काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER VII 223 यथा वा “चापाचार्यस्त्रिपुरविजयी कार्तिकेयो विजेयः शस्त्रव्यस्तः सदनमुदधिर्भूरियं हन्तकारः । अस्त्येवैतत् किमु कृतवता रेणुकाकण्ठबाधां बद्धस्पर्द्धस्तव परशुना लज्जते चन्द्रहासः” ॥२३०॥ इत्यादौ भार्गवस्य निन्दायां तात्पर्यम् । कृतवतेति परशौ सा प्रतीयते । ‘कृतवतः’ इति तु पाठे मतयोगो भवति । are meant to be ‘listened’ to are (1) the thing that attains, and (2) the thing attained; and in any enumeration of these, both of them should be spoken of by means of nouns with the nominative ending].—Nor is it possible for the ‘Bow’ and other things to be regarded either as included in the denotation of the pronoun ‘yat’ (in the first line, which is the objective of the verb to listen), or as a qualification of that denotation. Nor lastly is there any such question as—‘what was attained by what?’— ‘kena kena kim kim’—(which would have established the intended connection between the two sets of sentences). Another example of the same defect— ‘Chāpāchāryastripuravijayī kārtikeyo vijeyaḥ Shastravyastaḥ sadanamudadhirbhūriyaṁ hantakāraḥ Astyevaitat kimu kṛtavatā reṇukā-kaṇṭhabādhāṁ Baddhaspardhastava parashunā lajjate chandrahāsaḥ’ (For translation see above, stanza No. 201) What is intended here is the deprecation of Parashu- rāma himself (for having killed his mother); while the term ‘kṛtavatā’ qualifying the axe, makes the said de- precation appliable to this latter. The reading ‘kṛtavataḥ’ (which would qualify ‘tava’) would afford the intended connection.

224 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA यथा वा चत्वारो वयमृत्विजः स भगवान् कर्मोपदेष्टा हरिः संग्रामाध्वरदीक्षितो नरपतिः पत्नी गृहीतव्रता । कौरव्याः पशवः प्रियापरिभवक्लेशोपशान्तिः फलं राजन्योपनिमन्त्रणाय रसति स्फीतं हतो दुन्दुभिः ॥२३१॥ अत्राध्वरशब्दः समासे गुणीभूत इति न तदर्थः सर्वैः संयुज्यते । यथा वा जङ्घाकाण्डोरुनालो नखकिरणलसत्केसरालीकरालः प्रत्यग्रालक्तकाभाप्रसरकिसलयो मञ्जुमञ्जीरभृङ्गः । Another example— Chatvāro vayamṛtvijaḥ sa bhagavān karmopadeṣṭā hariḥ Saṁgrāmādhvaradīkṣito narapatiḥ patnī gṛhītavratā Kauravyāḥ pashavaḥ priyāparibhavakleshopashāntiḥ phalaṁ Rājanyopanimantraṇāya rasati sphītaṁ hato dundubhiḥ.’ ‘ We four are the sacrificial priests; the blessed Hari is the spiritual adviser; the king has been initiated for the battle-ritual; and his wife is keeping the vows; the Kurus are the animals (to be sacrificed); the result aimed at is the allayment of the pain caused by the molestation of our beloved wife; the battle-drum is being sounded for the purpose of inviting the Kṣattriyas (to the sacrifice)’. Here the term ‘adhvara’, ‘sacrifice’, has been made a subordinate member of the compound, and hence what is denoted by it fails to be connected with all the sacrificial details mentioned. The following is yet another example;— ‘Jaṅghākāṇḍorunālo nakhakiraṇalasatkesarālīkarālaḥ Pratyagrālaktakābhāprasarakisalayo mañjumañjīrabhṛṅgaḥ

CHAPTER VII 225 भर्तुर्नृत्तानुकार जयति निजतनूस्वच्छलावण्यवापी- संभूताम्भोजशोभां विदधदभिनवो दण्डपादो भवान्याः ॥२३२॥ अत्र दण्डपादगता निजतनूः प्रतीयते भवान्याः संबन्धिनी तु विवक्षिता ॥ (१३) अवश्यवक्तव्यमनुक्तं यत्र । यथा अप्राकृतस्य चरितातिशयैश्च दृष्टै- रत्यद्भुतैरपहृतस्य तथापि नास्था । कोप्येष वीरशिशुकाकृतिरप्रमेय- सौन्दर्यसारसमुदायमयः पदार्थः ॥२३३॥ अत्र ‘अपहृतोस्मि’ इत्यपहृतत्वस्य विधिर्वाच्यः तथापीत्यस्य द्वितीयवाक्यगतत्वेनैवोपपत्तेः । यथा वा Bharturnṛttānukāre jayati nijatanusvachchalāvaṇyavāpī- Sambhūtāmbhojaśobhāṁ vidadhadabhinavo daṇḍapādo bhavānyāḥ. (Translated above as stanza No. 150) Here the expression ‘nijatanu’, appearing in the com- pound, is understood as refering to the Daṇḍapāda, while it is intended to refer to Bhavānī. (13) In the following we have an example of the ‘Omission of a necessary Statement’.— ‘Aprākṛtasya charitātishayaishcha dṛṣṭair Atyadbhutairapahṛtasya tathāpi nāsthā Kopyeṣa vīrashishukākṛtiraprameya- Saundaryasārasamudāyamayaḥ padārthaḥ’. ‘Though I am captivated by the apparently excellent and marvellous deeds of this extraordinary person, yet I have no faith (in the fact that the bow has been broken by him); for this is an indescribable entity constituted by the very essence of illimitable beauty, appearing in the shape of a heroic boy.’ Here what should have been expressly stated was the 15

226 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA एषोहमद्रितनयामुखपद्मजन्मा प्राप्तः सुरासुरमनोरथदूरवर्ती । स्वप्नेनिरुद्धघटनाधिगताभिरूप- लक्ष्मीफलामसुरराजसुतां विधाय ॥२३४॥ अत्र मनोरथानामपि दूरवर्तीत्यप्यर्थो वाच्यः । यथा वा त्वयि निबद्धरतेः प्रियवादिनः प्रणयभङ्गपराङ्मुखचेतसः । कमपराधलवं मम पश्यसि त्यजसि मानिनि दासजनं यतः ॥२३५॥ direct affirmation of his having ‘ become captivated ’,— the right reading being ‘ apahṛtosmi ’ (for ‘ apahṛtasya ’); specially as the use of the expression ‘ tathāpi ’ could be justified only as occurring in a totally different sentence [hence it is essential that there should be a finite verb in the preceding sentence, without which there would not be two distinct sentences.] Another example of the same :— ‘ Eṣohamadritanayāmukhapadmajanmā Prāptaḥ surāsuramanorathadūravartī Svapneniruddhaghaṭanādhigatābhirūpa- Lakṣmīphalāmasurarājasutāṁ vidhāya ’. ‘ I, born of the lotus-face of Pārvatī, who am beyond the reach of the longings of gods and demons, have come here, after having made the daughter of the demon-king such as has her exquisite beauty rendered fruitful through association, in a dream, with Aniruddha.’ [Here the sense intended to be conveyed is that ‘ I am beyond even the longings of the gods and demons ;’ [and this idea the words used fail to convey ]. Similarly in the following verse also— Tvayi nibaddharateḥ priyavādinaḥ Praṇayabhaṅgaparāṅmukhacetasaḥ Kamaparādhalavaṁ mama paśyasi Tyajasi mānini dāsajanaṁ yataḥ.

CHAPTER VII 227 अत्र 'अपराधस्य लवमपि' इति वाच्यम् ॥ (१४) अस्थानस्थपदं यथा प्रियेण संग्रथ्य विपक्षसंनिधा- वुपाहितां वक्षसि पीवरस्तने । स्रजं न काचिद्विजहौ जलाविलां वसन्ति हि प्रेम्णि गुणा न वस्तुषु ॥२३६॥ अत्र 'काचिन्न विजहौ' इति वाच्यम् । यथा वा 'O proud one ! what trace of fault do you find in me, which makes you abandon me, your servant ?—I, whose love is centered in you, who always talk to you affec- tionately and whose mind is ever averse to any breach of endearment.' Here also what is meant to be expressed is 'even the slightest trace of a fault.' (14) The following is an example of the 'Misplaced Word'— 'Priyeṇa saṅgrathya vipakṣasannidhā- Vupāhitāṁ vakṣasi pīvarastane Srajaṁ na kāchid vijahau jalāvilāṁ Vasanti hi premṇi guṇā na vastuṣu.' 'The lover had carefully knitted a garland and placed it over her chest covered with her high breasts, in the presence of her rivals ; and though this garland had become sullied with water, yet not a certain girl did remove it ; the value lies, not in the presented object, but in the love that prompts it.' What is intended to be expressed is that 'a certain woman did not remove the garland ;' and to this end the 'na' should have come before 'vijahau'.

228 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA लग्नः केलिकचग्रहश्लथजटालम्बेन निद्रान्तरे मुद्राङ्कः शितिकन्धरेन्दुशकलेनान्तःकपोलस्थलम् । पार्वत्या नखलक्ष्मशङ्कितसखीनर्मस्मितह्रीतया प्रोन्मृष्टः करपल्लवेन कुटिलाताम्रच्छविः पातु वः ॥२३७॥ अत्र नखलक्ष्मनेत्यतः पूर्वं ‘कुटिलाताम्र०’ इति वाच्यम् ॥ (१५) अस्थानस्थसमासं यथा अद्यापि स्तनशैलदुर्गविषमे सीमन्तिनीनां हृदि स्थातुं वाञ्छति मान एष धिगिति क्रोधादिवालोहितः । [As it stands, the expression means 'not some one,—but all— removed the garland.'] Another example of the same— Lagnaḥ kelikachagrahashlathajaṭālambena nidrāntare Mudrāṅkaḥ śitikandharenduśakalenāntaḥkapolasthalam Pārvatyā nakhalakṣmaśaṅkitasakhīnarmasmitahrītayā Pronmṛṣṭaḥ karapallavena kuṭilātāmrachchhaviḥ pātu vaḥ. ‘May the curved red mark made on Pārvatī’s cheek by Shiva’s moon-digit, while she slept on his matted locks, tired during dalliance, protect you !—the marks wiped off by her tender hands, when she was abashed by the smiles of her companion who suspected the mark to be of nails.’ The epithet ‘kuṭilātāmrachchhaviḥ’ (‘red and curved’) should have been placed before the term ‘nakhalakṣma etc.’ [As it is the ‘curvature and redness’ that supply the grounds for the companion’s suspicion.] (15) The following is an example of the ‘Misplaced Compound’— ‘Adyāpi stanashailadurgaviṣame sīmantinīnāṁ hṛdi Sthātuṁ vāñchhati māna eṣa dhigiti krodhādivālohitaḥ

CHAPTER VII 229 प्रोद्यद्दूरतप्रसारितकरः कर्षत्यसौ तत्क्षणात् फुल्लत्कैरवकोशनिःसरदलिश्रेणीकृपाणं शशी ॥२३८॥ अत्र क्रुद्धस्योक्तौ समासो न कृतः कवेरुक्तौ तु कृतः ॥ (१६) संकीर्णम् यत्र वाक्यान्तरस्य पदानि वाक्यान्तरमनु- प्रविशन्ति । यथा किमिति न पश्यसि कोपं पादगतं बहुगुणं गृहाणेमम् । ननु मुञ्च हृदयनाथं कण्ठे मनसस्तमोरूपम् ॥२३९॥ Prodyaddūrataraprasāritakaraḥ karṣatyasau tatkṣaṇāt Phullatkairavakośanissarodalishreṇīkṛpāṇaṁ shashī’. ‘Even yet this pride wishes to stay in the hearts of - women, fortified by the hill-like breasts ! Woe be to me !—Saying this, and becoming reddened with rage, the moon immediately puts forth his arms (rays) far and wide and draws the sword in the shape of the line of black bees issuing forth from the blooming lily.’ Here the first line represents the speech of the enraged moon, and the rest that of the poet ; the long compounds however, appear in the latter and not in the former (where it would have been more in keeping with the sentiment expressed). (16) The following is an example of ‘Confusion’,— i.e., where the words of one sentence are found in the midst of another— ‘Kimiti na pashyasi kopaṁ pādagataṁ bahuguṇaṁ gṛhāṇemam Nanu muñcha hṛdayanāthaṁ kaṇṭhe manasastamorūpam.’ ‘Why do you not look upon your heart’s lord, the receptacle of many good qualities, fallen upon your feet ? Embrace him on the neck and renounce your anger, which hangs like a gloom on your heart ’.

230 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अत्र पादगतं बहुगुणं हृदयनाथं किमिति न पश्यसि । इमं कण्ठे गृहाण मनसस्तमोरूपं कोपं मुञ्चेति । एकवाक्यतायां तु क्लिष्टमिति भेदः ॥ (१७) गर्भितम् यत्र वाक्यस्य मध्ये वाक्यान्तरमनुप्रविशति । यथा परापकारनिरतैर्दुर्जनैः सह संगतिः । वदामि भवतस्तत्त्वं न विधेया कथञ्चन ॥२४०॥ अत्र तृतीयपादो वाक्यान्तरमध्ये प्रविष्टः । यथा वा लग्नं रागावृताङ्ग्या सुदृढमिह ययैवासियष्ट्यारिकण्ठे मातङ्गानामपीहोपरि परपुरुषैर्या च दृष्टा पतन्ती । The sentences meant here are—‘Atra pādagataṁ bahuguṇaṁ hṛdayanāthaṁ kimiti na paśyasi,—imaṁ kaṇṭhe gṛhāṇa,—manasastamorūpaṁ kopaṁ muñcha.’ The difference between this (confusion) and ‘obs- curity’ lies in the fact that in the latter it is the words of a single sentence that appear in a confused order (while in the former they appear in several sentences). (17) In the following we have an example of the ‘Paren- thetical Expression’— ‘Parāpakāraniratairdurjanaiḥ saha saṅgatiḥ’ Vadāmi bhavatastattvaṁ na vidheyā kathañchana ‘Association with bad men bent upon injuring others, —I tell you the truth,—should never be maintained.’ Here the third foot of the verse (‘vadāmi bhavatastatt- vam’) occurs in the middle of a sentence. Another example of the same— Lagnaṁ rāgāvṛtāṅgyā sudṛḍhamiha yayaivāsiyaṣṭyārikaṇṭhe Mātangānāmapīhopari parapuruṣair- yācha dṛṣṭā patantī

CHAPTER VII 231 तत्सक्तोयं न किंचिद्गणयति विदितं तेस्तु तेनास्मि दत्ता भृत्येभ्यः श्रीनियोगाद्गदितुमिव गतेत्यम्बुधिं यस्य कीर्तिः ॥२४१॥ अत्र ‘विदितं तेस्तु’ इति एतत्कृतम्। प्रत्युत लक्ष्मीस्ततोप- सरतीति विरुद्धमतिकृत् ॥ (१८) “मञ्जीरादिषु रणितप्रायं पक्षिषु च कूजितप्रभृति । स्तनितमणितादि सुरते मेघादिषु गर्जितप्रमुखम् ॥ Tatsaktoyaṁ na kiṁchid gaṇayati viditaṁ testu tenāsmi dattā Bhṛtyebhyaḥ shrīniyogād gaditumiva gate— tyambudhiṁ yasya kīrtiḥ’ ‘Whose fame repaired to the ocean to deliver the following message to him under orders from the Goddess of Wealth—“This Sword (woman), corroded with blood (full of passion) fell upon the neck [(a) in the act of cutting, (b) in the act of embracing] of the enemy, and which was seen by strangers to fall upon elephants (to repair to Chāṇ- ḍālas),—being attached to this same Sword (woman), this king cares for nothing else, and—be this known to you—I am being given away by him to his dependents”. Here the clause ‘viditaṁ testu’, ‘be this known to you’, is unnecessarily inserted ; in fact it has the implication that ‘the Goddess of Wealth is going to desert the king’, which is entirely repugnant to the context. (18) ‘Opposed to Usage or Convention’ is that which contravenes such conventions as the following—“The sound of the anklet and such ornaments is to be described as ‘raṇita’ (jingling), that of birds as ‘kūjita’ (warbling), those produced at the time of embraces, as ‘stanita’ (murmur), ‘maṇita’ (cooing) and so forth, and that of clouds as ‘garjita’ (thundering)”.

232 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA इति प्रसिद्धिमतिक्रान्तम् । यथा महाप्रलयमारुतक्षुभितपुष्करावर्तक- प्रचण्डघनगर्जितप्रतिरुतानुकारी मुहुः । रवः श्रवणभैरवः स्थगितरोदसीकन्दरः कुतोद्य समरोदधेरयमभूतपूर्वः पुरः ॥ २४२ ॥ अत्र रवो मण्डूकादिषु प्रसिद्धो न तूक्तविशेषे सिंहनादे ॥ (१९) भग्नः प्रक्रमः प्रस्तावः यत्र । यथा नाथे निशाया नियतेर्नियोगादस्तं गते हन्त निशापि याता । कुलाङ्गनानां हि दशानुरूपं नातःपरं भद्रतरं समस्ति ॥२४३॥ We have an example of this in the following— ‘Mahāpralayamārutakṣubhitapuṣkarāvartaka— Pracaṇḍaghanagarjitapratirutānukārī muhuḥ Ravaḥ śravaṇabhairavaḥ sthagitarodasīkandaraḥ Kutodya samarodadherayamabhūtapūrvaḥ puraḥ’. ‘Whence this unprecedented ear-splitting sound of the ocean of battle, pervading the entire valley between the earth and the heavens, and resembling the echo of the thundering of clouds tossed about by storms during uni- versal dissolution ?’ The word ‘rava’ (sound) that is used here is generally used in the sense of the noise made by frogs and such ani- mals, and not in that of the particular leonine roar, here referred to. (19) The following is an example of ‘Broken Unifor- mity’, i. e. where the ‘uniformity’, i. e. continuity of sequ- ence, is broken :— ‘Nāthe niśāyā niyaterniyogād Astaṁ gate hanta niśāpi yātā Kulāṅganānāṁ hi daśānurūpaṁ Nātaḥ paraṁ bhadrataraṁ samasti.’

CHAPTER VII 233 अत्र 'गते' इति प्रकान्ते 'याता' इति प्रकृतेः । 'गता निशापि' इति तु युक्तम् । ननु 'नैकं पदं द्विः प्रयोज्यं प्रायेण' इत्यन्यत्र कथितपदं दुष्ट- मिति चेहैवोक्तम् । तत्कथमेकस्य पदस्य द्विःप्रयोगः । उच्यते । उद्देश्यप्रतिनिद्देश्यव्यतिरिक्तो विषय एकपदप्रयोगनिषेधस्य । तद्धति विषये प्रत्युत तस्यैव पदस्य सर्वनाम्नो वा प्रयोगं विना दोषः । तथाहि— ‘ Under the ordination of destiny, the Lord of Night having gone to set, it is well that the Night also has de- parted ; for noble women, there is no better condition and more in keeping with the state of things than this’. The statement, having opened with ‘gata’ (gone), ends with ‘yāta’ (departed) ; thus violating the unifor- mity of the verbal root. The right reading would have been ‘gatā niśāpi’, [which would have been more appropriate in describing the exact following by the wife in the foot-steps of her lord.] Objection :—“ In another work (Vāmana’s sūtras) it has been laid down that no word should be repeated twice, and in this work itself the Repetition of words has been described as a Defect ; how then should it be regarded advisable to repeat the same word gatā’) as suggested ?” Our answer is as follows :—The prohibition of the repeating of a word is meant to apply to cases other than the one where what is spoken of subsequently is meant to be precisely the same that has been mentioned previously ; [as in the case in question the going of the night is meant to be precisely the same as the going of the moon ] where, on the other hand, such identity is meant, it would be a positive defect if the same noun were not repeated, either

234 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उदयति सविता ताम्रस्ताम्र एवास्तमेति च । संपत्तौ च विपत्तौ च महतामेकरूपता ॥ २४४ ॥ अत्र रक्त एवास्तमेतीति यदि क्रियेत तदा पदान्तरप्रति- पादितः स एवार्थोऽर्थान्तरतयेव प्रतिभासमानः प्रतीतिं स्थगयति ॥ यथा वा यशोधिगन्तुं सुखलिप्सया वा मनुष्यसंख्यामतिवर्तितुं वा । निरुत्सुकानामभियोगभाजां समुत्सुकेवाङ्कमुपैति सिद्धिः ॥ २४५॥ by itself, or by a corresponding pronoun ; as for instance, in the folllwing— ‘Udeti savitā tāmrastāmra evāstameti cha Sampattau cha vipattau cha mahatāmekarūpatā’. ‘The sun rises red, and sets red also ; great beings retain the same condition both in prosperity and adversity’. Here if the form adopted in the second clause were ‘rakta evāstameti’, though the meaning would be the same expressed in different words, yet it would not afford the idea intended (of unchangeableness),—the use of different words giving rise to the notion that the condition spoken of is different from that spoken of before. The following is an example of the ‘Violation of Uni- formity’, as realating to the affix— ‘Yashodhigantuṁ sukhalipsayā vā Manuṣyasaṅkhyāmativartituṁ vā Nirutsukānāmabhiyogabhājāṁ Samutsukevāṅkamupaiti siddhiḥ’. ‘To those who exert themselves without flurry,— either to obtain fame, or with a desire to obtain pleasure, or to surpass ordinary humanity,—success comes to the lap, as if it were anxious to reach him’.

CHAPTER VII 235 अत्र प्रत्ययस्य । 'सुखमीहितुं वा' इति युक्तः पाठः । ते हिमालयमामन्त्र्य पुनः प्रेक्ष्य च शूलिनम् । सिद्धं चास्मै निवेद्यार्थं तद्विसृष्टाः खमुद्ययुः ॥ २४६ ॥ अत्र सर्वनाम्नः । 'अनेन विसृष्टाः' इति तु वाच्यम् । महीभृतः पुत्रवतोपि दृष्टिस्तस्मिन्नपत्ये न जगाम तृप्तिम् । अनन्तपुष्पस्य मधोर्हि चूते द्विरेफमाला सविशेषसङ्गा ॥२४७॥ Here the uniformity of the affix (Infinitive) is broken. The right reading would be ‘sukhamīhitum vā’. In the following we have an example of the ‘Violation of the Uniformity’ of the Pronoun— ‘Te himālayamāmantrya punaḥ prekṣya cha shūlinam Siddhaṁchāsmai nivedyārthaṁ tadvisṛṣṭāḥ khamudyayuḥ’ ‘Having asked Himālaya and seen Shiva, communica- ted to him the fulfilment of the purpose, and, having ob- tained his leave, repaired to the skies’. Here the uniformity of the pronoun is broken ; the right form would have been ‘anena visṛṣṭāḥ’ (in place of ‘tadvisṛṣṭāḥ’, which latter points to some one different from the person, Shiva, just mentioned). In the following we have an example of the ‘Violation of the Uniformity’ of the synonym— ‘Mahībhṛtaḥ putravatopi dṛṣṭis— Tasminnapatye na jagāma tṛptim Anantapuṣpasya madhorhi chūte Dvirephamālā savisheṣāsaṅgā’. ‘Though he had sons, yet his eyes were never tired of feasting upon that child ; though spring is full of endless flowers, yet the line of black bees has a special attachment for the mango.’

236 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अत्र पर्यायस्य । 'महीभृतोपत्यवतोपि' इति युक्तम् । 'अत्र सत्यपि पुत्रे कन्यारूपेप्यपत्ये स्नेहोभूत्' इति केचित्सम- र्थयन्ते । विपदोभिभवन्त्यविक्रमं रहयत्यापदुपेतमायतिः । नियता लघुता निरायतेरगरीयान्न पदं नृपश्रियः ॥२४८॥ अत्रोपसर्गस्य पर्यायस्य च । 'तदभिभवः कुरुते निरायतिम् । The right reading would have been ‘ mahībhṛtopatyava- topi’ (which would be in keeping with ‘apatya’ in the second line). Some people defend the original reading on the ground that it affords the meaning that—‘ though he had sons, male children, yet, he had special love for the daughter, the female child’. [A meaning which will not be available if the suggested emendation were made]. In the following we have an example of the ‘ Violation of the Uniformity’ of the prefix, as also of the synonym— ‘Vipadobhibhavantyavikramaṁ Rahayatyāpadupetamāyatiḥ Niyatā laghutā nirāyater— Agarīyānna padaṁnṛpaśriyaḥ.’ ‘Calamities press upon one who is devoid of courage ; future prospects desert one who is beset with calamities ; disrespect is the certain lot of one who is deprived of future prospects ; and he who commands no respect is not the receptacle of kingly splendour.’ [In the first sentence we have the term ‘vipat’, which is replaced in the second sentence by ‘āpat’ the prefix being changed; again in the preceding sentence we have the term ‘laghutā’, whose place in the following sentence is taken by its synonym ‘agarīyān’.] The right reading would be— (a) ‘Tadabhibhavaḥ kurute nirāyatim’

CHAPTER VII 237 लघुतां भजते निरायतौर्लघुतावान्न पदं नृपश्रियः ॥ इति युक्तम् । काचित्कीर्णा रजोभिर्दिवमनुविदधौ मन्दवक्त्रेन्दुलक्ष्मी- रश्रीकाः काश्चिदन्तर्दिश इव दधिरे दाहमुद्भ्रान्तसत्त्वाः । भ्रमुर्वात्या इवान्याः प्रतिपदमपरा भूमिवत्कम्पमानाः प्रस्थाने पार्थिवानामशिवमिवि पुरो भावि नार्यः शशंसुः ॥ २४९॥ (b) ‘Laghutāṁ bhajate nirāyatiḥ’ (c) ‘Laghutāvanna padannṛpaśriyaḥ’ (fourth line) In the following we have an example of the ‘Violation of the Uniformity’ of number. ‘Kāchit kīrṇā rajobhirdivamanuvidadhau mandavaktrendu- lakṣmīr- Ashrīkāḥ kāśchidantardisha iva dadhire dāhamudbhrān- tasattvāḥ Bhremurvātyā ivānyāḥ pratipadamaparāḥ bhūmivat kam- pamānāḥ Prasthāne pārthivānāmashivamiti puro bhāvi nāryaḥ shashaṁsuḥ.’ ‘At the time of the king’s departure the women fore- boded impending calamity;—while one was beset with menstrual impurity and had her moon-like face bedimmed, thereby resembling the atmosphere (dusty and with a dull moon, a sign of coming trouble),—others, devoid of all splendour and their minds unsteady under the fire of the pangs of separation, resembled the quarters (dull and amazing all animals by their red glare, another inauspicious sign);—others again flitted about like storms (an inauspici- ous sign), and another shook like the earth (earth-quake being a premonition of impending disaster).’ [In the first we have the noun in the Singular number, while throughout the following sentences of the verse, the Plural number is used, and in the last sentence again we find the Singular number.]

238 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अत्र वचनस्य । ‘काश्चित्कीर्णा रजोभिर्दिवमनुविदधुर्मन्द- वक्त्रेन्दुशोभा निःश्रीकाः’ इति ‘कम्पमानाः’ इत्यत्र ‘कम्पमापुः’ इति च पठनीयम् । गाहन्तां महिषा निपानसलिलं शृङ्गैर्मुहुस्ताडितं छायाबद्धकदम्बकं मृगकुलं रोमन्थमभ्यस्यताम् । विश्रब्धैः क्रियतां वराहपतिभिर्मुस्ताक्षतिः पल्वले विश्रान्तिं लभतामिदं च शिथिलज्याबन्धमस्मद्धनुः ॥२५०॥ अत्र कारकस्य । ‘विश्रब्धा रचयन्तु शूकरवरा मुस्ताक्षतिम्’ इत्यदुष्टम् । The right reading would be— ‘ Kāshchit kīrṇā rajobhīrdivamanuvidadhurmandavaktren- dushobhāḥ, niḥshrīkāḥ &c., &c.....................kampamāpuḥ’ In the following we have an example of ‘ Violation of the Uniformity ’ of the case-termination— ‘ Gāhantāṁ mahiṣā nipānasalilaṁ shṛṅgairmuhustāḍitam Chhāyābaddhakadambakaṁ mṛgakulaṁ romanthamabhya- syatām Vishrabdhaiḥ kriyatāṁ varāhapatibhirmustākṣatiḥ palvale Vishrāntiṁ labhatāmidaṁ cha shithilajyābandhamasmaddha- nuḥ’ : ‘ The wild buffaloes may now dabble in the pools, striking the water frequently with their horns ; the deer herded under the shade may practise rumination ; the huge boars may fearlessly destroy the long grass along the tanks ;—this very bow also may obtain rest on having its string slackened.’ [While we have the Active nominative ending throughout the verse, in the third line we have the Passive nominative ending]. The right reading would be— ‘ Viṣbrabdhā rachayantu shūkaravarā mustākṣatim.’

CHAPTER VII 239 अकलिततपस्तेजोवीर्यप्रथिम्नि यशोनिधा- ववितथमदाध्माते रोषान्मुनावभिगच्छति । अभिनवधनुर्विद्यादर्पक्षमाय च कर्मणे स्फुरति रभसात्पाणिः पादोपसंग्रहणाय च ॥२५१॥ अत्र क्रमस्य । पादोपसंग्रहणायति पूर्वं वाच्यम् । एवमन्य- दप्यनुसर्तव्यम् ॥ (२०) अविद्यमानः क्रमो यत्र । यथा In the following we have ‘Violation of the Unifor- mity’ of sequence — ‘ Akalitatapastejovīryaprathimni yashonidhā- Vavitathamadādhmāte roṣānmunāvabhigachchhati· Abhinavadhanurvidyādarpaḳṣamāya cha karmaṇe Sphurati rabhasātpāṇiḥ pādopasaṅgrahaṇāya cha.’ ‘ On the arrival of this sage, who is endowed with greatness due to illimitable ascetic virtue, and is the receptacle of fame, puffed with real haughtiness—my arms suddenly throb for such action as would be in keep- ing with the efficiency newly acquired in the science of archery, and also for clasping his feet.’ The presence of ‘ascetic virtue’ is mentioned before that of ‘haughtiness’, hence in the corresponding passage, ‘the clasping of the feet’ ‘pādopasaṅgrahaṇāya,’ which would be the correlative of the presence of ascetic virtue, should have been mentioned first (before the ‘efficiency in Archery’ which would correspond with the sage’s ‘haughtiness’.) Other similar examples may be cited. (20) In the following we have the example of the ‘ Absence of Uniformity’.

240 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA द्वयं गतं संप्रति शोचनीयतां समागमप्रार्थनया कपालिनः । कला च सा कान्तिमती कलावतः त्वमस्य लोकस्य च नेत्रकौमुदी ॥२५२॥ अत्र त्वंशब्दानन्तरं चकारो युक्तः । यथा वा शक्तिर्निस्त्रिंशजेयं तव भुजयुगले नाथ दोषाकरश्री- र्वक्त्रे पार्श्वे तथैषा प्रतिवसति महाकुट्टनी खड्गयष्टिः । आज्ञेयं सर्वगा ते विलसति च पुरः किं मया वृद्धया ते प्रोच्येवेत्थं प्रकोपाच्छशिकरसितया यस्य कीर्त्या प्रयातम् ॥२५३॥ ‘ Dvayaṅgataṁ samprati shochanīyatāṁ Samāgamaprārthanayā kapālinaḥ Kalā cha sā kāntimatī kalāvatas- Tvamashya lokasya cha netrakaumudī.’ (For translation, see above stanza No. 186). The presence of the particle ‘ cha’ after ‘ tvam’ would be proper (making the two correlated clauses more uni- form). Another example of the same— ‘ Shaktirnistriṁshajeyaṁ tava bhujayugale nātha doṣākaraśrīr Vaktre pārshve tathaiṣā prativasati mahākuṭṭanī khaḍgayaṣṭiḥ Ājñeyaṁ sarvagā te vilasati cha puraḥ kiṁ mayā vṛddhayā te Prochyevetthaṁ prakopāchchhashikarasitayā yasya kīrtyā prayātam.’ ‘ “O Lord ! you have in your hands (in your arms, in your embrace) this strength of your long sword (a prosti- tute); in your face you have the splendour of the moon (the receptable of blemishes); by your side hangs this sword, a mighty slaughterer (a pandering woman); your command, all-pervading (going to all men) dances before you ;—what use can you have of myself, overgrown

CHAPTER VII 241 अत्र 'इत्थं प्रोच्येव' इति न्याय्यम् । तथा 'लग्नं रागावृताङ्ग्या० ॥ २५३ (क) ॥ इत्यादौ 'इति श्रीनियोगात्' इति वाच्यम् ॥ (२१) अमतः प्रकृतविरुद्धः परार्थो यत्र । यथा राममन्मथशरेण ताडिता दुःसहेन हृदये निशाचरी । गन्धवद्रुधिरचन्दनोक्षिता जीवितेशवसतिं जगाम सा ॥ २५४॥ अत्र प्रकृते रसे विरुद्धस्य शृङ्गारस्य व्यञ्जकोऽपरोऽर्थः ॥५४॥ अर्थदोषानाह अर्थोऽपुष्टः कष्टो व्याहतपुनरुक्तदुष्क्रमग्राम्याः ॥ ५५ ॥ संदिग्धो निर्हेतुः प्रसिद्धिविद्याविरुद्धश्च । अनवीकृतः सनियमानियमविशेषा विशेषपरिवृत्ताः ॥ ५६ ॥ (old) as I am"—Having said this the king’s Fame, white as the moon’s rays, went forth, as if in a rage.’ Here the proper order of words would have been ‘ittham prochyeva.’ Another example of the same defect we have in the verse ‘Lagnaṁ rāgavṛtāṅgyā etc.’ (quoted above, stanza No. 241) ; where the proper form would have been ‘iti shrīniyogāt’. (21) In the following we have an example of ‘Undesirable Second Meaning’; i.e. where the words have an implication repugnant to the context :— ‘The demoness, struck in her heart by the unbearable arrows of the Cupid-like Rāma, went to the abode of the Lord of Life, being smeared all over with her own sandal- like stinking blood.’ Here the sentiment desired to be described is that of Disgust,—and repugnant to this is the erotic sentiment which is implied by the words used. 54. The author now describes the defects of meaning (Ideal Defects, as distinguished from Verbal Defects described above). 16

242 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA साकाङ्क्षोपद्युक्तः सहचरभिन्नः प्रकाशितविरुद्धः । विध्यनुवादायुक्तस्त्यक्तपुनःस्वीकृतोऽश्लीलः ॥ ५७ ॥ दुष्ट इति संबध्यते । क्रमेणोदाहरणम्— (१) अतिविततगगनसरणिप्रसरणपरिमुक्तविश्रमानन्दः । मरुदुल्लासितसौरभकमलाकरहासकृद्रविर्जयति ॥ २५५ ॥ अत्रातिविततत्वादयोऽनुपादानेऽपि प्रतिपाद्यमानमर्थं न बाधन्त इत्यपुष्टाः न त्वसंगताः पुनरुक्ता वा ॥ The meaning is—(1) irrelevant, (2) obscure, (3) inconsistent, (4) tautophonous, (5) irregular, (6) vulgar, (7) dubious, (8) inconsequential, (9) opposed to prevailing notions, (10) opposed to scientific notions, (11) monotonous, (12) too unspecific, (13) too specific, (14) too restricted, (15) too unrestricted, (16) incomplete, (17) misplaced, (18) mismatched, (19) of repugnant implication, (20) with improper predicate, (2) with improper adjunct, (22) resuming the concluded, and (23) indecorous. 55-57 The ‘meaning’ here referred to is to be understood as the ‘defective’ meaning. The following are the examples of the defects of mean- ing in due order :— (1) ‘Having renounced the pleasures of ease during his constant journey through the very wide-spread ethereal path, and making to smile the lotus which has its fragrance wafted by the breeze—the sun shines resplendent.’ The epithets ‘very wide-spread’ (‘path’) and the rest are such that even if they were dropped, there would be no harm done to the sense ; hence they are ‘irrelevant’— not ‘inconsistent’ or ‘tautological’.