काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

214 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
विकसितसहकारतारहारिपरिमलगुञ्जितपुञ्जितद्विरेफः ।
नवकिसलयचारुचामरश्रीहरति मुनेरपि मानसं वसन्तः ॥२१७॥
अत्र हारिशब्दः । हारिप्रमुदितसौरभेति पाठो युक्तः । यथा वा
अन्यास्ता गुणरत्नरोहणभुवो धन्या मृदन्यैव सा
संभाराः खलु तेन्य एव विधिना यैरेष सृष्टो युवा ।
श्रीमत्कान्तिजुषां द्विषां करतलात् स्त्रीणां नितम्बस्थलात्
दृष्टे यत्र पतन्ति मूढमनसामस्त्राणि वस्त्राणि च ॥२१८॥
two short ones),—is unmelodious [as has been recognised
by standard writers on metrics also].
(b) ‘Vikasitasahakāratārahāriparimala........................
..............................................vasantaḥ’.
‘The spring bearing the fascinating fragrance of the
blossoming mangoes, having swarms of black bees humm-
ing about, and beautified by chowries in the shape of the
fresh leaves of trees—captivates the heart of even the
ascetic’.
Here the metre is halting at ‘hāri’ [where the last
vowel is not elongated]. The right reading would be
‘hāri—pramudita etc. etc.’
Or, as in the following—
‘Anyāstā............................vastrāṇi cha’.
‘Wonderful must have been the mines that produced
these jewels of qualities ! wonderful too that blessed clay,
as also the accessories, wherewith this young man has been
created by God ! Since at his appearance, the weapons
fall off from the hands of his rich and elegant enemies, and
clothes slur away from the waists of beautiful women,—
both of these having their hearts benumbed (the former
through fear and the latter through love)’.

CHAPTER VII 215
अत्र ‘वस्त्राण्यपि’ इति पाठे लघुरपि गुरुतां भजते ॥
हा नृप हा बुध हा कविबन्धो विप्रसहस्रसमाश्रय देव ।
मुग्धविदग्धसभान्तररत्न क्वासि गतः क्व वयं च तवैते ॥२१९॥
हास्यरसव्यञ्जकमेतद्वृत्तम्
(६) न्यूनपदं यथा
तथाभूतां दृष्ट्वा नृपसदसि पाञ्चालतन्‍यां
वने व्याधैः सार्धं सुचिरमुषितं वल्कलधरैः ।
विराटस्यावासे स्थितमनुचितारम्भनिभृतं
गुरुः खेदं खिन्ने मयि भजति नाद्यापि कुरुषु ॥२२०॥
[Here the short syllable ‘cha’ at the end is such as cannot
take the long accent]. If the reading were ‘nyapi’ (instead
of ‘ṇi cha’), the ‘pi’, even though short, could have
taken the long accent (by virtue of its being preceded by
the conjunct consonant “nya”).
(c) ‘Hā nrpa.........tavaite’.
‘O king ! O wise one ! O patron of poets, the
patron of hundreds of Brāhmaṇas ! O godlike one, jewel
of the assembly of the learned and the wise ! Whereto
have you gone ?—and where are we, your very own ?’
The metre adopted here is suited to the delineation of the
Comic (and not of the Pathetic, to which it is employed here).
(6) The following is an example of the ‘deficient in
words’—
‘Tathābhūtāṁ dṛṣṭvā nṛpasadasi pāñchālatanayāṁ
Vane vyādhaiḥ sārdhaṁ suchiramuṣitaṁ valkaladharaiḥ
Virāṭasyāvāse sthitamanuchitārambhanibhṛtaṁ
Guruḥ khedaṁ khinne mayi bhajati nādyāpi kuruṣu.
(See translation above in Chapter III,)

216 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अत्रास्माभिरिति “खिन्न” इत्यस्मात्पूर्वमित्थमिति च ।।
(७) अधिकं यथा
स्फटिकाकृतिनिर्मलः प्रकामं प्रतिसंक्रान्तनिशातशास्त्रतत्त्वः ।
अविरुद्धसमन्वितोक्तियुक्तिः प्रतिमल्लास्तमयोदयः स कोपि ॥
॥२२१॥
अत्र आकृतिशब्दः । यथा वा
इदमनुचितमक्रमश्च पुंसां यदिह जरास्वपि मान्मथा विकाराः ।
यदपि च न कृतं नितम्बिनीनां स्तनपतनावधि जीवितं रतं वा ॥२२२॥
Here, in the first sentence the word ‘asmābhiḥ’ is
wanting (without which the sentence is left without a
nominative) ; similarly before ‘khinne’, the adverb ‘ittham’
‘in this manner’ is wanting [the intended meaning being
‘he bears anger towards me, who have suffered in the
manner described’].
(7) The following in an example of the ‘Redundant
word’—
‘Sphaṭikākṛti......sa kopi’
‘Truly marvellous is this King !—clean like the form
of the rock-crystal, all the most abstruse principles of the
sciences fully reflected in himself, his statements consistent
and closely reasoned, and the source of the destruction of
his adversaries.’
Here the term ‘ākṛti’ (‘form’) is entirely superfluous.
Another example—
‘Idamanuchitam.........
Yadapi cha na kṛtaṁ......rataṁ vā’.
‘It is improper and unnatural that men should evince
sexual desires even in old age ; as also that of women, either
life itself or sexual enjoyment was not made to end with
the fall of their breasts’.

CHAPTER VII 217
अत्र कृतमिति । कृतं प्रत्युत प्रक्रमभङ्गमावहति । तथा च 'यदपि'
च न कुरङ्गलोचनानाम्' इति पाठे निराकाङ्क्षैव प्रतीतिः ॥
(८) कथितपदं यथा
अधिकरतलतल्पं कल्पितस्वापलीला-
परिमिलननिमीलत्पाण्डिमा गण्डपाली ।
सुतनु कथय कस्य व्यञ्जयत्यञ्जसैव
स्मरनरपतिलीलायौवराज्याभिषेकम् ॥२२३॥
अत्र लीलेति ॥
(९) पतत्प्रकर्षं यथा
कः कः कुत्र न घुर्घुरारियतघुरीघोरो घुरेत्सूकरः
कः कः कं कमलाकरं विकमलं कर्तुं करी नोद्यतः ।
Here the term 'kṛtam' is superfluous ; in fact its
insertion breaks the uniformity (of the two statements).
If the reading were 'yadapi cha na kuraṅgalochanānām',
the intended sense would be quite complete.
(8) The following is an example of the 'Repeated
Word'—
'Adhikara......līlā—
Smaranarapatilīlā......ṣēkam'
'The paleness of your cheek is waning on account of
the pressure of your arms upon which it rested during
sleep ; tell me, O beautiful one ! of what young man does
this (cheek) indicate the coronation as the Prince of the
sportings of King Cupid.'
Here the word 'līlā' is needlessly repeated.
(9) The following is the example of 'Receding Ex-
cellence'—
'Kaḥ kaḥ kutra na ghurghurāyitaghurīghoro ghuret sūkaraḥ
Kaḥ kaḥ kaṁ kamalākaraṁ vikamalaṁ kartuṁ karī nodyataḥ

218 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
के के कानि वनान्यरण्यमहिषा नोन्मूलयेयुर्यतः
सिंहीस्नेहविलासबद्धवसतिः पञ्चाननो वर्तते ॥२२४॥
(१०) समाप्तपुनरात्तं यथा
क्रेङ्कारः स्मरकार्मुकस्य सुरतक्रीडापिकीनां रवः
झङ्कारो रतिमञ्जरीमधुलिहां लीलाचकोरीध्वनिः ।
तन्व्याः कञ्चुलिकापसारणभुजाक्षेपस्खलत्कङ्कण-
क्वाणः प्रेम तनोतु वो नववयोलास्याय वेणुस्वनः ॥२२५॥
Ke ke kāni vanānyaraṇyamahiṣā nonmūlayeyuryataḥ
Siṁhīsnehavilāsabaddhavasatiḥ pañchānano vartate ’
‘ What boar and where would not make the terrible
ghur ghur sound ?—What elephant would not deprive
the lotus-ponds of its lotuses ?—What wild buffalo would
not uproot the forests ?—Now that the lion lies capti-
vated by the love of the lioness !’
[Here the climax is not maintained to the end; it breaks off
after the third line. The destructiveness of one animal is described
in the first foot, greater destructiveness is described in the second
foot, and still greater destructiveness is described in the third foot;
this climax would have been rightly maintained, if the lion were
described, in the last foot, as bringing greater destruction than that
wrought by all the aforesaid animals. What is done on the other
hand is that the fierce destructiveness of animals is toned down
towards the end to the quiescent lying down of the lion under the
captivating influence of feminine charms.]
(10) The following is the example of ‘ Resuming the
Concluded ’—
‘ Kreṅkāraḥ.........veṇusvanaḥ ’.
‘ Like unto the twang of Cupid’s bow, the sweet
singing of the cuckoo of dalliance, the humming of bees
in the blossom of love, the sound of the partridge of
graceful sportiveness,—may the jingling of the slender

CHAPTER VII 219
(११) द्वितीयार्धगतैकवाचकशेषप्रथमाधं यथा
मसृणचरणपातं गम्यतां भूः सदर्भा
विरचय सिचयान्तं मूर्ध्नि घर्मः कठोरः ।
तदिति जनकपुत्री लोचनैरश्रुपूर्णैः
पथि पथिकवधूर्भीरीक्षिता शिक्षिता च ॥२२६॥
(१२) अभवन् मतः (इष्टः) योगः (संबन्धः) यत्र तत् । यथा
girl's bangles dropped in the shaking of her arms at the
time of the attempt to remove her bodice, expand your
love !—the jingling resembling the ring of the flute, played
to the dancing of youthfulness !'
[The last qualification is thrown in, after the sentence has been
completed, without materially adding to the beauty of the descrip-
tion.]
(11) The following is an example of the 'Isolation,
in the second part of a word required by the first half'—
' Masṛṇa............bhūḥ sadarbhā
................................................................
Taditi...........................
...................śikṣitā cha'.
' The ground is covered with grass-shoots, therefore,
weak with soft foot-steps ; the sun is strong overhead,
therefore place a piece of cloth on your head ;—thus
was Jānakī on her way exhorted and looked upon with
tearful eyes by the wives of fellow-travellers'.
[The construction here is 'bhūḥ sadarbhā—'(the ground is covered
with shoots) tat (therfore) gamyatām (walk with soft tread etc. etc.);
and the term 'tat' which is required in the first half of the verse has been
placed in the second half, with which it has no syntactical connection.]
(12) The following is an example of what is 'devoid
of intended connection', i.e. where the desired connection
is wanting—

220 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
येषां तास्त्रिदशेभदानसरितः पीताः प्रतापोष्मभि-
र्लीलापानभुवश्च नन्दनवनच्छायासु यैः कल्पिताः ।
येषां हुंकृतयः कृतामरपतिक्षोभाः क्षपाचारिणां
किं तैस्त्वत्परितोषकारि विहितं किंचित्प्रवादोचितम् ॥२२७॥
अत्र “गुणानां च परार्थत्वादसंबन्धः समत्वात्स्यात्”
इत्युक्तनयेन यच्छब्दनिर्द्देश्यानामर्थानां परस्परमसन्वयेन यैरि-
त्यत्र विशेषस्याप्रतीतिरिति । 'क्षपाचारिभिः' इति पाठे युज्यते
समन्वयः ।
(a)
‘Yeṣāṁ tāstridashebhadānasaritaḥ
pītāḥ pratāpoṣmabhiḥ
Līlāpānabhuvashcha nandanavana-
(b)
chchhāyāsu yaiḥ kalpitāḥ
(c)
Yeṣāṁ huṁkṛtayaḥ kṛtāmarapati-
kṣobhāḥ kṣapāchāriṇāṁ
Kiṁ taistvatparitoṣakāri vihitaṁ
kiñchit pravādochitam’.
‘By the fire of whose glory was dried the ichor-flow
of the celestial elephants,—by whom were established drink-
ing booths in the shady groves of the Nandana garden,—
of which demons the slightest sound of displeasure brought
up perturbation in the mind of the king of the gods,—what
satisfactory act has been done by them which could be
spoken of ?’
Here it is not comprehensible what is the antecedent
(qualified and referred to) of the pronoun ‘yaiḥ’ (there
being no noun with the instrumental ending),—it being
not possible to co-ordinate it with ‘yeṣām’ and thus corre-
late it with the ‘demons’ (kṣapāchāriṇāṁ’ with the

CHAPTER VII 221
यथा वा
त्वमेवंसौन्दर्या स च रुचिरतायाः परिचितः
कलानां सीमानं परमिह युवामेव भजथः ।
अपि द्वन्द्वं दिष्ट्या तदिति सुभगे संवदति वाम्
अतः शेषं यत्स्याज्जितमिह तदानीं गुणितया ॥२२८॥
अत्र यदित्यत्र तदिति तदानीमित्यत्र यदेति वचनं नास्ति ।
genitive ending, which is the antecedent of the pronoun
‘yeṣām’), because, according to the dictum of Jaimini
(Mīmā. Sū. 3.1.22), when there are several subordinate
factors (in the present case, the pronouns ‘yeṣām’, in the
first line, ‘yaiḥ’ in the second line and ‘yeṣām’ in the
third line), they are all equally subservient to something
else, and as such cannot be mutually correlated. The
necessary co-ordination (and antecedent) would be got at,
if we read ‘kṣapāchāribhiḥ’, (with the instrumental ending,
in place of ‘kṣapāchāriṇām’.
Another example of the same defect we have in the
following—
‘Tvamevaṁ saundaryāḥ sa cha ruchiratāyāḥ parichitaḥ
Kalānāṁ sīmānaṁ paramiha yuvāmeva bhajathaḥ
Api dvandvaṁ diṣṭyā taditi subhage saṁvadati vām
Ataḥ śeṣaṁ yat syāj jitamiha tadānīṁ guṇitayā’.
‘You are endowed with such beauty, and he is not
unfamiliar with handsomeness; both of you possess the
highest proficiency in the finer arts; thus fortunately
the pair of you two is quite compatible; if the subsequent
issue were what it should be, then indeed would the en-
dowment of qualities become duly glorified.’
Here the relative pronoun ‘yat’ (in the fourth line)
requires a corresponding ‘tat’, and the term ‘tadānīm’

222 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
‘चेत्स्यात्’ इति युक्तः पाठः। यथा वा
संग्रामाङ्गणमागतेन भवता चापे समारोपिते
देवाकर्णय येन येन सहसा यद्यत्स्रभासादितम् ।
कोदण्डेन शराः शरैररिशिरस्तेनापि भूमण्डलं
तेन त्वं भवता च कीर्तिरतुला कीर्त्या च लोकत्रयम् ॥२२९॥
अत्राकर्णनक्रियाकर्मत्वे कोदण्डं शरानित्यादि वाक्यार्थस्य
कर्मत्वे कोदण्डः शरा इति प्राप्तम् । न च यच्छब्दार्थस्तद्विशेषणं
वा कोदण्डादि । न च केन केनेत्यादि प्रश्नः।
requires a corresponding ‘yadānīm’; but both these are
absent [and hence the desired connection becomes im-
possible]. The right reading would be ‘chet syāt’ (for
‘yat syāt’).
Another example of the same.
‘Saṅgrāmāṅgaṇamāgatena bhavatā chāpe samāropite
‘Devākarṇaya yena yena sahasā yad yat samāsāditam
Kodaṇḍena sharāḥ sharairarishirastenāpi bhūmaṇḍalaṁ
Tena tvaṁ bhavatā cha kīrtiratulā kīrtyā cha lokatrayam’.
‘O king ! listen to what was attained by what, when
you came to the field of battle and stringed your bow :
The bow obtained the arrows,—the arrows, the enemy's
head,—this head, the earth,—the earth, yourself (for its
master),—you, unrivalled fame,—and the fame, all the
three worlds.’
As objectives of the verb ‘listen’, all the nouns men-
tioned should have the accusative ending—‘Kodaṇḍam
sharān’ and so forth. If the whole of the subsequent
sentence were to be treated as the objective of the said
verb, then the form would be ‘Kodaṇḍaḥ sharāḥ’ [as what

CHAPTER VII 223
यथा वा
“चापाचार्यस्त्रिपुरविजयी कार्तिकेयो विजेयः
शस्त्रव्यस्तः सदनमुदधिर्भूरियं हन्तकारः ।
अस्त्येवैतत् किमु कृतवता रेणुकाकण्ठबाधां
बद्धस्पर्द्धस्तव परशुना लज्जते चन्द्रहासः” ॥२३०॥
इत्यादौ भार्गवस्य निन्दायां तात्पर्यम् । कृतवतेति परशौ
सा प्रतीयते । ‘कृतवतः’ इति तु पाठे मतयोगो भवति ।
are meant to be ‘listened’ to are (1) the thing that attains,
and (2) the thing attained; and in any enumeration of
these, both of them should be spoken of by means of
nouns with the nominative ending].—Nor is it possible
for the ‘Bow’ and other things to be regarded either as
included in the denotation of the pronoun ‘yat’ (in the
first line, which is the objective of the verb to listen), or
as a qualification of that denotation. Nor lastly is there
any such question as—‘what was attained by what?’—
‘kena kena kim kim’—(which would have established the
intended connection between the two sets of sentences).
Another example of the same defect—
‘Chāpāchāryastripuravijayī kārtikeyo vijeyaḥ
Shastravyastaḥ sadanamudadhirbhūriyaṁ hantakāraḥ
Astyevaitat kimu kṛtavatā reṇukā-kaṇṭhabādhāṁ
Baddhaspardhastava parashunā lajjate chandrahāsaḥ’
(For translation see above, stanza No. 201)
What is intended here is the deprecation of Parashu-
rāma himself (for having killed his mother); while the
term ‘kṛtavatā’ qualifying the axe, makes the said de-
precation appliable to this latter. The reading ‘kṛtavataḥ’
(which would qualify ‘tava’) would afford the intended
connection.

224 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
यथा वा
चत्वारो वयमृत्विजः स भगवान् कर्मोपदेष्टा हरिः
संग्रामाध्वरदीक्षितो नरपतिः पत्नी गृहीतव्रता ।
कौरव्याः पशवः प्रियापरिभवक्लेशोपशान्तिः फलं
राजन्योपनिमन्त्रणाय रसति स्फीतं हतो दुन्दुभिः ॥२३१॥
अत्राध्वरशब्दः समासे गुणीभूत इति न तदर्थः सर्वैः संयुज्यते । यथा वा
जङ्घाकाण्डोरुनालो नखकिरणलसत्केसरालीकरालः
प्रत्यग्रालक्तकाभाप्रसरकिसलयो मञ्जुमञ्जीरभृङ्गः ।
Another example—
Chatvāro vayamṛtvijaḥ sa bhagavān karmopadeṣṭā hariḥ
Saṁgrāmādhvaradīkṣito narapatiḥ patnī gṛhītavratā
Kauravyāḥ pashavaḥ priyāparibhavakleshopashāntiḥ phalaṁ
Rājanyopanimantraṇāya rasati sphītaṁ hato dundubhiḥ.’
‘ We four are the sacrificial priests; the blessed Hari
is the spiritual adviser; the king has been initiated for
the battle-ritual; and his wife is keeping the vows; the
Kurus are the animals (to be sacrificed); the result aimed
at is the allayment of the pain caused by the molestation
of our beloved wife; the battle-drum is being sounded
for the purpose of inviting the Kṣattriyas (to the
sacrifice)’.
Here the term ‘adhvara’, ‘sacrifice’, has been made a
subordinate member of the compound, and hence what is
denoted by it fails to be connected with all the sacrificial
details mentioned.
The following is yet another example;—
‘Jaṅghākāṇḍorunālo nakhakiraṇalasatkesarālīkarālaḥ
Pratyagrālaktakābhāprasarakisalayo mañjumañjīrabhṛṅgaḥ

CHAPTER VII 225
भर्तुर्नृत्तानुकार जयति निजतनूस्वच्छलावण्यवापी-
संभूताम्भोजशोभां विदधदभिनवो दण्डपादो भवान्याः ॥२३२॥
अत्र दण्डपादगता निजतनूः प्रतीयते भवान्याः संबन्धिनी तु
विवक्षिता ॥
(१३) अवश्यवक्तव्यमनुक्तं यत्र । यथा
अप्राकृतस्य चरितातिशयैश्च दृष्टै-
रत्यद्भुतैरपहृतस्य तथापि नास्था ।
कोप्येष वीरशिशुकाकृतिरप्रमेय-
सौन्दर्यसारसमुदायमयः पदार्थः ॥२३३॥
अत्र ‘अपहृतोस्मि’ इत्यपहृतत्वस्य विधिर्वाच्यः तथापीत्यस्य
द्वितीयवाक्यगतत्वेनैवोपपत्तेः । यथा वा
Bharturnṛttānukāre jayati nijatanusvachchalāvaṇyavāpī-
Sambhūtāmbhojaśobhāṁ vidadhadabhinavo daṇḍapādo bhavānyāḥ.
(Translated above as stanza No. 150)
Here the expression ‘nijatanu’, appearing in the com-
pound, is understood as refering to the Daṇḍapāda, while
it is intended to refer to Bhavānī.
(13) In the following we have an example of the
‘Omission of a necessary Statement’.—
‘Aprākṛtasya charitātishayaishcha dṛṣṭair
Atyadbhutairapahṛtasya tathāpi nāsthā
Kopyeṣa vīrashishukākṛtiraprameya-
Saundaryasārasamudāyamayaḥ padārthaḥ’.
‘Though I am captivated by the apparently excellent
and marvellous deeds of this extraordinary person, yet
I have no faith (in the fact that the bow has been broken
by him); for this is an indescribable entity constituted
by the very essence of illimitable beauty, appearing in the
shape of a heroic boy.’
Here what should have been expressly stated was the
15

226 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
एषोहमद्रितनयामुखपद्मजन्मा
प्राप्तः सुरासुरमनोरथदूरवर्ती ।
स्वप्नेनिरुद्धघटनाधिगताभिरूप-
लक्ष्मीफलामसुरराजसुतां विधाय ॥२३४॥
अत्र मनोरथानामपि दूरवर्तीत्यप्यर्थो वाच्यः । यथा वा
त्वयि निबद्धरतेः प्रियवादिनः प्रणयभङ्गपराङ्मुखचेतसः ।
कमपराधलवं मम पश्यसि त्यजसि मानिनि दासजनं यतः ॥२३५॥
direct affirmation of his having ‘ become captivated ’,—
the right reading being ‘ apahṛtosmi ’ (for ‘ apahṛtasya ’);
specially as the use of the expression ‘ tathāpi ’ could be
justified only as occurring in a totally different sentence
[hence it is essential that there should be a finite verb in
the preceding sentence, without which there would not
be two distinct sentences.]
Another example of the same :—
‘ Eṣohamadritanayāmukhapadmajanmā
Prāptaḥ surāsuramanorathadūravartī
Svapneniruddhaghaṭanādhigatābhirūpa-
Lakṣmīphalāmasurarājasutāṁ vidhāya ’.
‘ I, born of the lotus-face of Pārvatī, who am beyond
the reach of the longings of gods and demons, have come
here, after having made the daughter of the demon-king
such as has her exquisite beauty rendered fruitful through
association, in a dream, with Aniruddha.’
[Here the sense intended to be conveyed is that ‘ I
am beyond even the longings of the gods and demons ;’
[and this idea the words used fail to convey ].
Similarly in the following verse also—
Tvayi nibaddharateḥ priyavādinaḥ
Praṇayabhaṅgaparāṅmukhacetasaḥ
Kamaparādhalavaṁ mama paśyasi
Tyajasi mānini dāsajanaṁ yataḥ.

CHAPTER VII 227
अत्र 'अपराधस्य लवमपि' इति वाच्यम् ॥
(१४) अस्थानस्थपदं यथा
प्रियेण संग्रथ्य विपक्षसंनिधा-
वुपाहितां वक्षसि पीवरस्तने ।
स्रजं न काचिद्विजहौ जलाविलां
वसन्ति हि प्रेम्णि गुणा न वस्तुषु ॥२३६॥
अत्र 'काचिन्न विजहौ' इति वाच्यम् । यथा वा
'O proud one ! what trace of fault do you find in me,
which makes you abandon me, your servant ?—I, whose
love is centered in you, who always talk to you affec-
tionately and whose mind is ever averse to any breach
of endearment.'
Here also what is meant to be expressed is 'even the
slightest trace of a fault.'
(14) The following is an example of the 'Misplaced
Word'—
'Priyeṇa saṅgrathya vipakṣasannidhā-
Vupāhitāṁ vakṣasi pīvarastane
Srajaṁ na kāchid vijahau jalāvilāṁ
Vasanti hi premṇi guṇā na vastuṣu.'
'The lover had carefully knitted a garland and placed
it over her chest covered with her high breasts, in the
presence of her rivals ; and though this garland had
become sullied with water, yet not a certain girl did
remove it ; the value lies, not in the presented object,
but in the love that prompts it.'
What is intended to be expressed is that 'a certain
woman did not remove the garland ;' and to this end
the 'na' should have come before 'vijahau'.

228 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
लग्नः केलिकचग्रहश्लथजटालम्बेन निद्रान्तरे
मुद्राङ्कः शितिकन्धरेन्दुशकलेनान्तःकपोलस्थलम् ।
पार्वत्या नखलक्ष्मशङ्कितसखीनर्मस्मितह्रीतया
प्रोन्मृष्टः करपल्लवेन कुटिलाताम्रच्छविः पातु वः ॥२३७॥
अत्र नखलक्ष्मनेत्यतः पूर्वं ‘कुटिलाताम्र०’ इति वाच्यम् ॥
(१५) अस्थानस्थसमासं यथा
अद्यापि स्तनशैलदुर्गविषमे सीमन्तिनीनां हृदि
स्थातुं वाञ्छति मान एष धिगिति क्रोधादिवालोहितः ।
[As it stands, the expression means 'not some one,—but all—
removed the garland.']
Another example of the same—
Lagnaḥ kelikachagrahashlathajaṭālambena nidrāntare
Mudrāṅkaḥ śitikandharenduśakalenāntaḥkapolasthalam
Pārvatyā nakhalakṣmaśaṅkitasakhīnarmasmitahrītayā
Pronmṛṣṭaḥ karapallavena kuṭilātāmrachchhaviḥ pātu vaḥ.
‘May the curved red mark made on Pārvatī’s cheek
by Shiva’s moon-digit, while she slept on his matted
locks, tired during dalliance, protect you !—the marks
wiped off by her tender hands, when she was abashed
by the smiles of her companion who suspected the mark
to be of nails.’
The epithet ‘kuṭilātāmrachchhaviḥ’ (‘red and curved’)
should have been placed before the term ‘nakhalakṣma etc.’
[As it is the ‘curvature and redness’ that supply the grounds for
the companion’s suspicion.]
(15) The following is an example of the ‘Misplaced
Compound’—
‘Adyāpi stanashailadurgaviṣame sīmantinīnāṁ hṛdi
Sthātuṁ vāñchhati māna eṣa dhigiti krodhādivālohitaḥ

CHAPTER VII 229
प्रोद्यद्दूरतप्रसारितकरः कर्षत्यसौ तत्क्षणात्
फुल्लत्कैरवकोशनिःसरदलिश्रेणीकृपाणं शशी ॥२३८॥
अत्र क्रुद्धस्योक्तौ समासो न कृतः कवेरुक्तौ तु कृतः ॥
(१६) संकीर्णम् यत्र वाक्यान्तरस्य पदानि वाक्यान्तरमनु-
प्रविशन्ति । यथा
किमिति न पश्यसि कोपं पादगतं बहुगुणं गृहाणेमम् ।
ननु मुञ्च हृदयनाथं कण्ठे मनसस्तमोरूपम् ॥२३९॥
Prodyaddūrataraprasāritakaraḥ karṣatyasau tatkṣaṇāt
Phullatkairavakośanissarodalishreṇīkṛpāṇaṁ shashī’.
‘Even yet this pride wishes to stay in the hearts of -
women, fortified by the hill-like breasts ! Woe be to
me !—Saying this, and becoming reddened with rage,
the moon immediately puts forth his arms (rays) far and
wide and draws the sword in the shape of the line of
black bees issuing forth from the blooming lily.’
Here the first line represents the speech of the enraged
moon, and the rest that of the poet ; the long compounds
however, appear in the latter and not in the former (where
it would have been more in keeping with the sentiment
expressed).
(16) The following is an example of ‘Confusion’,—
i.e., where the words of one sentence are found in the
midst of another—
‘Kimiti na pashyasi kopaṁ pādagataṁ bahuguṇaṁ gṛhāṇemam
Nanu muñcha hṛdayanāthaṁ kaṇṭhe manasastamorūpam.’
‘Why do you not look upon your heart’s lord, the
receptacle of many good qualities, fallen upon your
feet ? Embrace him on the neck and renounce your
anger, which hangs like a gloom on your heart ’.

230 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अत्र पादगतं बहुगुणं हृदयनाथं किमिति न पश्यसि । इमं
कण्ठे गृहाण मनसस्तमोरूपं कोपं मुञ्चेति । एकवाक्यतायां तु
क्लिष्टमिति भेदः ॥
(१७) गर्भितम् यत्र वाक्यस्य मध्ये वाक्यान्तरमनुप्रविशति । यथा
परापकारनिरतैर्दुर्जनैः सह संगतिः ।
वदामि भवतस्तत्त्वं न विधेया कथञ्चन ॥२४०॥
अत्र तृतीयपादो वाक्यान्तरमध्ये प्रविष्टः । यथा वा
लग्नं रागावृताङ्ग्या सुदृढमिह ययैवासियष्ट्यारिकण्ठे
मातङ्गानामपीहोपरि परपुरुषैर्या च दृष्टा पतन्ती ।
The sentences meant here are—‘Atra pādagataṁ
bahuguṇaṁ hṛdayanāthaṁ kimiti na paśyasi,—imaṁ kaṇṭhe
gṛhāṇa,—manasastamorūpaṁ kopaṁ muñcha.’
The difference between this (confusion) and ‘obs-
curity’ lies in the fact that in the latter it is the words
of a single sentence that appear in a confused order (while
in the former they appear in several sentences).
(17) In the following we have an example of the ‘Paren-
thetical Expression’—
‘Parāpakāraniratairdurjanaiḥ saha saṅgatiḥ’
Vadāmi bhavatastattvaṁ na vidheyā kathañchana
‘Association with bad men bent upon injuring others,
—I tell you the truth,—should never be maintained.’
Here the third foot of the verse (‘vadāmi bhavatastatt-
vam’) occurs in the middle of a sentence.
Another example of the same—
Lagnaṁ rāgāvṛtāṅgyā sudṛḍhamiha
yayaivāsiyaṣṭyārikaṇṭhe
Mātangānāmapīhopari parapuruṣair-
yācha dṛṣṭā patantī

CHAPTER VII 231
तत्सक्तोयं न किंचिद्गणयति विदितं तेस्तु तेनास्मि दत्ता
भृत्येभ्यः श्रीनियोगाद्गदितुमिव गतेत्यम्बुधिं यस्य कीर्तिः ॥२४१॥
अत्र ‘विदितं तेस्तु’ इति एतत्कृतम्। प्रत्युत लक्ष्मीस्ततोप-
सरतीति विरुद्धमतिकृत् ॥
(१८) “मञ्जीरादिषु रणितप्रायं पक्षिषु च कूजितप्रभृति ।
स्तनितमणितादि सुरते मेघादिषु गर्जितप्रमुखम् ॥
Tatsaktoyaṁ na kiṁchid gaṇayati viditaṁ
testu tenāsmi dattā
Bhṛtyebhyaḥ shrīniyogād gaditumiva gate—
tyambudhiṁ yasya kīrtiḥ’
‘Whose fame repaired to the ocean to deliver the
following message to him under orders from the Goddess
of Wealth—“This Sword (woman), corroded with blood
(full of passion) fell upon the neck [(a) in the act of cutting,
(b) in the act of embracing] of the enemy, and which was
seen by strangers to fall upon elephants (to repair to Chāṇ-
ḍālas),—being attached to this same Sword (woman),
this king cares for nothing else, and—be this known to
you—I am being given away by him to his dependents”.
Here the clause ‘viditaṁ testu’, ‘be this known to you’,
is unnecessarily inserted ; in fact it has the implication
that ‘the Goddess of Wealth is going to desert the king’,
which is entirely repugnant to the context.
(18) ‘Opposed to Usage or Convention’ is that which
contravenes such conventions as the following—“The
sound of the anklet and such ornaments is to be described
as ‘raṇita’ (jingling), that of birds as ‘kūjita’ (warbling),
those produced at the time of embraces, as ‘stanita’
(murmur), ‘maṇita’ (cooing) and so forth, and that of
clouds as ‘garjita’ (thundering)”.

232 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
इति प्रसिद्धिमतिक्रान्तम् । यथा
महाप्रलयमारुतक्षुभितपुष्करावर्तक-
प्रचण्डघनगर्जितप्रतिरुतानुकारी मुहुः ।
रवः श्रवणभैरवः स्थगितरोदसीकन्दरः
कुतोद्य समरोदधेरयमभूतपूर्वः पुरः ॥ २४२ ॥
अत्र रवो मण्डूकादिषु प्रसिद्धो न तूक्तविशेषे सिंहनादे ॥
(१९) भग्नः प्रक्रमः प्रस्तावः यत्र । यथा
नाथे निशाया नियतेर्नियोगादस्तं गते हन्त निशापि याता ।
कुलाङ्गनानां हि दशानुरूपं नातःपरं भद्रतरं समस्ति ॥२४३॥
We have an example of this in the following—
‘Mahāpralayamārutakṣubhitapuṣkarāvartaka—
Pracaṇḍaghanagarjitapratirutānukārī muhuḥ
Ravaḥ śravaṇabhairavaḥ sthagitarodasīkandaraḥ
Kutodya samarodadherayamabhūtapūrvaḥ puraḥ’.
‘Whence this unprecedented ear-splitting sound of the
ocean of battle, pervading the entire valley between the
earth and the heavens, and resembling the echo of the
thundering of clouds tossed about by storms during uni-
versal dissolution ?’
The word ‘rava’ (sound) that is used here is generally
used in the sense of the noise made by frogs and such ani-
mals, and not in that of the particular leonine roar, here
referred to.
(19) The following is an example of ‘Broken Unifor-
mity’, i. e. where the ‘uniformity’, i. e. continuity of sequ-
ence, is broken :—
‘Nāthe niśāyā niyaterniyogād
Astaṁ gate hanta niśāpi yātā
Kulāṅganānāṁ hi daśānurūpaṁ
Nātaḥ paraṁ bhadrataraṁ samasti.’

CHAPTER VII 233
अत्र 'गते' इति प्रकान्ते 'याता' इति प्रकृतेः ।
'गता निशापि' इति तु युक्तम् ।
ननु 'नैकं पदं द्विः प्रयोज्यं प्रायेण' इत्यन्यत्र कथितपदं दुष्ट-
मिति चेहैवोक्तम् । तत्कथमेकस्य पदस्य द्विःप्रयोगः । उच्यते ।
उद्देश्यप्रतिनिद्देश्यव्यतिरिक्तो विषय एकपदप्रयोगनिषेधस्य ।
तद्धति विषये प्रत्युत तस्यैव पदस्य सर्वनाम्नो वा प्रयोगं विना
दोषः । तथाहि—
‘ Under the ordination of destiny, the Lord of Night
having gone to set, it is well that the Night also has de-
parted ; for noble women, there is no better condition
and more in keeping with the state of things than this’.
The statement, having opened with ‘gata’ (gone),
ends with ‘yāta’ (departed) ; thus violating the unifor-
mity of the verbal root. The right reading would have
been ‘gatā niśāpi’,
[which would have been more appropriate in describing the
exact following by the wife in the foot-steps of her lord.]
Objection :—“ In another work (Vāmana’s sūtras)
it has been laid down that no word should be repeated twice,
and in this work itself the Repetition of words has been
described as a Defect ; how then should it be regarded
advisable to repeat the same word gatā’) as suggested ?”
Our answer is as follows :—The prohibition of the
repeating of a word is meant to apply to cases other than
the one where what is spoken of subsequently is meant to
be precisely the same that has been mentioned previously ;
[as in the case in question the going of the night is meant
to be precisely the same as the going of the moon ] where,
on the other hand, such identity is meant, it would be a
positive defect if the same noun were not repeated, either