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

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

Kavyamimamsa of Rajasekhara with Hindi Commentary

महाकवि राजशेखर / पं. केदारनाथ शर्मा द्वारा

DevanagariSanskritpublished381 पृष्ठ

पृष्ठ 220, कुल 381 में से

संदर्भ में पढ़ें
पृष्ठ 220

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