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

The provided image is completely blank and does not contain any text to transcribe.

Preface to the Third Edition. The third revised and enlarged edition of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā of the celebrated author Rājaśekhara, published as No. 1 of the Gaekwad's Oriental Series is now presented to the public. The Kāvyamīmāṁsā with which the Gaekwad's Oriental Series was inaugurated in 1916, has proved to be popular with scholars as also with Universities, many of them prescribing the work as a text-book. The first edition was exhausted in 1924, and the second in 1933, and the third is going forward with several new features which, the present editor believes, will enhance its use- fulness for scholars and students alike. The text of the present edition is once more collated with MS. No. 6065 of the Oriental Institute, Baroda, which is a transcript of the original paper MS. preserved in the Wāḍi Pārśvanātha's temple at Pattan. This MS. is marked B. in the previous editions. Quotations from the Kāvyamīmāṁsā in later works have been carefully compared with the text, and this has enabled the present editor to suggest several correct readings of obscure and incorrect words which had crept into the previous editions. Emendations such as these have been added to the text in square brackets. Another noteworthy feature of this edition, to which attention of readers may be drawn, consists of the elaborate and exhaustive notes on words and passages of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā which have a bearing on the past history and culture of India. It is hoped that with the help of these notes, it will be possible for students to appreciate the remarkable scholarship of Rājaśekhara more fully and more comprehensively. Among the appratus criticus added to this edition, mention may be made of a list of earlier works which Rājaśekhara utilized as source-books in preparing the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. This has been given in an Appendix to this edition. In another Appendix identifications have been given of 212 geographical names men- tioned in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. Many of these geographical names have been treated in Cunningham's Ancient Geography of India, and the Geographical Dictionary of Ancient and Modern India

VIII PREFACE. by N. L. Dey. These two works form the background of this Appendix and no references have been given while dealing with the identifications proposed therein, unless I had reasons to differ from them. In preparing this edition, I have received help from various sources, and in this respect, I am particularly indebted to Mahā- mahopādhyāya S. Kuppuswami Shastri, Professor of Sanskrit, Presidency College, Madras who has offered numerous suggestions in emending the text; to Dr. B. Bhattacharyya, the Director of the Oriental Institute Baroda, who revised the press copy and proofs of the whole of the English portion; and to Mr. M. A. Joshi of the Oriental Institute who helped in collation and prepared the press copy of the notes and appendices. Oriental Institute, Baroda, } 10th July 1934. } K. S. RAMASWAMI SASTRI.

Preface to the Second Edition. The text of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā has been based on two MSS. from the Pattan Jain Bhaṇḍārs, designated A and B. A is a palm-leaf MS. belonging to the Bhaṇḍār deposited in the Vakhatji's Sheri in Foflia Wāḍā. This is the very MS. mentioned by Dr. Peterson in his 5th Report. The MS. is very correct and reliable, but unfortunately it is incomplete and much injured. It is 13"×1¼" with 5 lines on a side, and consists of 4–11, 13–25, 29–54 leaves and 8 much injured pieces containing the ends of the 16th and the 17th chapters. The fourth leaf begins with ग्रन्थभीरुप्रियार्थम् (second chapter page 4 line 2nd), and the 54th leaf ends with आलेख्य the beginning of the 13th chapter (page 69 line 2). The first of the 8 much injured leaves begins with वरनमुचिपुलॊमप्रभृतयः दानवाः (page 88 line 23) and ends with इत्थं देशविभागो मुद्रामात्रेण (page 98 line 8). The MS. seems from its writing (which is Brahmanical and not Jain) to have been copied at about the end of the 13th century A. D. It is numbered only on the left side with numerical figures. This MS., being old and very correct, has been mainly relied upon as far as available. B is a part of a paper MS. from the Bhaṇḍār deposited in the Wāḍi Pārśwanāth's Temple at Pattan. It is a very beautifully-written old Jain paper MS. with numerical signs on the left and letters on the right to show the pagination. It contains two works (1) काव्यमीमांसा—कविरहस्य (leaves 1–31a lines 3) (2) कविरहस्यवृत्ति a commentary on Halāyudha's कविरहस्य (कविगुह्य) by रविधर्म (31a–lines 4–55). The MS. was written, like most of the MSS. of this very important Bhaṇḍār, in the time of Jinabhadrasūri, the pontiff of the Kharatara Gachha in Saṁvat 1491 (A. D. 1434). The writer's colophon runs as follows:—शुभमस्तु लेखकपाठकयोः । छ । मंगलं महाश्रीः । छ । संवत् १४९१ वर्षे चैत्रवदि १३ शनौ श्रीखरतरगच्छे श्रीजिनभद्रसूरिविजयराज्ये भाण्डागारे काव्यमीमांसा लिखितं ॥ छ ॥ श्री । छ । श्रीः छ । श्रीः । छः श्रीः । कल्याणमस्तु । छ । श्रीः । छ । श्रीः । The portion of Ravidharma's Kavirahasyavṛitti begins:—

X PREFACE. ओं नमः सर्वज्ञाय ॥ पीत्वैव श्रुततोयानि यस्याः शुद्ध्यन्ति देहिनः । मुनिहंससमाकीर्णां तां नमामि सरस्वतीम् ॥ कविगुह्यं प्रसत्त्यादिभावगम्यमनेकधा । यस्य येनोपसर्गेण धातोः कविपदं च यत् ॥ अर्थतः शब्दतो वापि समान्धातृन्विभ्रता । तथा हलायुधेनेदं कृतं कविरहस्यकम् ॥ आभासन्ति पदान्यत्र प्रचुराण्यपशब्दवत् । तद्विषमं स्वभावेन निबन्धनमपेक्ष्यते ॥ तत्तट्टीका प्रसिद्धार्था व्याख्यातुरुपयोगिनी । मुग्धबुद्धिप्रबोधार्थं क्रियते रविधर्मणा ॥ गुणान्वितां सुवर्णाढ्यां बह्वर्थां विपुलां घनाम् । इमामहमं न मुद्धामि क्षुद्रमीतेर्युगामि च ॥ नौरिवेह भवाम्भोघेरत्ताराय सतामियम् । गाढबन्धसमायोगा भिद्यते न जडैर्दृढा ॥ विचारयन्तु तां सन्तः मात्स्र्येण विवर्जिताः । हलायुधकथारूयाने नूनं नारायणः क्षमः ॥ Ends:—काव्यं हलायुधकृतं कविगुह्यनाम ध्यातेह तस्य रविधर्मकृताऽस्ति टीका । अभ्यस्य तां यदि वदन्ति बुधा विवादे स्पष्टक्रियेतरपदैर्विजयं लभन्ते ॥ छ ॥ अपशब्दाभासाख्ये काव्ये टीका शतानि चतुर्दशानि । रचितानि कविरहस्यं नाम काव्यं समाप्तमिति ॥ संवत् १४९१ वर्षे वैशाखसुदि १ बुधे श्रीखरतरगच्छे श्रीजिनभद्रसूरिविजयराज्ये भाण्डागारे कविरहस्यं नाम काव्यमिदं लेखितेति । छ । शुभं भवतु कल्याणमस्तु लेखकपाठकयोः । छ । श्रीः । छ । श्रीः । छ । श्रीः । छ । श्रीः । छ । छ । श्रीः । The paper MS. contains the complete text of Kāvyamīmāṁsā- Kavirahasya and is generally correct. As it seems to have been copied from the palm-leaf MS. in the Jesalmere Bhaṇḍār, the copyist has occasionally erred in reading and transcribing the MS. Besides these, three MSS. of Hemachandra's Kāvyānuśāsana- viveka have been also utilized in the portion borrowed by Hēma- chandra from the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. It may here be noted that a critical edition of Hemachandra's Kāvyānuśāsana with the Viveka is a necessity. The celebrated Jesalmere Bhaṇḍār also contains an old palm- leaf MS. of this work dated Saṁvat 1216, but it is reported to be

PREFACE. XI not in a good state of preservation.¹ It is a matter for regret that the valuable treasures of this Bhaṇḍār—one of the most important Bhaṇḍārs—are not accessible even to Jain Sādhus. The work of editing from such insufficient materials was somewhat difficult, but we have tried our utmost to make the best of the materials that were available, and have ventured to bring to light this important work of a famous writer in Sanskrit literature. We have to thank the keepers of both these Bhaṇḍārs for lending their MSS. and especially Sheth Vāḍilāl Hirachand, the keeper of the Bhaṇḍār of the Wāḍi Pārśwanāth's temple, for putting at our disposal the rarest MSS. of the Bhaṇḍār for publication in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series. Our hearty thanks are also due to Pravartaka Kāntivijayaji for helping us in pro- curing the MSS. 1 The late Mr. Dalal, subsequent to the publication of this book, paid a visit to Jesalmer and collated the text with this palm-leaf MS. Variant readings have been incorporated in the present edition and this MS. is termed as C. It consists of two works (1) काव्यमीमांसा and (2) कविरहस्य comprising 90 and 74 leaves respectively and is 11" x 2" in size. The colophon of काव्यमीमांसा runs as:—‘संवत् १२१६ वर्षे फाल्गुन वदि १ सोमदिने’—B. B.

Introduction to the Third Edition. A. Rājaśekhara—the Author. I. His Time. Many details are given by the author himself regarding the place and period in which he flourished, and in fact, in this respect, he is more prolific than any other Sanskrit dramatist of ancient times. Rājaśekhara wrote not less than four dramas and from these we can gather that he was a teacher of the king Nirbhaya- Mahendrapāla, and was patronized by his son Mahīpāla who ruled over the country of Madhyadeśa with its capital at Kanauj. From the Asni inscription dated Vikrama Saṁ. 974=A. D, 917–918 and the Siyodoni inscription (E. I. Vol. I. p. 171) we can ascertain that the two kings Mahendrapāla and his son Mahīpāla of Kanauj belonged to what is known as the Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty. From historical and archaeological evidences, it has been possible to assign the period 890–908 A. D. to Mahendrapāla, and 910–940 A. D. to his son Mahīpāla with certainty. It is thus probable that Rājaśekhara belonged to the courts of these two kings, but the major part of his life was spent in the court of Mahendrapāla who is said to be his disciple in all his plays. Mahīpāla (A. D. 910–940) seems to have maintained Rājaśekhara only in the earlier part of his reign, since the Bālabhārata the only drama to be performed in his presence remains incomplete, and appears to be the last composition of the author. It is thus not unrea- sonable to assign a period of 880–920 A. D. to Rājaśekhara, the present author. His connections with Āryakṣemīśvara, the author of the drama Caṇḍakauśika, may be found interesting in this connection. It was supposed that Kṣemīśvara belonged to the court of King Mahīpāla (A. D. 974–1026) of the Pāla dynasty of Bengal.¹ But from the evidences recorded below, it will be found that he belonged to the court of king Mahīpāla of the Gurjara Pratīhāra 1 Kṣemīś'vara speaks of one Mahīpāla as his patron king in the prelude to the Caṇḍakauśika. This king did not belong to the Pāla dynasty as is sometimes supposed. See R. D. Banerji: Pālas of Bengal, p. 73 and Pāla

INTRODUCTION. XIII dynasty and was a junior contemporary of Rājaśekhara; and very probably joined the court of king Mahīpāla after the death of Rājaśekhara. There are good reasons to identify the Mahīpāla of Kṣemīśvara with the king Mahīpāla of the Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty. Kṣe- mīśvara mentions that Mahīpāla defeated Karṇāṭas, and thus followed Candragupta Maurya of old in his foot-steps, who up- rooted the Nandas with the lead of Cāṇakya.¹ This, in all pro- bability, alludes to the incidents to which a reference has been made in the Cambay Plates of Govinda IV and the Khajuraho inscription (E. I. Vol. VII, pp. 26-47). From these we learn that the Rāṣṭrakuṭa king Indra III (c. 915-917) defeated king Mahīpāla of Kanauj in battle, and that the latter had great diffi- culties in regaining his throne; he could succeed only through the kind offices of one Chandēlla king Harṣadeva. Ārya Kṣemīśvara apparently alludes to this victory of his patron king over the Rāṣṭrakuṭas with the help of the Chandēlla king, and rightly compares this with the victory obtained over the Nandas by Candragupta through the assistance of Cāṇakya.² But it may, however, be noticed that this incident is not alluded to by Rāja- śekhara, and this fact makes it probable that the fight with the Rāṣṭrakuṭas took place much later in Mahīpāla’s reign. On the other hand, Kṣemīśvara who mentions this incident in his drama, in all probability belonged to the court of Mahīpāla when Rāja- śekhara was either dead or no longer there. There are further literary evidences in support of the period 880-920 A. D. assigned to Rājaśekhara. Ānandavardhana who flourished in a period between 857-884 A. D. is quoted by Rāja- śekhara,³ while Rājaśekhara is quoted by Somadeva,⁴ Soḍḍhala⁵ and Abhinavagupta⁶ who flourished in the later half of the 10th century.

1 यः संश्रित्य प्रकृतिगहनामार्थचाणक्यनीतिं जित्वा नन्दान् कुसुमनगरं चन्द्रगुप्तो जिगाय । कर्णाटत्वं ध्रुवमुपगतानद्य तानेव हन्तुं दोर्दर्पाढ्यः स पुनरभवच्छ्रीमहीपालदेवः ॥ Caṇḍakaus’ika, I 2 See J. O. R. Madras, VI. pp. 191-198. 3 See Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 16. 4 See Yas’astilakacampū, IV. 11. p. 113. 5 See Udayasundarī Kathā, VIII. 6 See Abhinavabhāratī, p. 42. G.O.S. ed.

XIV INTRODUCTION. II. His Works. Rājaśekhara himself informs us in his prelude to the Bāla- rāmāyaṇa that he composed six works. While replying to his critics who alleged that his drama was abnormally lengthy, he incidentally requests his readers to peruse the six works already composed by him in case there was any virtue in them.¹ From this statement it would appear that Rājaśekhara composed six works already before his Bālarāmāyaṇa was taken up in hand. Prof. Sten Konow² believes that the Karpūramañjarī was his first composition on the ground that it was staged at the request of his wife Avantisundarī, which is rather unusual since all others were performed at the request of his patron kings. This is further strengthened by the fact that it was composed at a time when he had attained the position of a Kavirāja or a prince among poets.³ The Viddhaśālabhañjikā and the Bālarāmāyaṇa must have been composed afterwards when the author gained greater re- putation and maturity. The Bālabhārata probably was his last work, since it is found to be incomplete in two acts instead of the usual five or more, and since the Bharatavākya showing the com- pletion of the drama is absent. To these four works, we have to add two more, namely, the present work Kāvyamīmāṁsā and the Haravilāsakāvya, the existence of which is borne out through quotations made in later works.⁴ According to his own admission, the Kāvyamīmāṁsā was projected by Rājaśekhara in 18 lengthy Adhikaraṇas each con- taining several Adhyāyas; but unfortunately, the whole of this work is not found except the first, the Kavirahasya. It will be

1 ब्रूते यः कोऽपि दोषं महदिति सुमतिर्बालरामायणेऽस्मिन् प्रष्टव्योऽसौ पटीयानिह भणितिगुणो विद्यते वा नवेति । यद्यस्ति स्वस्ति तुभ्यं भव पठनरुचिर्विद्धि नः षट् प्रबन्धान् नैवं चेद्दीर्घमास्तां नटवटुवदने जर्जरा काव्यकन्था ॥ Bālarāmāyaṇa 1. 12. 2 Karpūramañjarī, Harvard Oriental Series edi, p. 184. 3 Ibid. 1–9. 4 Hemacandra's Kāvyānuśāsana pp. 334–335; Ujjvaladatta II. 28.

INTRODUCTION. XV rather difficult to declare that Rājaśekhara left both the works Bālabhārata and Kāvyamīmāṁsā unfinished. We would rather have to assume that at least the Kāvyamīmāṁsā was completed by him, since he refers frequently to the subject matter of sub- sequent chapters in the earlier portion of the Kavirahasya.¹ In that case, the probability that the Bālabhārata was his last work, will be great. If that be so, we are inclined to believe that the Kāvya- mīmāṁsā was composed at a time when his three dramas were already in existence, and this is corroborated by the fact that the Kāvyamīmāṁsā contains numerous quotations from only two of his Sanskrit dramas, namely the Bālarāmāyaṇa and the Viddhaśālabhañjikā.² The case of the Haravilāsa, however, is somewhat different, and we can understand from stray quotations in later works that it was a Mahākāvya, and probably, was composed before any of his dramas were written. In this connection it is interesting to note that if an author wants to attain the position of a Kavirāja, he has first to pass through the stage of a Mahākavi, or in other words, he has first to write a Mahākāvya³ before he is able to handle more sublime themes and thereby attain the position of a Kavirāja (see the names of 10 stages of a poet, infra, text, p. 19). From the above, it will be patent that only four works were in existence at the time when his Bālarāmāyaṇa was composed, and not six, as mentioned by the author. But since Rājaśekhara mentions six, we are led to assume that at the time of writing, he may have taken into account two of his projected works, namely, the Kāvyamīmāṁsā and the Bālabhārata. Now, the question arises as to whether Rājaśekhara wrote any other work besides the six already known. The later antho- logies do not mention or quote from any other work of Rājaśekhara

1. See Kāvyamīmāṁsā: p. 3. l. 10. अलङ्कारव्याख्यानन्तु पुरस्तात्। p. 10. l. 5. रीतयस्तिस्रस्तास्तु पुरस्तात्। p. 11. l. 10. तमौपनिषदिके वक्ष्यामः। etc.
2. The Nāndī verse of the Bālabhārata (ये सीमन्तित) may have been taken from the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 71.
3. योऽन्यतरप्रबन्धे प्रवीणः स महाकविः। यस्तु तत्र तत्र भाषाविशेषे तेषु तेषु प्रबन्धेषु तस्मिंस्तस्मिंश्च रसे स्वतन्त्रः स कविराजः। Kāvyamīmāṁsā, p. 19.

XVI INTRODUCTION. besides the six already referred to.¹ In this connection attention of scholars may be drawn to a statement made by Rājaśekhara at the end of the 17th chapter of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, to the effect that if more information is needed on the subject of world geo- graphy, a reference should be made to his Bhuvanakośa.² This has led some to conclude that Rājaśekhara wrote a separate work called the Bhuvanakośa besides the six already known. But this does not seem to be correct. The Bhuvanakośa here mentioned is the title of the 19th or the last chapter of the 1st Adhikaraṇa, and this chapter along with the other 17 Adhikaraṇas is entirely lost. If a reference is made to the list of subjects given in the first chapter of the Kavirahasya,³ it will be readily observed that Bhuvanakośa is the title of the last chapter of the first Adhikaraṇa which the author names as Kavirahasya. It may, however, be suggested that the portion of the Kāvya- mīmāṁsā beginning from the 19th chapter of the 1st Adhikaraṇa to the end was never written, and that he did not live to complete his encyclopaedic work. If this position is accepted we may hope to find one day the missing acts of the Bālabhārata from some of the still undiscovered MSS. Libraries, for it is hardly possible that our author would leave two of his works unfinished. It may be possible in modern days, but it was not so at least in ancient days. B. The Kāvyamīmāṁsā. I. Significance of the subject matter. The 7th and the 8th centuries of the Christian era in India was a period of feverish literary activity. In this period stalwarts of literature were busy in writing comprehensive works in order to reduce the different branches of study into a system. This period saw the birth of Uddyotakara, Kumārila and Śaṅkarācārya, the writers, famous for their philosophical and polemical works in Hinduism. While, on the other hand, in the field of Buddhism we

1. Many verses quoted in the anthologies may be traced out in his extant dramas and others probably belong to his lost work Haravilāsa.
2. इत्थं देशविभागो मुद्रामात्रेण सूत्रितः सुधियाम्। यस्तु जिगीषत्यधिकं पश्यतु मद्भूवनकोशमसौ ॥
3. देशकालविभागः, भुवनकोशः इति कविरहस्यं प्रथममधिकरणमित्यादि.

notice the towering figures of Dharmakīrti, Śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla. This period was immediately preceding the period in which Rājaśekhara was born and flourished, and it is very unlikely that he would not be influenced by the endeavours of his predecessors in writing a comprehensive work and reduce the Alaṅkāra literature to a system. The time was also not unripe for such an attempt. Round the classical work of Bharata, already had grown a considerable literature which was enriched with the contributions of Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Rudraṭa and Ānandavardhana. Such a rich material on the one hand pressing for a com- prehensive review, and the comprehensive works of the philo- sophical systems on the other, must have created an enthusiasm in the mind of Rājaśekhara and actuated him to make an attempt to reduce the Alaṅkāra literature to a system by writing an encyclopædic work like the present one-the Kāvyamīmāṁsā- which was to treat the different methods of poetics and the schools of literary criticism, with a view to put everything on a tho- roughly scientific basis. In doing so, he not only followed in the footsteps of Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana, in arranging the subject- matter, but also the great authors of Dharmamīmāṁsā and Brah- mamīmāṁsā; and this is evident from the very title of his work, the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. He also ascribes to his Kāvyamīmāṁsā, a divine origin following in the wake of other great systems, and gives for the first time a legendary list of succession of Gurus and disciples, and of the progenitors of the different branches of the science of poetics. The division of his subject-matter in eighteen branches like the eighteen points of law is not only novel but also interesting and systematic. In this, however, Rājaśekhara was forestalled to a certain extent by Rudraṭa,¹ but nevertheless his classification is much fuller and much more exhaustive. Rudraṭa, for instance, had no knowledge of such branches as Vainodika, Aupaniṣadika, etc. which were Rājaśekhara's own. The Aupaniṣadika chapter occurs also in the Arthaśāstra and the Kāmasūtra, and this may have induced the present author to include a chapter on Aupa- niṣadika in his Alaṅkāra work, giving directions to dullards as to how through Mantras and such other mystic means one may attain poetical eminence, when natural gifts are entirely wanting.

1. See. Infra Notes. pp. 123-124. 3

XVIII INTRODUCTION. Nevertheless marked similarity also is noticeable in the method of treatment here with that of Kauṭilya and Vātsyāyana. For instance, the full list of subjects, treated of in the Arthaśāstra and the Kāmasūtra, appears at the end of the first chapter and here, likewise it is given at the end of the first chapter Śāstra- saṅgraha. It is a matter of regret, however, that all MSS. of the text do not contain the full list of subjects treated in all the eighteen Adhikaraṇas; instead, we find the list complete only for the first Adhikaraṇa or Kavirahasya with the significant remark इत्यादि at the end. Since the whole work in eighteen Adhikaraṇas is not found, it is very difficult to understand the working of the author's mind in the commencement of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā; but from the imperfect materials thus at our command, it can be asserted, somewhat hesi- tatingly, that the first three Adhyāyās or chapters of the first Adhikaraṇa are intended by the author to serve as a general introduction to the whole work of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā in eighteen Adhikaraṇas. The first Adhikaraṇa or the Kavirahasya under the circumstances begins from the fourth Adhyāya. In the first of the three Adhyāyas, the author treats of the origin of the science of poetics, and gives a comprehensive list of subjects included therein. In the second Adhyāya, he makes an attempt to determine the exact position of the science of poetics in relation to the Vedas and post-Vedic literature, and declares that the science dealt with by him should be regarded as the seventh Vedāṅga and the fifteenth Vidyāsthāna. It is well known that the Vedāṅgas in Sanskrit literature are six in number, and the number of sciences has been fixed at fourteen, and in none of these lists the science of poetics is included. In support of his contention, Rājaśekhara goes on to say that the science of poetics has the function of correctly interpreting the Vedic texts, and thus serves the purpose of an auxilliary to the Vedas in the same way as the other Vedāṅgas. He further asserts that the function of the fourteen Vidyāsthānas, is to impart the knowledge of the Dharma and Artha, and since from the science of poetics or Kāvyavidyā the same result is obtained, it should also be regarded as one of the Vidyāsthānas, and should not be distinguished from the other fourteen sciences.

INTRODUCTION. XIX Rājaśekhara goes a step further and declares that the science of poetics leads the way to emancipation or Mokṣa, and as such its status is not different from the six systems of philosophy. In the third or the last Adhyāya of the introduction, Rājaśekhara shows how emancipation can be obtained by poets and how they can experience immense bliss and freedom from worldly troubles, through the correct understanding of the Sāhityavidyā and Kāvyapuruṣa, which are primarily designed for the emancipation of man. The systems of philosophy advocate the real knowledge of Dharma or Brahman as means of obtaining salvation; even so, the correct knowledge of Kāvyapuruṣa, the son of Brahman and Sarasvatī, leads to the realisation of Brahman and the consequential emancipation from the chain of existence. To return to the subject matter, the third chapter treats of the origin of the Kāvyapuruṣa, his connection with Kavi, Vālmīki and Vyāsa, his marriage with Sāhityavidyā, his wanderings with her throughout India, the creation of Vṛttis, Pravṛttis and Rītis at different places and the resolve of the couple to reside permanently in the minds of poets. While concluding the chapter, the author declares that those poets who become immortal by virtue of their compositions enjoy eternal bliss in heaven in a divine form; and those who can realise the Kāvyapuruṣa, obtain emancipation both here and hereafter.¹ As has been said already, the subject-matter of the first Adhikaraṇa or the Kavirahasya commences from the fourth chapter and may be sub-divided under three broad heads: (1) the equip- ments necessary for a poet, (2) the rules to be observed by him, (3) and the methods harmful to him. The first subject is treated of in six chapters (4–9) where such topics as Padavākyaviveka, Pāṭhapratiṣṭhā, Kāvyārthayoni, and Arthavyāpti are dealt with. The second subject as stated above is covered by the tenth chapter which is one of the most interesting chapters of the Kavirahasya. This chapter commences with the remark² that

1. Cf. तयोश्च कविलोकस्वर्गसर्गं तमकल्पयेताम् । यत्र काव्यमयेन शरीरेण मर्त्यमपिवसन्तो दिव्येन देहेन कवय आकल्पं मोदन्ते । इत्येष काव्यपुरुषः पुरा सृष्टः स्वयंभुवा । एवं विभज्य जानानः प्रेत्य चेह च नन्दति ॥ p. 10.
2. Cf. इत्थंकारं घनैर्यत्नैर्व्युत्पन्नमनसः कवेः । दुर्गमेऽपि भवेन्मार्गे कुण्ठिता न सरस्वती ॥ गृहीतविद्योपविधः काव्यक्रियायै प्रयतेत । p. 49.

XX INTRODUCTION. when a poet is armed with all the equipments necessary as pointed out previously, he may commence to write and while doing so, observe certain rules of discipline. Thereafter, in the same chapter the routine to be followed by a poet for all the twenty four hours is given along with certain secret hints, which may be found very instructive. Among others, this chapter lays down that (i) a poet should not read his composition to others so long as it is in an incomplete stage; (ii) he should not be vain on account of his good composition; (iii) he should obtain the opinion of his superiors on his own composition before publication; (iv) he should not create an enmity with impostrous poets ( v ) and he should prepare several transcripts of his composition as soon as final touches had been given. At the end, the author lays down special rules to be observed by a king when he himself happens to be either a poet or a patron of the men of letters. The third subject is dealt with in eight chapters (11-18) where the author enumerates various methods considered to be definitely injurious to the reputation of a poet, and gives copious instances to illustrate his view-point. This part deals with plagiarism, conventions of ancient poets, Indian geography and the geography of the world, ancient methods of description of incidents, places and men, computation of time, and seasonal changes. While con- cluding, the author reminds his readers that the methods adopted by ancient writers are the best and should be adhered to, while modern methods which run counter to the usage established by the ancients¹ should be abandoned. How immensely helpful these hints are, can be realized only too well by one who can detect the unruly tendencies in modern literature in the extreme pursuit of the phantom of realistic art ! II. Historical Data. As has been shown already, the contributions of the Kāvya- mīmāṁsā to the elucidation of the cultural history of India, are many and varied. No less important are its contributions to the political history of Mediæval India. While illustrating the

1. Cf. देशेषु पदार्थानां व्यत्यासो दृश्यते स्वरूपस्य। तन्न तथा बध्नीयात्कविबद्धमिह प्रमाणं नः॥ p. 111. अनुसन्धानशून्यस्य भूषणं दूषणायते। सावधानस्य च कवेर्दूषणं भूषणायते॥ p. 112.

different topics of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, Rājaśekhara cites examples and verses from earlier works, which throw a flood of light on the problems of political history. And, here, it is proposed to give a few examples which definitely show that the Kāvyamīmāṁsā is able to help historical studies. The verse दत्त्वा रुद्धगतिः etc. occurs on p. 47 of this work, and this is given manifestly as an example of Muktaka or a detached verse. But the verse alludes to a very important historical fact. On information obtained from this verse and other sources such as the fragments of the Devīcandragupta¹ of Viśākhadatta, the Sañjan Copper-plates of Amoghavarṣa² I, (A. D. 873), Bāṇa's Harṣacarita,³ Śṛṅgāraprakāśa⁴ of Bhoja, the Cambay plate of Govinda⁵ IV, the Nāṭyadarpaṇa of Rāmacandra and Guṇacandra,⁶ scholars have come to certain conclusions regarding the history of the Gupta period, and these may be summarised as follows. There was a king called Rāmagupta who succeeded his father Samudra- gupta and preceded his brother Candragupta II, and ruled for a short time. Dhruvadevī was the queen of Rāmagupta originally. This king encountered a certain Khasa or Śaka king in the Himālayas and was defeated. He saved himself and his kingdom by entering into an ignominious treaty with the victor. According to the terms of the treaty he was to surrender his queen Dhruva- devī to the Khasa or Śaka king in return for the liberty of himself and his kingdom. The humiliating treaty enraged his brother Candragupta, who, disguised himself as Queen Dhruvadevī, went to the enemies' camp at Alipura and killed the Khasa or Śaka king. On his return, he killed his brother Rāmagupta also and married his widowed queen Dhruvadevī. There is a general agreement amongst scholars regarding the historical facts just mentioned, but on certain details there still rages a great controversy. The controversy centres round the

1. Portions from this drama are found quoted in the Śṛṅgāraprakāśa and the Nāṭyadarpaṇa (G. O. S. edi. ).
2. E. I. Vol. XVIII p. 248.
3. अरि(लि)पुरे च परकलत्रकामुकं कामिनीवेषगुप्तश्चन्द्रगुप्तः शकपतिमशातयत् ।
4. स्त्रीवेषनिह्नुतश्चन्द्रगुप्तः शत्रोः स्कन्धावारं अलिपुरं शकपतिवधायागमत् ।
5. E. I. Vol. VII, p. 36.
6. G. O. S. edi.

XXII INTRODUCTION. name of Khasādhipati or S'akādhipati, his identity and the iden- tification of his capital Alipura, the author of the verse in question, and the king to whom it is addressed. The verse in question makes it clear that the engagement between the Gupta and Khasa kings took place in the Himālayan region, and thus it can be said that Alipura, the capital of the Khasa or S'aka king, was situated somewhere in the Himālayas. Moreover, according to Rājaśekhara's version the victor is called the Khasādhipati, and the Gupta king is named as S'arma- gupta or Senagupta instead of S'akādhipati and Rāmagupta ob- tained from sources other than the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. There seems to be an agreement at least on one point, namely, that the S'aka or Khasa king referred to in the passage in question, should represent a Kushāṇa king of the Punjab but not a S'aka Satrap of either Malwa or Mathura. But in this connection, attention of scholars is required to be invited to the form Khasā- dhipati as recorded in the Kāvyamīmāṁsā. This particular word means a king of the Khasas or the Khasa tribes the existence of which is made well-known by the Rājatarangiṇī of Kalhaṇa. Sir Aurel Stein located the tribe in the widely distributed regions of the western Himālayas flanking the boundaries of Kashmir with their capital at Rajapuri also known as Khasālaya or Khasālī. The Khasas before the fifth century A. D. became very powerful and seized the kingdom of Kashmir and ruled over it.¹ Is it not possible to identify this Alipura with Khasālī, the capital of the Khasas ? Let us now discuss the question regarding the identity of the person to whom the verse in question is addressed. Various scholars have advanced different opinions, and let us examine them in detail and make an attempt to discover whether any finality can be reached. A clue to this vexed question is, however, supplied by the verse itself in its fourth line: गीयन्ते तव कार्त्तिकेयनगरस्त्रीणां गणैः कीर्तयः । In interpreting this line Prof. Altekar² has fallen into the regrettable error of taking the word Kārttikeya in the vocative and in assuming that the verse is addressed to Kārttikeya who is obviously the Kumāragupta I of the Gupta dynasty.

1. M. A. Stein. Rājatarangiṇī translation. Vol. I. 317.
2. J. B. O. R. S. Vol. xiv. p. 223.

INTRODUCTION. XXIII Mr. K. P. Jayaswal disagrees¹ with the above and points out that the word Kārttikeya goes with the word Nagara, and adds that "no poet would have mentioned so irreverently about Kumā- ragupta's own mother to him." Against this, it may be pointed out that the verse does not show any irreverence on the part of the poet whose business obviously is to eulogise his patron king Kumāragupta or Skanda- gupta of the Gupta dynasty. For, the weakness of Rāmagupta was already made known by Candragupta, also by Dhruvadevi who discarded her worthless husband and married his brother. Moreover, the descendants of the Gupta dynasty out of disrespect for Rāmagupta never mentioned him in the inscriptions as one of their ancestors. Dr. D. R. Bhandarkar who discussed the question later on,² is disposed to agree with Mr. Jayaswal in considering the word Kārttikeyanagara as the name of a town, and identified it with the ancient village of Vaijanātha in Almora District U. P. on the authority of the Pāṇḍukeśvara copper plate and the Tāle- śvara charters.³ Dr. Bhandarkar believes, however, that the verse is addressed to Candragupta, though he is not named expressly therein. If this position is accepted, Mr. Jayaswal's objection of showing irreverence to Kumāragupta's mother or Dhruvadevi is set at rest. Prof. V. V. Mirashi,⁴ however, remarks that the view held by Dr. Bhandarkar is hardly convincing, because the verse quoted here is a Muktaka or a detached stanza which should not only be complete in itself but also contain the name of the king addressed to. He, thus, commits the same mistake as Prof. Altekar, and takes the word Kārttikeya in the vocative, but advances the new theory that the word stands for the king Mahīpāla of the Gurjara Pratīhāra dynasty, the patron of Rājaśekhara. In support of this, he further adds that Kṣemīśvara in the Bharatavākya of his drama Caṇḍakauśika similarly calls his patron Mahīpāla as

1. J. B. O. R. S. Vol. XVIII, p. 20.
2. Malaviya Commemoration Volume. p. 194.
3. I. A. XXV. 178, and E. I. Vol. XIII, pp. 115-118.
4. I. A. 1932, p. 201.

XXIV INTRODUCTION. Kārttikeya.¹ According to him the verse, in question, was either Rājaśekhara's own or a composition of one of his contemporaries in the court of the king Mahīpāla which he inserted in his Kāvyamīmāṁsā. Against Prof. Mirashi's theory, it may be pointed out that if the word Kārttikeya is taken out, the word Nagarastrīṇām will have to be taken as a separate and independent word. No poet, howsoever dull, would ever think of saying that the fame of a king was sung by women of the town and afterwards would leave the name of the particular town undisclosed. Nor does it seem reasonable to suppose the poet to be so particular as to exclude the village- women from participating in the praising or singing campaign, by specially naming the women of the town. It is not also possible to suppose that it is the women of the towns who took part in singing eulogies, while the village-women refrained from doing so! The expression स्त्रीणां गणैः is sufficient to include all women, both of towns and villages, and why should it be necessary to qualify स्त्रीणां with the word नगर which reduces the value of the eulogy? It is not also correct to assume that the Muktaka verse which should be complete in itself should also contain the name of the person to whom the Muktaka is addressed. On the same page 47, there are five other examples of Muktaka verse, and in none of these there is any mention of the name of the person addressed to. Under the circumstances we can only confirm the view of Messrs. Jayaswal and Bhandarkar both of whom rightly take Kārttikeyanagara as one word and identify it with the place where Rāmagupta first sustained a defeat, and later, the Khasa king was killed by Candragupta II in whose praise the verse in question is composed. Accordingly, the last lines of the verse, in question, may be translated thus: "Your fame is sung today by the women of the Kārttikeya- nagara in the same Himālayas which is resonant with the singing of the Kinnaras living in the hollows of spacious caves."

1. येनादृश्य प्रयोगं घनपुलकभृता नाटकस्यास्य हर्षात् वक्षालङ्कारहेम्नां प्रतिदिनमकृशा राशयः सम्प्रदत्ताः । तस्य क्षत्रप्रसूतेः भ्रमतु जगदिदं कार्तिकेयस्य कीर्तिः पारे क्षीराख्यसिन्धोरपि कवियशसा सार्धमग्रेसरेण ॥

INTRODUCTION. XXV From the foregoing discussion, it is easy to discover that the verse in question is addressed to Candragupta Vikramāditya by a contemporary poet, and is quoted by Rājaśekhara in his Kāvyamīmāṁsā. The second marriage of Dhruvadevī with Candragupta is also to be taken as a settled historical fact, on the authority of the Sañjan¹ copper plate of Amoghavarṣa I and the Cambay² plate of Govinda IV. Two more verses are quoted by Rājaśekhara on pp. 60-61 of the Kāvyamīmāṁsā, which throw a flood of light on the vexed question of the date of Kālidāsa. The verses in question record a conversation between a king and his messenger. Identical verses are subsequently quoted by Bhoja in his S'r̥ṅgāraprakāśa with the remark that here the king represents Vikramāditya and the messenger, Kālidāsa.³ The verses in question refer to a message, conveyed by Kālidāsa from the king of Kuntala to Vikramāditya who approves of the request made by the Kuntala king. Tradition ascribes to Kālidāsa a work called the Kuntaleśvaradautya, and as the subject-matter of the verses quoted here relates to the dip- lomatic communications of the king of Kuntala, it is not un- reasonable to suppose that the verses belonged to the now lost work Kuntaleśvaradautya of Kālidāsa. A verse from the same work quoted in the Aucityavicāracarcā by Kṣemendra refers to the fact that Kālidāsa as an envoy of Vikramāditya was not respected in the court of the Kuntala king who made him sit on the ground and did not offer a seat.⁴ It thus transpires that Kālidāsa was sent as an envoy to the court of the Kuntala king Pr̥thvīṣeṇa Vākāṭaka, a subordinate of the Gupta kings, by Candragupta II Vikramāditya and that on account of Kālidāsa's mediation friendly relations were established between the two royal houses. This embassy further helps us in fixing a suitable date for Kālidāsa, and once for all ends the controversy regarding his time, raging

1. हत्वा भ्रातरमेव राज्यमहरद्देवीं च दीनस्तथा लक्षं कोटिमलेखयत्किल कलौ दाता स गुप्तान्वयः ॥ E. I. Vol. XVIII, p. 248
2. सामर्थ्ये सति निन्दिता प्रविहिता नैवाग्रजे क्रूरता बन्धुस्त्रीगमनादिभिः कुचरितैरावर्जितं नायशः । शौचाशौचपराङ्मुखं न च भिया पैशाच्यमङ्गीकृतं त्यागेनासमसाहसैश्च भुवने यः साहसाङ्कोऽभवत् ॥ E. I. Vol. VII, p. 36.
3. See. infra. Notes. p. 215.
4. Ibid. 4