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

133 EXPLANATORY NOTES Sāhitya in his S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa ( VII ) where it is explained in the following words:— तत्राभिधाविवक्षातात्पर्यप्रविभागव्यपेक्षासामर्थ्यान्वयैकार्थीभावदोषहानगुणोपादानालङ्कारयोगर- सावियोगरूपाः शब्दार्थयोर्द्वादश संबन्धाः साहित्यमित्युच्यते ॥ Following this statement of Bhoja, S'āradātanaya in his Bhāvaprakāśana ( p. 145. ll. 6–12 ) defines Sāhitya and gives several illustrations. The twelve varieties of relation between the S'abda and its Artha as described in the above quotation from Bhoja are probably indicated by Rājaśekhara in the phrase, यथावत्सहभावेन विद्या. It may also be remembered here that Kālidāsa makes a mention of this Sāhitya of S'abda and Artha in the beginning of his Raghuvamśa. * [ l. 14 For the 64 kalās see कामसूत्र 1-3-16 ] l. 14. 64 Upavidyās are enumerated by Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra 1-3-16. Another set of 64 Aṅgas of the Pāñcālas also is mentioned in the above work to complete the सांप्रयोगिकाधिकरण of the Kāmasūtra. Vātsyāyana himself calls these Upavidyās by the common name of Kalā in his Kāmasūtra ( 2-2-3. ) आजीवः=livelihood. These Kalās are introduced as a matter of necessity in the best Kāvyas, and, therefore, it is necessary that poets should be well conversant with these subjects. l. 15. The last Adhikaraṇa of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā is called औपनिषदिक where directions are given for obtaining poetical excellance through magical practices, such as the practice of Mantras and Tāntric rites. This statement also indicates that Rājaśekhara wanted to complete the present work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas. Adhyāya. III. l. 20 काव्यपुरुषोत्पत्तिः । In this chapter the author traces the origin of metrical composition, gives an account of its sub- sequent developments in a chronological order, and makes an endeavour to connect them with the customs and manners prevalent in the different parts of India. And in doing so, he travels beyond the range of history to mythology and traces the origin of poetry from an imaginery Kāvyapuruṣa who is supposed to be the embodiment of the whole classical literature.

THIRD ADHYĀYA 139 He is the son of Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning, and is brought up in the hermitage of Kavi. The author describes his marriage with Aumeyī the embodiment of Sāhityavidyā or the science of poetry. This Kāvyapuruṣa is described in the first chapter as the earliest teacher of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā and as a divine being from whom poetry took its origin. l. 23. गुरुः । Kāvyapuruṣa was the preceptor of Dhiṣaṇa or Bṛhaspati because he received instructions on the Kāvyamīmāṁsā from Sārasvateya, and composed a chapter on it dealing with the Doṣas (see p. 1. l. 12.) बृहतां पतिः । The word Bṛhaspati is formed according to the rule of Pāṇini ( 6-1-157 ) and thus it denotes a divine being. l. 24. पुत्रीयन्ती=being desirous of a son. तुषारगिरौ=mountain of snow i. e. the Himālayas. Page. 6. l. 1. To complete the quotation ‘पुत्रं ते सृजामि’ the word इति is to be added at the end. But as in many places Rājaśekhara overlooks this dictum, इति has been added in the present edition wherever found necessary. l. 2. छन्दस्वतीं वाचम्=metrical composition. In the mythologi- cal story related by Rājaśekhara, the reason why Sarasvatī was desirous of obtaining a son is not clearly explained. Moreover, Brahmā is here mentioned as the creator of Sārasvateya. But the story of the birth of Sārasvateya as recorded in such earlier works as the Vāyupurāṇa, Mahābhārata and Harṣacarita differs in some important points from the story recorded in the present work by Rājaśekhara. Bāṇa in his Harṣacarita gives adequate reasons why Sarasvatī came down to earth, married Dadhīca, the son of Cyavana, and gave birth to Sārasvateya. These reasons are not found in any of the Purāṇas. In the Vāyu- purāṇa also, only the story of the marriage of Sarasvatī with Dadhīca, son of Cyavana, and of the birth of Sārasvata who became a master of all sciences through her blessings, is recorded, mostly on the model of Bāṇa (see Vāyu-Adh. 65). The fact that in this respect Vāyupurāṇa was followed by Bāṇa is clearly apparent not only because that a number of

133 EXPLANATORY NOTES Sāhitya in his S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa ( VII ) where it is explained in the following words:— तत्राभिधाविवक्षातात्पर्यप्रविभागव्यपेक्षासामर्थ्यान्वयैकार्थीभावदोषहानगुणोपादानालङ्कारयोगर- सावियोगरूपाः शब्दार्थयोर्द्वादश संबन्धाः साहित्यमित्युच्यते ॥ Following this statement of Bhoja, S'āradātanaya in his Bhāvaprakāśana ( p. 145. ll. 6-12) defines Sāhitya and gives several illustrations. The twelve varieties of relation between the S'abda and its Artha as described in the above quotation from Bhoja are probably indicated by Rājaśekhara in the phrase, यथावत्सहभावेन विद्या. It may also be remembered here that Kālidāsa makes a mention of this Sāhitya of S'abda and Artha in the beginning of his Raghuvamśa.

• [ l. 14 For the 64 kalās see कामसूत्र 1-3-16 ] l. 14. 64 Upavidyās are enumerated by Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra 1-3-16. Another set of 64 Aṅgas of the Pāñcālas also is mentioned in the above work to complete the सांप्रयोगिकाधिकरण of the Kāmasūtra. Vātsyāyana himself calls these Upavidyās by the common name of Kalā in his Kāmasūtra ( 2-2-3. ) आजीव:=livelihood. These Kalās are introduced as a matter of necessity in the best Kāvyas, and, therefore, it is necessary that poets should be well conversant with these subjects. l. 15. The last Adhikaraṇa of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā is called औपनिषदिक where directions are given for obtaining poetical excellance through magical practices, such as the practice of Mantras and Tāntric rites. This statement also indicates that Rājaśekhara wanted to complete the present work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas. Adhyāya. III. l. 20 काव्यपुरुषोत्पत्तिः । In this chapter the author traces the origin of metrical composition, gives an account of its sub- sequent developments in a chronological order, and makes an endeavour to connect them with the customs and manners prevalent in the different parts of India. And in doing so, he travels beyond the range of history to mythology and traces the origin of poetry from an imaginary Kāvyapuruṣa who is supposed to be the embodiment of the whole classical literature.

THIRD ADHYĀYA 139 He is the son of Sarasvatī, the goddess of learning, and is brought up in the hermitage of Kavi. The author describes his marriage with Aumeyī the embodiment of Sāhityavidyā or the science of poetry. This Kāvyapuruṣa is described in the first chapter as the earliest teacher of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā and as a divine being from whom poetry took its origin. l. 23. गुरुः। Kāvyapuruṣa was the preceptor of Dhiṣaṇa or Bṛhaspati because he received instructions on the Kāvyamīmāṁsā from Sārasvateya, and composed a chapter on it dealing with the Doṣas (see p. 1. l. 12.) बृहतां पतिः। The word Bṛhaspati is formed according to the rule of Pāṇini (6-1-157) and thus it denotes a divine being. l. 24. पुत्रीयन्ती=being desirous of a son. तुषारगिरौ=mountain of snow i. e. the Himālayas. Page. 6. l. 1. To complete the quotation 'पुत्रं ते सृजामि' the word इति is to be added at the end. But as in many places Rājaśekhara overlooks this dictum, इति has been added in the present edition wherever found necessary. l. 2. छन्दस्वतीं वाचम्=metrical composition. In the mythologi- cal story related by Rājaśekhara, the reason why Sarasvatī was desirous of obtaining a son is not clearly explained. Moreover, Brahmā is here mentioned as the creator of Sārasvateya. But the story of the birth of Sārasvateya as recorded in such earlier works as the Vāyupurāṇa, Mahābhārata and Harṣacarita differs in some important points from the story recorded in the present work by Rājaśekhara. Bāṇa in his Harṣacarita gives adequate reasons why Sarasvatī came down to earth, married Dadhīca, the son of Cyavana, and gave birth to Sārasvateya. These reasons are not found in any of the Purāṇas. In the Vāyu- purāṇa also, only the story of the marriage of Sarasvatī with Dadhīca, son of Cyavana, and of the birth of Sārasvata who became a master of all sciences through her blessings, is recorded, mostly on the model of Bāṇa (see Vāyu-Adh. 65). The fact that in this respect Vāyupurāṇa was followed by Bāṇa is clearly apparent not only because that a number of

140 EXPLANATORY NOTES

quotations from that Purāṇa is to be found in the Harṣacarita, but also because the name of that Purāṇa is definitely mentioned by Bāṇa as पवमानप्रोक्तपुराण in the 3rd chapter. The case of the Mahābhārata is altogether different. Here various stories are recorded concerning the birth of Sārasvateya, the son of Sarasvatī. All these authorities, however, are unanimous in holding that he was vastly learned in the Vedas and that he transmitted his knowledge to others. (see S'āntiparvan, Adh. 359 and S'alyaparvan Adh. 52. of the Mahābhārata). It is said in the S'āntiparvan of the Mahābhārata that God created a Sārasvata through Sarasvatī and asked him to learn the Vedas himself and transmit his learning to others. This Sārasvata was also known by the names of Vyāsa and Apāntaratamas, and he in accordance with the above instruction, spread the knowledge of the Vedas in the world. A similar story is also found in the S'alyaparvan where it is said that the creative energy of the sage Dadhīci was transmitted to the river Sarasvatī when he was overpowered by passion on seeing Alambuṣā a divine dancing girl. As a result, the river Sarasvatī, obtained a son and he was carried by her to Dadhīci, his father. This Sārasvateya taught the Vedas to the sages when they forgot them owing to a severe famine which lasted for 12 years. Aśvaghoṣa, in the first century A. D. also records the same story regarding Sārasvateya in his Buddha- carita (1-47.)

1. 3. यदेतत् etc. In the first half of this verse a clear exposition of the S'abdabrahmavāda as developed by Bhartṛhari in his Vākyapadīya, has been made. According to this school of philosophy, the S'abdabrahma or Nāda, which came out from God when he desired to create the world, is the cause of the universe which is enveloped in Vivarta or the illusory form of existence. When this illusion is removed by means of Vidyā or true knowledge there remains only the Nāda or S'abdabrahma. This Nāda is also called Parāvāk. From this Parāvāk, Paśyantī, Madhyamā and Vaikharī, the three other kinds of speech, are produced. Here Madhyamāvāk has the property of Sphoṭa which reveals the knowledge of Artha from

THIRD ADHYĀYA 141 the S'abda. The things that are known or meant by the words have also no separate existence from the words, though they appear to exist separately. In support of this theory, the following verses appear in Bhartṛhari's Vākyapadīya:— अनादिनिधनं ब्रह्म शब्दतत्त्वं यदक्षरम् । विवर्ततेऽर्थभावेन प्रक्रिया जगतो यतः ॥ यो वाऽर्थो बुद्धिविषयोऽबाह्यवस्तुनिबन्धनः । स बाह्यं वस्त्विति ज्ञातः शब्दार्थः सम्यगिष्यते ॥ शब्दोपहितरूपांश्च बुद्धेर्विषयतां गतान् । प्रत्यक्षामिव कंसादीन् साधनत्वेन मन्यते ॥ न सोऽस्ति प्रत्ययो लोके यः शब्दानुगमादृते । अनुविद्धमिव ज्ञानं सर्वं शब्देन भासते ॥ अत्यन्तासत्यपि ह्यर्थे ज्ञानं शब्दः करोति हि । etc. For further information regarding the S'abdabrahma and Vivartavāda a reference may be made to the Laghumañjūṣā of Nāgeśabhaṭṭa. विवर्तते । Vivarta is the illusory existence of a thing; for example, as the illusory existence of a serpent in the rope when it is mistaken for a snake. l. 4. अस्मि। This is an indeclinable particle meaning 'I'—or अहम्. l. 9. त्वदुपज्ञम् । etc. So long Vālmīki was considered to be the first to write in the classical śloka metre, and the first composition attributed to him is the verse: मा निषाद, etc. (See Rāmāyaṇa, 1–2.) According to Rājaśekhara, however, this verse of Vālmīki is much later than the compositions of Kāvyapuruṣa and Uśanas who were the two earliest inventors of the śloka metre. l. 12. रस आत्मा । Rasa is the soul of the Kāvya. There are several standards of literary criticism in the history of Sanskrit poetics, and amongst them the theory of Rasa as the soul of poetry may be considered to be the pre-eminent. This theory was first conceived and developed by Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra for the purpose of dramatic composition. The importance of Rasa, however, was not fully recognized by later critics such as Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, and Vāmana as a standard of literary criticism with reference to compositions other than the drama. But the later critics advocated different theories of Alaṅkāra, Guṇa,

142 EXPLANATORY NOTES Rīti, Dhvani, Vakrokti, Anumiti and Aucitya, and were of opinion that these principles were the essential factors in the best form of poetical composition other than the drama. During this period, the theory of Rasa underwent many changes and modifications in the hands of those who belonged to the other schools of literary criticism. In the middle of the 9th century Ānandavardhana revived the theory of Rasa and held that Rasa Dhvani is the chief principle in all poetical compositions including the drama. This theory of Dhvani though well established by Ānanda did not meet with general approval amongst a large number of critics during the period from 850 to 950 A. D. as they were content with the original Rasa school of thought started by Bharata and applied the same principle to both classes of the literature. Prominent among them were Rudraṭa, Bhaṭṭanāyaka, Dhanañjaya, and Dhanika. Rājaśekhara flourished during this period (cir 900 A. D.) and he was led to adopt the trend of literary criticism as was prevalent in his days. Thus, he held that the Rasa and not Dhvani is the soul of the Kāvyapuruṣa. Again, at the end of the 10th century A. D. the theory of Rasadhvani was revived once more by the great Kashmirian scholar Abhinavagupta following in the foot-steps of Ānandavardhana. Rājaśekhara did not even mention Dhvani as a part of the Kāvyapuruṣa or as the subject-matter of any of his eighteen chapters because in his time even the existence of Dhvani in poetry was not recognised by critics. For further information regarding the history of the Rasa school see the introduction to the Bhāvaprakāśana (G.O.S. No. 45). *[ l. 15 च॒त्वारि॒ शृङ्गा॒ त्रयो॑ अस्य॒ पादा॒ द्वे शी॒र्षे स॒प्त हस्ता॑सो अस्य । त्रिधा॑ ब॒द्धो वृ॑ष॒भो रो॑रवीति म॒हो दे॒वो मर्त्यां२॒ आव॑िवेश ॥ ( ऋग्वेद 3-8-10-3 ). For the different interpretations of this Ṛk see Sāyaṇa's Bhāṣya, Yâska's Nirukta 13-18 and Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya पस्पशा. Both the MSS. of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā read शृङ्गास्त्रयो and मर्त्यमा- विवेश. cf. सप्त स्वराः, त्रीणि स्थानानि, चत्वारो वर्णाः, द्विविधा काकुः, षडलङ्काराः, षडङ्गानि इति । भरतनाट्यशास्त्र chapt. 17 ] l. 20. उशना परिवृत्ते etc. The fact that Sārasvateya Kāvyapu- ruṣa was brought up by Uśanas or Kavi, as mentioned by

THIRD ADHYĀYA 143

Rājaśekhara, not only shows that no rule of grammar (Pāṇini 4-1-151), is violated in the derivation of the word Kāvyapuruṣa (the son of Kavi) but also proves the propriety of using the famous name of S'ukra as Kavi (see. नामलिङ्गानुशासन. 1-3-25). *[ll. 23-24. या दुग्धाऽपि न दुग्धेव found in some MSS. of दमयन्तीचम्पू of त्रिविक्रम as मङ्गलश्लोक]. l. 25. तत्पूर्वकम्=after repeating this verse composed by Uśanas. ततः प्रभृति । After this event Uśanas is called Kavi because of his paternal affection towards the young Kāvyapuruṣa and also because he himself composed a verse या दुग्धापि न दुग्धेव etc. l. 26. तदुपचारात् । Due to the secondary capacity of the words (लक्षणा). Poets are called Kavīs because they are also engaged in the composition of verses as Uśanas or Kavi did in olden days.

Page. 7.

l. 1. कवृ वर्णे । Pāṇinīyas take the word वर्ण here to represent colour and derive words such as कर्बुर, कबरी etc. from this root कवृ. The word Kavi is generally derived by them from the root कुङ् शब्दे; इकार being added in accordance with the Uṇādi rule अच इः (4-138). Ujjvaladatta in his Uṇādisūtravṛtti derives the word Kavi from the roots कु वर्णे or कु शब्दे (sec. 4-138). But the Dhātupāṭha of Pāṇini reads two roots कुङ् and कु and states शब्द only as their meaning. Rājaśekhara, however, seems to derive the word Kavi from the root कवृ वर्णे which is not possible according to the Uṇādi rule अच इः and seems to take the word वर्ण to mean वर्णन or description. Following the derivation of Ujjvaladatta on 4-138 of Uṇādisūtra, the reading कवृ वर्णे may be changed here as कुङ् वर्णे. l. 2. भक्त्या । भक्ति is the secondary capacity of the word called the लक्षणा or गौणी. The word Kāvya signifies poetry through the primary capacity known as शक्ति aud Sārasvateya through the secondary capacity (लक्षणा) as he is the personification of poetry. l. 4. वाल्मीकिः । Vālmīki also is brought here by Rājaśekhara to play his role because the epithet of Kavi applies to both S'ukra and Vālmīki (कविर्वाल्मीकिशुक्रयोः-मेदिनी) and particularly to Vālmīki as he is designated by all poets as the आदिकवि.

144 EXPLANATORY NOTES l. 5. भृगुसूनोः = of Śukra. Bhṛgu is the son of Brahman and Śukra is Bhṛgu's son. This shows the source Vāyupurāṇa from which the author conceived the idea underlying the story of Sārasvateya. The Vāyupurāṇa and the Harṣacarita mention that Bhṛgu's grandson Dadhīci obtained a son Sārasvateya through his wife Sarasvatī. Sec. Vāyu. 65, 88-91. and Harṣacarita. I. l. 7. अनुप्रेक्षितः = blessed by Sarasvatī. l. 8. निषादनिहतसहचरीकं क्रौञ्चयुवानम्। Here Rājaśekhara states that the female Krauñca was hit by the Niṣāda and the male Krauñca was lamenting in the presence of Vālmīki. But this statement goes against the description of the event recorded in the Rāmāyaṇa. Cf. तस्याभ्याशे तु मिथुनं चरन्तमपगायिनम् । ददर्श भगवांस्तत्र क्रौञ्चयोश्चारुनिःस्वनम् ॥ तस्मात्तु मिथुनादेकं पुमांसं पापनिश्चयः । जघान वैरनिलयो निषादस्तस्य पश्यतः ॥ तं शोणितपरीतांगं वेपमानं महीतले । भार्या तु निहतं दृष्ट्वा रुराव करुणां गिरम् ॥ Rāmāyaṇa 1. 2. 9-11. There is a similar statement made by Ānandavardhana in his Dhvanyāloka (p. 27) as under : संनिहि(ह)तसहचरीविरहकातरक्रौञ्चाक्रन्दजनितः शोक एव श्लोकतया परिणतः । which also seems to go against the Rāmāyaṇa of Vālmīki. Probably this passage of Ānandavardhana may be at the back of Rājaśekhara's statement because the word संनिहित or संनिहत construed with the word सहचरी gives a different meaning as stated by him in the passage निषादनिहतसहचरीकम् । But Abhinavagupta subsequently in his Locanā got over the dis- crepancy by mending the passage of the Dhvanyāloka in the following manner : संनिहतसहचरीविरहकातरक्रौञ्चेन आक्रन्देन च जनितः शोकः । In this emendation, the word संनिहत is construed not with सहचरी but with क्रौञ्च who represents the विभाव, whereas the आक्रन्द of the female क्रौञ्च is अनुभाव for the शोक of Vālmīki. Cf. Locanā : संनिहतसहचरीति विभाव उक्तः । आक्रन्दितशब्देनानुभावः । (p. 28. l. 8.) *[ l. 10. मानिषाद etc. Cf. ध्वन्यालोक 1-5. et. seq. ]

THIRD ADHYĀYA 145 l. 10. By introducing here this verse and the story of Vālmīki, Rājaśekhara reminds us of a similar narrative found in the beginning of the Rāmāyaṇa. It is said there that Brahman induced Sarasvatī to bless Vālmīki with poetical skill. After obtaining her blessings Vālmīki began his compositions, and this verse मा निषाद etc. was his first metrical composition. Cf. मच्छन्दादेव ते ब्रह्मन् प्रवृत्तेयं सरस्वती । रामस्य चरितं कृत्स्नं कुरु त्वमृषिसत्तम ॥ Rāmāyaṇa 1. 2. 31. As Rājaśekhara wanted to trace the earliest history of metrical composition in this chapter, it is but natural that he should bring Vālmīki's composition after that of Kāvyapuruṣa and S'ukra. According to Rājaśekhara, therefore, the first Kavi or author of metrical composition is Kāvyapuruṣa ; the second is S'ukra who brought up Kāvyapuruṣa in his hermitage and composed a verse ; while the third is Vālmīki who led Sarasvatī to the place of her son and began composing verses. l. 21. कुमारः। Kārtikeya the son of Gaurī was a friend of Kāvyapuruṣa and he felt very uncomfortable when the latter made an attempt to run away. l. 23. नान्यत्। In this connection, the verse occurring in this work on page 66, is noteworthy :— दृष्ट्वाऽप्येनं छेदमुत्पाद्य रज्वा यन्तुर्वाचं मन्यमानस्तृणाय । गच्छन्नग्रे नागराजः करिण्या प्रेम्णा तुल्यं बन्धनं नास्ति जन्तोः ॥ l. 25. अनुवर्तस्वैनं निवर्तय च। Sāhityavidyā is the realisation of the connections that exist between the S'abda and the Artha. By this statement, Rājaśekhara wants to convey that Sāhityavidyā alone is able to revive the creative faculty in poets even when poetry is extinct. l. 26. काव्यविद्यास्नातकाः। Kāvyavidyāsnātakas are those who after studying the Kāvyavidyā begin to compose poems. Pages. 8-9. *[ Read तत्राभियुञ्जाना तमौमेयी यं वेषं यथेष्टमसेविष्ट स तत्रत्याभिः स्त्रीभिरन्वक्रियत। सा प्रवृत्तिरौड्रमागधी etc. This portion seems to have been based on भरतनाट्यशास्त्र chapter. 13. cf. चतुर्विधा प्रवृत्तिश्च प्रोक्ता नाट्यप्रयोक्तृभिः। आवन्ती दाक्षिणात्या च पाञ्चाली चौड्रमागधी ॥ १९

146 EXPLANATORY NOTES अत्राह—प्रवृत्तिरिति कस्मात् । उच्यते—पृथिव्यां नानादेशवेषभाषाचारवार्ताः ख्यापयतीति प्रवृत्तिः । प्रवृत्तिश्च निवेदने । अत्राह—यदा पृथिव्यां नानादेशाः सन्ति, कथमासां चतुर्विधत्व- मुपपन्नम् । समानलक्षणांश्चासां प्रयोग उच्यते । एवमेष समानलक्षणप्रयोगः । किंतु नानादेशवेष- भाषाचारो लोक इति कृत्वा लोकानुमतेऽनुवृत्तिसंश्रितस्य नाट्यस्य मया चतुर्विधत्वमभिहितं भारत्यारभटी सात्वती कैशिकी चेति । वृत्तिसंश्रितैश्च प्रयोगैरभिरता देशाः । यतः प्रवृत्तिचतुष्टयमभिनिर्वृत्तं प्रयोगश्चोत्पादितः । तत्र दाक्षिणात्या भवेत् बहुगीतनृत्यवाद्या कैशिकीप्राया चतुरमधुर- ललिताङ्गाभिनया । यथा— महेन्द्रो मलयः सह्यो मेकलः पलपिञ्जरः । एतेषु संश्रिता देशाः स ज्ञेयो दक्षिणापथः ॥ कोशलास्तोशलाश्चैव कलिङ्गा एव गोशलाः । द्रविडान्ध्रमहाराष्ट्रा वैण्या वै वानवासजाः ॥ दक्षिणस्य समुद्रस्य तथा विन्ध्यस्य चान्तरे । ये देशास्तेषु युञ्जीत दाक्षिणात्यां तु नित्यशः ॥ आवन्तिका वैदिशिकाः सौराष्ट्रा मालवास्तथा । सैन्धवास्त्वथ सौवीराः आनर्तास्त्वार्बुदेयकाः ॥ दशार्णाश्चैपुराश्चैव तथा वै मार्तिका मताः । कुर्वन्त्यावन्तिमेते प्रवृत्तिं नित्यमेव तु ॥ सात्त्वतीं कैशिकीं चैव वृत्तिमेषा समाश्रिता । भवेत्प्रयोगो नान्यत्र स च कार्यः प्रयोक्तृभिः ॥ अङ्गा वङ्गाः कलिङ्गाश्च वत्साश्चैवोड्रमागधाः । पौण्ड्रनैपालिकाश्चैव अन्तर्गिरिबहिर्गिराः ॥ तत्र वङ्गसमा ज्ञेया मलदा मल्लवर्तकाः । ब्रह्मोत्तरप्रभृतयो भार्गवा मार्गवास्तथा ॥ प्राग्ज्योतिषाः पुलिन्दाश्च वैदेहास्ताम्रलिप्तकाः । प्राङ्गाः प्रावृत्तयाश्चैव युञ्जन्ति ह्यौड्रमागधीम् ॥ अन्येऽपि देशा एभ्योपि ये पुराणे प्रकीर्तिताः । तेषु प्रयुज्यते ह्येषा प्रवृत्तिस्त्वोड्रमागधी ॥ पाञ्चालमध्यमायां तु सात्त्वत्यारभटी स्मृता । प्रयोगस्त्वल्पगीतार्थ आविद्धगतिविभ्रमः । पाञ्चालाश्शौरसेनाश्च काश्मीरा हास्तिनापुराः ॥ बाह्लीकाः शाकलाश्चैव मद्रकौशीनरस्तथा । हिमवत्संश्रिता ये च गङ्गायाश्चोत्तरां दिशम् ॥ ये श्रिता वै जनपदास्तेषु पाञ्चालमध्यमा । The verses आर्द्रार्द्रचन्दन and आ मूलतो are quoted in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत (II–86 and 99) under Rājaśekhara. P. 8. l. 23. A reads परिमण्डलितान्तरीयम् instead of परिमण्डलितोत्तरीयम्. P. 9. l. 26. Read "अनन्तानपि हि देशांश्चतुर्धैवैकल्य कल्पयन्ति चक्रवर्तिक्षेत्रं समासेन । तदवान्तरविशेषैः पुनरनन्ता एव" इति यायावरीयः । ]

1. 3. अथ etc. After tracing the origin and history of metrical composition, the author in the next two pages (8-9) seeks to explain the varieties of poetical composition in accordance with the natural surroundings, and customs and manners of the different people. These are called styles and Rājaśekhara classifies them into four distinct groups. These four groups, each consisting of Pravṛtti, Rīti and Vṛtti, are already mentioned by Bharata in chapter 13 of his Nāṭyaśāstra. Rāja- śekhara adds to the description of the four groups, four verses of his own, describing women's dress in four parts of India with the preamble—तां ते मुनयोऽभितुष्टुवुः and seeks in these pages to discover scientific explanations for the different styles of writings which existed in early Sanskrit compositions. Incidentally, he mentions also the four Pravṛttis or वेषविन्यास, Vṛttis or विलास‌विन्यास and Rītis or वचनविन्यास adopted by the people living in the four divisions of India. In the eastern part of India, there are: Audramāgadhī Pravṛtti, Bhāratī Vṛtti and Gauḍīyā Rīti. In the Pāñcāla country, there exist: Pāñcālamadhyamā Pravṛtti, Sāttvatī and Ārabhaṭī Vṛttis and Pāñcālī Rīti. The countries of Avanti etc. have: Āvantī Pravṛtti, Sāttvatī and Kaiśikī Vṛttis. The Southern part of India has: Dākṣiṇātyā Pravṛtti, Kaiśikī Vṛtti and Vaidarbhī Rīti. Among the Pravṛttis, Vṛttis and Rītis mentioned above Rājaśekhara seems to attach a relative superiority to the Vaidarbhī, Kaiśikī and Dākṣiṇātyā style of the southern India; because he states that Kāvyapuruṣa was pleased and brought under control by Sāhityavidyāvadhū only through the style current in South India. It seems, however, strange that he failed to recognize the Lāṭīyā Rīti of the dialects of the countries Avanti etc. though the whole of the Avanti or Lāṭa country had been frequently described by him in his works. (See Kāvyamīmāṁsā p. 34. l. 7 and Bāla- rāmāyaṇa, act X). The reason for this, seems to be that he did not favour the idea of creating a new Rīti of Lāṭīyā as proposed for the first time by Rudraṭa, because there is not much difference between the two Rītis, Pāñcālī and Lāṭīyā. In the history of the development of Rītis, Bhāmaha did not acknowledge the existence

148 EXPLANATORY NOTES of distinct classes of Rīti such as Gauḍīyā and Vaidarbhī; while Daṇḍin in his work established the relative superiority of the Vaidarbhī style over that of the Gauḍī. To these two, Vāmana added a third, the Pāñcālī, and Rudraṭa a fourth, the Lāṭīyā. Thus four Rītis were acknowledged by critics in the period when Rājaśekhara flourished; but he recognized only three Rītis after omitting the Lāṭīyā. This fact he again mentions on p. 10, l. 5. Page 10. l. 2. For the complete description of the Cakravartikṣetra, see p. 92 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. l. 3. Beyond the Cakravartikṣetra, there are the lands called Harivarṣa and Kimpuruṣavarṣa which are the abodes of divine beings. l. 5. तिस्रः। Rudraṭa who flourished before Rājaśekhara and who is often quoted in this work, had acknowledged four Rītis including the Lāṭīyā in his Kāvyālaṅkāra (2. 4-6.). The reason why Rājaśekhara did not recognise the fourth Rīti is already mentioned. पुरस्तात् । Rītis are proposed to be treated of in the third Adhi- karaṇa 'Rītinirṇaya' as enumerated on the first page of the Kāvya- mīmāṁsā. This statement also clearly shows that Rājaśekhara wanted to complete this work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas. For the three Rītis see p. 31. l. 6. of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā.

• [ l. 6. वत्सगुल्मम् । cf. अभूतां दाक्षिणात्यस्य द्विजातेः सोमशर्मणः । वत्सगुल्माभिधौ पुत्रौ...... ॥ (बृहत्कथामञ्जरी. 1. 3. 4.) ] दक्षिणापथे सोदर्यौ राजपुत्रौ वत्सगुल्मौ । ताभ्यामध्यासितो देशो वत्सगुल्मक इति प्रतीतः । ( Jayamangalā on Kāmasūtra 5. 6. 36. ) (?) ] l. 6. वत्सगुल्मम् । Rājaśekhara thinks that Vatsagulma is a city in the country of Vidarbha. This Vatsagulma may be identified with the Vaṁśagulma which is situated near the source or first fall of the river Narmadā. Cf. Mahābhārata, Vana. cha. 83. 9. But Vātsyāyana in his Kāmasūtra (5. 6.) mentions Vatsagulma and Vidarbha as two distinct countries. Cf. प्रेष्याभिः सह तद्देशाच्चागरकपुत्रान् प्रवेशयन्ति वात्सगुल्मकानाम् । ३५ । स्वैरेव पुत्रैरन्तःपुराणि कामचारैर्जननीवर्जमुपभुज्यन्ते वैदर्भकाणाम् । ३६ । This Vatsagulma of Kāmasūtra may represent the kingdom of Udayana Vatsarāja.

FOURTH ADHYĀYA 149 l. 9. संबन्धिन्यौ। Gaurī and Sarasvatī are related to each other because the daughter of Gaurī was given in marriage to the son of Sarasvatī.

• [l. 14. प्रेत्य चेह च नन्दति। Cf. स्वधर्मं संदधानो हि प्रेत्य चेह च नन्दति । (अर्थशास्त्र 1. 3.)] l. 14. Thus, he who knows the origin and development of poetical composition, feels happy both here and hereafter. Adhyāya IV. l. 17. पदवाक्यविवेकः । This subject comprises three chapters 4, 5 and 6. The fifth chapter which deals with the Kāvya- 'pāka must also be taken as a sub-division of the main subject पदवाक्यविवेक; because काव्यपाककल्प is nothing but the selection of such words and sentences as may be appropriate to the Rasa. पाठप्रतिष्ठा the subject of the seventh chapter, therefore, is mentioned after the पदवाक्यविवेक in the first chapter, while enumerating the subjects treated of in this work.
• [l. 18. बुद्धिमानाहार्यबुद्धिश्च। Cf. बुद्धिमानाहार्यबुद्धिर्दुर्बुद्धिरिति पुत्रविशेषाः । शिष्यमाणो धर्मार्थावुपलभते चानुतिष्ठति च बुद्धिमान् । उपलभमानो नानुतिष्ठत्याहार्यबुद्धिः । अपाय- नित्यो धर्मार्थद्वेषी चेति दुर्बुद्धिः । (अर्थशास्त्र. 1-17.)] l. 18. शिष्यम् । Vāmana divides poets into two classes as अरोचकि and सतृणाभ्यवहारि, and mentions only the first among the two as शिष्य or one who is fit to receive instructions. (See. Kāvya. Sūtra. 1-2.) Rājaś'ekhara follows both Vāmana and Kauṭilya in this respect and divides poets into three classes as बुद्धिमान्, आहार्यबुद्धि and दुर्बुद्धि. The first two only are stated by him as शिष्य or competent to receive instruction. Page. 11. l. 5. अन्यथावृत्तिः=quite contrary to the preceding two. प्रतिपत्तिः=right observation. A student who is intelligent hears from others but once and forthwith brings the precepts into practice. He is required to go to his teacher only for advanced studies. l. 10. सारस्वतोनुभावः=literary intelligence and activities. औपनिषदिके। The methods by which he also can get it, will be explained in the Aupaniṣadika or the last Adhikaraṇa of the

150 EXPLANATORY NOTES Kāvyamīmāṁsā. This statement also indicates that Rājaśekhara wanted to complete the work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas.

• [ l. 13. Cf. 'चित्तैकाग्र्यमवधानम्। अवहितं हि चित्तमर्थान् पश्यति।' वामनीया- लङ्कार 1. 3. 17 ]. l. 15. यद्गोचरे च विदुषां निपुणैकसेव्यम्। Construe:—विदुषां गोचरे यत् निपुणैक- सेव्यम्। The words विदुषां गोचरे refer to the subjects to be mastered by scholars. Among the subjects to be learnt by scholars, the literary secrets should be attempted only by the most clever persons. Śyāmadeva who is represented here by Rājaśekhara as laying a special stress on the doctrine of Samādhi as the main factor in poetical composition, may be identified with Śyāmilaka, the author of the Pādatāḍitakabhāṇa. For the view of Śyāmilaka on this subject, see the following verse: इदमिह पदं मा भूदेवं भवत्विदमन्यथा कृतमिदमयं ग्रन्थेनार्थो महानुपपादितः। इति मनसि यः काव्यारम्भे कवेर्भवति श्रमः सनयनजलो रोमोद्भेदः सतां तमपोहति॥ ३॥ Śyāmilaka’s Pādatāḍitaka.
• [ l. 18. Cf. अभ्यासो हि कर्मणां निरतिशयं कौशलमाधत्ते। Ibid. 1-3-24 ]. ll. 19–23. This distinction between समाधि and अभ्यास as inward and outward activities, does not appear to be quite clear. For both are mental activities according to the definitions मनस एकाग्रता and अविच्छेदेन शीलनम्. But the author seems to indicate that समाधि relates to the thinking mind while अभ्यास is constant practice. Yāyāvarīya thinks that these two faculties only strengthen the literary power or शक्ति which alone can create poetry. This power is different from प्रतिभा and व्युत्पत्ति; because they are the effects of the same power. Here Rājaśekhara follows the view of Rudraṭa. Cf. मनसि सदा सुसमाधिनि विस्फुरणमनेकधामिधेयस्य । अक्लिष्टानि पदानि च विभान्ति यस्यामसौ शक्तिः॥ ( K. A. 1-15. ) Rudraṭa differs in this respect from Daṇḍin and Vāmana both of whom hold that प्रतिभा is the chief requisite in poetical compositions. Cf. नैसर्गिकी च प्रतिभा. (Daṇḍin 1–103.) कवित्वबीजं प्रतिभानम्. (Vāmana. 1-3-16.) l. 25. प्रतिभा is another mental faculty by which those things that are not even perceived by poets are easily conceived and expressed. This is called mental perception or मानसप्रत्यक्ष.

FOURTH ADHYĀYA 151 Page. 12. *[l. 1. मेधाविरुद्र was a rhetorician too. cf. ननु दण्डिमेधाविरुद्रभामहादि- कृतानि सन्त्येवालङ्कारशास्त्राणि। नमिसाधु's commentary on Rudraṭālaṅkāra p. 2. His name occurs in भामह too.] l. 1. Both Medhāvirudra and Kumāradāsa were born blind but became great poets. Kumāradāsa is well known as the author of the Jānakīharaṇa, an excellent but long Kāvya work comprising 20 Sargas. He is said to have ruled over Ceylon and is believed to be a contemporary of Kālidāsa. Two incomplete editions of the Jānakīharaṇa have been published, one from Jaypore in 1893 and the other from Bombay in 1907. The undernoted verse also occurs in the Sūktimuktāvali regarding the poetic skill of this blind author : जानकीहरणं कर्तुं रघुवंशे स्थिते सति । कविः कुमारदासश्च रावणश्च यदि क्षमः ॥ Medhāvirudra is known from the references of Namisādhu and Bhāmaha, but more as a rhetorician than as a poet. It is also doubtful whether Medhāvirudra is the name of a single person or of two, namely Medhāvi and Rudra. The single name of Medhāvi is mentioned by Bhāmaha, while that of Rudra appears as the name of the author of the S'ṛṅgaratilaka where the author exhibits his skill as a poet. l. 2. In this sentence, the meaning of किञ्चन is doubtful because of the two constructions किंच न and किंचन. In fact, the author here makes an attempt to prove his contention with two arguments. He seeks to prove that poets endowed with प्रतिभा can mentally conceive everything that they want to describe without ever actually perceiving them. To prove this, he first points out that even those who were born blind have become excellent poets. If we take two words as किञ्च and न, the second argument will be in the form of a question: Do the poets not visualize and describe the customs and manners of the people belonging to other countries and islands without the personal knowledge of those things ?. The obvious answer is : they do so describe with the faculty of their प्रतिभा. This fact is stressed upon in the following verses taken at random from the works of Kālidāsa. If the word किंचन is taken as one word, it should be construed as an adjective to the word व्यवहृतिम्.

152 EXPLANATORY NOTES *[ l. 4. प्राणानामनिलेन (अभिज्ञानशाकुन्तल VII. 12.) ] l. 4. In this verse Kālidāsa describes the sages practising penance on the mount Hemakūṭa situated in the land of Kimpu- ruṣavarṣa which could not conceivably be seen by him from Bhāratavarṣa (see p. 92 of this work). *[ l. 8. अनेन सार्ध (रघुवंश. VI. 57.) ] l. 8. Here also Kālidāsa describes the condition of an island on the opposite side of the country of the king in question and refers to the Lavaṅga flower grown in that island. Did he actually visit the place?. *[ l. 12. हरोऽपि (कुमार. III. 67.) ] l. 12. Again, the same poet describes the conduct of Mahādeva when he falls in love with Pārvatī. Can such scenes be envisaged?. *[ l. 16. तथागतायाम् । (रघु. VI. 82.) ] l. 16. The feelings of a lady for the first time in the presence of her lover, and the behaviour of her maid servant at that time, are fully described here by the same poet, who, being a male, is not expected to know the true feelings of a female mind. Page. 13. l. 1. Three kinds of neophytes develop into three different types of poets as under :— Śiṣya Poet बुद्धिमान् = सारस्वतः । आहार्यबुद्धिः = आभ्यासिकः । दुर्बुद्धिः = औपदेशिकः । l. 4. तन्त्रशेषम् । Several efforts through the aid of Mantras and some Tāntric practices. l. 5. फाणितम् = raw sugar. l. 10. उत्कर्षः । Yāyāvarīya thinks that eminence or superiority is always preferable and that the combination of several qualities brings forth eminence. *[ l. 19. एकस्य. Read न्यस्य विदग्धवदनेषु. cf. तत्काव्यमारोप्य पदं विदग्धवक्त्रेषु विश्वं परिभ्रमतीति ॥ (रुद्र-शृङ्गारतिलक. II. 70.) ] l. 19. All MSS read न्यस्याविदग्धवदनेषु etc. If this reading is accepted the meaning of the second half would be : good poetry, while travelling, tramples upon the faces of the uncultured people with its

FOURTH ADHYĀYA 153 footsteps (words) like one eager to see the world. Here the introduction of uncultured people does not militate against the context because such men are unable to distinguish between good or bad poetry. Compare also the verse of the Śṛṅgāratilaka above quoted. A better reading as न्यस्यद्विदग्धवदनेषु, therefore, is suggested here instead of न्यस्याविदग्ध etc. l. 21. भावक is a critic or a सहृदय. l. 23. कः पुनः । There is no real difference between these two functions of कारयित्री and भावयित्री because a poet himself may be a good critic or vice versa. l. 26. भावकस्तु कविः = that poet who is himself a critic. This remark supports the contention of the Ācāryas stated in line 23. Page. 14. l. 1. Kālidāsa is here represented as refuting the view accepted by the Ācāryas. He seems to be of opinion that the critical and poetical faculties are quite distinct and are found rarely combined in one and the same person. But Rājaśekhara does not mention the place where Kālidāsa must have expressed this view. Very probably the underlying idea has been drawn from the follow- ing verse occurring in his Śākuntala. आ परितोषाद्विदुषां न जातु मन्ये प्रयोगविज्ञानम् । बलवदपि शिक्षितानामात्मन्यप्रत्ययं चेतः ॥ 1-2. From this, it appears that Kālidāsa was of opinion that poets do not feel at ease until their composition is well-received by critics. Similar expressions are also made by him in his Raghu- vaṁśa and Mālavikāgnimitra. Cf. तं सन्तः श्रोतुमर्हन्ति सदसद्व्यक्तिहेतवः । हेम्नः संलक्ष्यते ह्यग्नौ विशुद्धिः श्यामिकाऽपि वा ॥ Raghuvaṁśa 1-13. and सन्तः परीक्ष्यान्यतरद्भजन्ते मूढः परप्रत्ययनेयबुद्धिः । Mālavikāgnimitra. I. l. 3. This verse also strengthens the view that these two faculties of composition and criticism seldom combine in one person.

• [l. 7. Two verses of मङ्गल are quoted in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत— यदाख्यानात्सङ्गादुपसि पुनते वाचमृषयो यदीयः संकल्पो हृदि सुकृतिनामेव रमते । स सार्वः सर्वज्ञः पथि निरपवादे कृतपदो जिनो जन्तूनुच्चैः दमयतु भवावर्तपतितान् ॥ निष्किञ्चनत्वाद्विधुरस्य साधोरभ्यर्थितस्यार्थिजनस्य किञ्चित् । नास्तीति वर्णा मनसि भ्रमन्तो निर्गन्तुमिच्छन्त्यसुभिः सहैव ॥ 5–290. २०

154 EXPLANATORY NOTES अरोचकिनः सतृणाभ्यवहारिणश्च etc. Cf. अरोचकिनः सतृणाभ्यवहारिणश्च कवयः ॥ १ ॥ इह खलु द्वये कवयः संभवन्ति । अरोचकिनः सतृणाभ्यवहारिणश्चेति । अरोचकिसतृणाभ्यवहारिशब्दौ गौणार्थौ । कोऽसावर्थः । विवे- क्तित्वमविवेकित्वं चेति । यदाह— पूर्वे शिष्या विवेकित्वात् ॥ २ ॥ पूर्वे खलु अरोचकिनः शिष्याः शासनीयाः । विवेकित्वात् विवेचनशीलत्वात् । नेतरे तद्विपर्ययात् ॥ ३ ॥ इतरे सतृणाभ्यवहारिणः न शिष्याः । तद्विपर्ययात् । अविवेचन- शीलत्वात् । नच शीलमपाकर्तुं शक्यम् । ( वामनालङ्कार 1. 2. 3 ) ] l. 7. The Bhāvakas or critics are divided into two distinct classes by Maṅgala as अरोचकि and सतृणाभ्यवहारि. In Vāmana's Kāvyā- laṅkārasūtra, the same division is found with reference to poets but not critics. It may be surmised from this statemant of Rājaśekhara : “कवयोऽपि भवन्ति । इति वामनीयाः” that Maṅgala was earlier than Vāmana (cir. 800 A. D.). ll. 10–17. Yāyāvarīya disagrees with the contention of Vāmana regarding the division of poets, and sticks to his original classification given in the beginning of the chapter as बुद्धिमानाहार्यबुद्धि etc. He advances two important arguments in rejecting Vāmana's classification of poets. Firstly, that if the qua- lity of अरोचकिता is inherent from birth it cannot be changed by human effort. Secondly, that if it springs through the medium of the knowledge of reality, it is not likely to take effect when a good piece of poetry is placed before him. Similarly, the other quality of सतृणाभ्यवहारिता is common to all in the beginning, but it disappears when one begins to discriminate the best from the worst by virtue of deeper study. l. 20. Scholarship without jealousy is a rare virtue. It is a truism and with this the author feintly hints at Bāṇa who in his Harṣacarita 6th Ucchvāsa writes as follows:— कपिरचपलः कविरमत्सरः वणिगतस्करः + + + × × राजसूनुरदुर्विनीतकश्च जगति दुर्लभः । Page. 15. l. 4. This line must be construed as :— भावकः कवेः यन्न भवति तत् किम् । ही चित्रम् । . l. 5. Cf. किं कवेस्तस्य काव्येन सर्ववृत्तान्तगामिनी । कथेव भारती यस्य न व्याप्नोति जगत्त्रयम् ॥ Harṣacarita 1–10. *[ l. 7. Cf. सत्यं सन्ति गृहे गृहे सुकवयो ( शृङ्गारतिलक. 1–17 ) ].

FIFTH ADHYĀYA 155 l. 7. Bāṇa has expressed a similar sentiment in the following verse :— सन्ति श्वान इवासङ्ख्या जातिभाजो गृहे गृहे । उत्पादका न बहवः कवयः शरभा इव ॥ Harṣacarita 1-6. *[ l. 10. सर्वाभिनयनिर्णीतौ दृष्टा नाट्यसृजा न याः । नाट्यसृजा । ब्रह्मणा । नाट्याख्यं पञ्चमं वेदं सेतिहासं करोम्यहम् । ( नाट्यशास्त्र. 1-15 ) ]. l. 10. Construe as:— याः सर्वाभिनयनिर्णीतौ नाट्यसृजा न दृष्टाः ताः विक्रियाः उल्लसन्ति । l. 11. वाग्भावकः and हृदयभावकः । Some critics seem to appreciate poetry and express their appreciation while others appreciate at heart but do not express. Some scholars, however, are inclined to interpret the sense of these two terms in a somewhat different manner. The Vāgbhāvakas are those who are apt to lay much stress on the words of poetry, while the Hṛdayabhāvakas are disposed to lay an emphasis on the essence of poetry. l. 14. Some critics, while going through a poem, discover simultaneously the existence of qualities that are to be praised and the non-existence of the blemishes to be condemned. l. 18. सात्मानम् । This should be separately read in prose as : सः आत्मानम् । For similar usages refer to सैष दाशरथी रामः and सैष शिष्यहिताय नः । l. 21. All MSS. read पदान्तरम् । But यदा is here suggested as it is followed by तदा in the next half. The general purport of the whole chapter is stated in this verse. l. 23. It has already been said that the two qualities of प्रतिभा and व्युत्पत्ति, essential for poetical excellence, arise from the S'akti or the power of imagination with which only a few are blessed. प्रतिभा has been discussed in this chapter while व्युत्पत्ति will follow in the next. Adhyāya V. Page. 16. ll. 2–5. बहुज्ञता । Ācāryas define व्युत्पत्ति as बहुज्ञता. Here the word बहु or ‘many’ represents the subjects such as लोकविद्याप्रकीर्णक etc., a knowledge of which is imperative on a poet who makes an attempt at writing poetry. A list of these subjects, probably for