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

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.

174 EXPLANATORY NOTES l. 20. The further portion of this chapter shows the impor- tance of the knowledge of Kāku for a clever reader. l. 21. सत्त्वाङ्गाभिनय=histrionics of Sāttvika and Āṅgika. l. 23. The accents in Vedic Mantras, and changed accents in compound words for the purpose of obtaining different connotations from the same words, according to the rules of grammar, may be called the Kākus of the S'āstras. l. 25. The Kāku not only reveals a different sense from the ordinary meaning of the words, but also trains the reader in histrionics in order to enable him to express the different senses conveyed by the words. ll. 26-27. Here Rājaśekhara praises the poet or the reader who is able to use appropriate Kākus either in his poetry or in reading. But Ānandavardhana is, however, inclined to characterize such Kāvya as inferior or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य because in this Kāvya the suggested ideas are expressed by the Kāku. (see Dhvani pp. 212-213). The substance of Dhvani is held by Ānandavardhana as the best form of poetry; but this theory of Dhvani is not recognized by Rājaśekhara in spite of the fact that the theory was well-known in the field of literary criticism even before the 9th century A. D. Page. 33. *[ For the काकु and पाठगुण cf. भरतनाट्यशास्त्र chap. 17. काकुस्वरविधान; ] ll. 1-2. Here it is said that mastery in the art of reading Kāvya can be obtained only by those persons who are highly cultured. The author even goes further and states that the art of composing poetry appears to be quite easy when compared to its reading. ll. 3.-4. Like the art of singing, the art of correct reading is not obtained in one birth, but it is the result of experience in many previous births. ll. 7-8. Here is given an account of the different intonations for reading different types of poetry. प्रसन्न । The portion of poetry where the Guṇa प्रसाद is found. Daṇḍin defines प्रसन्न as प्रसिद्धार्थम्.

SEVENTH ADHYĀYA 175 तद्विरोधिनी। ओजस् is the Guṇa opposed to the प्रसाद, and it is defined by Daṇḍin as समासभूयस्त्वम्. While reading this kind of poetry the intonation should be of the तार variety. ll. 9–12. In these two verses an account has been given of good and bad forms of reading. *[l. 15. यथा व्याघ्री हरेत् found in Pāṇini's and Yājñavalkya's S'ikṣās;] ll. 25–28. From here onwards Rājaśekhara gives the different methods employed for reading the Kāvya by men belonging to different countries of India. The people who reside in the countries east of Benares, read Sanskrit well but their reading of Prākṛta is very bad. *[l. 27. ब्रह्मन् विज्ञापयामि quoted in सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण 2-14. ब्रह्मन्नित्यादिना निन्दार्थानुवादेन गौडेषु प्राकृतानौचित्यं राजशेखरेण व्यञ्जितम् ॥ रत्नेश्वर । ] Page. 34. ll. 1–2. Here also the reading of the Gauḍas meets with unfavourable criticism as it does not conform to any of the rules of reading. The reading पाठ: is suggested here instead of पाठी owing to the nature of the adjectives नातिस्पष्ट: etc.; the word बाडब is to be taken here to mean something belonging to a Brāhmaṇa. ll. 3–4. Karṇāṭas are criticized here as they are always fond of using the letter ‘ṭa’ everywhere without paying any attention to the Rasa or Rīti or Guṇa in the poetry they read. ll. 5–6. काव्यमना:=knowing that it is poetry. The reading of the Drāviḍas is said to be always accompanied with music whether they read poetry or prose or Campū. *[l. 7. पठन्ति लटभं cf. शृण्वन्ति लटभं लाटाः प्राकृतं संस्कृतद्विषः । अपभ्रंशेन तुष्यन्ति स्वेन नान्येन गुर्जराः ॥ सरस्वतीकण्ठाभरण. II. 13. cf. यद्योनिः किल संस्कृतस्य सुदृशां जिह्वासु यन्मोदते यत्र श्रोत्रपथावतारिणि कटुर्भाषाक्षराणां रसः । गद्यं चूर्णपदं रतिपतेस्तत्प्राकृतं यद्वच- स्तौल्लांतौल्लिलिताङ्गि पश्य नुदती दृष्टेर्निमेषव्रतम् ॥ Ibid. II. 16. गौडाद्याः संस्कृतस्थाः परिचितरुचयः प्राकृते लाटदेश्याः सापभ्रंशप्रयोगाः सकलमरुभुवष्टक्कभादानकाश्च ।

176 EXPLANATORY NOTES आवन्त्याः पारियात्राः सह दशपुरजैर्भूतभाषां भजन्ते यो मध्येमध्यदेशं निवसति स कविः सर्वभाषानिषण्णः ॥ काव्यमीमांसा p. 51. and also गिरः श्रव्या दिव्याः प्रकृतिमधुराः प्राकृतधुराः शुभव्योऽपभ्रंशः सरसरचनं भूतवचनम् । विदग्धामिष्टे मगधमधुरावासिभणिति- र्निबद्धा यस्तेषां स इह कविराजो विजयते ॥ बालरामायण. 1-11.] ll. 7-10. In these two verses, the methods of reading employed by the people belonging to the countries लाट, सुराष्ट्र and त्रवण are stated. All these countries are situated in the western part of India. For त्रवण country see page 94-4 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. Rājaśekhara is inclined to believe that the people of the Lāṭa country hated Sanskrit as they were great lovers of Prākṛta. This is borne out by the quotations above cited, and is probably one of the reasons which led him to disregard the existence of a separate Rīti described as Lāṭīyā by Rudraṭa (see p. 31-6 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā). According to Rājaśekhara the people of Saurāṣṭra and Travaṇa were lovers of the अपभ्रंश language, and while reading Sanskrit they adopted the same method as employed in reading their own dialect. ll. 11-14. Here the Kashmirian poets are praised for their excellence in the art of reading. It is also said that some poets in the eastern side of Kashmir employ a nasal tone while reading. ll. 15-18. In this verse the reading of the Pāñcāla poets is characterized as the best, because their tone is best suited to different Rītis in poetry and possesses all the Guṇas required for reading. In their reading all letters are clearly pronounced and properly punctuated. ll. 19-20. Translate:— Only Viṭas and Śakāras are allowed to use the letters ल and र frequently in their speeches, but not the good readers of poetry. Adhyāya VIII. Page. 35. *[काव्यार्थयोनयः cf. लोको विद्या प्रकीर्णं च काव्याङ्गानि । लोकवृत्तं लोकः । वामन 1-3. et. seq. शब्दः छन्दोऽभिधानार्था इतिहासाश्रयाः कथाः । लोको युक्तिः कलाश्चेति मन्तव्याः काव्ययोनयः ॥ भामह 1-9.

EIGHTH ADHYĀYA 177 Most of this chapter is quoted in Hemacandra's Kāvyânuśā- sana-viveka and Vāgbhaṭa's Kāvyānuśāsana. Not quite of this but of a similar type, are the various Paricayas in the fifth Sandhi of the Kavikaṇṭhābharaṇa. Vinayacandra in his काव्यशिक्षा mentions तर्कपरिचय, व्याकरणपरिचय, चाणक्यपरिचय, धनुर्वेदीय (the quotation is the same as one in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, स दक्षिणापाङ्ग०) उत्पाद्यसंयोग (quotation is the same as in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, उभौ यदि व्योम्नि). भारतपरिचय, रामायण- परिचय, मोक्षोपायपरिचय, आत्मज्ञानपरिचय, धातुवादपरिचय, पुरुषलक्षणपरिचय, द्यूतपरिचय, चित्रपरिचय, वृक्षपरिचय, वनेचरपरिचय, भक्तिपरिचय, विवेकपरिचय, प्रशमपरिचय, हस्तिपरिचय, वैद्यकपरिचय, शास्त्रपरिचय, धनुर्वेदपरिचय, गजलक्षणपरिचय, तुरगलक्षणपरिचय.] ll. 1-5. काव्यार्थयोनयः । The sources of the theme of poetry are detailed in this chapter according to the classification scheme given by the author in the first chapter. The faculty of discovering an appropriate theme for poetry after examining these sources is called Vyutpatti, and this has already been dealt with in the fifth chapter. The early writers on poetics mentioned these sources as काव्याङ्ग or limbs of poetry, and they advise the poets to be sufficiently conversant with them. But this list of 12 or 16 sources adopted by Rājaśe- khara is not found in any of the earlier works. Among the lists given in the early treatises, the list of Vāmana seems to be fairly exhaustive and to the point (see 1, 3, 1-20). Rudraṭa's list is almost similar to that of Bhāmaha (1-9) and is given below :- छन्दोव्याकरणकलालोकस्थितिपदपदार्थविज्ञानात् । युक्तायुक्तविवेको व्युत्पत्तिरियं समासेन ॥ (K. A. 1-18.) Rudraṭa holds that there is nothing in the world of words or things which cannot be made use of in poetry, and, therefore, the poet must be conversant with all varieties of subjects. Rudraṭa says:- विस्तरतस्तु किमन्यत्तत इह वाच्यं न वाचकं लोके । न भवति यत्काव्याङ्गं सर्वज्ञत्वं ततोऽन्यैषा ॥ (K. A. 1-19.) On this point compare Bhāmaha :- न स शब्दो न तद्वाच्यं न स न्यायो न सा कला । जायते यन्न काव्याङ्गमहो भारो महान् कवेः ॥ (K. A. 5-4.)