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

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.

FOURTEENTH ADHYĀYA 229
देशकालकलालोकन्यायागमविरोधि च।
इति दोषा दशैवैते वर्ज्याः काव्येषु सूरिभिः ॥
Daṇḍin. 4-3.
देशकालस्वभावविरुद्धार्थानि लोकविरुद्धानि ।
कलाचतुर्वर्गशास्त्रविरुद्धार्थानि विद्याविरुद्धानि ॥
Vāmana. 2. 23, 24.
Rājaśekhara, however, permits the use of अलौकिक and अशास्त्रीय
descriptions, which he deals with in these three chapters and calls
them as कविसमय. These varieties are, however, quite distinct from
those included in the Doṣas by such earlier writers as Bhāmaha and
others. Vāmana, for the first time, uses the word काव्यसमय in his
5-1 of the Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra and under this heading he instructs
poets to observe certain rules in order that errors relating to
grammar, metre and gender may not creep into their composition.
The कविसमय explained by Rājaśekhara in these chapters seems to
be different from Vāmana’s काव्यसमय also. Rājaśekhara seems here
to indicate that though all the कविसमयs are generally against the
Śāstras as well as usage, there are certain varieties which are
worthy of being adopted; while there are others which are to be
totally avoided. He intends saying that though his कविसमय
seems to be लोकशास्त्रविरुद्ध, it is worthy of adoption in poetical
composition because such things had actually existed either in
early ages or in different parts of the world and also because
earlier poets have adopted such descriptions in their works. Yet,
another kind of descriptiou which is included amongst the Doṣas
by Bhāmaha and others as अशास्त्रीय and अलौकिक should necessarily
be avoided by poets, because in such cases the things described
are purely imaginary and they neither existed at any time or at
any place, nor such method as this was followed by any of the
early poets. This is the real sense of the term Kavisamaya.
Some dishonest poets, however, have used the same term in
different ways so as to suit their own selfish ends.
Rājaśekhara appears to be the first writer to deal with this
subject exhaustively, and the later writers such as Hemacandra
and others have borrowed freely from him; and in doing so they
merely added some new verses as illustrations.
Page. 79.
*[The chapters XIV to XVIII are borrowed in काव्यानुशासनविवेक;
दीर्घीकुर्वन् (मेघदूत 1. 30)].

230 EXPLANATORY NOTES
l. 4. The words पद्म, उत्पल etc. are common nouns and, therefore,
the meanings of these words are included in the group of जाति
or genus.
l. 6. Kālidāsa alludes here to the existence of lotus flowers in
the river Śiprā.
l. 10. In this verse, नीलोत्पल or the blue water-lily is described
as blossoming in the river Ganges.
*[ll. 11-13. मृदुभिरनिलवारैः, चारैः would be better; read व्यक्त-
दत्ताङ्गपालीम्.]
ll. 15-18. In this verse, one Keśava probably a king or a rich
man, is eulogised as having done some wonderful thing for the
Kuḍuṅgeśvara the presiding deity of Ujjaini. Here the river
near Ujjaini is said to be full with swans and Sārasa birds.
*[l. 16. For कुडुङ्गेश्वर in Ujjaini see प्रबन्धचिन्तामणि-सिद्धसेनप्रबन्ध.
l. 20. स्वर्णस्फीति. स्फाति is the correct grammatical form].
ll. 19-22. नाग=serpents or elephants.
चित्रपोत=young animals or boats.
स्वर्ण=water or gold.
जीमूतभर्ता=feeder of clouds or bearer of clouds.
All these words having two meanings apply to both the
ocean and the mountain described in this verse, which is in double
entendre.
Page. 80.
ll. 3-4. The words मालती and जाति are synonyms.
*[l. 5. यद्यपि चन्दनविटपी also is in शार्ङ्गधरपद्धति].
l. 12. खनाममुद्रा=सकरालयः.
*[l. 21. तनुलग्ना (विद्धशालभञ्जिका. III. 6.)]
ll. 21-22. The reading of this verse here, seems to be better
than the reading of the printed edition of the Viddhasālabhañjikā
as चरणचारपात्रमिव and वियदपि चालिकदघ्नम्. But the commentator of that
work, adopted the readings as obtained in the printed edition while
commenting upon this verse.
*[l. 25. यच्छ्रादावित. Ibid III. 14; Mss. of काव्यानुशासनविवेक read
शङ्कदावित.]

FOURTEENTH ADHYĀYA 231
ll. 25–26. The reading adopted in the Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa
is सद्यो द्रावित for यन्त्रद्रावित found here, and Bhoja commented upon
that reading in the following manner.
सद्यो द्रावितकेतकोदरदलस्रोतःसादृश्यादिसंभवादियं संभवभणितिः.
But Nārāyaṇa, the commentator on the Viddhasālabhañjikā,
commented upon this reading somewhat differently as: यन्त्रेण तैलेक्षुरस-
निष्कासनार्थे सम्पादितदारुशिलादिनिर्मितोपकरणविशेषेण द्रावितानि etc.
Page. 81.
*[ l. 1. उत्सेच्या. उत्सेक्या is the correct grammatical form. ]
l. 1. Read उत्सेक्या instead of उत्सेच्या.
*[ l. 13. न्यस्ताक्षरा. (कुमार. I) ]
l. 17. प्रकीर्णकद्रव्यकविसमय=the Kavisamaya under the misce-
llaneous section.
*[ l. 19. In शेतां हरिः read विवदामहे instead of विविदामहे and
दूरदूरस-पयाः for दूर दूर सपयास्तृषितस्य. ]
ll. 19–22. The first half of this verse alludes to the ocean of
milk, while the second refers to the ocean of salt. It is, therefore,
evident that poets do not differentiate generally between the two
oceans.
The word दूर means अत्यन्त just as दूरविलम्बिनो घनाः ।
दूरदूरसपयाः=दूरं अत्यन्तं, दूरसं नीरसं पयः यस्य सः
The last line of the verse may be construed as :—
स त्वं कूपपयसः मरोः ( पञ्चमी ) किं न जघन्यः ? ।
and translated thus : "Are you not inferior to the desert where
the wells supply water for drinking purposes."
Page. 82.
l. 8. Reading अवस्रंसः may be adopted here in consonance with
the statement contained in the verse त्वद्विप्रयोगे किरणैस्तथा etc. There
it is said that the S'ephālikā trees let fall their flowers in the
presence of the moon, as if to complain to the moon with drops
of tears against the cruel treatment of the sun they receive during
the day.
The line सतोऽपि कियार्थस्यानिबन्धनम् may be interpreted in the
following manner :—

232 EXPLANATORY NOTES
सतोऽपि क्रियार्थस्य=though S'ephālikā flowers do fall during the day
also; अनिबन्धनम्=they are not, however, described as falling during
the day.
Cf. :—पतितसुमनसः सन्ति शेफालिकाश्च Kāvyamīmāṁsā p. 41, l. 17.
and न विना चन्द्रं शेफालिकाया विकसन्ति कुसुमानि । Viddhasālabhañjikā 2. 19.
Hemacandra’s Kāvyānuśāsana reads : (p. 11.) क्रियाया यथा—दिवा
नीलोत्पलानां विकासस्य, निशानिमित्तस्य शेफालिकाकुसुमानां विस्रंसस्य. Here the word दिवा
may be construed with विकास and विस्रंस. During the day both
नीलोत्पलविकास and शेफालिकाविस्रंस are not described.
*[l. 21. मण्डलीकृत्य attributed to दण्डि ].
l. 21. मण्डलीकृत्य etc. see Kāvyādarśa. (1-70).
Adhyāya XV.
Page. 83.
*[ l. 13. MSS. of काव्यानुशासनविवेक read प्रतिदिशमिव; ]
l. 13. The reading प्रतिदिशमिव is better than प्रतिदिनमिव.
*[ l. 14. उत्खातनिर्मल० seems to be from हयग्रीववध of मेण्ठ. ]
l. 20. भौम=Narakāsura, the son of the earth-goddess.
Page. 84.
*[ l. 2. द्योतितान्तःसभैः (माघ. II. 7.)
l. 17. पुष्पं प्रवालोपहितं (कुमार. 1. 44.)
l. 27. Read उभयतटचलाबद्धवानीरहाराम् । ]
l. 27. वर्णा may be read as वेण्णाम्.
Page. 85.
l. 3. कृष्णहरितयोरैक्य is explained here in the line : मरकतसदृशं च
यामुनम् । The colour of मरकत is हरित and the colour of the water of
the river Yamunā is said to be black or कृष्ण.
l. 7. The similarity of कृष्ण and श्याम colours, is shown by the
word श्यामनिशासु ।
l. 12. The word विमलविद्रुमभासा explains the similarity between
पीत and रक्त.

SIXTEENTH ADHYĀYA 283
*[ l. 13. लेखया (किरात. IX. 22.).
l. 15. कैलासगौरम् (रघु. II. 25.) ]
l. 15. The word कैलासगौरम् illustrates here the similarity between शुक्ल and गौर.
l. 22. Both the words वीङ्खा and प्रेङ्खा mean 'moving'. वीङ्खां मुहु प्रेङ्खति may be considered as a better reading.
*[ l. 25. अथ पथि (रघु. IX. 93.).
Page. 86.
*[ l. 1. पादन्यास. मेघदूत. 1. 36. l. 5. तामुत्तीर्य (मेघदूत. 1. 47.) ]
Adhyāya XVI.
l. 12. The varieties of Kavisamaya mentioned above relating to the terrestrial things may equally be applied to celestial things. But some special features of स्वर्ग्यकविसमय are treated in this chapter.
*[ l. 18. अङ्काधिरोपित. (माघ. II. 53.).
l. 14. मा भै: in वामनीयालङ्कार. 3. 2. 7. ]
ll. 14–19. In the first verse, a lady is represented as speaking to the quivering image of the moon reflected in the glass of wine held in her hand. Here, the moon is called शशाङ्क or one having a black spot resembling the form of a hare.
In the second verse the same black spot of the moon is compared to a deer.
l. 26. केलिप्रकाश seems to be a proper name. It may also be taken to mean as केलिषु प्रकाश='brilliant in sports.'
Page. 87.
ll. 1–4. In this verse, the army of Yādavas is said to carry banners with the fish-sign because प्रद्युम्न, the son of Kṛṣṇa and the chief of the Yādava army, was an incarnation of मन्मथ and therefore is known as मत्स्यकेतन.
This verse seems to be the reply of a warrior, very probably भीमसेन, who was asked to enter the army of the Kauravas in the Mahābhārata war where the Yādavas and Droṇa were protecting the Sindhunātha alias Jayadratha.

234 EXPLANATORY NOTES
Construe:—आपातमारुतविलोड़ितसिन्धुनाथः हात्कारभीतपरिवर्तितमत्स्यचिह्नं याद-
वमहोदधिभीमवेलामुल्लङ्घ्य पवनसूनुरिव द्रोणाचलमुद्धरामि।
Here the two words सिन्धुनाथः and द्रोणाचलम् have double signi-
fication.
*[l. 6. After the verse वन्ध्या, MSS. of काव्यानुशासनविवेक add—
यथाच-यदिन्दोरन्वेति व्यसनमुदयं वा निधिरपा-
मुपाधिस्तत्रायं जयति जनिकर्तुः प्रकृतिता ।
अयं कस्संबन्धो यदनुहरते तस्य कुमुदः
विशुद्धाः शुद्धानां ध्रुवमनभिसन्धिप्रणयिनः ॥ ]
ll. 5–13. All MSS of this work cite only the first verse वन्ध्या
विश्वसृजः etc. to illustrate this Kavisamaya. Hemacandra who
borrows all these chapters in the same order as found here in his
Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka, includes the second verse यदिन्दोरन्वेति etc.
also. This verse is quoted from the Anargharāghava of Murāri.
It appears from this that Murāri, the author of the Anargha-
rāghava may be placed before Rājaśekhara (cir. 900 A. D.) on
the strength of this quotation from his work.
It is worth remembering in this connection that Murāri is
supposed to have flourished before 850 A. D. on the doubtful
testimony of a verse in the Haravijaya of Ratnākara. The verse
in question runs thus :—
अङ्के कुनाटक इवोत्तमनायकस्य
नाशं कविर्व्यधित यस्य मुरारिरित्थम् ।
आक्रान्तकृत्स्नभुवनः क्व गतः स दैत्य-
नाथो हिरण्यकशिपुः सह बन्धुवर्गैः ॥
38-68.
Although the words मुरारि, नाटक, कविः etc. do clearly refer to
the poet Murāri the author of the Anargharāghava drama, yet
the event mentioned in the verse does not agree with the theme
as found in the drama Anargharāghava, because Rāma, the hero
is not stated there as being killed in any of the Aṅkas as required
by this verse. It is, therefore, difficult to take the words मुरारि
etc. in the verse to represent the author of the Anargharāghava.
The construction of this verse of Ratnākara may, therefore,
be taken thus :—
कविः कुनाटके अङ्के उत्तमनायकस्य नाशमिव मुरारिरित्थं यस्य नाशं व्यधित सः आक्रान्त-
कृत्स्नभुवनः दैत्यनाथः हिरण्यकशिपुः सह बन्धुवर्गैः क्व गतः ॥

SIXTEENTH ADHYĀYA 235
It may also be pointed out, here, that the present context is
not complete unless this verse is accepted as a genuine part of the
Kāvyamīmāmsā. Because the verse वन्द्या विश्वसृजः etc. relates only to
the moon born from the eye of अत्रि and not to the moon born from
the ocean as required by the statement अत्रिनेत्रसमुद्रोत्पन्नयोरैक्यम्. But
the second verse यदिन्दोरन्वेति etc. refers to the moon born from the
ocean and thus both the verses together illustrate this कविसमय.
The verse यदिन्दोः etc., therefore, is a genuine part of the work.
Relying upon the accuracy of Hemacandra in quoting these
chapters of the Kāvyamīmāmsā which is amply borne out by
other instances such as in line 19 of this page as कामस्य मूर्तत्वममूर्तत्वञ्च,
this verse also may be taken as a genuine quotation made by
Rājaśekhara from the Anargharāghava of Murāri.
*[ l. 14. Read बहुकालजन्मनोऽपि शिवचन्द्रमसो बालत्वम् ।
l. 19. MSS of काव्यानुशासन read कामस्य मूर्तत्वममूर्तत्वञ्च यथा ।
l. 20. अयं स found in प्रबन्धचिन्तामणि; l. 24. धनुर्माला attributed to घण्टक
in सुभाषितावलि; separate मनो and मेयम्; शब्दप्रभृतयः seems better reading. ]
l. 25. Construe as :—अबलामनः भेयं लक्ष्यम्.
Page. 88.
*[ l. 2. यस्याधोधः attributed to राजशेखर in कवीन्द्रवचनसमुच्चय and in
सदुक्तिकर्णामृत; and to चन्द्रक in सूक्तिमुक्तावली.
l. 7. येन ध्वस्तमनोभवेन attributed to भारवि. For the meaning see
ध्वन्यालोक; ]
ll. 7–10. For the meaning of the verse येन ध्वस्तमनोभवेन etc.
see also Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa. p. 166 ( N. S. edition ).
Reading सोव्यादिष्टभुजङ्गहारवलयः as found in C. MS. is correct.
In the case of उमाधव construe as :—इष्टानि भुजङ्गा एव हारा वलयानि च यस्य सः ।
In the case of माधव, इष्टः भुजङ्गहा (गरुडः) यस्य सः; रवे शब्दब्रह्मणि लयो
यस्य सः.
Here Nārāyaṇa and Mādhava are described as one and the
same.
ll. 12–15. Construe as :—दोर्भ्यां मन्दं ईरितः मन्दरः येन सः ।
In the first half of this verse दामोदर and कूर्म are described as
identical, and in the second half the identity of Lakṣmī with wealth
and earth is described.

236 EXPLANATORY NOTES
l. 17. Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa reads त्वं नागराज instead of हे
नागराज.
*[ l. 19. Read सोढाऽविषह्यवृषवाहनयोगलीलापर्यङ्कबन्धनविधेस्तव । quoted in
सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण II.
l. 24. जयन्ति बाणासुर. कादम्बरी. 2.]
Page. 89.

• [ अस्ति दैत्यो. first verse of हयग्रीववध of भर्तृमेण्ठ, दानवाधिपते and महासु-
  रसमाजेऽस्मिन् seem to be from the same work. One more verse विनिर्गतं
  मानद. is quoted in काव्यप्रकाश.
  कविसमय of वामन is different from that of राजशेखर. The following
  quotations will explain the कविसमय and show how far the later
  writers of कविशिक्षा were indebted to राजशेखर for this.
  कवीनां समयस्त्रेधा निबन्धोऽप्यसतस्सतः ।
  अनिबन्धस्स जात्यादेर्नियमेन समासतः ॥
  असतोऽपि निबन्धो यथा—
  गिरौ रत्नादि हंसादि स्तोकपद्माकरादिषु ।
  नीरेभार्थं खगङ्गायां जलजाद्यं नदीष्वपि ॥
  तमसः सूचिभेद्यत्वं मुष्टिग्राह्यत्वमुच्यते ।
  अञ्जलिग्राह्यता चन्द्रत्विषः कुम्भोपवाह्यता ॥
  प्रतापे रक्ततोष्णत्वे कीर्त्तौ हंसादिशुभ्रता ।
  कृष्णत्वमपकीर्त्यादौ रक्तत्वं कोपरागयोः ॥
  चतुष्ट(ष्क)त्वं समुद्रस्य वियोगः कोकयोर्निशि ।
  चकोराणां सुराणां च ज्योत्स्नावासो निगद्यते ॥
  रमायाः पद्मवासित्वं राज्ञो वक्षसि च स्थितिः ।
  समुद्रमथनं तत्र सुरेन्ध्रीसमुद्भवः ॥
  सतोऽप्यनिबन्धो यथा—
  चन्दने फलपुष्पे च सुरभौ मालतीसुमम् ।
  शुक्ले पक्षे तमोऽशुक्ले ज्योत्स्ना फलमशोकके ॥
  रक्तिमा कामिदन्तेषु हरितत्वं च कुन्दके ।
  दिवा निशोत्पलाब्जानां विकासित्वं न वर्ण्यताम् ॥
  नियमेन निबन्धो यथा—
  सामान्येन तु धावल्यं पत्रपुष्पाम्बुवाससाम् ।
  चन्दनं मलयेष्वेव मधावेव पिकध्वनिम् ॥
  अम्बुदाम्बुधिकाकाहिकेशभृङ्गेषु कृष्णताम् ।
  बिम्बबन्धूकनीरेषु सूर्यबिम्बे च रक्तताम् ॥

रवं नाट्यं मयूराणां वर्षास्वेव विवर्णयेत् ।
नियमस्य विशेषोऽन्यः कश्चिदत्र प्रकाश्यते ॥
शुभ्रमिन्द्रद्विपं ब्रूयात्त्रीणि सप्त चतुर्दश ।
भुवनानि चतस्रोऽष्टौ दश वा ककुभो मताः ॥
जिनसेन अलङ्कारचिन्तामणि—pp. 7 & 8.
असतोऽपि निबन्धेनानिबन्धेन सतोऽपि च ।
नियमेन च जात्यादेः कवीनां समयस्त्रिधा ॥
असतोऽपि निबन्धो यथा—
रत्नादि यत्र तत्राद्रौ हंसाद्यल्पजलाशये ।
जलेभार्थं नभोनद्यामम्भोजातं नदीष्वपि ॥
तिमिरस्य तथा मुष्टिग्राह्यं सूचीविभेद्यताम् ।
अञ्जलिग्राह्यता कुम्भोपवाह्यत्वे विधुत्विषः ।
शुक्लं कीर्त्तिहासादौ कार्ण्यं दुष्कीर्त्यघादिषु ।
प्रतापे रक्ततोष्णत्वे रक्तत्वं क्रोधरागयोः ॥
विभावर्यां भिन्नतटाश्रयणं चक्रवाकयोः ।
ज्योत्स्नापानं चकोराणां वर्णयेदसद्प्यदः ॥ चतुर्भिः कलापकम् ।
सतोप्यनिबन्धो यथा—
वसन्ते मालतीपुष्पं फलं पुष्पं च चन्दने ।
अशोके च फलं ज्योत्स्नाध्वान्ते कृष्णान्यपक्षयोः ॥
कामिदन्तेषु कुन्दानां कुड्मलेषु च रक्तताम् ।
प्रियङ्गुपुष्पे पीतत्वं सरोजमुकुलादिषु ॥
हरितत्वं दिवा नीलोत्पलानां स्मेरता दिवा ।
शेफालिकासुमे भ्रंशं वर्णयेन्न सदप्यदः ॥ त्रिभिर्विशेषकम् ।
नियमो यथा—
मुक्तास्ताम्रपर्ण्यामेवाब्धिष्वेव मकरानपि ।
भूर्जद्रून् हिमवत्येव मलये ह्येव चन्दनम् ॥
सामान्यग्रहणे वारिमुचां कृष्णत्वमेव हि ।
रक्तत्वमेव रत्नानां पुष्पाणां शौक्ल्यमेव च ॥
तथा वसन्त एवान्यभृतानां ध्वनितोद्भवम् ।
वर्षास्वेव मयूराणां रुतं नृत्तं च वर्णयेत् ॥ त्रिभिर्विशेषकम् ।
नियमविशेषो यथा—
नीलकृष्णयोर्हरितकृष्णयोः श्यामकृष्णयोः ।
पीतपाटलयोः शुक्लाङ्गारयोर्नागसर्पयोः ॥
महार्णवसागरयोः क्षीरक्षारसमुद्रयोः ।
कमलासम्पदोः कामध्वजे मकरमत्स्ययोः ॥
द्वादशानामप्यर्काणां वार्ध्यग्निदृग्जचन्द्रयोः ।
चन्द्रे शशैनयोर्विष्णौशेषकूर्मादिकस्य च ॥
नारायणदामोदरमाधवप्रभृतेरपि ।
दानवासुरदैत्यानामैक्यमेवाभिसम्मतम् ॥ चतुर्भिः कलापकम् ।

238 EXPLANATORY NOTES
दानवास्तु विप्रचित्तिः शम्भरो नमुचिस्तथा ।
पुलोमादयोऽथ दैत्या हिरण्याख्यो विरोचनः ॥
बाणो हिरण्यकशिपुर्बलिप्रह्लादकादयः ।
अथासुरा वृषपर्वबलवृत्रादयः स्मृताः ॥
स्त्रीणामक्ष्णः कटाक्षाणां शुक्लता कृष्णताऽथवा ।
कृष्णताप्यथवा शुक्लश्यामता शुक्लकृष्णता ॥
बहुकालजन्मनोऽपि शिवचन्द्रस्य बालता ।
मनोभवस्य मूर्त्तत्वममूर्त्तत्वं च वर्ण्यते ॥
देवदेवीस्थितिं विद्यान्नायिकानायकक्रमम् ।
स्वभावान् सर्वजीवानां व्यवस्था देशकालयोः ॥
अमर—काव्यकल्पलतावृत्ति—द्वितीयप्रतान pp. 30–31.
असतोऽपि निबन्धेनानिबन्धेन सतोऽपि वा ।
नियमेन च जात्यादेः कवीनां समयस्त्रिधा ॥
असतोऽपि निबन्धो यथा—
रत्नानि यत्र तत्राद्रौ हंसास्त्वल्पजलाशये ।
जलेभायं नभोनद्यामम्भोजातं नदीष्वपि ॥
तिमिरस्य तथा मुष्टिग्राह्यत्वं सूचिभेद्यता ।
अञ्जलिग्राह्यता कुम्भोपवाह्यत्वं शशित्विषः ॥
शुक्लत्वं कीर्त्तिहासादौ कार्ण्यं चाकीर्त्तिपापयोः ।
प्रतापे रक्ततोष्णत्वे रक्तत्वं क्रोधरागयोः ॥
विभावर्यां भिन्नतटाश्रयणं चक्रवाकयोः ।
ज्योत्स्नापानं चकोराणां चतुष्करत्वं पयोनिधेः ॥
सतोऽप्यनिबन्धो यथा—
वसन्ते मालतीपुष्पं फलपुष्पे च चन्दने ।
अशोके च फलं ज्योत्स्नाध्वान्ते कृष्णान्यपक्षयोः ॥
कामिदन्तेषु कुन्दानां मुकुलेषु च रक्तता ।
हरितत्वं दिवा नीलोत्पलानाञ्च विकासिता ॥
वर्णयेन्न सदप्येतन्नियमोऽथ प्रकाश्यते ।
नियमो यथा— भूर्जत्वग्धिमवत्येव मलये ह्येव चन्दनम् ॥
सामान्यग्रहणे शौक्ल्यं छत्राम्भःपुष्पवाससाम् ।
कृष्णत्वं केशकाकाहिपयोनिधिपयोमुचाम् ॥
रक्तत्वं रक्तबन्धूकबिम्बाम्भोजविवक्षताम् ।
तथा वसन्त एवान्यपुष्टानां कलकूजितम् ॥
वर्षास्वेव मयूराणां रुतं नृत्यं च वर्णयेत् ।
नियमस्य विशेषोऽथ पुनः कश्चित् प्रकाश्यते ॥
नियमविशेषो यथा— कमलासम्पदोः कृष्णहरितोर्नागसर्पयोः ।
पीतलोहितयोः स्वर्णपरागाग्निशिखादिषु ॥

SEVENTEENTH ADHYĀYA 239
चन्द्रे शशैणयोः कामध्वजे मकरमत्स्ययोः ।
दानवासुरदैत्यानामैक्यमेवाभिसम्मतम् ॥
बहुकालजन्मनोऽपि शिवचन्द्रस्य बालता ।
मानवा मौलितो वर्ण्या देवाश्चरणतः पुनः ॥
देवेश्वर—कविकल्पलता pp. 40, 41 and 42.]
ll. 12-13. Here Rājaśekhara declares that he is the first
writer to deal with this kind of Kavisamaya which the early
writers on poetics failed to notice. But they included other varieties
of Kavisamaya which readily form part of the Doṣas or blemishes
in poetical composition or ungrammatical usages.
The passages – काव्ये सुप्त इव स्थितः । स साम्प्रतमिहास्माभिर्यथाबुद्धि विबोधितः ॥
clearly show that early authors were not opposed to it, and
that Rājaśekhara alone took up this subject to be treated of in
detail.
Adhyāya XVII.
Chapters 17 and 18 are reproduced by Hemacandra in his
Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka (pp.126-135) and he followed the same
order as found here.
ll. 19-22. In this verse, the firmament and the earth are
described as forming one world. This is shown by the words
क्रमपरिमिता भूमिर्विष्णोः and जगति सकले.
It is alluded here that in the whole world there can be no
other family than this where the members such as Bala, Hara and
Viṣṇu of the family could not till their little land due to want of
a second ox.
Page. 90.

• [ l.1. रुणद्धि. ( भामह. 1. 7. ); There the reading is चास्य instead
  of वास्य. ]
  l. 1. रोदसी-earth and firmament.
  *[ l. 4. त्वमेव quoted as an example of वर्णश्लेष in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण.
  l. 10. संस्तम्भिनी description of the palace of king Harṣa, the
  patron of Bāṇa.
  l. 15. निरवधि in वामन 4-3-32; the general reading is स्थितमनिवर्तित.]

240 EXPLANATORY NOTES
l. 25. Jambūdvīpa is situated in the middle of the other द्वीपs
having three Dvīpas on both the sides. The names of all the seven
द्वीपs and their order of precedence are mentioned in this verse.
Page. 91.
ll. 1–2. Each of these seven द्वीपs are surrounded by seven
concentric oceans.
l. 6. Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka reads as तस्मिन्नप्याजिकेलिव्यतिकरविजयोपार्जिते
वीरचर्ये पर्याप्तं मे न धातुः etc. but Vāgbhaṭa's Kāvyānuśāsana reads as
कस्मिन्नव्याजकेलिव्यतिकरविजयोपार्जिते वीरचर्ये. Both वीरवयें and वीरचर्ये do not give
any clear sense of that passage and therefore, it may be changed
as वीरवर्यः which may be construed with यः in the next line. The
purport of the verse, then will be as follows:–
‘The great warrior, probably Paraśurāma, became dissatisfied
with Brahman because he thought that all these eighteen islands,
earth with its nine sub-divisions, one mighty ocean, and the fertile
country all around, acquired by him through his prowess in battles,
seemed to him to be insufficient for his liberality’.
The reading:– चक्रे पुञ्जेन दातुं तदिदम् may be construed thus:—यः
वीरवर्यः ‘तदिदं पुञ्जेन दातुं चक्रे’ इति धिया वेधसे चुकोप ‘Paraśurāma became
dissatisfied with Brahman because he could create very little for
being given away in charity’.
*[l. 7. MSS of काव्यानुशासनविवेक read पर्याप्तं मे न धातुः instead of चक्रे
पुञ्जेन दातुम् ।]
ll. 13-16. This verse मातङ्गानामभावे etc. is not quoted by
Hemacandra in his Kāvyānuśāsanaviveka. The import of this
verse is that the enemies of a king were defeated and driven out to
the shores of the three oceans where also they had the riches of
a king in the form of elephants of the quarters, Cintāmaṇi jewels
and Kalpaka trees etc. although they lost their own elephants,
jewels and gardens.
*[l. 22. MSS of विवेक read अगस्त्यचुलुकोत्क्षिप्त.]
l. 23. Read प्रस्तरायितम् instead of पूतरायितम्.
प्रस्तर means a small stone.
The reading उत्क्षिप्त also is quite suited to the emendation as
प्रस्तरायितम् ।. The purport of this verse would then be as follows: