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

Printed by Ramchandra Yesu Shedge, at the Nirnaya Sagar Press,
26-28, Kolbhat Lane, Bombay.
Published by Benoytosh Bhattacharyya, Director, Oriental Institute on behal
of the Government of His Highness the Maharaja Gaekwad of Baroda,
at the Oriental Institute, Baroda.
Price Rs. 2-0-0.

CONTENTS.
PAGES.
Preface to the third edition ... ... ... ... vii
Preface to the second edition ... ... ... ... ix
Introduction to the third edition ... ... ... xii
Introduction to the first edition ... ... ... xxviii
Abbreviations ... ... ... ... ... ... xlvi
Summary ... ... ... ... ... ... xlvii
Text ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 1-112
Explanatory Notes ... ... ... ... ... 113
Table showing portions borrowed from the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā ... ... ... ... ... ... 265
List of works which offered materials to Rājaśekhara 266
Index of verses ... ... ... ... ... ... 267
Index of proper names... ... ... ... ... 276
Index of geographical names ... ... ... ... 278
Appendix I. Identification of geographical names ... 281

The provided image is completely blank and does not contain any text to transcribe.

Preface to the Third Edition.
The third revised and enlarged edition of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā
of the celebrated author Rājaśekhara, published as No. 1 of the
Gaekwad's Oriental Series is now presented to the public. The
Kāvyamīmāṁsā with which the Gaekwad's Oriental Series was
inaugurated in 1916, has proved to be popular with scholars as
also with Universities, many of them prescribing the work as a
text-book. The first edition was exhausted in 1924, and the
second in 1933, and the third is going forward with several new
features which, the present editor believes, will enhance its use-
fulness for scholars and students alike.
The text of the present edition is once more collated with MS.
No. 6065 of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, which is a transcript
of the original paper MS. preserved in the Wāḍi Pārśvanātha's
temple at Pattan. This MS. is marked B. in the previous
editions. Quotations from the Kāvyamīmāṁsā in later works
have been carefully compared with the text, and this has enabled
the present editor to suggest several correct readings of obscure
and incorrect words which had crept into the previous editions.
Emendations such as these have been added to the text in
square brackets.
Another noteworthy feature of this edition, to which attention
of readers may be drawn, consists of the elaborate and exhaustive
notes on words and passages of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā which have
a bearing on the past history and culture of India. It is hoped
that with the help of these notes, it will be possible for students
to appreciate the remarkable scholarship of Rājaśekhara more
fully and more comprehensively.
Among the appratus criticus added to this edition, mention
may be made of a list of earlier works which Rājaśekhara utilized
as source-books in preparing the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. This has been
given in an Appendix to this edition. In another Appendix
identifications have been given of 212 geographical names men-
tioned in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. Many of these geographical names
have been treated in Cunningham's Ancient Geography of India,
and the Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Modern India

VIII PREFACE.
by N. L. Dey. These two works form the background of this
Appendix and no references have been given while dealing with
the identifications proposed therein, unless I had reasons to differ
from them.
In preparing this edition, I have received help from various
sources, and in this respect, I am particularly indebted to Mahā-
mahopādhyāya S. Kuppuswami Shastri, Professor of Sanskrit,
Presidency College, Madras who has offered numerous suggestions
in emending the text; to Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, the Director
of the Oriental Institute Baroda, who revised the press copy
and proofs of the whole of the English portion; and to Mr. M. A.
Joshi of the Oriental Institute who helped in collation and
prepared the press copy of the notes and appendices.
Oriental Institute, Baroda, }
10th July 1934. } K. S. RAMASWAMI SASTRI.

Preface to the Second Edition.
The text of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā has been based on two MSS. from the Pattan Jain Bhaṇḍārs, designated A and B.
A is a palm-leaf MS. belonging to the Bhaṇḍār deposited in the Vakhatji's Sheri in Foflia Wāḍā. This is the very MS. mentioned by Dr. Peterson in his 5th Report. The MS. is very correct and reliable, but unfortunately it is incomplete and much injured. It is 13"×1¼" with 5 lines on a side, and consists of 4–11, 13–25, 29–54 leaves and 8 much injured pieces containing the ends of the 16th and the 17th chapters. The fourth leaf begins with ग्रन्थभीरुप्रियार्थम् (second chapter page 4 line 2nd), and the 54th leaf ends with आलेख्य the beginning of the 13th chapter (page 69 line 2). The first of the 8 much injured leaves begins with वरनमुचिपुलॊमप्रभृतयः दानवाः (page 88 line 23) and ends with इत्थं देशविभागो मुद्रामात्रेण (page 98 line 8). The MS. seems from its writing (which is Brahmanical and not Jain) to have been copied at about the end of the 13th century A. D. It is numbered only on the left side with numerical figures. This MS., being old and very correct, has been mainly relied upon as far as available.
B is a part of a paper MS. from the Bhaṇḍār deposited in the Wāḍi Pārśwanāth's Temple at Pattan. It is a very beautifully-written old Jain paper MS. with numerical signs on the left and letters on the right to show the pagination. It contains two works (1) काव्यमीमांसा—कविरहस्य (leaves 1–31a lines 3) (2) कविरहस्यवृत्ति a commentary on Halāyudha's कविरहस्य (कविगुह्य) by रविधर्म (31a–lines 4–55). The MS. was written, like most of the MSS. of this very important Bhaṇḍār, in the time of Jinabhadrasūri, the pontiff of the Kharatara Gachha in Saṁvat 1491 (A. D. 1434). The writer's colophon runs as follows:—शुभमस्तु लेखकपाठकयोः । छ । मंगलं महाश्रीः । छ । संवत् १४९१ वर्षे चैत्रवदि १३ शनौ श्रीखरतरगच्छे श्रीजिनभद्रसूरिविजयराज्ये भाण्डागारे काव्यमीमांसा लिखितं ॥ छ ॥ श्री । छ । श्रीः छ । श्रीः । छः श्रीः । कल्याणमस्तु । छ । श्रीः । छ । श्रीः ।
The portion of Ravidharma's Kavirahasyavṛitti begins:—

X PREFACE.
ओं नमः सर्वज्ञाय ॥ पीत्वैव श्रुततोयानि यस्याः शुद्ध्यन्ति देहिनः ।
मुनिहंससमाकीर्णां तां नमामि सरस्वतीम् ॥
कविगुह्यं प्रसत्त्यादिभावगम्यमनेकधा ।
यस्य येनोपसर्गेण धातोः कविपदं च यत् ॥
अर्थतः शब्दतो वापि समान्धातृन्विभ्रता ।
तथा हलायुधेनेदं कृतं कविरहस्यकम् ॥
आभासन्ति पदान्यत्र प्रचुराण्यपशब्दवत् ।
तद्विषमं स्वभावेन निबन्धनमपेक्ष्यते ॥
तत्तट्टीका प्रसिद्धार्था व्याख्यातुरुपयोगिनी ।
मुग्धबुद्धिप्रबोधार्थं क्रियते रविधर्मणा ॥
गुणान्वितां सुवर्णाढ्यां बह्वर्थां विपुलां घनाम् ।
इमामहमं न मुद्धामि क्षुद्रमीतेर्युगामि च ॥
नौरिवेह भवाम्भोघेरत्ताराय सतामियम् ।
गाढबन्धसमायोगा भिद्यते न जडैर्दृढा ॥
विचारयन्तु तां सन्तः मात्स्र्येण विवर्जिताः ।
हलायुधकथारूयाने नूनं नारायणः क्षमः ॥
Ends:—काव्यं हलायुधकृतं कविगुह्यनाम
ध्यातेह तस्य रविधर्मकृताऽस्ति टीका ।
अभ्यस्य तां यदि वदन्ति बुधा विवादे
स्पष्टक्रियेतरपदैर्विजयं लभन्ते ॥ छ ॥
अपशब्दाभासाख्ये काव्ये टीका शतानि चतुर्दशानि ।
रचितानि कविरहस्यं नाम काव्यं समाप्तमिति ॥
संवत् १४९१ वर्षे वैशाखसुदि १ बुधे श्रीखरतरगच्छे श्रीजिनभद्रसूरिविजयराज्ये
भाण्डागारे कविरहस्यं नाम काव्यमिदं लेखितेति । छ । शुभं भवतु कल्याणमस्तु लेखकपाठकयोः ।
छ । श्रीः । छ । श्रीः । छ । श्रीः । छ । श्रीः । छ । छ । श्रीः ।
The paper MS. contains the complete text of Kāvyamīmāṁsā-
Kavirahasya and is generally correct. As it seems to have been
copied from the palm-leaf MS. in the Jesalmere Bhaṇḍār, the
copyist has occasionally erred in reading and transcribing the MS.
Besides these, three MSS. of Hemachandra's Kāvyānuśāsana-
viveka have been also utilized in the portion borrowed by Hēma-
chandra from the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. It may here be noted that a
critical edition of Hemachandra's Kāvyānuśāsana with the Viveka
is a necessity.
The celebrated Jesalmere Bhaṇḍār also contains an old palm-
leaf MS. of this work dated Saṁvat 1216, but it is reported to be

PREFACE. XI
not in a good state of preservation.¹ It is a matter for regret that
the valuable treasures of this Bhaṇḍār—one of the most important
Bhaṇḍārs—are not accessible even to Jain Sādhus.
The work of editing from such insufficient materials was
somewhat difficult, but we have tried our utmost to make the best
of the materials that were available, and have ventured to bring to
light this important work of a famous writer in Sanskrit literature.
We have to thank the keepers of both these Bhaṇḍārs for
lending their MSS. and especially Sheth Vāḍilāl Hirachand, the
keeper of the Bhaṇḍār of the Wāḍi Pārśwanāth's temple, for
putting at our disposal the rarest MSS. of the Bhaṇḍār for
publication in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series. Our hearty thanks
are also due to Pravartaka Kāntivijayaji for helping us in pro-
curing the MSS.
1 The late Mr. Dalal, subsequent to the publication of this book, paid a
visit to Jesalmer and collated the text with this palm-leaf MS. Variant readings
have been incorporated in the present edition and this MS. is termed as C. It
consists of two works (1) काव्यमीमांसा and (2) कविरहस्य comprising 90 and 74
leaves respectively and is 11" x 2" in size. The colophon of काव्यमीमांसा runs
as:—‘संवत् १२१६ वर्षे फाल्गुन वदि १ सोमदिने’—B. B.

Introduction to the Third Edition.
A. Rājaśekhara—the Author.
I. His Time.
Many details are given by the author himself regarding the
place and period in which he flourished, and in fact, in this respect,
he is more prolific than any other Sanskrit dramatist of ancient
times. Rājaśekhara wrote not less than four dramas and from
these we can gather that he was a teacher of the king Nirbhaya-
Mahendrapāla, and was patronized by his son Mahīpāla who ruled
over the country of Madhyadeśa with its capital at Kanauj. From
the Asni inscription dated Vikrama Saṁ. 974=A. D, 917–918 and
the Siyodoni inscription (E. I. Vol. I. p. 171) we can ascertain that
the two kings Mahendrapāla and his son Mahīpāla of Kanauj
belonged to what is known as the Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty.
From historical and archaeological evidences, it has been possible to
assign the period 890–908 A. D. to Mahendrapāla, and 910–940
A. D. to his son Mahīpāla with certainty. It is thus probable
that Rājaśekhara belonged to the courts of these two kings, but
the major part of his life was spent in the court of Mahendrapāla
who is said to be his disciple in all his plays. Mahīpāla (A. D.
910–940) seems to have maintained Rājaśekhara only in the
earlier part of his reign, since the Bālabhārata the only drama
to be performed in his presence remains incomplete, and appears
to be the last composition of the author. It is thus not unrea-
sonable to assign a period of 880–920 A. D. to Rājaśekhara, the
present author.
His connections with Āryakṣemīśvara, the author of the
drama Caṇḍakauśika, may be found interesting in this connection.
It was supposed that Kṣemīśvara belonged to the court of King
Mahīpāla (A. D. 974–1026) of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal.¹
But from the evidences recorded below, it will be found that he
belonged to the court of king Mahīpāla of the Gurjara Pratīhāra
1 Kṣemīś'vara speaks of one Mahīpāla as his patron king in the prelude
to the Caṇḍakauśika. This king did not belong to the Pāla dynasty as is
sometimes supposed. See R. D. Banerji: Pālas of Bengal, p. 73 and Pāla

INTRODUCTION. XIII
dynasty and was a junior contemporary of Rājaśekhara; and
very probably joined the court of king Mahīpāla after the death
of Rājaśekhara.
There are good reasons to identify the Mahīpāla of Kṣemīśvara
with the king Mahīpāla of the Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty. Kṣe-
mīśvara mentions that Mahīpāla defeated Karṇāṭas, and thus
followed Candragupta Maurya of old in his foot-steps, who up-
rooted the Nandas with the lead of Cāṇakya.¹ This, in all pro-
bability, alludes to the incidents to which a reference has been
made in the Cambay Plates of Govinda IV and the Khajuraho
inscription (E. I. Vol. VII, pp. 26-47). From these we learn
that the Rāṣṭrakuṭa king Indra III (c. 915-917) defeated king
Mahīpāla of Kanauj in battle, and that the latter had great diffi-
culties in regaining his throne; he could succeed only through the
kind offices of one Chandēlla king Harṣadeva. Ārya Kṣemīśvara
apparently alludes to this victory of his patron king over the
Rāṣṭrakuṭas with the help of the Chandēlla king, and rightly
compares this with the victory obtained over the Nandas by
Candragupta through the assistance of Cāṇakya.² But it may,
however, be noticed that this incident is not alluded to by Rāja-
śekhara, and this fact makes it probable that the fight with the
Rāṣṭrakuṭas took place much later in Mahīpāla’s reign. On the
other hand, Kṣemīśvara who mentions this incident in his drama,
in all probability belonged to the court of Mahīpāla when Rāja-
śekhara was either dead or no longer there.
There are further literary evidences in support of the period
880-920 A. D. assigned to Rājaśekhara. Ānandavardhana who
flourished in a period between 857-884 A. D. is quoted by Rāja-
śekhara,³ while Rājaśekhara is quoted by Somadeva,⁴ Soḍḍhala⁵
and Abhinavagupta⁶ who flourished in the later half of the
10th century.

1 यः संश्रित्य प्रकृतिगहनामार्थचाणक्यनीतिं जित्वा नन्दान् कुसुमनगरं चन्द्रगुप्तो जिगाय ।
कर्णाटत्वं ध्रुवमुपगतानद्य तानेव हन्तुं दोर्दर्पाढ्यः स पुनरभवच्छ्रीमहीपालदेवः ॥
Caṇḍakaus’ika, I
2 See J. O. R. Madras, VI. pp. 191-198.
3 See Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 16.
4 See Yas’astilakacampū, IV. 11. p. 113.
5 See Udayasundarī Kathā, VIII.
6 See Abhinavabhāratī, p. 42. G.O.S. ed.

XIV INTRODUCTION.
II. His Works.
Rājaśekhara himself informs us in his prelude to the Bāla-
rāmāyaṇa that he composed six works. While replying to his
critics who alleged that his drama was abnormally lengthy, he
incidentally requests his readers to peruse the six works already
composed by him in case there was any virtue in them.¹ From
this statement it would appear that Rājaśekhara composed six
works already before his Bālarāmāyaṇa was taken up in hand.
Prof. Sten Konow² believes that the Karpūramañjarī was his
first composition on the ground that it was staged at the request
of his wife Avantisundarī, which is rather unusual since all others
were performed at the request of his patron kings. This is further
strengthened by the fact that it was composed at a time when he
had attained the position of a Kavirāja or a prince among poets.³
The Viddhaśālabhañjikā and the Bālarāmāyaṇa must have
been composed afterwards when the author gained greater re-
putation and maturity. The Bālabhārata probably was his last
work, since it is found to be incomplete in two acts instead of the
usual five or more, and since the Bharatavākya showing the com-
pletion of the drama is absent.
To these four works, we have to add two more, namely,
the present work Kāvyamīmāṁsā and the Haravilāsakāvya, the
existence of which is borne out through quotations made in
later works.⁴
According to his own admission, the Kāvyamīmāṁsā was
projected by Rājaśekhara in 18 lengthy Adhikaraṇas each con-
taining several Adhyāyas; but unfortunately, the whole of this
work is not found except the first, the Kavirahasya. It will be

1 ब्रूते यः कोऽपि दोषं महदिति सुमतिर्बालरामायणेऽस्मिन्
प्रष्टव्योऽसौ पटीयानिह भणितिगुणो विद्यते वा नवेति ।
यद्यस्ति स्वस्ति तुभ्यं भव पठनरुचिर्विद्धि नः षट् प्रबन्धान्
नैवं चेद्दीर्घमास्तां नटवटुवदने जर्जरा काव्यकन्था ॥
Bālarāmāyaṇa 1. 12.
2 Karpūramañjarī, Harvard Oriental Series edi, p. 184.
3 Ibid. 1–9.
4 Hemacandra's Kāvyānuśāsana pp. 334–335; Ujjvaladatta II. 28.

INTRODUCTION. XV
rather difficult to declare that Rājaśekhara left both the works
Bālabhārata and Kāvyamīmāṁsā unfinished. We would rather
have to assume that at least the Kāvyamīmāṁsā was completed
by him, since he refers frequently to the subject matter of sub-
sequent chapters in the earlier portion of the Kavirahasya.¹ In
that case, the probability that the Bālabhārata was his last work,
will be great.
If that be so, we are inclined to believe that the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā was composed at a time when his three dramas were
already in existence, and this is corroborated by the fact that the
Kāvyamīmāṁsā contains numerous quotations from only two
of his Sanskrit dramas, namely the Bālarāmāyaṇa and the
Viddhaśālabhañjikā.²
The case of the Haravilāsa, however, is somewhat different,
and we can understand from stray quotations in later works that
it was a Mahākāvya, and probably, was composed before any
of his dramas were written. In this connection it is interesting to
note that if an author wants to attain the position of a Kavirāja,
he has first to pass through the stage of a Mahākavi, or in other
words, he has first to write a Mahākāvya³ before he is able to
handle more sublime themes and thereby attain the position
of a Kavirāja (see the names of 10 stages of a poet, infra,
text, p. 19).
From the above, it will be patent that only four works were
in existence at the time when his Bālarāmāyaṇa was composed,
and not six, as mentioned by the author. But since Rājaśekhara
mentions six, we are led to assume that at the time of writing, he
may have taken into account two of his projected works, namely,
the Kāvyamīmāṁsā and the Bālabhārata.
Now, the question arises as to whether Rājaśekhara wrote
any other work besides the six already known. The later antho-
logies do not mention or quote from any other work of Rājaśekhara

1. See Kāvyamīmāṁsā: p. 3. l. 10. अलङ्कारव्याख्यानन्तु पुरस्तात्। p. 10. l. 5.
   रीतयस्तिस्रस्तास्तु पुरस्तात्। p. 11. l. 10. तमौपनिषदिके वक्ष्यामः। etc.
2. The Nāndī verse of the Bālabhārata (ये सीमन्तित) may have been taken
   from the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 71.
3. योऽन्यतरप्रबन्धे प्रवीणः स महाकविः। यस्तु तत्र तत्र भाषाविशेषे तेषु तेषु प्रबन्धेषु तस्मिंस्तस्मिंश्च
   रसे स्वतन्त्रः स कविराजः। Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 19.

XVI INTRODUCTION.
besides the six already referred to.¹ In this connection attention
of scholars may be drawn to a statement made by Rājaśekhara at
the end of the 17th chapter of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, to the effect
that if more information is needed on the subject of world geo-
graphy, a reference should be made to his Bhuvanakośa.² This
has led some to conclude that Rājaśekhara wrote a separate work
called the Bhuvanakośa besides the six already known.
But this does not seem to be correct. The Bhuvanakośa
here mentioned is the title of the 19th or the last chapter of
the 1st Adhikaraṇa, and this chapter along with the other 17
Adhikaraṇas is entirely lost. If a reference is made to the list of
subjects given in the first chapter of the Kavirahasya,³ it will
be readily observed that Bhuvanakośa is the title of the last
chapter of the first Adhikaraṇa which the author names as
Kavirahasya.
It may, however, be suggested that the portion of the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā beginning from the 19th chapter of the 1st Adhikaraṇa
to the end was never written, and that he did not live to complete
his encyclopaedic work. If this position is accepted we may hope
to find one day the missing acts of the Bālabhārata from some
of the still undiscovered MSS. Libraries, for it is hardly possible
that our author would leave two of his works unfinished. It
may be possible in modern days, but it was not so at least in
ancient days.
B. The Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
I. Significance of the subject matter.
The 7th and the 8th centuries of the Christian era in India was
a period of feverish literary activity. In this period stalwarts of
literature were busy in writing comprehensive works in order to
reduce the different branches of study into a system. This period
saw the birth of Uddyotakara, Kumārila and Śaṅkarācārya, the
writers, famous for their philosophical and polemical works in
Hinduism. While, on the other hand, in the field of Buddhism we

1. Many verses quoted in the anthologies may be traced out in his extant
   dramas and others probably belong to his lost work Haravilāsa.
2. इत्थं देशविभागो मुद्रामात्रेण सूत्रितः सुधियाम्। यस्तु जिगीषत्यधिकं पश्यतु मद्भूवनकोशमसौ ॥
3. देशकालविभागः, भुवनकोशः इति कविरहस्यं प्रथममधिकरणमित्यादि.

notice the towering figures of Dharmakīrti, Śāntarakṣita and
Kamalaśīla. This period was immediately preceding the period
in which Rājaśekhara was born and flourished, and it is very
unlikely that he would not be influenced by the endeavours of his
predecessors in writing a comprehensive work and reduce the
Alaṅkāra literature to a system. The time was also not unripe
for such an attempt. Round the classical work of Bharata, already
had grown a considerable literature which was enriched with the
contributions of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Rudraṭa and Ānandavardhana.
Such a rich material on the one hand pressing for a com-
prehensive review, and the comprehensive works of the philo-
sophical systems on the other, must have created an enthusiasm
in the mind of Rājaśekhara and actuated him to make an attempt
to reduce the Alaṅkāra literature to a system by writing an
encyclopædic work like the present one-the Kāvyamīmāṁsā-
which was to treat the different methods of poetics and the schools
of literary criticism, with a view to put everything on a tho-
roughly scientific basis. In doing so, he not only followed in the
footsteps of Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana, in arranging the subject-
matter, but also the great authors of Dharmamīmāṁsā and Brah-
mamīmāṁsā; and this is evident from the very title of his work,
the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. He also ascribes to his Kāvyamīmāṁsā, a
divine origin following in the wake of other great systems, and
gives for the first time a legendary list of succession of Gurus and
disciples, and of the progenitors of the different branches of the
science of poetics.
The division of his subject-matter in eighteen branches like
the eighteen points of law is not only novel but also interesting
and systematic. In this, however, Rājaśekhara was forestalled
to a certain extent by Rudraṭa,¹ but nevertheless his classification
is much fuller and much more exhaustive. Rudraṭa, for instance,
had no knowledge of such branches as Vainodika, Aupaniṣadika,
etc. which were Rājaśekhara's own. The Aupaniṣadika chapter
occurs also in the Arthaśāstra and the Kāmasūtra, and this may
have induced the present author to include a chapter on Aupa-
niṣadika in his Alaṅkāra work, giving directions to dullards as to
how through Mantras and such other mystic means one may
attain poetical eminence, when natural gifts are entirely wanting.

1. See. Infra Notes. pp. 123-124.
   3

XVIII INTRODUCTION.
Nevertheless marked similarity also is noticeable in the
method of treatment here with that of Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana.
For instance, the full list of subjects, treated of in the Arthaśāstra
and the Kāmasūtra, appears at the end of the first chapter and
here, likewise it is given at the end of the first chapter Śāstra-
saṅgraha. It is a matter of regret, however, that all MSS. of
the text do not contain the full list of subjects treated in all the
eighteen Adhikaraṇas; instead, we find the list complete only for
the first Adhikaraṇa or Kavirahasya with the significant remark
इत्यादि at the end.
Since the whole work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas is not found, it
is very difficult to understand the working of the author's mind in
the commencement of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā; but from the imperfect
materials thus at our command, it can be asserted, somewhat hesi-
tatingly, that the first three Adhyāyās or chapters of the first
Adhikaraṇa are intended by the author to serve as a general
introduction to the whole work of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā in eighteen
Adhikaraṇas. The first Adhikaraṇa or the Kavirahasya under
the circumstances begins from the fourth Adhyāya.
In the first of the three Adhyāyas, the author treats of the
origin of the science of poetics, and gives a comprehensive list of
subjects included therein. In the second Adhyāya, he makes an
attempt to determine the exact position of the science of poetics in
relation to the Vedas and post-Vedic literature, and declares that the
science dealt with by him should be regarded as the seventh
Vedāṅga and the fifteenth Vidyāsthāna. It is well known that the
Vedāṅgas in Sanskrit literature are six in number, and the number
of sciences has been fixed at fourteen, and in none of these lists
the science of poetics is included. In support of his contention,
Rājaśekhara goes on to say that the science of poetics has the
function of correctly interpreting the Vedic texts, and thus serves
the purpose of an auxilliary to the Vedas in the same way as the
other Vedāṅgas. He further asserts that the function of the
fourteen Vidyāsthānas, is to impart the knowledge of the Dharma
and Artha, and since from the science of poetics or Kāvyavidyā
the same result is obtained, it should also be regarded as one of
the Vidyāsthānas, and should not be distinguished from the
other fourteen sciences.

INTRODUCTION. XIX
Rājaśekhara goes a step further and declares that the science
of poetics leads the way to emancipation or Mokṣa, and as such
its status is not different from the six systems of philosophy. In
the third or the last Adhyāya of the introduction, Rājaśekhara
shows how emancipation can be obtained by poets and how they
can experience immense bliss and freedom from worldly troubles,
through the correct understanding of the Sāhityavidyā and
Kāvyapuruṣa, which are primarily designed for the emancipation
of man. The systems of philosophy advocate the real knowledge
of Dharma or Brahman as means of obtaining salvation; even
so, the correct knowledge of Kāvyapuruṣa, the son of Brahman
and Sarasvatī, leads to the realisation of Brahman and the
consequential emancipation from the chain of existence.
To return to the subject matter, the third chapter treats of
the origin of the Kāvyapuruṣa, his connection with Kavi, Vālmīki
and Vyāsa, his marriage with Sāhityavidyā, his wanderings with
her throughout India, the creation of Vṛttis, Pravṛttis and Rītis at
different places and the resolve of the couple to reside permanently
in the minds of poets. While concluding the chapter, the author
declares that those poets who become immortal by virtue of their
compositions enjoy eternal bliss in heaven in a divine form; and
those who can realise the Kāvyapuruṣa, obtain emancipation both
here and hereafter.¹
As has been said already, the subject-matter of the first
Adhikaraṇa or the Kavirahasya commences from the fourth chapter
and may be sub-divided under three broad heads: (1) the equip-
ments necessary for a poet, (2) the rules to be observed by him,
(3) and the methods harmful to him. The first subject is treated
of in six chapters (4–9) where such topics as Padavākyaviveka,
Pāṭhapratiṣṭhā, Kāvyārthayoni, and Arthavyāpti are dealt with.
The second subject as stated above is covered by the tenth
chapter which is one of the most interesting chapters of the
Kavirahasya. This chapter commences with the remark² that

1. Cf. तयोश्च कविलोकस्वर्गसर्गं तमकल्पयेताम् । यत्र काव्यमयेन शरीरेण मर्त्यमपिवसन्तो दिव्येन
   देहेन कवय आकल्पं मोदन्ते ।
   इत्येष काव्यपुरुषः पुरा सृष्टः स्वयंभुवा । एवं विभज्य जानानः प्रेत्य चेह च नन्दति ॥ p. 10.
2. Cf. इत्थंकारं घनैर्यत्नैर्व्युत्पन्नमनसः कवेः । दुर्गमेऽपि भवेन्मार्गे कुण्ठिता न सरस्वती ॥
   गृहीतविद्योपविधः काव्यक्रियायै प्रयतेत । p. 49.

XX INTRODUCTION.
when a poet is armed with all the equipments necessary as pointed
out previously, he may commence to write and while doing so,
observe certain rules of discipline. Thereafter, in the same chapter
the routine to be followed by a poet for all the twenty four hours
is given along with certain secret hints, which may be found very
instructive. Among others, this chapter lays down that (i) a poet
should not read his composition to others so long as it is in an
incomplete stage; (ii) he should not be vain on account of his
good composition; (iii) he should obtain the opinion of his
superiors on his own composition before publication; (iv) he
should not create an enmity with impostrous poets ( v ) and he
should prepare several transcripts of his composition as soon as
final touches had been given.
At the end, the author lays down special rules to be observed
by a king when he himself happens to be either a poet or a patron
of the men of letters.
The third subject is dealt with in eight chapters (11-18) where
the author enumerates various methods considered to be definitely
injurious to the reputation of a poet, and gives copious instances
to illustrate his view-point. This part deals with plagiarism,
conventions of ancient poets, Indian geography and the geography
of the world, ancient methods of description of incidents, places
and men, computation of time, and seasonal changes. While con-
cluding, the author reminds his readers that the methods adopted
by ancient writers are the best and should be adhered to, while
modern methods which run counter to the usage established by
the ancients¹ should be abandoned. How immensely helpful these
hints are, can be realized only too well by one who can detect the
unruly tendencies in modern literature in the extreme pursuit of
the phantom of realistic art !
II. Historical Data.
As has been shown already, the contributions of the Kāvya-
mīmāṁsā to the elucidation of the cultural history of India, are
many and varied. No less important are its contributions to the
political history of Mediæval India. While illustrating the

1. Cf. देशेषु पदार्थानां व्यत्यासो दृश्यते स्वरूपस्य। तन्न तथा बध्नीयात्कविबद्धमिह प्रमाणं नः॥ p. 111.
   अनुसन्धानशून्यस्य भूषणं दूषणायते। सावधानस्य च कवेर्दूषणं भूषणायते॥ p. 112.

different topics of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, Rājaśekhara cites examples
and verses from earlier works, which throw a flood of light on the
problems of political history. And, here, it is proposed to give a
few examples which definitely show that the Kāvyamīmāṁsā is
able to help historical studies.
The verse दत्त्वा रुद्धगतिः etc. occurs on p. 47 of this work, and
this is given manifestly as an example of Muktaka or a detached
verse. But the verse alludes to a very important historical fact.
On information obtained from this verse and other sources such
as the fragments of the Devīcandragupta¹ of Viśākhadatta, the
Sañjan Copper-plates of Amoghavarṣa² I, (A. D. 873), Bāṇa's
Harṣacarita,³ Śṛṅgāraprakāśa⁴ of Bhoja, the Cambay plate of
Govinda⁵ IV, the Nāṭyadarpaṇa of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra,⁶
scholars have come to certain conclusions regarding the history of
the Gupta period, and these may be summarised as follows. There
was a king called Rāmagupta who succeeded his father Samudra-
gupta and preceded his brother Candragupta II, and ruled for a
short time. Dhruvadevī was the queen of Rāmagupta originally.
This king encountered a certain Khasa or Śaka king in the
Himālayas and was defeated. He saved himself and his kingdom
by entering into an ignominious treaty with the victor. According
to the terms of the treaty he was to surrender his queen Dhruva-
devī to the Khasa or Śaka king in return for the liberty of
himself and his kingdom. The humiliating treaty enraged his
brother Candragupta, who, disguised himself as Queen Dhruvadevī,
went to the enemies' camp at Alipura and killed the Khasa
or Śaka king. On his return, he killed his brother Rāmagupta
also and married his widowed queen Dhruvadevī.
There is a general agreement amongst scholars regarding the
historical facts just mentioned, but on certain details there still
rages a great controversy. The controversy centres round the

1. Portions from this drama are found quoted in the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa
   and the Nāṭyadarpaṇa (G. O. S. edi. ).
2. E. I. Vol. XVIII p. 248.
3. अरि(लि)पुरे च परकलत्रकामुकं कामिनीवेषगुप्तश्चन्द्रगुप्तः शकपतिमशातयत् ।
4. स्त्रीवेषनिह्नुतश्चन्द्रगुप्तः शत्रोः स्कन्धावारं अलिपुरं शकपतिवधायागमत् ।
5. E. I. Vol. VII, p. 36.
6. G. O. S. edi.

XXII INTRODUCTION.
name of Khasādhipati or S'akādhipati, his identity and the iden-
tification of his capital Alipura, the author of the verse in question,
and the king to whom it is addressed.
The verse in question makes it clear that the engagement
between the Gupta and Khasa kings took place in the Himālayan
region, and thus it can be said that Alipura, the capital of the
Khasa or S'aka king, was situated somewhere in the Himālayas.
Moreover, according to Rājaśekhara's version the victor is
called the Khasādhipati, and the Gupta king is named as S'arma-
gupta or Senagupta instead of S'akādhipati and Rāmagupta ob-
tained from sources other than the Kāvyamīmāṁsā.
There seems to be an agreement at least on one point, namely,
that the S'aka or Khasa king referred to in the passage in question,
should represent a Kushāṇa king of the Punjab but not a S'aka
Satrap of either Malwa or Mathura. But in this connection,
attention of scholars is required to be invited to the form Khasā-
dhipati as recorded in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. This particular word
means a king of the Khasas or the Khasa tribes the existence of
which is made well-known by the Rājatarangiṇī of Kalhaṇa. Sir
Aurel Stein located the tribe in the widely distributed regions of
the western Himālayas flanking the boundaries of Kashmir with
their capital at Rajapuri also known as Khasālaya or Khasālī.
The Khasas before the fifth century A. D. became very powerful
and seized the kingdom of Kashmir and ruled over it.¹ Is it not
possible to identify this Alipura with Khasālī, the capital of
the Khasas ?
Let us now discuss the question regarding the identity of the
person to whom the verse in question is addressed. Various
scholars have advanced different opinions, and let us examine them
in detail and make an attempt to discover whether any finality
can be reached. A clue to this vexed question is, however, supplied
by the verse itself in its fourth line: गीयन्ते तव कार्त्तिकेयनगरस्त्रीणां
गणैः कीर्तयः ।
In interpreting this line Prof. Altekar² has fallen into the
regrettable error of taking the word Kārttikeya in the vocative
and in assuming that the verse is addressed to Kārttikeya who is
obviously the Kumāragupta I of the Gupta dynasty.

1. M. A. Stein. Rājatarangiṇī translation. Vol. I. 317.
2. J. B. O. R. S. Vol. xiv. p. 223.

INTRODUCTION. XXIII
Mr. K. P. Jayaswal disagrees¹ with the above and points out
that the word Kārttikeya goes with the word Nagara, and adds
that "no poet would have mentioned so irreverently about Kumā-
ragupta's own mother to him."
Against this, it may be pointed out that the verse does not
show any irreverence on the part of the poet whose business
obviously is to eulogise his patron king Kumāragupta or Skanda-
gupta of the Gupta dynasty. For, the weakness of Rāmagupta
was already made known by Candragupta, also by Dhruvadevi
who discarded her worthless husband and married his brother.
Moreover, the descendants of the Gupta dynasty out of disrespect
for Rāmagupta never mentioned him in the inscriptions as one of
their ancestors. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar who discussed the question
later on,² is disposed to agree with Mr. Jayaswal in considering
the word Kārttikeyanagara as the name of a town, and identified
it with the ancient village of Vaijanātha in Almora District U. P.
on the authority of the Pāṇḍukeśvara copper plate and the Tāle-
śvara charters.³ Dr. Bhandarkar believes, however, that the
verse is addressed to Candragupta, though he is not named
expressly therein.
If this position is accepted, Mr. Jayaswal's objection of
showing irreverence to Kumāragupta's mother or Dhruvadevi is
set at rest. Prof. V. V. Mirashi,⁴ however, remarks that the
view held by Dr. Bhandarkar is hardly convincing, because the
verse quoted here is a Muktaka or a detached stanza which should
not only be complete in itself but also contain the name of the king
addressed to. He, thus, commits the same mistake as Prof. Altekar,
and takes the word Kārttikeya in the vocative, but advances the
new theory that the word stands for the king Mahīpāla of the
Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty, the patron of Rājaśekhara. In support
of this, he further adds that Kṣemīśvara in the Bharatavākya of
his drama Caṇḍakauśika similarly calls his patron Mahīpāla as

1. J. B. O. R. S. Vol. XVIII, p. 20.
2. Malaviya Commemoration Volume. p. 194.
3. I. A. XXV. 178, and E. I. Vol. XIII, pp. 115-118.
4. I. A. 1932, p. 201.