काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER X 475 एषां दोषा यथायोगं संभवन्तोपि केचन । उक्तेष्वन्तर्भवन्तीति न पृथक् प्रतिपादिताः ॥ १४२ ॥ तथाहि--अनुप्रासस्य प्रसिद्धयभावो वैफल्यं वृत्तिविरोध इति ये त्रयो दोषाः । ते प्रसिद्धिविरुद्धताम् अपुष्टार्थत्वम् प्रति- कूलवर्णतां च यथाक्रमं न व्यतिक्रामन्ति तत्स्वभावत्वात् । क्रमेणोदाहरणम्-- चक्री चक्रारपङ्क्तिं हरिरपि च हरीन् धूर्जटिर्धूर्ध्वजाग्रान् अक्षं नक्षत्रनाथोरुणमपि वरुणः कूबराग्रं कुबेरः । रंहः संघः सुराणां जगदुपकृतये नित्ययुक्तस्य यस्य स्तौति प्रीतिप्रसन्नोन्वहमहिमरुचेः सोवतात्स्यन्दनो वः ॥५८०॥ Defects are possible in connection with these (Figures) also; but they are such as are likely to be included among these already described; hecnce they are not dealt with separately. 142. For instance, in connection with Alliteration, three defects have been cited (by the older writers) as specially noticeable; these are—(1) absence of general recognition, (2) uselessness and (3) incompatibility of diction; and these do not differ in character respectively from (1) being opposed to accepted notions, (2) Irrele- vancy and (3) Discordance of letters; as they have the same character as these. Examples in order— (1) [Absence of General Recognition]— 'Chakrī chakrārapaṅktiṁ harirapi cha harīn, dhūrjaṭirdhūrdhvajāgrān Akṣaṁ nakṣatranāthoruṇamapi varuṇaḥ, kūbarāgraṁ kuberaḥ Raṁhaḥ saṁghaḥ surāṇāṁ jagadupakṛtaye nityayuktasya yasya Stauti prītiprasannonvahamahimarucheḥ sovātātsyandano vaḥ.' II-12

476 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अत्र कर्तृकर्मप्रतिनियमेन स्तुतिः अनुप्रासानुरोधेनैव कृता न पुराणेतिहासादिषु तथा प्रतीतेति प्रसिद्धिविरोधः ॥ भण तरुणि रमणमन्दिरमानन्दस्यन्दिसुन्दरेन्दुमुखि । यदि सल्लीलोल्लापिनि गच्छसि तत् किं त्वदीयं मे ॥५८१॥ अनणुरणन्मणिमेखलमविरतशिञ्जानमञ्जुमञ्जीरम् । परिसरणमरुणचरणे रणरणकमकारणं कुरुते ॥५८२॥ ‘May that chariot of the Sun bent upon benefitting the world, protect you, whose line of spokes is daily recognised with pleasure by Viṣṇu, the horses by Indra, the banners by Shiva, the wheel by the Moon, the driver Aruṇa by Varuṇa, the poles by Kubera and the speed by the hosts of gods!’ The series of Agents and the Acts attributed to them here are all such as have been assumed for the purposes of Alliteration, and no such acts are found to have been described in the Itihāsas or Purāṇas. So that this is only a case of ‘contraxity to prevailing notions’. (2) [Uselessness]— ‘Bhaṇa taruṇi ramaṇamandiramānandasyandi- sundarendumukhi Yadi sallīlollāpini gachchasi tat kiṁ tvadīyaṁ me Anaṇuraṇanmaṇimekhalamaviratashiñjānamañju- mañjīram Parisaraṇamaruṇacharaṇe raṇaraṇakamakā- raṇaṁ kurute.’ ‘O young girl, with face as bright as the joyous moon, who converse sweetly and whose feet are red! at the time that you are going to your husband, your movement, accompanied by the tingling girdlezone and jingling anklets, produce without reason, a peculiar anxiety in my heart ;—tell me why this is so’.

CHAPTER X 477 अत्र वाच्यस्य विचिन्त्यमानं न किंचिदपि चारुत्वं प्रतीयते, इत्यपुष्टार्थतैवानुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम् ॥ अकुण्ठोत्कण्ठया इति अत्र शृङ्गारे परुषवर्णाडम्बरः पूर्वोक्तरीत्या विरुध्यते इति परुषानुप्रासोत्र प्रतिकूलवर्णतैव वृत्तिविरोधः ॥ यमकस्य पादत्रयगतत्वेन यमनमप्रयुक्तत्वं दोषः ॥ यथा भुजङ्गमस्येव मणिः सदम्भा ग्राहावकीर्णेव नदी सदम्भाः । दुरन्ततां निर्णयतोपि जन्तोः कर्षन्ति चेतः प्रसभं सदम्भाः ॥५८३॥ The idea expressed here is one in which, however much we ponder over it, we perceive no charm; hence the ‘uselessness’ of the Alliteration is only what has been described above as ‘Irrelevancy’. (3) [Incompatibility of Diction]— ‘Akuṇṭhotkaṇṭhayā &c., &c., (see above, stanza No. 207). Here, the bombast of harsh words is incompatible with the delineation of the Erotic Passion, in accordance with what has been said before (in Chapter VII); so that the defect of ‘incompatibility of diction’ in this Allitera- tion is nothing more than the presence of ‘discordant letters’. The presence of chiming in three feet of a verse, which has been mentioned as a defect in connection with Chime, is only ‘opposition to usage’; e. g., in the following verse— ‘Bhujangamasyeva maṇiḥ sadambhā Grāhāvakīrṇeva nadī sadambhāḥ Durantatānnirṇayatopi jantoḥ Karṣanti chetaḥ prasabhaṁ sadambhāḥ.’

478 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उपमायाम् उपमानस्य जातिप्रमाणगतन्यूनत्वम् अधिकता वा तादृशी अनुचितार्थत्वं दोषः । धर्माश्रये तु न्यूनाधिकत्वे यथा- क्रमं हीनपदत्वमधिकपदत्वं च न व्यभिचरतः ॥ क्रमेणोदाहरणम्— . चण्डालैरिव युष्माभिः साहसं परमं कृतम् ॥५८४॥ वह्निस्फुलिङ्ग इव भानुरयं चकास्ति ॥५८५॥ अयं पद्मासनासीनश्चक्रवाको विराजते । युगादौ भगवान् वेधा विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजाः ॥५८६॥ ‘ Deceitful people, though bearing testimony to their wicked heart, yet succeed in attracting the hearts of simple people,—just as is done by the pure and brilliant hood-gem of the serpent, and by the clear-watered streams full of alligators ’. The defect mentioned in connection with Simile is the inferiority or superiority of the object compared to (to the object compared), in point of kind and degree ;—and this is only what has been described as ‘ Impropriety’ of meaning ;—while the inferiority and superiority as regard the properties (of the two objects) do not differ from what has been described as ‘ deficiency of words ’ or ‘ redundancy of words ’. For Example— (1) [ Inferiority in kind ]— ‘ You took a very bold step, like Chaṇḍālas ’ (2) [ Inferiority in degree ]— ‘ The Sun is shining like a spark of fire ’. (3) [ Superiority in kind ]— ‘ This Chakravāka bird, seated on the lotus-seat, looks beautiful,—just like the revered Creator going to create the people at the beginning of the cycle ’.

CHAPTER X 479 पातालमिव ते नाभिः स्तनौ क्षितिधरोपमौ । वेणीदण्डः पुनरयं कालिन्दीपातसंनिभः ॥५८७॥ . अत्र चण्डालादिभिरुपमानः प्रस्तुतोऽर्थोऽत्यर्थमेव कदर्धित इत्यनुचितार्थता ॥ स मुनिर्लाञ्छितो मौञ्ज्या कृष्णाजिनपटं वहन् । व्यराजन्नीलजीमूतभागाश्लिष्ट इवांशुमान् ॥५८८॥ अत्रोपमानस्य मौञ्जीस्थानीयस्तडिल्लक्षणो धर्मः केनापि पदेन न प्रतिपादित इति हीनपदत्वम् ॥ स पीतवासाः प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्गं मनोज्ञभीमं वपुराप कृष्णः । शतह्रदेन्द्रायुधवान्निशायां संसृज्यमानः शशिनेव मेघः ॥५८९॥ अत्रोपमेयस्य शङ्खादेरनिर्देशे शशिनो ग्रहणमतिरिच्यते इत्यधिकपदत्वम् ॥ (4) [ Superiority in degree ]— ‘Thy navel is like the nether regions, thy breasts are like mountains and thy looks like the stream of the Yamunā’. In all these instances, the objects described, by being compared to the things mentioned, have been very much depreciated; and this involves the defect of ‘impropriety of meaning’ (already described in Chap. VII.) In the passage—‘The sage, wearing the girdle and the skin of the antelope, appeared like the sun interspersed among masses of blue clouds’,—it is found that in connec- tion with the object compared to (the Sun), nothing (like the lightning, for instance) has been mentioned as correspond- ing to the ‘girdle’ of the object compared; and this is only a ‘deficiency of words’. In the passage—‘Kṛṣṇa, dressed in yellow cloth and holding his bow assumed a body at once beautiful and terrible,—like the nocturnal cloud accompanied by lightning and the rainbow and the Moon’,—in the absence

480 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA लिङ्गवचनभेदोपि उपमानोपमेययोः साधारणं चेत् धर्ममन्यरूपं कुर्यात् । तदा एकतरस्यैव तद्धर्मसमन्वयावगतेः सविशेषणस्यैव तस्योपमानत्वमुपमेयत्वं वा प्रतीयमानेन धर्मेण प्रतीयते इति प्रक्रान्तस्यार्थस्य स्फुटमनिर्वाहादस्य भग्नप्रक्रम- रूपत्वम् । यथा-- चिन्तारत्नमिव च्युतोसि करतो धिङ्मन्दभाग्यस्य मे ॥५९०॥ of any mention of the conch and other things in connec- tion with the object compared (Kṛṣṇa), the mention of the moon is superfluous ; and this involves the defect of 'Redundancy' (already described under chapter VII). Further, the diversity in gender and number, of the object compared and that compared to (which has been des- cribed as a defect of Simile),—if it bring about some di- versity in the form of the word mentioning the common property, it is only the defect which has been described as 'Broken Uniformity;' because in such a case the said property belonging to only one of the two objects, the objects could be regarded either as 'the object compared' or 'the object compared a to' on the basis of that property only in a qualified (and not original) form ; and this would mean that the idea started with could not be sustained. For example, in the following instances— (a) 'Chintāratnamiva chyutosi karato dhiṅ mandabhāgyasya me' 'You are fallen from my hands, like the Chintāmaṇi,— unlucky that I am!' [where the past-participle 'chyutaḥ' being in the masculine gender, can be construed only with the man described, and not with 'ratnam', which is in the neuter gender, [ ;-and also in the passage—(b) 'Saktavo

CHAPTER X 481 सक्तवो भक्षिता देव शुद्धाः कुलवधूरिव ॥५९१॥ यत्र तु नानात्वेपि लिङ्गवचनयोः सामान्याभिधायि पदं स्वरूपभेदं नापद्यते न तत्रैतद्दूषणावतारः उभयथापि अस्य अनुगमक्षमस्वभावत्वात् । यथा गुणैरनर्घ्यैः प्रथितो रत्नैरिव महार्णवः ॥५९२॥ तद्वेषोसदृशोन्याभिः स्त्रीभिर्मधुरताभृतः । दधते स्म परां शोभां तदीया विभ्रमा इव ॥५९३॥ bhakṣitā deva shuddhāḥ kulavadhūriva,—‘The clean barley- meal was eaten, like pure women ’,—[where the past- participle ‘bhakṣitāḥ’ in the plural number cannot be construed with ‘kulavadhūḥ’ in the singular.] In those cases however where, even when there is diversity of gender and number, there is no consequent alteration in the word denoting the common property,— it does not involve the said defect ; as the common pro- perty remains capable of being connected with both the objects concerned. For example, in the following pass- ages—(a) ‘Guṇairanarghyaiḥ prathito ratnairiva mahārṇavaḥ’ [ He is famous for his valuable qualities, as the ocean for his gems ] [ where though the genders of the nouns ‘ratnaiḥ’ and ‘guṇaiḥ’ are different, yet that does not make any difference in the form of the connected word ‘prathitaḥ’ ] ;—or in the passage—(b) ‘Tadveṣo’ sadṛśhonyā- bhiḥ strībhirmadhuratābhṛtaḥ dadhate sma parāṁ shobhāṁ tadīyā vibhramā iva’—‘Her apparel was lovely as her graces, sweet and unequalled by other women’ ; [ where the compounds ending with ‘sadṛshaḥ’ and ‘bhṛtaḥ’ are such as can be made applicable to both nouns ‘veṣaḥ’, singular and ‘vibhramāḥ’, plural.]

482 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA कालपुरुषविध्यादिभेदेपि न तथा प्रतीतिरस्खलितरूपतया विश्रान्तिमासादयतीत्यसावपि भग्नप्रक्रमतयैव व्याप्तः। यथा अतिथिं नाम काकुत्स्थात् पुत्रमाप कुमुद्वती । पश्चिमाद् यामिनीयामात् प्रसादमिव चेतना ॥५९४॥ अत्र चेतना प्रसादमाप्नोति न पुनरापेति कालभेदः । प्रत्यग्रमज्जनविशेषविविक्तमूर्तिः कौसुम्भरागरुचिरस्फुरदंशुकान्ताः । विभ्राजसे मकरकेतनमर्चयन्ती बालप्रबालविटपप्रभवा लतेव ॥५९५॥ Diversity in Tense, Person, and the Imperative and other endings interferes with the clear comprehension of the idea ; so that this also would be included under ‘ Broken Uniformity ’. For example, in the passage— ‘ Atithiṁ nāma kākutsthāt putramāpa kumudvatī, pashchimād yāminīyāmāt prasādamiva chetanā ’—‘ Kumudvatī obtained from Kākutstha, the son named ‘ Atithi ’—just as Intellect obtains enlightenment from the last quarter of the night ’,— where the verb as applying to the Intellect should be in the present tense—‘ āpnoti ’,—and not in the past, ‘ āpa ’ ; hence here we have diversity of tense (which mars the clear comprehension of the Simile). And in the following passage— ‘ Pratyagramajjanaviśeṣaviviktamūrtiḥ kausumbharāgaruchirasphuradamshukāntā vibhrājase makaraketanamarchayantī bālaprabālaviṭapaprabhavā lateva ’, ‘ Having the body brightened by a fresh bath and clothed in a dress coloured red with Kusumbha, while thou art worshipping the Love-god, thou shinest like a creeper growing out of the branch of a tree with fresh leaves ’,—the proper verb with ‘ latā ’ would have been ‘ vibhrājate ’, in the third person ; and as this would

CHAPTER X 483 अत्र लता विभ्राजते न तु विभ्राजसे इति संबोध्यमाननिष्ठस्य परभागस्य असंबोध्यमानविषयतया व्यत्यासात् पुरुषभेदः । गङ्गेव प्रवहतु ते सदैव कीर्तिः ॥५९६॥ इत्यादौ च गङ्गा प्रवहति न तु प्रवहतु इति अप्रवृत्तप्रवर्त- नात्मनो विधेः । एवंजातीयकस्य चान्यस्यार्थस्य उपमानगतस्या- संभवाद्विध्यादिभेदः ॥ ननु समानम् उच्चारितं प्रतीयमानं वा धर्मान्तरमुपादाय पर्यवसितायाम् उपमायाम् उपमेयस्य प्रकृतधर्माभिसंबन्धान्न कश्चित्कालादिभेदोस्ति । यत्राप्युपात्तेनैव सामान्यधर्मेण उपमा अवगम्यते यथा “युधिष्ठिर इवायं सत्यं वदति” इतितत्र युधिष्ठिर mean a change consequent upon the last portion of the verb referring to the person addressed being applied to an object not addressed; and thus there comes about a diversity in the Person. In the passage ‘Gaṅgevā pravahatu te sadaiva kīrtiḥ’— ‘May your reputation flow on for ever like the Gaṅgā’— the form of the verb applicable to ‘Gaṅgā’ would be ‘pravahati’ and not ‘pravahatu’; so that the text involves the diversity of the Imperative, whose function lies in urging that which is not already engaged in the work (which in this case is the ‘Reputation’, and not the Gaṅgā, which is always flowing). Many such diversities of the injunctive and other factors are possible, as most of them are not applicable to the object compared to. An objection is raised—“As a matter of fact, the con- ditions of the Simile are fulfilled when a property common to the two objects has been comprehended, either as ex- pressed by the words uttered or implied; and when the

484 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA इव सत्यवाद्ययं सत्यं वदतीति प्रतिपत्स्यामहे । सत्यवादी सत्यं वदतीति च न पौनरुक्त्यम् आशङ्कनीयम् रैपोषं पुष्णातीतिवत् युधिष्ठिर इव सत्यवदनेन सत्यवाद्ययमित्यर्थावगमात् । सत्यमेतत् किं तु स्थितेषु प्रयोगेषु समर्थनमिदं न तु सर्वथा निरवद्यम् प्रस्तुतवस्तुप्रतीतिव्याघातादिति सचेतस एवात्र प्रमाणम् ।। असादृश्यासंभवावप्युपमायाम् अनुचितार्थतायामेव पर्यवस्यतः । object compared is found to be possessed of this property, there is nothing objectionable in any diversity that there may be as regards the tense and other details. Even in cases where the Simile is comprehended through a directly expressed common property,—e. g., in such expressions as ‘he tells the truth like Yudhiṣṭhira’,—the idea we derive from it is that—‘this person, who is as truthful as Yudhiṣṭhira, tells the truth’. It need not be argued against this that such an expression as ‘the truthful man tells the truth’ involves a tautology.—Because the idea derived is that ‘by telling the truth this man is truthful like Yudhiṣṭhira’; and this stands on the same footing as such (seemingly tautological) expressions as ‘raipoṣaṁ puṣṇāti’, ‘he develops with the development of wealth”. All this is quite true. But this can be a justification only for such expressions as are actually found in standard works ; but such usage cannot be regarded as entirely unobjectionable ; for in reality it does mar the due com- prehension of the thing meant to be described. On this point the only right judges are persons endowed with poetic sensibility. As regards the defects of ‘absence of similitude’

CHAPTER X 485 यथा ग्रथ्नामि काव्यशशिनं विततार्थरश्मिम् ॥५९७॥ अत्र काव्यस्य शशिना अर्थानां च रश्मिभिः साधर्म्यं कुत्रापि न प्रतीतमित्यनुचितार्थत्वम् । निपेतुरास्यादिव तस्य दीप्ताः शरा धनुर्मण्डलमध्यभाजः । जाज्वल्यमाना इव वारिधारा दिनार्धभाजः परिवेषिणोऽर्कात् ॥५९८॥ अत्रापि ज्वलन्त्योम्बुधाराः सूर्यमण्डलात् निष्पतन्त्यो न संभवन्तीत्युपनिबध्यमानोऽर्थोनौचित्यमेव पुष्णाति ॥ उत्प्रेक्षायामपि संभावनं ध्रुवेवादय एव शब्दा वक्तुं सहन्ते न यथाशब्दोपि केवलस्यास्य साधर्म्यमेव प्रतिपादयितुं पर्याप्त- त्वात् तस्य चास्यामविवक्षितत्वादिति तत्राशक्तिरस्यावाचकत्वं दोषः । यथा and 'impossibility', which have been attributed to Simile,— these are included under the 'Impropriety of Meaning'. For example, in the expression 'I am stringing the moon of poetry with the rays of ideas',—Poetry is described as similar to the Moon, and Ideas to the rays ; while as a matter of fact, no such similarity is known to any one ; hence here we have the defect of the 'Impropriety of meaning'. Similarly in the following verse—'Out of the mouth of the king who was occupying the centre of the bow- circle, there fell resplendent arrows, like the flaming showers of rain from the encircled Sun occupying the meridian sky ;'—the 'falling of the flaming showers of rain out of the solar disc' is an impossible phenomenon ; hence the expression of such an idea only serves to lend support to the idea that it is 'improper'. In Poetical Fancy also, the fancy or imagination or

486 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उद्ययौ दीर्घिकागर्भान्मुकुलं मेचकोत्पलम् । नारीलोचनचातुर्यशङ्कासंकुचितंय था ॥५९९॥ उत्प्रेक्षितमपि तात्त्विकेन रूपेण परिवर्जितत्वात् निरूपाख्य- प्रख्यम् । तत्समर्थनाय यत् अर्थान्तरन्यासोपादानम् तत् आलेख्य- मिव गगनतलेऽत्यन्तमसमीचीनमिति निर्विषयत्वमेतस्य । अनुचि- तार्थतैव दोषः । यथा assumption can be expressed by only such things as ‘dhruva’ ‘iva’ and so forth,—and not such terms as ‘yathā’ and the like ; as all that the latter, by itself, signifies is the presence of a common property, which is not in- tended to be expressed in Poetical Fancy. Hence when- ever the assumption involved in this latter figure is ex- pressed by ‘yathā’ or some such word, it involves the defect of ‘In-expressiveness’. For example, in the following verse,— ‘The tender lotus-bud rose from amidst the tank,— shut up as being afraid of the superior elegance of the girl’s eyes’;—[where the term ‘yathā’, ‘as’, is not ex- pressive of the idea of ‘as it were’, which is what the Poetic Fancy requires]. Another defect attributed to the Figure of Poetic Fancy is ‘objectlessness’ (‘nirviṣayatva’), which has been found in those cases of Poetic Fancy where what is imagined (fancied, or assumed) having no real existence, and hence being as good as non-existent,—a ‘Transition’ is put forward for its justification, and this ‘Transition’ is as improper as painting in the sky.—But here also the defect is that of ‘Improper Signification’. For example, in the following verse—

:CHAPTER X 487 दिवाकराद्रक्षति यो गुहासु लीनं दिवा भीतमिवान्धकारम् । क्षुद्रेऽपि नूनं शरणं प्रपन्ने ममत्वमुच्चैः शिरसामतीव ॥६००॥ अत्राचेतनस्य तमसो दिवाकरात्त्रास एव न संभवतीति कुत एव तत्प्रयोजितमद्रिणा परित्राणम् । संभावितेन तु रूपेण प्रतिभासमानस्यास्य न काचिदनुपपत्तिरवतरतीति व्यर्थ एव तत्समर्थनायां यत्नः । साधारणविशेषणवशादेव समासोक्तिरनुक्तमपि उपमान- विशेषं प्रकाशयतीति तस्यात्र पुनरुपादाने प्रयोजनाभावात् अनु- पादेयत्वं यत् तत् अपुष्टार्थत्वं पुनरुक्तं वा दोषः । यथा ‘Who, during the day, protects, from the sun, Dark- ness, which, is as it were, afraid and hidden among the caves : Persons with magnanimity (high heads) sympathise even with an insignificant thing that seeks shelter with them’. Here, in the first place, it is not possible for Darkness, which is an insentient thing, to have any fear from the sun; wherefore then could there be any protection by the mountain, incited by that fear? And yet there is no incongruity in the imaginary semblance of fear (which is all that the Poetic Fancy has set forth); so that the attempt (made in the second line) to justify the preceding state- ment (by means of ‘Transition’) is entirely unnecessary. Another defect attributed to the figure of Modal Metaphor is ‘anupādeyatva’, ‘unmentionability’, which has been found in cases where,—the particular object compared to, which is not expressly stated, is indicated by the figure (Modal Metaphor), through the force of common epithets,—yet the said object is mentioned again, for which really there is no use at all. This however,

488 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA स्पृशति तिग्मरुचौ ककुभः करैर्दयितयेव विजृम्भिततापया । अतनुमानपरिग्रहया स्थितं रुचिरया चिरयापि दिनश्रिया ॥६०१॥ अत्र तिग्मरुचेः ककुभां च यथा सदृशविशेषणवशेन व्यक्ति- विशेषपरिग्रहेण च नायकतया नायिकात्वेन च व्यक्तिः, तथा ग्रीष्मदिवसश्रियोऽपि प्रतिनायिकात्वेन भविष्यतीति किं दयित- येति स्वशब्दोपादानेन ॥ श्लेषोपमायास्तु स विषयः यत्रोपमानस्योपादानमन्तरेण साधारणेष्वपि विशेषणेषु न तथा प्रतीतिः । यथा is the same as the defect of either 'Irrelevancy' or 'Tauto- logy' (already described under chapter VII). For example, in the following verse,— 'Spṛshati tigmaruchau kakubhaḥ karair Dayitayeva vijṛmbhitatāpayā Atanumānaparigrahayā sthitaṁ Ruchirayā chirayāpi dinashriyā'. 'On the sun touching the quarters with his hands (rays), day-light oppressed with grief (heat), continued to be indignant for a long time (of long duration), just like a girl beloved of him'. Here, through the force of the common epithets, and through the choice of the genders of the nouns used, it is clearly indicated that the Sun is the lover and the quarters, the loved woman; equally clearly would it also be indicated that the Summer Day-light is the rival-beloved; so that where was the use of his being mentioned directly by the term 'dayitayā' 'girl beloved' ? [It would not be right to contend that the use of the addition of the word in question serves to make the figure the Punning Simile; because [as a matter of fact, it is a case of Punning Simile where, even on the mention of the

CHAPTER X 489 स्वयं च पल्लवाताम्रा भास्वत्करविराजिता । प्रभातसंध्येवास्वापफललुब्धेहितप्रदा ॥६०२ ॥ इति॥ अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि उपमेयम् अनयैव रीत्या प्रतीतं न पुनः प्रयोगेण कदर्थतां नेयम् । यथा आहूतेषु विहंगमेषु मशको नायान् पुरो वार्यते मध्येवारिधि वावसंतृणमणिर्धत्ते मणीनां रुचम् । खद्योतोपि न कम्पते प्रचलितुं मध्येपि तेजस्विनां धिक् सामान्यमचेतनं प्रभुमिवानासृष्टतत्त्वान्तरम् ॥६०३॥ अत्र अचेतनस्य प्रभोरप्रस्तुतविशिष्टसामान्यद्वारेणाभि- व्यक्तौ न युक्तमेव पुनः कथनम् ॥ common properties, the Simile is not comprehended, unless the object compared to is also mentioned. For example, in the verse;—‘ Svayañcha pallavātāmra etc. etc. ’ (See above, stanza No 377), [ where, if the ‘ dawn ’ had not been mentioned, the Simile could not have been grasped ]. Similarly in the figure Indirect Description also, the object compared should be comprehended in the same manner (i. e. by the force of common epithets), and should not be degraded by being directly mentioned. For example, in the following verse.— ‘ On flying objects being invited, even the mosquito, if it comes, is not prevented ; even the coral lying in the bed of the ocean bears the splendour of a gem ; the firefly also is not excluded from among shining objects ;—fie upon this unintelligent and indiscriminate classification, which resembles a dull and unappreciative master ’,—the unintelligent master being already indicated by the mention of such common properties as are not meant to be des- cribed,—it was not right to mention him by name.

490 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA तदेतलंकारदोषाः यथासंभाविनोऽन्येऽप्येवंजातीयाकाः पूर्वोक्तयैव दोषजात्या अन्तर्भाविताः न पृथक् प्रतिपादनमर्ह- न्तीति संपूर्णमिदं काव्यलक्षणम् ॥१४२॥ इत्येष मार्गो विदुषां विभिन्नोप्यभिन्नरूपः प्रतिभासते यत् । न तद्विचित्रं यदमुत्र सम्यग्विनिर्मिता संघटनैव हेतुः ॥ १ ॥ इति काव्यप्रकाशेऽर्थालंकारनिर्णयो नाम दशम उल्लासः ॥ ॥ समाप्तश्चायं काव्यप्रकाशः ॥ ॥ समाप्तोयं ग्रन्थः ॥ Thus it is found that the defects that have been attri- buted (by older writers) Figures of Speech, as also other similar defects, are all included among the general defects already described (under Chapter VII) ; and as such, they should not be described separately 142. Thus is the Exposition of Poetry concluded. That this high-way (of Rhetoric), though divergent, through the agency of learned writers, yet appears to be one, is nothing strange ; as the reason for this lies in a properly planned collation. [ Or, that this work, though composed by different authors, yet appears as one organic whole, is nothing strange ; as the reason for this lies in a properly planned execution of the work.] Thus ends Chapter X of the Kāvyaprakāsha dealing with Ideal Figures of Speech END

Alphabetical Index of Sanskrit Terms Pages अकाण्डे छेदः (दोष) (Untimely Interruption) .. 284 अकाण्डे प्रथनं (दो०) (Untimely Introduction) .. 284 अक्रमता (दो०) (Absence of Uniformity) .. 239 अगूढव्यङ्गम् (Explicit Suggestion) .. 28, 120 अङ्गस्यातिविस्तृतिः (दो०) (Profuse Description of the Subordinate Element) .. 285 अङ्गाङ्गिभावः संकरः (अलंकार) (Commixture) .. 463 अङ्गिनोऽननुसंधानं (दो०) (Neglect of the Principal Element) .. 285 अतद्गुणः (अ०) (Non-borrowing of Qualities) .. 459 अतिशयोक्तिः (अ०) (Hyperbole) .. 390 अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्यध्वनिः (Suggestion wherein the .. Expressed Meaning is altogether neglected) .. 48 अधमकाव्यम् (Third Class Poetry) .. 7 अधिकम् अ० (The Exceeding) .. 443 अधिकपदता (दो०) (Redundant Word) .. 216 अधिकपदता क्वचिद्गुणः .. .. 275 अनङ्गस्याभिधानं (दो०) (Celebration of an Unim- portant Object) .. .. 288 अनन्वयः (अ०) (Comparison Absolute) .. 365 अनभिहितवाच्यता (दो०) (Omission of a Neces- sary Statement) .. .. 225 अनवीकृतत्वं (दो०) (Monotony) .. .. 250 अनियमे सनियमः (दो०) (Specification of the Un- specifiable) .. .. 250 अनुकरणे सर्वेषामदोषता (No Defect in Imitation) .. 263 अनुचितार्थता (दो०) (Improper Significance) .. 169 अनुप्रासः (अ०) (Alliteration) .. 219

492 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA Pages अनुप्रासदोषाः तेषामुक्तेष्वन्तर्भावश्च (Defects in Al- literation) .. .. .. 477 अनुभावस्य कष्टकल्पना (दो०) (Far-fetched Significa- tion of the Ensuant) .. .. .. 282 अनुमानं (अ०) (Inference) .. .. .. 421 अनुवादायुक्तता (दो०) (Improper Adjunct) .. .. 433 अन्योन्यम् (अ०) (Reciprocal) .. .. .. 216 अपदयुक्तता (दो०) (Misplaced) .. .. 254 अपराङ्गव्यङ्ग्यम् (Subservient to something else) .. 121 अपह्नुति (Concealment) .. .. .. 377 अपुष्टार्थता (Irrelevancy) .. .. .. 242 अप्रतीतत्वं (दो०) (Unintelligibility) .. .. 175 अप्रतीतत्वं क्वचिद्गुणः .. .. .. 271 अप्रयुक्तता (दो०) (Non-usage) .. .. .. 168 अप्रयुक्तता क्वचित् न दोषः .. .. .. 268 अप्रयुक्ततादीनां पृथगुक्तिबीजम् .. .. .. 207 अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (अ०) (Indirect Description) .. .. 383 अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाभेदाः .. .. .. 383 अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायाः दोषः, तस्योक्तेऽन्तर्भावश्च .. .. 489 अभवन्मतयोगः (दो०) (Want of Intended Con- nection) .. .. .. 219 अभिधाविचारः (Denotation) .. .. .. 17 अमतपरार्थता (दो०) (Undesirable Second Inten- tion) .. .. .. 241 अर्थगुणास्वीकारः (Non-acceptance of Excellences of Meaning) .. .. .. 311 अर्थचित्रस्वरूपम् (Fanciful Meaning) .. .. 161 अर्थचित्रस्य बहुभेदता (Many Forms of Fanciful Meaning) .. .. .. 164 अर्थचित्रोदाहरणम् (Example of Fanciful Meaning) .. 163 अर्थदोषाः (Defects of Sense) .. .. 241 अर्थभेदाः (Kinds of Meaning) .. .. 9

INDEX 493 Pages अर्थव्यक्तिः (अर्थगुणः) (Expression of Meaning as belonging to Meaning) .. .. .. 310 अर्थव्यक्तिः (शब्दगुणः) (Expression of Meaning as belonging to Words) .. .. .. 311 अर्थव्यञ्जकता (Suggestion belonging to Meanings) 10 अर्थव्यञ्जकतायां शब्दस्य साहाय्यम् (Help of Words in the Suggestiveness of Meanings).. .. 39 अर्थशक्त्युत्थध्वनिविभागः (Divisions of Sugges- tion based on power of Meaning) .. 82 अर्थशक्त्युत्थध्वनिप्रभेदानामुदाहरणानि (Examples of Suggestion based on the power of Mean- ings) .. .. .. 82 अर्थशक्त्युत्थध्वनिप्रभेदानां प्रबन्धगतत्वम् (Do. occur- ring in context) .. .. .. 103 अर्थान्तरन्यासः (अ०) (Transition) .. .. 406 अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यध्वनिः (Suggestion where the Expressed Meaning is transferred to an- other) .. .. .. 48 अर्थान्तरैकवाचकता (दो०) (Isolation of an Expres- sive Word) .. .. .. 219 अलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्यध्वनिः (Process of Suggestion where the order of sequence is imper- ceptible) .. — .. 50 अलङ्कारदोषाणामुक्तेष्वन्तर्भावः .. .. 475 अलङ्कारलक्षणम् (Definition of Figure of Speech, .. 301 अलङ्काराणां शब्दार्थगतत्वे नियामकम् (Grounds of dis- tinguishing Figures into Verbal and Ideal) .. .. .. 336, 473 अवाचकता (दो०) (Inexpressiveness) .. .. 170 अविमृष्टविधेयांशत्वं (दो०) (Suppression of the Predicate) .. .. .. 177

494 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA Pages अविवक्षितवाच्यध्वनिः (Suggestion where the Ex- pressed Meaning is incompatible .. .. 48 अविशेषे विशेषः (दो०) (Restriction of the Un- restrictable) .. .. 252 अश्लीलता (दो०) (Indecorousness of Word) .. 173 अश्लीलता क्वचिद्गुणः .. .. 269 अश्लीलार्थता (दो०) (Indecorousness of Mean- ing) .. .. 270 असङ्गतिः (अ०) (Disconnection) .. .. 437 असङ्गतेर्विरोधाद्भेदः (Difference between Discon- nection and Contradiction) .. .. 438 असमर्थता (दो०) (Incapability of giving Sense) .. 168 असुन्दरव्यङ्ग्यम् (Non-beautiful Suggestion) .. 132 अस्थानस्थपदता (दो०) (Misplaced Word) .. 227 अस्थानस्थसमासता (दो०) (Misplaced Compound) .. 228 अस्थानसमासता क्वचिद्गुणः .. .. 278 अस्फुटव्यङ्ग्यम् (Abstruse Suggestion) .. .. 129 आक्षेपः (अ०) (Hint) .. .. 402 आर्थी उपमा (अ०) (Indirect Simile) .. 351 आर्थी व्यञ्जना (Suggestiveness of Meanings) .. 40 उत्तमकाव्यम् (First Class Poetry) .. .. 5 उत्तरम् (अ०) (Reply) .. .. 434 उत्तरस्य नान्यस्मिन्नन्तर्भावः .. .. 434 उत्प्रेक्षा (अ०) (Poetic Fancy) .. .. 366 उत्प्रेक्षादोषः, तस्योक्तेऽन्तर्भावश्च .. .. 366 उदात्तम् (अ०) (The Exalted) .. .. 419 उदारता (अर्थगुणः) (Fanciful Grouping—of Meanings) .. .. 311 उदारता (शब्दगुणः) (Fanciful Grouping—of Words) .. .. 311 उद्देश्यप्रतिनिर्देश्यस्थले कथितपदस्यादुष्टता .. .. 233