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

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

156 EXPLANATORY NOTES the first time, is given by Vāmana in his Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra. (1. 3. 1-20.) The knowledge of these subjects is known as Vyut- patti and is an essential factor in the composition of poetry. This has been acknowledged by such early writers on poetics as Daṇḍin, Vāmana and others. (See Kāvyādarśa 1–103, and Kāvyā- laṅkārasūtra 1-3-1.) Abhinavagupta, however, holds a different view regarding the definition of Vyutpatti. He says in his Locana (p. 137. N. S. ed.) समस्तवस्तुपौर्वापर्यपरामर्शकौशलं व्युत्पत्तिः । While Mammaṭa defines this Vyutpatti as निपुणता, he does not add any further explanation. Rājaśekhara, however, differs from the Ācāryas, and is inclined to take the subjects लोक, विद्या, प्रकीर्णक etc., as the source of काव्यार्थ or the theme of poetry but not the cause of poetry itself. (See chapter 8th of this work). While defining Vyutpatti he follows Rudraṭa and characterises it as उचितानुचितविवेकः । Cf. छन्दोव्याकरणकलालोकस्थितिपदपदार्थविज्ञानात् । युक्तायुक्तविवेको व्युत्पत्तिरियं समासेन ॥ Rudraṭa 1. 18. In the works of Ānandavardhana and Abhinavagupta the definition of Vyutpatti is similar to that of Rudraṭa. (See Dhvanyāloka p. 137) According to Rājaśekhara, therefore, the faculty of discrimination which is effected by the study of छन्दो- व्याकरण etc, is known as Vyutpatti.

• [ll. 6—10. आनन्द is आनन्दवर्धन the author of ध्वन्यालोक. ध्वनिनाऽतिगभीरेण काव्यतत्त्वनिवेशिना । आनन्दवर्धनः कस्य नासीदानन्दवर्धनः ॥ ( राजशेखरस्य ) Cf. द्विविधो हि दोषः कवेरव्युत्पत्तिकृतोऽशक्तिकृतश्च । तत्राव्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शक्तितिरस्कृ- • तत्वात्कदाचिन्न लक्ष्यते । यस्त्वशक्तिकृतो दोषः स झटिति प्रतीयते । परिकरश्लोकश्चात्र :— अव्युत्पत्तिकृतो दोषः शक्त्या संव्रियते कवेः । यस्त्वशक्तिकृतस्तस्य स झटित्यवभासते ॥ ( ध्वन्यालोक. तृतीयोद्योत. ) This verse is quoted by Hemacandra in his काव्यानुशासनविवेक. ] ll. 6-14. In order to decide the superiority among these two factors: Pratibhā and Vyutpatti, Rājaśekhara quotes here the views held by two earlier writers Ānandavardhana and Maṅgala on

FIFTH ADHYĀYA 157 the same question. Ānandavardhana records his view on this question in his Dhvanyālokā (pp. 137 and 147). He holds that Pratibhā is more important to a poet than Vyutpatti and proves his contention by citing an instance from the Kumārasambhava, where Kālidāsa des- cribes the amorous sports of Pārvatī and Śiva. This description, he seems to think, is improper and is the result of the poet's want of Vyutpatti, but the propriety of this portion has been maintained admirably by poet's Pratibhā or genius (Śakti). Here, it may be noted that Ānandavardhana uses the word Śakti to mean Pratibhā while Rājaśekhara limits the use of Śakti to denote the cause of Pratibhā. (See page 11. l. 22) In support of this view of Ānanda- vardhana, Rājaśekhara cites another instance by a verse एतत्कि etc. Here, impropriety due to want of Vyutpatti, may be discovered because the son Kārtikeya is said to have asked his mother Pārvatī certain questions regarding his father when he had the quarters as his garments (दिगम्बर). This impropriety does not find full ex- pression owing to the Pratibhā of the poet who concludes the topic by saying that the Devī smiled and stopped her son from asking further questions of an improper nature, thus diverting the attention of the reader. ll. 15–22. Maṅgala, another expert on poetics, however, held a different view which made Vyutpatti more important than Pratibhā for a poet. Here all the MSS. read: वैदग्धीचित्तचित्तानाम् । The word वित्त or चित्र may be read in the place of चित्त. If this suggestion is accepted, the passage will mean that the readers, while appreciating a poet's वैदग्धीवित्त or चित्र which is the effect of his Vyutpatti, do not care much for his want of erudition in शब्दार्थ- गुम्फना which depends on his Pratibhā. This view is illustrated by means of the verse: कृतः कण्ठे निष्को नहि etc. In this verse the poet exhibits his power of discrimination or Vyutpatti when he states that a lady removes heavy ornaments, dress, etc. from her body but puts on a light neglige' in silk when directly she engages herself in amorous sports. This descriptive skill arises out of the poet's Vyutpatti which is the result of his study of the Kāmasūtra (4. 1.) where we meet with the following passages : बहुभूषणं विविधकुसुमानुलेपनं विविधाङ्गरागसमुज्ज्वलं वास इत्याभिगामिको वेषः ॥ २४ ॥

158 EXPLANATORY NOTES प्रतनुश्लक्ष्णालपदुकूलता परिमितमाभरणं सुगन्धिता नात्युल्बणमनुलेपनं तथा शुक्लान्यन्यानि पुष्पाणीति वैहारिको वेषः ॥ २५ ॥ In this verse readers appreciate the Vyutpatti of the poet and do not denounce him for his lack of Pratibhā or शब्दार्थगुम्फना । Page. 17.

• [ l. 1. जङ्घाकाण्डो also in काव्यप्रकाश VII. ] ll. 1-4. In this verse, the poet has exhibited both Pratibhā and Vyutpatti, and Rājaśekhara thinks that the poet who possesses both the faculties, is the best. Here, the poet's Vyutpatti of Nāṭya can be discovered by referring to the definition of Daṇḍa- pāda, a kind of dancing described in the Nāṭyaśāstra and the Saṅgītaratnākara. cf. Nāṭyaśāstra-( G.O.S. No. 36. ) नूपुरं चरणं कृत्वा दण्डपादं प्रसारयेत् । क्षिप्ताविद्धकरं चैव दण्डपादं तदुच्यते ॥ and 4-143. चारी नूपुरपादोऽथ दण्डपादाहृतः करः । दण्डवच्च्यस्यते यत्र दण्डपादं तदुच्यते ॥ सूरयो विनियुञ्जन्ति तत्साटोपपरिक्रमे ॥ Saṅgītaratnākara 7-711. The Pratibhā of the poet also is well exhibited here by his excellent description of the dance of the Devī in the most appropriate words.
• [ l. 20. लोलल्लाङ्गूल also in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. Read मालंध्योत्ताल. ] ll. 20-24. Bhojadeva quoted this verse in his Sarasvatī- kaṇṭhābharaṇa ( 2-69 ) to illustrate पदरचना. How the poet here zealously observes the methods of रचना may be gathered from the remarks of Bhojadeva : अधिकानामपुष्टार्थानामपि पदानामनुप्रासाय छन्दःपूरणाय चार्थानुगुण्येन रचितत्वादियं पदरचना । l. 25. In this verse, the author illustrates the skill of a poet in composing complete sentences only with nouns without using any verb. Page. 18. *[l. 11. देवी पुत्रमसूत attributed to योगेश्वर in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत; also in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. ]

FIFTH ADHYĀYA 159 l. 11. The verse देवी पुत्रमसूत etc. is quoted by Bhojadeva in his Sarasvatīkaṇṭhābharaṇa (4–176). This verse is also found in the Sūktimuktāvalī and is attributed to Trivikramabhaṭṭa. Bhoja finds in this verse a variety of Parikarālaṅkāra while Rājaśekhara quotes this verse to illustrate an Arthakavi. ll. 15–19. In this verse न प्राप्तम् etc. यमकशब्दालङ्कार is illustrated by repetition of two words विषभरणम् and भागीरथ्याम् in two different senses. In the verse भ्रान्त etc. रूपकालङ्कार is illustrated. *[ l. 21. Read as स्तनतटपरिणाहो दोर्लतालेह्यसीमा । प्रतीच्छत्याशोकी also in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण ]. l. 20–25. Here उक्ति indicates a beautiful presentation of certain ideas. For an attractive presentation, poets must make use of the quality or गुण known as Samādhi. This is considered by Daṇḍin as the most important among the Guṇas. cf. तदेतत्काव्यसर्वस्वं समाधिर्नाम यो गुणः । कविसार्थः समग्रोऽपि तमेनमुपजीवति ॥ Kāvyādarśa. 1–100. The two verses quoted here to illustrate an उक्तिकवि indicate that समाधि is the chief factor in उक्ति. Samādhi has been defined by Daṇḍin, Bhoja and others as अन्यधर्मस्यान्यत्रारोपणम् । Bhoja, in the second verse प्रतीच्छति etc. illustrates Samādhi. In these two verses such words as लाघ्य, लेह्य, निपेय and प्रतीच्छति, अनुवदति, अवतरति, denote the quality known as Samādhi. Page. 19. *[ ll. 3. 7. मूलं वालक. (विद्धशालभञ्जिका IV. 5.) ] l. 3. In this verse, the skill of a Rasakavi is illustrated. Here, a poet describes the beauty of the river Tāmraparṇī and its water which transforms itself into pearls and adorns the breasts of beautiful ladies. The poet thereby gives vent to his inner feeling of S'ṛṅgāra. l. 7. मार्गकविः । The word ‘Mārga’ denotes here the Rītis वैदर्भी, गौडी etc. See Daṇḍin 1. 40. This verse represents the Vaidarbhī style which has been acknowledged by early writers as the best. *[ l. 11 आत्माराम। वेणीसंहार. 1–23. ] l. 22. पौरस्त्यानाम् । The Gauḍas are generally called Paurastyas and their छाया or style is known as the Gauḍīyā style. Daṇḍin

160 EXPLANATORY NOTES in his Kāvyādarśa uses this word पौरस्त्य to represent the Gauḍas and calls their Rīti as गौडीया. (see 1-50.) l. 23. प्रबध्नाति=author of a Mahākāvya. l. 24. अन्यतर=Saṁskṛta or one of the Prākṛta dialects. Page. 20. *[ ll. 5.-6. cf. सुपां तिङां च व्युत्पत्तिं वाचं वाञ्छन्त्यलङ्कृतिम् । तदेतदाहुः सौशब्द्यं नार्थव्युत्पत्तिरीदृशी ॥ (भामह. 1-14). व्युत्पत्तिः सुप्तिङां या तु प्रोच्यते सा सुशब्दता । सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण I. आवापोद्धरणे and यत्पदानि (वामन 1-3-15); सति वक्तरि (Ibid. 1-2-11). For the text of वामनीयालङ्कार the commentator सहदेव says as under:— वेदिता सर्वशास्त्राणां भट्टोऽभून्मुकुलाभिधः । लब्ध्वा कुतश्चिदादर्शं भ्रष्टानायं समुद्धृतम् ॥ काव्यालङ्कारशास्त्रं यत्तेनैतद्रामनोदितम् । असूया तन्न कर्तव्या विशेषालोकिभिः क्वचित् ॥ आकर्ण्य भवतस्तस्मादयितस्य विधीयते । विवृतिः सहदेवेन वामनीयस्य सम्प्रति ॥ pp. 20-21. For सहकारपाक and वृन्ताकपाक cf. वामन (3-2-14). गुणस्फुटत्वसाकल्ये काव्यपाकं प्रचक्षते । चूतस्य परिणामेन स चायमुपमीयते ॥ सुसिद्धसंस्कारसारं यत्क्लिष्टवस्तुगुणं भवेत् । काव्यं वृन्ताकपाकं स्याज्जुगुप्सन्ते जनास्ततः ॥ p. 21. l. 4. कुकविना हि सोच्छ्वासं मरणम् । cf. कुकवित्वं पुनः साक्षान्मृतिमाहुर्मनीषिणः । भामह 1-12. For कपित्थपाक cf. अदृष्टमसुनिर्मेदं रसवत्स्वेऽप्यपेशलम् । काव्यं कपित्थपाकं तत् केषांचित्सदृशं यथा ॥ (भामह V-62). ] ll. 4-23. In three chapters 4-6, the author treats of पदवाक्यविवेक and other subjects connected with it. Thus, naturally the topic of पाकप्रतिष्ठा which is subordinate to the main subject of पदवाक्यविवेक is introduced in the 5th chapter. After discussing the nature of Pratibhā, Vyutpatti, and classification of poets, the author starts a discussion in order to determine the nature of the Kāvyapāka, and records the opinions of earlier authorities on that point. Pāka in poetry means 'maturity' and it originates from the constant practice of composing poems. Maṅgala is of opinion that this maturity consists in the knowledge of nouns and verbs, obtained by constant hearing, and that this kind of knowledge is also called Vyutpatti. The Ācāryas differ from

SIXTH ADHYĀYA 161 Maṅgala and define Pāka as the competency of a poet to selcot suitable words and to put them in appropriate places. This view of the Ācāryas is also referred to and, as Rājaśekhara states, rejected by Vāmana in his Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra (1-3-15) where he calls this faculty of poets as अवेक्षण. To him शब्दपाक is something different and he defines this in the verse यत्पदानि etc. (Ibid. 1-3-15). Avantisundarī ridicules this view of the Vāmanīyas, but extends the sphere of Pāka further to include the propriety of Guṇa, Alaṅkāra, Rīti, ideas, words and their senses in consonance with the Rasas. Rājaśekhara definitely favours the view of Avantisundarī and quotes a well-known verse in its support. This verse सति वक्तरि etc. is also quoted by Vāmana in order to prove the superiority of the Vaidarbhī style, but not to characterise Pāka. This very Pāka has been designated by Ānandavardhana and Kṣemendra by the term of औचित्य or "propriety" in their works. (See Dhvani. p. 145, and Aucityavicāracarcā. 1-3.) Vāmana's definition of Kāvyapāka is given in the following verse:— गुणस्फुटत्वसाकल्ये काव्यपाकं प्रचक्षते । चूतस्य परिणामेन स चायमुपमीयते ॥ (see 3-2-14.) Page. 21. ll. 3-9. Altogether nine varieties of Pāka are recognized and these may be classified under the following three heads:— High. Middling. Low. मृद्वीकापाकः बदरपाकः पिचुमन्दपाकः सहकारपाकः तिन्तिडिकापाकः वार्त्ताकपाकः नालिकेरपाकः त्रपुसपाकः क्रमुकपाकः Generally, later writers on poetics recognize only two Pākas मृद्वीका and नालिकेर as the best, and again, among the two the former as superior to the latter. Adhyāya. VI. l. 16. पदवाक्यविवेकः । In this chapter, the author explains the nature of words and sentences and shows how they constitute poetry. Both these topics relate to the main subject of पदवाक्यविवेक. In the two previous chapters, the faculty by which good words and sentences are distinguished from bad ones has been dealt with. २१

162 EXPLANATORY NOTES l. 17. व्याकरणस्मृति। Grammar also is considered as one of the Smṛtis because the grammarians distinguish the correct words from their incorrect forms with the help of memory; and also because they think that by using correct words merit is obtained in the next world. As grammar is regarded one of the Smṛtis from very early times, Jaimini also discussed its validity on Dharma in his chapter on Smṛtis पू. मी. 1. 3. (see Kumārila's Tantravārtika on Jaimini 1-3-25 and the Paspaśāhnika of Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya.) निरुक्तनिघण्टू । Etymological derivation and interpretation of the words are called निरुक्त. निघण्टु is a glossary of words. शब्दः । Words are of two kinds, namely, वैदिक and लौकिक. l. 18. तौ पदम् । According to the Naiyāyikas पद is a word with a meaning while grammarians consider it as सुप्तिङन्तम् । वृत्ति means प्रवृत्ति (शब्दप्रवृत्ति); and five kinds of Vṛtti are recognized. l. 22. असत्त्ववचनाः=अद्रव्यवचनाः लिङ्गसंख्याकारकानन्वयिनः । This includes also चादि which is known as निपात or अव्यय. अव्यय is defined thus:— सदृशं त्रिषु लिङ्गेषु सर्वासु च विभक्तिषु । वचनेषु च सर्वेषु यन्न व्येति तदव्ययम् ॥ l. 23. कर्मप्रवचनीयाः । This term applies to certain words in the प्रादि group. As these words are responsible for certain peculiarities in the construction of sentences, they are grouped separately. For the term of Karmapravacanīya see Pāṇini 1-4-83. Page. 22. *[l. 3. द्वन्द्वोऽस्मि is attributed to Bhaṭṭamuktikalaśa in the Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa 5th Samdhi. ] ˙l. 3. The object in quoting this verse द्वन्द्वोऽस्मि is two-fold; first, to name the six compounds in one verse and secondly, to compose a humorous sentence with the help of the names of these compounds. This verse is attributed by Kṣemendra to Bhaṭṭa- muktikalaśa who is also known as the great-grand-father of the poet Bilhaṇa the author of the Vikramāṅkadevacarita (See. 18. 75). The reading of this verse in the Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa is as follows: द्विगुरपि सन्द्वन्द्वोऽहं गृहे च, etc. The reading preferred here:

SIXTH ADHYĀYA 163 द्वन्द्वोऽस्मि द्विगुरस्मि च गृहे न मे etc. is from the B. Ms. and the meaning of the verse will be this:—The house-holder says that though his family consists only of two members and a couple of cows, there is no reduction in household expenditure; he asks his servant, therefore, to work more in order that his labour may enrich him with a good quantity of paddy. This idea is not brought out by any other reading of this verse now available. *[ l. 12. Cf. एवं हि श्रूयते-बृहस्पतिरिन्द्राय दिव्यं वर्षसहस्रं प्रतिपदोक्तानां शब्दानां शब्दपारायणं प्रोवाच। नान्तं जगाम। बृहस्पतिश्च प्रवक्ता। इन्द्रश्चाध्येता। दिव्यं वर्षसहस्रमध्ययनकालः। न चान्तं जगाम। प्रियतद्धिता दाक्षिणात्याः ( महाभाष्य-पस्पशा ) ]. l. 17. तेषाम etc.—These five kinds of words, when used in constructions according to special rules for their application, enrich the sentence. Here and in the next verse the word आख्यात denotes a sentence and it is not used in its usual signification of a verb. ll. 21–25. Here, the author defines वाक्य or sentence which according to him is an arrangement of words capable of conveying to others the desire of the composer. The followers of Udbhaṭa are of opinion that sentences have three distinct functions in expressing their meanings. These three functions, interconnect the meanings of words or पदार्थ and this connection is known as वाक्यार्थ. The connecting links of the words are supplied by the case- terminations or विभक्तिs which are either present, or absent at the end of the words as required by Samāsa rules. उपपदविभक्ति is a case- ending which is due to the presence of another noun; such as the चतुर्थी, due to the combination of nouns नमः स्वस्ति etc. कारकविभक्ति is a case-ending which has direct connection only with the verb. *[ l. 26. नमस्तस्मै. No. 7. of the सुभाषितावलि ]. Page. 23. l. 1. The power, inherent in the words without case-endings as in a compound, to express the sense of the omitted case-termi- nations etc. is what is called here the S'akti. In this verse, there are six words in the बहुव्रीहि compound and they retain the power of expressing अन्यपदार्थ with the meaning of one or the other of the six case-endings from द्वितीया to सप्तमी. e. g. वित्रस्ताः शत्रवः यस्मात् । स्पृहयालुः लोकः यस्मै । प्रपन्नाः सामन्ताः यम् । l. 5. In this verse also, the connecting case-terminations of the words कण्ठ, दोलायित etc. are supplied by the same words which retain

164 EXPLANATORY NOTES the power to express the meaning of the case-endings though they are absent in compound forms. ll. 17–24. मन्थगिराम्=the noise produced by the churning of the sea. This variety of अनेकाख्यात is called सान्तर because verbs are here interrupted by nouns. The other variety known as निरन्तर is so called because verbs are not so interrupted. The root of the verb सरस्यसि in line 23 is not found in the धातुपाठ of Pāṇini. It may be, therefore, read as समस्यसि. ll. 25–27. Bhojadeva in his S'r̥ṅgāraprakāśa ( 3rd prakāśa ) states the same ten-fold division of sentences as found here and illustrates the different varieties with the same verses as are quoted here. He also enters into a very lengthy discussion which is mainly based on the two views held by the Ācāryas and Yāyāvarīya as stated here. The Ācāryas maintain that अनेकाख्यातवाक्य cannot be considered as one sentence when it includes several verbs, because one verb connecting some nouns constitutes a complete sentence. After advancing this view of the Ācāryas along with several authorities from Vararuci's Vārttika, Bhoja, following in the foot- steps of Pāṇini and Patañjali, up-held the view of Yāyāvarīya as correct and denounced the view of the Ācāryas based on Vararuci's theory. Yāyāvarīya holds that there may be one sentence with many verbs provided that all of them are connected with nouns, and provided that the import of the sentence is one. Cf. S'r̥ṅgāraprakāśa :— ननु च निरन्तराख्यातं समुच्चिताख्यातमेकार्थाख्यातमावृत्ताख्यातमित्यादयो वाक्यविकल्पा नोपपद्यन्ते । वाक्यकारो हि मन्यते नास्त्येव तिङन्तयोः संबन्धः । तथा च तिङतिङः इत्यत्रातिङ्वचन- मनर्थकम् । समानवाक्याधिकारात् । इत्यतिङ्वचनं प्रत्याचष्टे । नह्येकत्र वाक्ये द्वे तिङन्ते स्त इति । एवं च वाक्यलक्षणं करोति—आख्यातं साव्ययकारकविशेषणम् । After advancing this theory with several authorities, Bhoja- deva concludes thus :— तदेषं सूत्रकारस्य भाष्यकारस्य च दर्शनेऽस्ति क्रियायाः क्रियान्तरेण संबन्धः । वार्त्तिककारस्तु युष्मदस्मदादेशनिघाताद्यर्थमाख्यातं साव्ययकारकविशेषणं वाक्यम् एकतिङ्ङवयवमित्यन्यदेव लौकिका- त्पारिभाषिकं वाक्यलक्षणमारभते । न च तेन लौकिको व्यवहारः सिद्धयतीत्युपेक्ष्यते । तदुक्तम्— निघातादिव्यवस्थार्थं शास्त्रे यत्पारिभाषिकम् । साकाङ्क्षावयवं तेन न सर्वं तुल्यलक्षणम् ॥ Page. 24. l. 2. Cf. Ibid—जयन्ति मृगलोचनाचलदपाहृतह्रिकमाः ।

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

166 EXPLANATORY NOTES taught to any one because they contain several untrue statements; secondly, because they encourage immoral practices; and thirdly, because they give teachings on indecent practices. In support of these three arguments they quoted several examples from the Kāvyas. Rājaśekhara refuted all these hostile views on the Kāvya and proved that the study of Kāvya is irreproachable in every way because of its special merits. Page. 25 ll. 1-4. स्लेमः=moisture. Here the poet has employed the figure of speech known as अतिशयोक्ति in describing the fame of a king. ll. 5-9. Here also अतिशयोक्ति is employed in describing the army of a king. The word पातालतालु is also used by Vāmana. (See Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra 1-3-23.) ll. 10-14. The words वाचाल and तुङ्ग are used here to indicate the imperfection of वार्ता and पुराण in stating real facts. The word अव्याहतं should be pronounced with the काकु (intonation) which indicates interrogation. l. 15. The reading in this line is defective in all MSS. It may be emended as:— नासत्यमस्ति किञ्चन काव्ये स्तुत्यर्थमर्थवादोऽयम् । *[l. 17. पुष्पिण्यौ. ऐतरेयब्राह्मण 7-15-2. (33-3) शतपथब्राह्मण. 15-19. ] l. 17. This ṛk occurs in the शौनःशेपाख्यान where Indra advises Rohita, the son of Hariścandra to wander again in the jungle, and this the boy actually did. This ṛk is in eulogy of the wanderer. शेरे=शेरते । प्रपथे=प्रकृष्टे तीर्थक्षेत्रादिमार्गे । Here wandering is praised in order that Rohita may be tempted to accept this novel career. It is, therefore, called प्रशंसार्थवाद which may contain untrue statements also. ll. 19-22. This is also another प्रशंसार्थवाद which praises grammar as superior even to Vedas. In this connection the Vedic view of Arthavāda is noteworthy. Vedic scholars are inclined to think that the chief object of अर्थवाद is only to praise the action prescribed in the form of विधि or निषेध in order to attract the performer; and,

SIXTH ADHYĀYA 167 therefore, it does not matter if the Arthavāda contained some untrue statements also. ll. 23-24. This verse is quoted by Patañjali in his Mahā- bhāṣya (Paspaśānhika) to show the utility of studying grammar. The commentator Kaiyaṭa, however, attributes the authorship of this verse to Kātyāyana. cf. कात्यायनोपनिबद्धभ्राजाख्यश्लोक- मध्यपतितस्य तस्य श्रुतिरनुग्राहिकाऽस्ति । 'एकः शब्दः सम्यग् ज्ञातः सुु प्रयुक्तः स्वर्गे लोके कामधुग्भवति' इति । *[ pp. 25-26. l. 16. From महाभाष्य पस्पशा. ] Page. 26. ll. 1-16. All these lines are quoted here from the Mahābhāṣya of Patañjali, under the name Gonardīya. Here, it is said that one who speaks in words, which are grammatically correct, enjoys success in the next world, while the other whose speech is un- grammatical is contaminated or polluted. The sentence विषम उपन्यासः which is found in the Mahābhāṣya after the words अज्ञानं तस्य शरणम्, is omitted here. In the verse यदुदुम्बरवर्णानां, etc. a question is asked: If ordinarily wine cannot bring heaven to those who drink it, how can it do so when drunk in Sautrāmaṇīyāga? This is one of the arguments advanced by atheists to challenge the testimony of the orthodox. Read प्रमत्तगीत एषः । तत्रभवतो. ll. 17-18. *[ गुणानुराग. also in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. ] Also quoted in S'rṅgāraprakāśa. l. 19. On moral grounds also the Kāvya is injurious and should be discarded. l. 20. Read डिभांस्तरुणिमनि. This verse is attributed to Vijjākā in the Saduktikarṇāmṛta, and it is also recorded in the Subhāṣita- bhāṇḍāgāra under the heading of असतीचरित. The reading in the 3rd पाद also is found there as अनेनैकपतिना which is better fitted than the reading अमार्गेण किमिदम् found in the text. l. 25. A similar explanation is given by Vātsyāyana while concluding the chapter on पारदारिकाधिकरण of the Kāmasūtra where immoral practices are described. cf. संदृश्य शास्त्रतो योगान् पारदारिकलक्षितान् । न याति छलनां कश्चित् स्वदारान् प्रति शास्त्रवित् ॥ ५० ॥

168 EXPLANATORY NOTES पाक्षिकत्वात्प्रयोगाणामपायानाञ्च दर्शनात् । धर्मार्थयोश्च वैलोम्यान्नाचरेत्पारदारिकम् ॥ ५१ ॥ तदेतद्दारगुप्त्यर्थमारब्धं श्रेयसे नृणाम् । प्रजानां दूषणायैव न विधेयो ह्ययं विधिः ॥ ५२ ॥ Kāmasūtra, 5. 6. 2. Page. 27. *[ काव्यमध्येयो. No. 171 of शार्ङ्गधरपद्धति । ख्याता. No. 161 of सुभाषितावलि, attributed to भट्टगोविन्दस्वामी । cf. महीपतेः सन्ति न यस्य पार्श्वे कवीश्वरास्तस्य कुतो यशांसि । भूपाः कियन्तो न बभूवुरुर्व्यां नामापि जानाति न कोपि तेषाम् ॥ विक्रमाङ्कचरित्र 1–26] ll. 3–4. In addition to this, the statements of Daṇḍin ( Kāvyādarśa 1-5 ) Bhāmaha ( 1, 6–8 ) and Rudraṭa ( 1, 4–13 ) may be noted. l. 19. प्रग्रीवः=window. ll. 27–28. Yāyāvarīya holds that if this kind of description is a taboo in the Kāvyas, the objection will hold good even in the case of the Vedas and the S'āstras the study of which in conse- quence should be abandoned. Page. 28. *[ l. 2. उपोप मे परा॑मृश॒ मा मे॑ द॑भ्राणि॑ मन्यथाः । सर्वा॒हम॑स्मि रोम॒शा ग॒न्धारी॑णामिवावि॒का ॥ ऋग्वेद, २. १. ११. ७. निरुक्त ३. ४. ३. ] l. 4. S'ṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhoja reads प्रकामधवलं यस्याः instead of यस्याः प्रसङ्गधवलम् । Adhyāya VII. l. 10. पाठप्रतिष्ठा or settling the reading is taken up after the पदवाक्यविवेक according to the list of subjects given in the first chapter. This order seems logical inasmuch as instructions on the reading of sentences are given after indicating their nature in previous chapters.

SEVENTH ADHYĀYA 169 ll. 11–17. Sentences are again classified here according to the sect to which the speaker belongs, such as the ब्राह्म or शैव or वैष्णव. This classification should be known by the reader as it is a part of his education. Rājaśekhara, in writing this chapter, seems to have drawn his information mainly from the Vāyupurāṇa. Bāṇa, in his Harṣacarita and Kādambarī mentions this Purāṇa, and the Sārasvateya cult which is inculcated in the Harṣacarita and the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, is chiefly derived from the same Purāṇa. Rājaśekhara in his description of the five kinds of speech also seems to be indebted to the Vāyu and other Purāṇas. This group is named as Brāhma and is divided into five classes: स्वायंभुव, ऐश्वर, आर्ष, आर्षिक and आर्षिपुत्रक. This classification actually appears in the Vāyupurāṇa (chapter 59), though the definitions and illustrations of these five kinds of speech are not found in it. Through this classification, Rājaśekhara seeks to trace the origin and develop- ment of human speech. ll. 19–23. Here two kinds of speech स्वायंभुव and ऐश्वर are differ- entiated. The first is स्वायंभुव or the primitive speech in which neither the ideas follow in their logical sequence, nor the language appears to be refined, though it is able to express all objects, and even go so far as to describe the methods leading to salvation. Svayambhū is supposed to be the originator of two kinds of speech, one in the form of the Vedas is the earlier, while the other known as स्वायम्भुव or the primitive speech is the later. The ऐश्वर speech is more refined than the स्वायंभुव and in it both the logical sequence and skill in composition are noticeable. Page 29. l. 1. The next stage of development is represented by the speech attributed to the Ṛṣis. In this speech sentences have more nouns and case-terminations than those previously described, and their import finds a ready expression. But this speech is invaria- bly connected with some Mantras. l. 3. The next stage in linguistic development is represented by the speech of the Ṛṣikas in which there is a great volume of short sentences full of Nipātas without any case-terminations. But in this speech there is frequent use of words found only in the Vedas. l. 5 The fifth or the last stage is represented by the speech २२

170 EXPLANATORY NOTES attributed to the Ṛṣiputras. This is difficult inasmuch as there are words which cannot be definitely separated, and therefore, the import of the sentences becomes doubtful, thus making their meanings obscure. In this speech, there may be frequent use of Yamaka, Anuprāsa and other S'abdacitras, S'leṣa, etc. ll. 8–15. After explaining the different stages of human speech, Rājaśekhara proceeds to characterise the various grades of development in divine speech which seem to be purely imaginary and fanciful. The creator in the beginning of creation taught a language to his 64 disciples Brahmā and others, and this speech was known as the Pārameśvara or Divya. This speech was adopted by the different grades of divine beings and practised according to their capabilities. The Piśācas and Apsarasas are represented to be using the Divya language in their lands, but they are nevertheless allowed in the Sanskrit drama the use of two other languages namely, the भूतभाषा and the प्राकृतभाषा respectively. l. 16. The original language दिव्य or पारमेश्वर which is spoken by divine beings is divided into four different classes, representing the four styles of writing: वैध्रुव, etc. Yoginīs are probably the female attendants of S'iva or Durgā and their language is here represented by the word योगिनीगत. The female magicians, such as Kāmandakī, Kapālakuṇḍalā etc. described, for instance, in the Mālatīmādhava may also be represented by the word Yoginī. It is, however, noteworthy that these four speeches generally resemble the four Rītis वैदर्भी, गौडीया, पाञ्चाली and लाटीया respectively. *[ l. 20. यच्चन्द्र. found in सदुक्तिकर्णामृत and सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. ] Page. 30. l. 15. योगीन्द्रदर्पण=mirror of saints. Best saints also obtain the knowledge of their own self in His presence. Page. 31. ll. 1–4. The main headings under which language is divided, are three: Brāhma, S'aiva and Vaiṣṇava. Under Brāhma speech are included the dialects of the Ṛṣis and their followers, while under S'aiva are mentioned the dialects known as Pārameśvara or Divya. Now, the dialect coming under the Vaiṣṇava or the Mānuṣa form of speech is dealt with. This form of speech is chiefly needed for poets of classical literature. Though Rāja-

śekhara is primarily concerned only with this third variety of speech, he mentions nevertheless the first two kinds of speech, namely, the dialects of the primitive sages and divine beings, because he wanted to show the different stages of linguistic development and also because these are employed by dramatists in their dramas. *[ ll. 5-25. वैदर्भी गौडीया cf. सा त्रेधा-वैदर्भी गौडी पाञ्चाली चेति। वामन. 1.2.17. काकुर्वक्रोक्ति. etc. cf. विस्पष्टक्रियमाणादक्लिष्टा स्वरविशेषतो भवति । अर्थान्तरप्रतीतिर्यत्रासौ काकुवक्रोक्तिः ॥ रुद्रट-काव्यालङ्कार. 2-16. cf. also काकुर्वक्रोक्तिःस्व्वलङ्कारत्वेन न वाच्या । पाठधर्मत्वात् । तथा चाभिप्रायवान् पाठधर्मः काकुः । स कथमलङ्कारी स्यादिति यायावरीयः । गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यप्रभेद एव चायम् । शब्दस्पृष्टत्वेनार्थान्तरप्रतीतिहेतुत्वात् । यदाह ध्वनिकारः— अर्थान्तरगतिः काका या चैषा परिदृश्यते । सा व्यङ्ग्यस्य गुणीभावे प्रकारमिममाश्रिता ॥ सा च काकुर्द्विधा—साकाङ्क्षा निराकाङ्क्षा च । वाक्यस्य साकाङ्क्षनिराकाङ्क्षत्वात् । यस्माद्वाक्यात् यादृशः सङ्केतबलेनार्थः प्रतीयते न तादृश एव, किन्तु न्यूनाधिकः प्रमाणबलेन निर्णययोग्यस्तद्वाक्यं साकाङ्क्षम् । तद्विपरीतं निराकाङ्क्षम् । वक्तृगता ह्याकाङ्क्षा वाक्ये उपचर्यते । सा च प्रकरणबलान्नि- र्णीयते । विशिष्टविषयत्वं च तस्यास्तत एवावसीयते ॥ हेमचन्द्रकाव्यानुशासन V. साकाङ्क्षा and निराकाङ्क्षा cf. द्विविधा काकुः । साकाङ्क्षा निराकाङ्क्षेति । वाक्यस्य साकाङ्क्षेति । नाट्यशास्त्र chapt. 17; also सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण 2-56. नवजलधरः. विक्रमोर्वशीय IV. I. ] ll. 5-8. Vāmana mentioned three Rītis. But Rudraṭa who flourished later added a fourth and called it Lāṭīyā. After him came Rājaśekhara who, though conversant with Rudraṭa's view, did not accept the Lāṭīyā Rīti, but followed Vāmana in this respect. The reason why Rājaśekhara ignored the view of Rudraṭa seems to be that he did not see any necessity of acknow- ledging a separate Rīti beyond Pāñcālī, probably because the definition of Rudraṭa which is given below, did not convince him of the necessity. द्वित्रिपदा पाञ्चाली लाटीया पञ्च सप्त वा यावत् । ( K. A. 2-5. ) The three Rītis and the different Kākus form parts of instruc-

172 EXPLANATORY NOTES tion on reading. The reader should observe these Rītis with proper intonations on the Kākus while reading poetry, so that the meaning may be readily understood by the listener. l. 10. Kākuvakrokti is one of the Śabdālaṅkāras according to Rudraṭa. Yāyāvarīya disagrees with him, but follows the definition of Ānandavardhana who seems to think that Kāku is a variety of intonation which serves to bring out only that sense of a passage, intended by the authors to convey, and no other. (For further information, see pp. 212–213 of Dhvanyāloka and Locana). l. 15. Again, a sentence may be used with two varieties of Kāku, namely साकाङ्क्ष and निराकाङ्क्ष. In such cases the question raised by the first Kāku will be answered by the second. The verse यदि मे वल्लभा etc. is an example of this kind. Here, a Nāyikā replies to her friend who had put a question as to whether her lover could be made sympathetic towards her by the Dūtī whom she had sent. The reply of the Nāyikā is with आक्षेपगर्भकाकु and, therefore, is साकाङ्क्ष. आक्षेप is denoted by the काकु which bears an express censure on the Dūtī who had become faithless to her. The same verse may also denote विधि and, therefore, become निराकाङ्क्ष. Vidhi is indicated in the sense that in case the Dūtī faithfully carries out her wishes the Nāyaka will certainly be drawn towards her (Nāyikā). l. 18. प्रश्नगर्भा । The verse गत: स कालो etc. is found in the Bāla- rāmāyaṇa of Rājaśekhara (3. 2). This verse may be interpreted with two kinds of Kāku, namely, प्रश्न and उत्तर thus making it both साकाङ्क्ष and निराकाङ्क्ष. In this verse an eagle tells his wife that those days when Rāvaṇa was everywhere successful are gone, and that evil days have dawned on him so that his enemies are crowned with success. Here two different intonations on the part of the speaker on the words गत: and वर्तन्ते will indicate both a question and its answer. l. 21. वितर्क etc.—The third and last variety of Kāku is illustrated in the verse नवजलधर, etc. Each pāda of this verse will be read differently with two Kākus denoting doubt and decision, and thus make the sentence both साकाङ्क्ष and निराकाङ्क्ष । l. 26. These three Kākus each with two varieties are invariably

connected with one another. There are, besides, other varieties of Kāku but they may occur without any definite relation amongst themselves. Page. 32. *[ l. 1. युष्मच्छासन. वेणीसंहार 1--12 ]. ll. 1-4. The first three lines in this verse have the Kāku denoting अभ्युपगम while the last line indicates अनुनय. It may be noted here that the two ideas expressed by the two Kākus are not interdependent. *[ l. 5. मथ्नामि. वेणीसंहार 1-15 ]. ll. 5-8. Here first three lines have the उपहास Kāku by which the real intention of the speaker is revealed, though it is quite contrary to the sense expressed by the lines. The Kāku denoting अभ्यनुज्ञा is found in the last line, and here also in reality, the speaker does not intend to have सन्धि as he says. ll. 10-13. This is a verse with three kinds of Kāku. Here each line contains three Kākus, nemely, अवधारण, अपह्नव and अनुशो- चन. The words सेयं have the Kāku of अवधारण; नो कुरङ्गक etc. have the अपह्नव Kāku, while the whole line must be read in a way so as to show अनुशोचन of the speaker. *[ l. 14. उच्च्यतां (किरात. 9-39). ] ll. 14-17. In this verse four kinds of Kāku are expressed. They are quite different from one another and have intonations on four small sentences contained in this verse. By these four Kākus रौक्ष्य, प्रतिबोधन, औत्सुक्य and निर्वेद are expressed in the four sentences, one following the other in sequence. ll. 18-19. For the continuation and context of the verse उच्च्यतां etc. see Kirātārjunīya 9-40. किं गतेन न हि युक्तमुपैतुं कः प्रिये सुभगमानिनि मानः । योषितामिति कथासु समेताः कामिभिर्बहुविधा धृतिरुहे ॥ The different varieties of Kāku with the same illustrations are also found in the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa of Bhojadeva (Prakāśa VII) and in the Bhāvaprakāśana of Śāradātanaya (GOS. ed. p. 146.). both of whom seem to have drawn their information on Kākus from the present work.