251. VYAKTIVIVEKA 251

VYAKTIVIVEKA 251

veyed by the striking mode of speech adopted by the poet is different from the plain expressed sense, then वकोक्ति also is included like ध्वनि under भनुमान (p.28). He denies that words have any other power than भभिधा 'नापि शब्दस्याभिधाव्यतिरेकेश व्यापा- रान्तरसुपपद्यते येनार्थान्तरं प्रत्याययेत्, व्यक्तेरनुपपरेः सम्बन्धान्तरस्य चासिदे:' (p.29). He ridicules the ध्वनिकार for not giving a definition of kavya in general and for dilating upon the two varieties of it, ध्वनि and गुखीभूतव्यक्य, in the absence of a general definition "किं च काव्यस्य स्वरूपं व्युत्पादयितुकामेन मतिमता तल्लचयमेव सामान्येनाख्यातव्यम् ... यस्तु तदनाख्यायव तयोः प्रधानेतरभावकल्पनेन प्रकारद्वयमुक्तं तदप्रयोजकमेव।' (p.32). He finds fault (p.35) with the two terms भविवचितवाच्य and विवच्ितान्यपरवाच्य, says that examples of the former are like the examples of भक्ति (अभिर्माशवक:) and that the term विवच्ितान्य० contains a contradiction (if a thing is विवचित i. e. प्रधान, it cannot be अन्यपर). In the second विभर्श, he considers अनौचित्य (impropriety or incongruity). It is of two kinds, अर्थविषय and शब्दविषय. The अन्तरक भनौचित्य consists in the improper employment of विभावड, अनुभावs and व्यमिचारिभावs in the manifestation of रस and has been explained by former writer (such as भानन्द०). The बहिरम (formal) impropriety falls under five faults, विधेया- विमर्श, प्रक्रमभेद, क्रममेद, पौनरुक्त्य and वाच्यावचन. The whole of the second विमर्श (pp.37-112) is concerned with the explanation and exemplification of these five faults amidst several digre- ssions. The first fault विधेयाविमरश is treated of in pp. 37-58. He takes the verse 'संरम्भ: करिकीटमेघशकलोहशेन सिंहस्य यः सर्वस्यव स जाति- मात्रनियतो हेवाकलेश: किल। इत्याशादिरदक्तयाम्युदघटाबन्धेप्यसंरब्धवान् योसौ कुत्र चमत्कृतेरतिशयं यात्वम्निकाकेसरी' cited in the वक्रोक्तिजीवित (I. p. 17) as a faultless piece of poetry and shows that it contains three cases of विधेयाविमर्श. The first is that the compound (नञूसमास) भसंरब्धवान् is improper, the second is that the relative pronoun in योसौ has no corresponding demonstrative pronoun (सः) in the verse, and the third is that the compound अम्बिकाकेसरी is improper, as the word अम्बिका, being a member of a compound, is subordinate and the sense also is therefore subordinate and not at once perceived as principal (while Ambika is really the principal object of adoration to the poet). He suggests (on p. 57) how the verse should be read to avoid these faults. His position on this point of विधेयाविमर्श is briefly put in these words 'तदिदमत्र तात्पयं यत् कर्थचिदपि प्रधानतया विवचितं न तन्नियमेनेतरेख सद