन्तीत्यलीकमेतद्भुवि संप्रतीतम् ।
जातानि सर्वव्यसनानि तस्यास्त्यागेन मे मुग्धविलोचनायाः ॥
सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण pp. 80 and 81. ]
ll. 17–23. In this verse, another instance of borrowing is illus-
trated. Here a later writer makes an attempt to pass off the
composition of an earlier author as his own by the substitution
of a few words in one pāda. For the explanation of the verse या
व्यापारवती etc, see Locana p. 227 on Dhvanyāloka.
l. 24. The instance of large scale borrowing of a whole verse
belonging to another writer, with slight changes only in parts of
the words, is illustrated here.
Page. 61.
ll. 1–4. The example cited here has an interesting historical
background. It appears from this that the great poet Kālidāsa
acted as an ambassador of his patron, king Vikramāditya, who
may be identified with king Candragupta II of the Gupta
dynasty. It also appears probable that Vikramāditya sent
Kālidāsa to the court of the king of the Kuntala country as an
ambassador. It is also probable that Kālidāsa on his return from
the Kuntala king composed a poem recording all the events
connected with his mission. This work is known as कुन्तलेश्वरदौत्यम्,

and only three verses from this work are now available. The two
verses असकलहसितत्वात् etc. are cited here as an example of पदैकदेशो Funeral,
and a third is quoted by Kṣemendra in his Aucityavicāracarcā and
these three belong to the work of Kālidāsa's Kuntaleśvaradautya.
The conclusions drawn from an analysis of the three verses in
question, are given above and the verses are quoted below for
ready reference, from the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhojadeva and the
Aucityavicāracarcā of Kṣemendra, along with explanatory notes
as found in the respective works.
'अथ नैयायिकी-यत्र पूर्वोक्तमेव वाक्यमर्थान्तरे वक्त्रादिभिरूहयित्वा निवेश्यते तामूहनैयायि-
कीमामनन्ति । तद्यथा—कालिदासः 'किं कुन्तलेश्वरः करोति' इति विक्रमादित्येन पृष्टः उक्तवान्—
असकलहसितत्वात् क्षालितानीव कान्त्या
मुकुलितनयनत्वाद्व्यक्तकर्णोत्पलानि ।
पिबति मधुसुगन्धीन्याननानि प्रियाणां
त्वयि विनिहितभारः कुन्तलानामधीशः ॥
इदमेवोहयित्वा विक्रमादित्यः प्रत्युवाच ।
पिबति(तु)मधु सुगन्धीन्याननानि प्रियाणां
मयि विनिहितभारः कुन्तलानामधीशः ॥
शृङ्गारप्रकाश. प्र. ८
The conversation as quoted above, between Vikramāditya and
Kālidāsa regarding the attitude of Kuntaleśvara appears to have
been recorded in the work Kuntaleśvaradautya of Kālidāsa from
which Bhojadeva seems to have quoted in order to illustrate the
ऊहनैयायिकी. This is further supported by a verse quoted from the
same work and the explanations thereon given by Kṣemendra.
The passage runs thus:—
अधिकरणौचित्यं यथा-कुन्तलेश्वरदौत्ये कालिदासः—
इह निवसति मेरुः शेखरः क्ष्माधराणां
इह विनिहितभाराः सागराः सप्त चान्ये ।
इदमहिपतिभोगस्तंभविश्राम्यमानं
धरणितलमिहैव स्थानमस्मद्विधानाम् ॥
अत्र महाराजदूतोऽपि सामन्तास्थाने स्वप्रभुसमुचितगौरवपूजार्हमासनमनासाद्य कार्यवशेन
भूमावेवोपविष्टः प्रागल्भ्यगाम्भीर्येणैवं ब्रूते-यथाऽस्मद्विधानां वसुधातल एव भुजगपतिभोगस्तंभप्राग्भार-
निष्कम्पे धरासने स्थानं युक्तम् । यस्मादिहैव मेरुरचलचक्रवर्ती समुपविष्टः । सप्तमहान्धयश्च । तत्तुल्य-
तैवास्माकमिति औचित्यमधिकरणपदसंबद्धमेव. p. 139.
From this statement of Kṣemendra: महाराजदूतोपि सामन्तास्थाने
स्वप्रभुसमुचितगौरवपूजार्हमासनमनासाद्य कार्यवशेन भूमावेवोपविष्टः etc. it may be sur-

216 EXPLANATORY NOTES
mised that Kuntaleśvara had secret hostility against his sovereign
king Vikramāditya and that Vikramāditya had sent Kālidāsa, his
ambassador, to Kuntaleśvara to remove that hostility by establish-
ing new bonds of friendship. Kālidāsa became successful in his
mission, and made Kuntaleśvara faithful to his overlord king
Vikramāditya. This fact, Kālidāsa conveys to his patron through
the stanza: असकलहसितत्वात् etc. as stated by Bhoja in the above
quotation. The approval: पिबतु मधुसुगन्धीन्याननानि प्रियाणां etc, expressed
by Vikramāditya with reference to the request conveyed through
Kālidāsa by Kuntaleśvara, shows that Vikrama had established
friendly connections with Kuntaleśvara. Now the question arises
as to who this Kuntaleśvara is.
From the History of the Vākāṭaka Empire (cir. A. D. 284-
550) as given by Mr. K. P. Jayaswal in J. B. O. R. S. vol. XIX.
I. II., it may be surmised that Pṛthvīsena I (cir. 348-375 A. D.),
who subjugated the king of Kuntala or the Karṇāṭaka country and
the Kadamba kingdom, was hostile to the Gupta kings, because
Samudragupta defeated and killed his father Vākāṭaka Rudrasena
I or Rudradeva I (cir. 344-348 A. D.) who was the reigning
sovereign. Samudragupta, however, later re-instated Pṛthvīsena
on the vacant throne of his father, as one of the सामन्त kings under
the Gupta sovereignty. During the reign of Candragupta II, this
Vākāṭaka king Pṛthvīsena gained much power due to his victory
over the Kuntala country and the Kadambas. Candragupta who
initiated a policy of political marriages with families of subjugated
kings, wanted, at that time, to remove the hostile feeling and
establish friendship with the Vākāṭaka prince Pṛthvīsena. This
idea, very probably, prompted Candragupta to send Kālidāsa as
an ambassador to the court of the Vākāṭaka king Pṛthvīsena
who was then called Kuntaleśa also due to his victory over the
the Kuntala country. We have, however, another testimony for
this Gupta Vākāṭaka relation. Prabhāvatī-guptā, the daughter
of Candragupta II through the Nāga princess Kubera Nāga, was
given in marriage to Vākāṭaka Rudrasena II, (cir. 375-395) the
son of Pṛthvīsena I, and her son was Pravarasena II (cir. 405-
435) To this Pravarasena is attributed the Setubandha Kāvya
which is generally believed to have been composed by Kālidāsa on
behalf of Pravarasena at the request of his patron Vikramāditya
Candragupta, the grand-father of Pravarasena II of the Vākāṭaka
dynasty.

ELEVENTH ADHYĀYA 217
It may be remembered here that the Rāmasetupradīpa, the
commentary on the Setubandha, records an interesting fact in this
connection that Kālidāsa composed the Setubandha-Kāvya at the
request of Vikramāditya, but published the same under the name
of king Pravarasena. The relevent passages from the commentary
are quoted below :
धीराणां काव्यचर्चाचतुरिमविधये विक्रमादित्यवाचा
यं चक्रे कालिदासः कविकुमुदविधुः सेतुनामप्रबन्धम् । etc.
इह तावन्महाराजप्रवरसेननिमित्तं महाराजाधिराजविक्रमादित्येनाज्ञप्तः निखिलकविचक्र-
चूडामणिः कालिदासमहाशयः सेतुबन्धप्रबन्धं चिकीर्षुः etc.
These passages make it abundantly clear that these three
persons : Vikramāditya, Kālidāsa and Pravarasena were intimately
connected and had some hand in the composition of the Setubandha.
It may be suggested here that Kuntaleśvara, mentioned in the
verse : असकलहसितत्वात् etc. and referred to by Bhoja and Kṣemendra
in their works, must be no other than king Pṛthvīṣeṇa I, of the
Vākāṭaka dynasty. Pravarasena, to whom the Setubandha Kāvya
is generally attributed, is his grand-son being the son of Rudrasena
II and Prabhāvatīguptā, the daughter of Candragupta II. It may
be remembered in this connection that both Daṇḍin (Kāvyādarśa,
1-34) and Hemacandra (Book VIII. Grammar) consider the style
of the Setubandha as the best available in the Mahārāṣṭrī dialect.
These two references, also prove that among the two Pravarasenas
of Kashmir none can be the author of this Setubandha because
being Kashmirians they are not expected to write excellently in
the Mahārāṣṭrī dialect. Another reason for not considering any
of the two Pravarasenas of Kashmir as the author of the Setu-
bandha, is that they are not contemporaries of either Vikrama or
Kālidāsa since they ruled over Kashmir in the first and second
centuries A. D. according to the Rājataraṅgiṇī. The Kuntala
country being a part of Mahārāṣṭra, the authorship of the Setu-
bandha may well be attributed to the Vākāṭaka Pravarasena II,
who ruled over this part of the Mahārāṣṭra country in the
beginning of the fifth century A. D. as suggested by Mr. K. P.
Jayaswal in his 'History of India cir. 150 to 350 A. D.' (J. B. O.
R. S. vol. XIX 1933. Pt. I. II.); and General Cunningham
(Archaeological Reports Vol. XI. p. 123), and confirmed by Dr.
G. Bühler (Indian Antiquary Vol. XII. p. 239). In this case,
Pravarasena II of the Vākāṭaka dynasty who ruled over a tract

218 EXPLANATORY NOTES
of land to the south of the Narmadā becomes a junior contem-
porary of Candragupta Vikramāditya who belonged to the same
period, and in whose court poet Kālidāsa flourished as is commonly
supposed. Another support for this suggestion regarding the
authorship of the Setubandha comes from the Bharatacaritakāvya
of Kṛṣṇakavi in which the Setubandha is attributed to the king
of Kuntala. The verse in question is:
जलाशयस्यान्तरगाढमार्गमलब्धबन्धं गिरिचौर्यवृत्त्या ।
लोकेष्वलङ्कान्तमपूर्वसेतुं बबन्ध कीर्त्या सह कुन्तलेशः ॥
Trivandrum Series No. 86 (1. 4)
Under these circumstances, it is possible that Pravarasena II
ruled over the two countries Vidarbha and Kuntala in the
beginning of the fifth century A. D.
The verse : असकलहसितत्वात् etc., the original of Kālidāsa is borrowed
with slight modifications in two words पिबति and त्वयि as पिबतु and
मयि by Vikramāditya in order to provide an answer to the request
of Kuntaleśvara conveyed through Kālidāsa.
*[ l. 6. सुभ्रू त्वं कुपिते. attributed to विद्यापति. Cf. स्वरेण (पठितिः) यथा
सुभ्रूः etc. अत्र दृष्टे इत्यत्र प्लुतस्वरकरणात् कुपितकान्ताप्रसादनपरमपीदं वाक्यमुत्कुपितदृष्टि-
प्रसादनपरतां प्रतिपद्यते ।
सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. II ]
ll. 23-26. Cf. सन्ति श्वान इवासंख्या जातिभाजो गृहे गृहे ।
उत्पादका न बहवः कवयः शरभा इव ॥
अन्यवर्णपरावृत्त्या बन्धचिह्ननिगूहनैः ।
अनाख्यातः सतां मध्ये कविश्चौरो विभाव्यते ॥
Harṣacarita 1. 6-7.
Adhyāya XII.
Page. 62.
*[ l. 10 वाक्पतिराज the author of the Gauḍavadha.
Cf. दृष्ट्वा वाक्पतिराजस्य शक्तिं गौडवधोद्धुराम् ।
बुद्धिः साध्वसरुद्वेव वाचं न प्रतिपद्यते ॥
तिलकमञ्जरी. 31.
सामन्तजन्माऽपि कवीश्वराणां महत्तमो वाक्पतिराजसूरिः ।
यः स्थापयाप्यन्यमपीडयच्छ्रुतागदम्यर्थमनन्यदृष्टम् ॥ ( ? ) उदयसुन्दरी ॥ ]

TWELFTH ADHYĀYA 219
ll. 9–12. The views of the Ācāryas and Vākpatirāja, as stated
here, are found in the work Gauḍavaho of Vākpatirāja.
Cf. कालगुणा पढमकईहिं भमिअमपरिग्गहेसु मग्गेसु ।
इहरा मईहिं हीरन्ति दुक्करं के वि काणंपि ॥
कत्तो णाम न इंट्ठं सच्चं कविसेविएसु मग्गेसु ।
सीमन्ते उण सुकब्बि तम्मि सव्वं नवं चेअ ॥
अत्यालोअणतरला इअरकईणं भमन्ति बुद्धीओ ।
अत्यञ्चेश्र निरारंभमेन्ति हिअअं कइन्दाणम् ॥
आसंसारं कहपुंगवेहिं तद्दिअहगहिअसारो वि ।
अज्ज वि अभिण्णमुद्दो व्व जअइ वाआपारप्फन्दो ॥
Gauḍavaho-84-87.
Here, it may be noted that the last verse of Vākpatirāja आसंसारं
etc. has been sanskritized by Rājaśekhara with a few changes
and quoted under his name.
ll. 13–16. The views of some thinkers regarding the necessity
of a careful study of the early poetical works on the part of a poet,
are to be linked with the view of the Ācāryas on the point, and not
with that of Vākpatirāja above stated.
ll. 17–24. Rājaśekhara disagrees with the views of the other
thinkers on this subject. The explanation given by him is more
or less based on the statement made by Vākpatirāja on the same
subject in verses 88–92 of his Gauḍavaho. The views expressed by
Vākpatirāja and quoted by Rājaśekhara are already mentioned by
Ānandavardhana in his Dhvanyāloka.
Cf. वाचस्पतिसहस्राणां सहस्रैरपि यत्नतः ।
निबद्धाऽपि क्षयं नैति प्रकृतिर्जगतामिव ॥
इयं काव्यस्थितिरनन्ताभिः कविमतिभिरुपभुक्ताऽपि नेदानीं परिहीयते । प्रत्युत नवनवाभिव्यु-
त्पत्तिभिः परिवर्धते ।
and संवादास्तु भवन्त्येव बाहुल्येन सुमेधसाम् ।
स्थितं ह्येतत् । संवादिन्यो मेधाविनां बुद्धयः ।
नैकरूपतया सर्वे ते मन्तव्या विपश्चिता ॥ 4,10-11
The statement तदाहुः etc. quoted by Rājaśekhara is traceable
in the work of Ānandavardhana with the same context:—

220 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Cf. तदित्थं स्थिते—
प्रतायन्तां वाचो निमितविविधार्थामृतरसा
न वादः कर्तव्यः कविभिरनवद्ये स्वविषये ।
परस्वादानेच्छाविरतमनसो वस्तु सुकवेः
सरस्वत्यैवैषा घटयति यथेष्टं भगवती ॥
Dhvani. 4. 17.
Page. 63.
**[ ll. 2-5. The portion dealing with प्रतिबिम्बकल्प, आलेख्यप्रख्य, तुल्य-
देहितुल्य and परपुरप्रवेशसदृश is borrowed by Hemacandra. cf. also अर्थो
द्विविधोऽयोनिरन्यच्छायायोनिश्च । (वामन. III. 2-7.) अयोनिर अकारणः अवधानमात्र-
कारण इत्यर्थः । अन्यस्य काव्यस्य च्छाया अन्यच्छाया तयोनिः । Read एकादृश । ]
ll. 2-5. Rājaśekhara approves of all the above mentioned
views as correct. Vāmana seems to have analyzed अर्थ in poetry
for the first time, and discovered that there are three distinct
divisions of it.
Cf. अर्थो द्विविधोऽयोनिरन्यच्छायायोनिश्च ।
व्यक्तः सूक्ष्मश्च । सूक्ष्मो भाव्यो वासनीयश्च ।
Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra III. 2, 7-9.
Ānandavardhana, further developed this idea of three divisions
of Artha and, therefore, his is a definite improvement on the older
theory. This is found in the Dhvanyāloka 4-12.
Cf. संवादा ह्यन्यसादृश्यं तत्पुनः प्रतिबिम्बवत् ।
आलेख्यप्रख्यवत्तुल्यदेहिवच्च शरीरिणाम् ॥
Taking advantage of the already existing theories, Rājaśekhara
develops upon them, puts the whole on a more scientific basis, and
illustrates his points by a number of verses in these two chapters.
The word अध्यगीष्महि also shows that Rājaśekhara here alludes to
the views of some earlier writers on this subject. The examples
of निन्हुतयोनि and परपुरप्रवेशसदृश are an improvement on Vāmana
and Ānandavardhana.
The word एकादृश may be read as एकादृत् as अयोनिर is used by only
one author. Hemacandra incorporated all these four divisions as
recorded by Rājaśekhara along with their definitions and illustra-
tions in his Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka. p. 8.
ll. 7-14. प्रतिबिम्बकल्पार्थ is defined by Ānandavardhana as अनन्य्यात्म
and explained by him as तात्त्विकशरीरशून्यम् । see. Dhvani 4-13. The

same definition is given here in this verse by Rājaśekhara as
अपरमार्थविभेदम्. It is worthy of note here that the two verses cited
here as examples will express identical meaning in case the reading
in the second verse is changed as चन्दामृतांबु instead of गङ्गाह्रदांबु ।
ll. 15–19. Ānandavardhana defines this division as तुच्छातम,
and advises poets not to take recourse to this method of writing.
But Rājaśekhara does not agree with him, and defines this kind of
poetry in a better manner than the प्रतिबिम्बकल्प and shows good
artistic taste in the verse illustrating this class. The fact that he
differs from Ānandavardhana in this respect becomes manifest by
the word अर्थचतुरैः in this definition and by the passage सोऽयमनुग्राह्यो
मार्गः on p. 71 l. 12.
ll. 20–25. The third variety is approved of by Ānandavar-
dhana as suitable for adoption, and is defined by him as प्रसिद्धातम ।
Cf. तत्त्वस्यान्यस्य सद्भावे पूर्वस्थित्यनुयाय्यपि ।
वस्तु भातितरां तन्व्याः शशिच्छायमिवाननम् ॥
Dhvanyāloka. 4–14.
That the same view of Ānandavardhana is adopted by
Rājaśekhara is evident from the word सुधियोऽपि mentioned in this
definition.
Page. 64.
ll. 1–4. This method of description of the jewels is similar
to that of the elephants adopted in the preceding verse. This
kind of borrowing alone is permitted by Ānandavardhana.
ll. 5–14. This fourth division is not mentioned by any
early writer. मूलैक्यम्=sameness of basic principles.
In the following two verses, the appearence of the Kadamba
flower, the sign of the rainy season, becomes a source of enjoyment
to the queens, because kings do not undertake war during that
season and remain at home. Relying on this fact, two poets have
composed two different verses where the second excels the first
in description.
l. 16 अयस्कान्तवत् । Four kinds of poets who have special
fondness for the use of these four kinds of Artha in their
descriptions are named after these four Arthas in the same way as
अयस्कान्त (magnet) which attracts iron and is called by that name.

222 EXPLANATORY NOTES
पञ्चमः । The poet is said to belong to the fifth variety when his
attention is always drawn to the अयोन्यर्थ or the method of description
not adopted by any earlier poet.
ll. 18-25. Here Rājaśekhara quotes a set of anonymous verses
giving definitions of five classes of poets who are named differently
as : भ्रामक, चुम्बक, कर्षक, द्रावक, and चिन्तामणि.
Page. 65.
l. 7. कोशकार=a kind of sugarcane.
This description is called लौकिक as it is concerned with terrestrial
things.
*[ l. 11. देवीपुत्रमसूत attributed to योगेश्वर in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत ].
ll. 11-14. It is called अलौकिक since it is concerned with
celestial beings. This verse is quoted once before while describing
an Arthakavi ( p. 18 ).
ll. 15-18. मिश्रः because it pertains to both celestial and
terrestrial beings.
ll. 19-23. अर्थानां should be connected with प्रत्येकमष्टत्ववशात्. Each
of these four Arthas is subdivided into eight and, therefore, the
total number of sub-divisions is thirty-two.
Page. 66.
ll. 1-8. Here, the समर्थ्यसमर्थकभाव required for the figure of
speech known as अर्थान्तरन्यास, is shown in the first half of the second
verse, and this is quite contrary to that shown in the last line
of the first verse . It is, therefore, called व्यत्यस्तक.
*[ l. 10. पुरा पाण्डुप्रायम् Vide. Vāmanālaṅkāra III. 2. 2. ]
ll. 9-17. It is called खण्डप्रतिबिम्बकल्प because the three stages
पाण्डुप्रायं, कपिशिन्ना कृतपर्व and वीतामोदं are not stated in the second verse,
though all the other stages are adopted as given in the first verse.
Read आपादितस्फुटसंस्थिति शोषपोषाम् ।
ll. 18-24. तन्त्र denotes here an army. The same idea ex-
pressed in the first verse, is developed upon, and enlarged in the
second verse.

TWELFTH ADHYĀYA 223
l. 25. नटनेपथ्यम्। When a later poet borrows an idea from
earlier writing, but deviates totally from the original language, he
is compared here to an actor who appears in a different dress from
his original one.
l. 26. नेच्छइ पासासंकी is read as पाशाशंकी काओ णेच्छइ in the Gāthā-
saptatātī. (3-5.)
Page. 67.
ll. 2-5. The same idea, embodied originally in the Prākṛta
language in the first verse, is expressed in Sanskrit in the subse-
quent verse.
*[ l. 7. कान्ते (अमरु 101;)
l. 11. धन्यास्तु attributed to Vijjākā ;
l. 16. ततोऽरुण० attributed to Vālmīki;
l. 18. समं कुसुम०
cf. ततः कुमुदनाथेन गर्भणीगण्डपाण्डुना ।
उदयाद्रिशिरःसीम्नि निहितं पदमिन्दुना ॥ द्रोणपर्व. ]
ll. 15-19. In these two verses, the brightness of the moon is
described as similar to the paleness of a lady's cheek. But the
cause for the paleness of a lady's cheek, is mentioned in the first
verse as emaciation due to the influence of passion, and, in the
next, due to her being in a delicate condition. This is what is
called हेतुव्यत्यय.
ll. 20-26. The behaviour of the swans described in the first
verse, is transferred in the second verse to the deer.
Page. 68.
ll. 3-15. Combining in a concise manner, the imports of two
different sentences belonging to early writers, is called सम्पुट.
The river Narmadā is called here a नदी, but, in fact, it should
be called a नद as it flows towards the west.
शकुल=a kind of fish.
सरिताम् may be construed with अम्भः.

224. EXPLANATORY NOTES
     Adhyāya XIII.
     Page. 69.
     ll. 1–10. It should be noted here that Dhvaṇikāra denounced
     this borrowing tendency on the part of poets as तुच्छात्म, saying
     तदनन्तरमालेख्यप्रख्यमन्यत्साम्यं शरीरान्तरयुक्तमपि तुच्छात्मत्वेन त्यक्तव्यम् ।
     But Rājaśekhara thinks that this practice is not unsuitable
     for poets.
     It is worthy of note that समक्रम, the first division of आलेख्यप्रख्य
     is almost the same as the seventh division सङ्क्रमिति of the प्रतिबिम्बकल्प.
     An example of समक्रम is then given. The glorious aspects of
     he setting sun described in the first verse are transferred to the
     rising moon in the second verse. This gives rise to संकमिति.
     ll. 11–19. The author of the first verse describes the flame
     of a lamp, and this description is accompanied with several similés ;
     while in the second verse only the nature of the flame is described
     with all similés omitted. This kind of borrowing is not very
     different from the second variety known as खण्ड of the प्रतिबिम्बकल्प
     where also the borrowing of a portion of the complete description
     is illustrated.
     ll. 20–24. The third variety व्युत्क्रम of this section does not
     seem to be different from the व्यत्यस्तक of the प्रतिबिम्बकल्प.
     l. 25. विशेषोक्ति also does not differ from the तैलविन्दु, the third
     division of the previous section. The examples of these divisions
     also show an exact similarity, because in both the forms, things
     described in a concise form in the first verse, are explained in
     detail in the second verse.
     *[ l. 26. इत्युद्धृते found in दशरूपकावलोक II. ]
     Page. 70.
     *[ L. 8. दीपयन्नथ ( किरात. IX. 23. ) ]
     ll. 7–15. In the first verse, the similé comparing the moon
     with the breast of a lady is mentioned as subsidiary to the
     principal similé comparing the moon with the golden pot. In the
     second verse, however, the subsidiary similé of the first verse has
     been adopted as the principal similé. It is, therefore, called उत्तंस.

THIRTEENTH ADHYĀYA 225
ll. 16-24. This नवनेपथ्य is exactly similar to the नटनेपथ्य of the
प्रतिबिंबकल्प class. In the नटनेपथ्य the same import of the first stanza is
expressed in the second verse in a different language by a different
poet. But, here, the same description of a thing adopted in the
first verse, is reproduced in the second in a slightly modified style.
It is described in the first stanza that तिलक on a woman's
cheek which resembled the dark spot in the moon, is removed
by the drops of her tear when she wept at the delay of her lover.
But, in the second verse, the same idea is represented in a mo-
dified style and पत्रलताs or leaves and creepers in the cheeks of the
ladies are said to have been destroyed by the hot tears coming from
the eyes of the खण्डिता नायिकाs.
l. 25. एकपरिकार्य is said to take place when a later writer borrows
a method of description from an earlier poet and changes the prin-
cipal object of description. The first verse is exploited while the
second shows the exploitation.
In both the verses, cited as an illustration of this class of
borrowing, the elephant's trunk of Gaṇeśa is described as similar
to the stalk of a lotus when it is raised up by him. But the
author of the first verse makes the sun resemble a lotus to
which Gaṇeśa's trunk is said as the stalk ; while the author of
the second verse represents the tip of the elephant's trunk as
the lotus.
*[l. 26. अव्याद्गजेन्द्रवदनः. No. 80 of सुभाषितावली, attributed to गणपति
whom Rājaśekhara praises as under:—
अथो गणपतिं वन्दे महामोदविधायिनम् ।
विद्याधरगणैर्यस्य पूज्यते कण्ठगर्जितम् ॥
This is attributed by some to विद्यापति.]
Page. 71.
*[l. 6. रविसङ्क्रान्त. in ध्वन्यालोक II ; attributed to Vālmīki.]
ll. 6-11. The author of the first verse, compares the winter-
moon to a mirror which is made dirty by the sighings of on-lookers.
The same idea has been borrowed by the author of the next verse
where he describes the happy countenance of a lady as similar to
a mirror which becomes natural when the dirt due to the tears and
sighings of the on-lookers, is cleared off. This borrowing is, there-
fore, called प्रत्यापत्तिः ।
२९

ll. 12-14. सोऽयमनुग्राह्यो etc. Rājaśekhara approves of this kind of
borrowing on the part of poets, while he denounces the other kind
of plagiarism already described by the name of प्रतिबिंबकल्प. He
quotes in support of his view, a verse सोयं etc.
*[l. 14. अन्यथात्वमिवाच्छेति, आर्च्छति from आ ऋ.
l. 17. ये सीमन्तित. (बालभारत. 1-2).
Page. 72.
*[l. 3. दिश्याद्धूर्जटिजूटकोटि. found in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण.
l. 8. कपाले मार्जारः attributed to भास.]
l. 17. नमन्नारायण etc. The purport of this verse seems to be
that the ten nails of God Rudra's feet, by the reflection of black
colour of Nārāyaṇa who bowed before Rudra, resembled the ten
moons on the heads of the ten Rudras and they seemed to have come
to worship the moon which is on the head of the eleventh Rudra.
Construction in this case may be made thus:—नमन्नारायणच्छाया-
च्छुरिताः पादयोः नखाः दश रुद्रेन्दवो (भूत्वा) रुद्र त्वच्चन्द्रं सेवन्त इव।
The reading suggested as रुद्रेन्दवः in the text makes a slight
change in the purport. In that case it may be construed thus:—
नमन्नारायणच्छायाच्छुरिताः (अत एव) रुद्रेन्दवः पादयोः दश नखाः हे रुद्र त्वच्चन्द्रं सेवन्त इव.
If the word Nārāyaṇa is changed to Nārāyaṇī, then this verse
will give quite a different sense. The face or the moon on the head
of नारायणी or पार्वती who bowed before Rudra, being reflected on the
ten nails of his feet resembled the ten moons worshipping the
moon on the head of Rudra.
The purport of the next verse उमैक etc. is, however, quite
clear, where it is said that the moon on the crown of Rudra seems
to have taken six forms on being reflected on the five nails of उमा
when he bowed before one of her feet.
*[l. 25. अङ्गुणे, सैकते शशिमरीचिलेपने (जानकीहरण 8. 85).
Page. 73.
*[l. 10 कुरबक कुचाघातक्रीडारसेन attributed to रत्नाकर (सुभाषितावलि.
No. 2564).
l. 25. संविधातुमभिषेकमुदासे (किरात. IX. 32.)]

THIRTEENTH ADHYĀYA 227
Page. 74.
l. 4. The word त्वक्षीर may be read as त्वक्सार which means
‘bamboo’. The metaphor or रूपक in this verse is between the moon
and the चूडामणि and in support of it, a simile or उपमा comparing the
broken pieces of bamboos with the rays of the moon, is given.
The word त्वक्षीर. may also be read as तवक्षीर which means arrow-root
and is known in vernacular as तव्खीर.
l. 9. The reading भासिनि may be preferred here as the stars are
similar to the कुमुद flowers and they provide themselves as signs to
determine the position of the tank.
*[l. 10. रजनिपुरन्ध्रि ( वामनालङ्कार. IV. 3. 32.) ]
l. 16. विशिखामुखेषु=at the commencement of public roads in the
`cities.
*[l. 18. वियति विसर्पतीव quoted in काव्यानुशासन of हेमचन्द्र. There we
find जरठशरकाण्डविपाण्डुषु and हसतीव.]
l. 22. Three ślokas from स्फटिकमणिघट इवेन्दुः etc. explain the
portion शशिकलशपरिस्रुता ज्योत्स्ना which is the last part of the verse
विशिखामुखेषु विसरति etc.
आमपिधानम्=raw lid.
Page. 75.
ll. 3-8. The poet Surānanda, on this point, seems to follow
Ānandavardhana whose views are already stated. This Surā-
nanda belonged to the Yāyāvaragôtra to which Rājaśekhara
belonged, as can be inferred from the verse contained in the Bāla-
rāmāyaṇa and cited below.
स मूर्तो यत्रासीद्गुणगण इवाकालजलदः सुरानन्दः सोऽपि श्रवणपुटपेयेन वचसा ।
नचान्ये गण्यन्ते तरलकविराजप्रभृतयः महाभागस्तस्मिन्नयमजनि यायावरकुले ॥
1-13.
He was in the court of the rulers of the Cedi country, and
was probably a contemporary of king Raṇavigraha of Cedi (cir.
875-911 A. D. see Bhandārkar Report VI. p. xix.)
There is a verse bearing on this point, in the Sūktimuktāvali
and is attributed to Rājaśekhara :—
नदीनां मेकलसुता नृपाणां रणविग्रहः ।
कवीनां च सुरानन्दश्चेदिमण्डलमण्डनम् ॥
p. 47. ( G. O. S. edition ).

228 EXPLANATORY NOTES
The preamble 'तदाह' shows that the verse सरस्वती etc. is quoted
from the work of Surānanda. Similar sentiments are also
expressed in the Dhvanyāloka.
cf. सरस्वती स्वादु तदर्थवस्तु निःष्यन्दमाना महतां कवीनाम् ।
अलोकसामान्यमभिव्यनक्ति प्रतिस्फुरन्तं प्रतिभाविशेषम् ॥ 1-6.
Page. 76.
*[ l. 4. अविरलमिव. ( मालतीमाधव III ) ].
l. 12. Anuprāsa and Atiśayokti are the two Alaṅkāras illus-
trated in the two subsequent verses.
*[ l. 13. जयन्ति बाणासुर ( कादम्बरी 2. )].
Page. 77.
l. 3. In the first verse, the moon, reflected on several limbs of
a lady, is described as adorning her with ornaments, while in the
second verse the same moon, reflecting on her, is described as wor-
shipping her because he was inferior to the beauty of her face.
*[ l. 10. Read चन्द्रेण भाति रमणी रमणीय. l. 13. ताम्बूलवल्ली. (रघु. VI. 64)].
l. 17. युक्तयोगद:=one who is able to connect things appropriately.
Page. 78.
l. 4. Translate:—It seems to me that the poetical skill
lies in the exact knowledge of the practices either to be given up
or adopted from among the 32 kinds enumerated.
*[ l. 7. शब्दार्थशासनविदः कति नो कवन्ते. cf. ध्वन्यालोक. 1. 7.]
Adhyāya. XIV.
Page. 78.
ll. 14-25. Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana include the
descriptions of अशास्त्रीय and अलौकिक things amongst the Doṣas or
blemishes of a composition.
Cf. देशकालकलालोकन्यायागमविरोधि च ।
प्रतिज्ञाहेतुदृष्टान्तहीनं दुष्टञ्च नेष्यते ॥
Bhāmaha. 4–2.