1. Kavya Alankara Bhama Ed. Batuka Natha Sharma Baladeva Upadhyaya

THE KASHI-SANSKRIT-SERIES ( HARIDAS SANSKRIT GRANTHAMALA ) 61 ( Alankāra S'astra Section No. 2. )

KĀVYĀLANKĀRA

SHAMAHA Etited With Introduction ete. By

Batan Yeth Sarma. M.3T .. Schityopadhgaya, and Baldeva Upadhyaga. M.SI., Sahitya Sastri, PROFESSORS, BENARES HINDU UNIVERSITY. WITH A FOREWORD By Principal ST. B. Dhrwoa, M. 97., 6 b. B Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Benares Hindu University.

PRINTED, PUBLISHED & SOLD BY Jai Arishna Das Mari Das Gupta The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, Vidra Vilas Press, North of GopalMandir, Benares City.

1928. Registered According to Aut XXV.of1867. (All Rights Reserved.)

Printed-Published & sold by JAI KRISHNADAS-HARIDAS GUPTA, The Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series Office, VIDYA VILAS PRESS, North of Gopal Mandir, BENARES CITY,

Printed by Jai Krishnn Dus tupta at the Vidya Vilas Press, Benares.

Agents: 1 Luzac & cu, Booksellers, LONDON.

Otto Harrassowita, Leipzig: GERMANY.

3 The Oriental Book-sapplying Agenty. POONA.

ह रि दास संस्कृत ग्रन्थ मालास मा रूय- काशीसंस्कृतसीरिजपुस्तकमालायाः ६

काव्यालङ्कार श्रीमामहाचार्येण विनिर्मितः

काशीविश्वविद्यालयाध्यापकाभ्यां पण्डित बडुकनाथ शर्म्मा एम.ए. साहित्योपाध्यायः तथा पण्डित बलदेव उपाध्याय एम. ए. साहित्य शास्त्री इत्येताभ्यां भूमिकादिभिः समलङ्क्ृत्य सम्पादितः काशीविश्वविद्यालयोपकुळपतिपदं विभूषयद्धिः श्रीमदाचार्यप्रवरैः आनन्दशङ्करधुवमहोदयैः लिखितेन प्राक्कथनेन सनायीकृत:

प्रकाशक :- जय कृष्णदास-हरिदासगुप्त :- चौखम्बा संस्कृत सीरिज आफिस, विद्याविलास प्रेस, गोपालमंदिर के उत्तरफाटक, बनारस सिटी।

१९८५ राजशासनानुरोधेन सर्वेधिकारा: प्रकाशकेन स्वायत्तीकृताः ।

हमारे यहां हर नरहकी छपाई व जिल्द साजीका काय भी होता है। हर तरह के संस्कृत अन्य तेथा भाषा पुस्तकों के मिलने का पता- जयकृष्णदास-हरिदास गुप्तः, चौखम्बासंस्कृतसीरीज आफिस, विद्याविलास प्रेस, गोपालमन्दिर लेन, बनारस सिटी।

CONTENTS

FOREWORD 1-8

INTRODUCTION 1-71

किमपि प्रास्ताविकम् १-८

विषयानुक्रमः

TEXT

परिशिष्ट १ ?- 90

२ ११-१६

3 १७

INDEX 1-2.

FOREWORD I have much pleasure in contributing a brief Foreword to this edition of Bhamahalamkara which my young colleagues-Pandit Batuknath S'arma and Pandit Baldeva Upadhyaya-have prepared for the Kashi Sanskrit Series, As is well-known this work was first published many years ago as an appendix in Mr. K.P.Trivedi's edition of the Prataparudra-Yasobhūsaņa in the Bombay Sanskrit Series. But considering its iuteresting contents and the place of Bhāmaha in the history of Indian Poetics, it was rather strauge that no Indian acholar or publisher should have thonght of bringing it out, until now, as a separate volume. The editora of this new publication have fitted up the text with an exhaustive Introduction, in which they have reviewed all the existing literature rela- ting to the religion, date and works of Bhamaha. The controversies, which arose almost immediately after the publication of Mr. Trivedi's Appendix, were soon lost in the din of the battle which raged fiercely round the " Plays of Bhasa ". But since the latter has now subsided, at least for the time being, the Bhamaha. problems have a chance of being taken up again and carried nearer the solution if possible. WAS BHAMAHA A BUDDHIST 1 It may readily be admitted that the word wes occurring in the mangalācharaņa of Kāvyālamkāra may mean "S'iva" as the word is one of the synonyms of the god according to Amarakośa. Moreoyer, if the source of Amara's statemant be

( 2 )

investigated, it will probably be found in the religio-philosophical system in which the Omniscient God of the Nyayadargana was identified with the S'iva of Saiva Âgama. Nevertheless, it may be per- tinent to inquire whether the word is used, in any of the mangalacharapas which we know of, in a sense other than that of Jina or Buddha, which, too, are recognised senses of the word.The argument, based on the character of Bhamaha's illustrations which is advanced by Mr. Kane and some others and is endorsed by the present oditors, does not earry convietion, for a similar use of Brabinanical literature is made by Hemachandra in his Kavyanusasana despite the author being a re- doubtable Jaina The single consideration which appears to weigh most and militate strongly against Bhamaha being supposed to be a Buddhist is the manner in which he criticises the doctrineof Apolia, This doctrine is, no doubt, Buddhistic. But is it an essential part of Buddhism ? At most, its rejection would only show- in view of Bhamaha's obeisance to Buddha in the mangalacharana-that he was an inoomplete Buddhist who did not care for this particular tenet of Buddhi- stic logie. As a matter of fact, however, Apohavada was a special theory of the sehool of Dignaga which, as noted by Prof, Stcherbatsky, was not ac- cepted by the Madhyamikas (See Stcherbatsky's foot- note on pp 155-56 of his translation of Candrakirti's Madhvamikavrtti" given in his valuablemonograph on " The Conception of Buddhist Nirvans" ). The ground being thus cleared forregarding Bhamaha as a Buddhist, the view suggested by the reference to " Satvajna "

( 3 )

in the mangalacharana may be corroborated by the fact that the only definitions of Pratyaksa cited by Bhamaha, Kavyalamkara Ch. V, are those which are indisputably Buddhistie. viz, those formulated by Vasubaudhu and Dignaga. I do not refer to the nature of Inference aud the classification of Fallacies mentioned in that chapter as evidence pointing to the same direction, as it is still a matter of controversy among scholars whether this contribution to Logie is exclusively Buddhistic. Personally I think it is not, bnt the problem is too diffeult to be solved or even attempted in the short space of a Foreword. But it is impussible to overlook the fact the pramanas are statedby Bhamaha to be two-Pratyaksa and Anumana only-which is particularly in conformity with the view of Buddhist logicians. It may be argued on the other hand that the doctrine, although long known and recognised as Buddhistic, was held at one time by the Vaiseşikas also. But it should be noted that this was no longer sn after Buddhism came into sharp con- Hict with Brahmanism, that is, in the centuries which followed the downfall of the Asokan Empire, and especially during the period to which Bhamaha could possibly be assigned, Moreover, if, as Stcherbatsky now holds, Pragastapada is to be placed before Dig+ naga and cousequently before Bhamaha, it becomes incredible that the doctrine of two pramanas accepted by Bhāmaha should be a Vaisesika doctrine, Pragastapāda having developed the system already into one of four pramanas. To me the whole of the logio contained in chapter V seems to have been exaetly

( 4 )

what it professes to be, namely 'हेतुन्यायलवोच्चयः that is, a work 'condensed and collected' from some regular work or works on Logic, which judging from the form and the contents appear to ba those of Dignaga, S'ankarasvāmin or Dharmakirti, The question of the date of Bhamaha bristles with problems too numerous and iutricate to be disenssed satisfactorily in the short space of a Foreword. A few obyervatinus on some of them mny, huwever, he attampted: Let us takethe question of the relative chronology of BHAMAHA AND KALIDASA- We read in the Meghadūta of Kalidass :- धूमज्योतिःसळिलमरूता सन्निपातः क मेघ: सन्देशार्था: क पट्टुकरण: प्राशिभि: प्रापणीयाः । इत्योत्सुक्यादपरिगरायन् गुह्मकस्तं यथाचे कामार्ता हि प्रकतिकृपणाश्चेतनाचेतनेषु॥ and in Bhāmaha's Kāvyālaňkāra :- प्युक्तिमद्था इृता जलभृन्मारुतेन्दव: etc. This raises the intereating problem of the priorty or posteriority of Bhamaha to Kalidasa. After reprodu- eing the arguments of those who place Kalidāsa before Bhämaha and of those who do vice versa, the editors conclude with the remark : "Taking the arguments from both sides into consideration we may confess that much can be said on both sides and that nothing is really settled. " If I may expreys my opinion on the point, I may say that I have not the least doubt that Kalidasa preceded Bhamaba. To the unromantie mind of the latter, the Dūtakavyas appear at firat 'agfsnq, that is, irrational, but he soon remembers

( 5 )

Kalidasa's line :- इत्योत्सुक्यादपरिगमयन मुहाकस्तं ययाचे etc, and consequently modifes his sweeping objection by the remark :-- यदि चोत्कराठया यत्तदुन्मत्त इव भाषते। तथा भवतु भूम्नेदं सुमेधोभि: प्रयुज्यते। Hore यदि चोत्कएडया etc, is a distiuet recollection of इत्यो- न्मुक्यादुeto, and Kalidasa is evideutly one of the "सुमेघसः" referred to in the observation "भूम्नेवं सुमेधोभि: प्रयुज्यते". BHAMAHA AND DANDIN- This question has been adequately discussed by Mr. Kane in bis History of Alamkara Literature prefixed to his edition of the Sahityadarpana. Therein after fully setting forth and examining the arguments of the two parties, he conoludes as follows "Whoever my be earlier both are very near each other and are to be placed between 500 and 630 A. C. lf, however, it be said that from the materials collected above one must be held to be borrowing from or criticiaing the other, then I would declare myself in favour of Dandin's priority over Bhamaha. I hold that the reasons assigued for Dandin's priority are more weighty ( though not decisive ) than those assigned for Bhamaha's priority." But the majority of the scholars who have written upon this subject hold the opposite view, and personally I share with the editors the opinion of those who place Bhamaha before Dandin. In Ch. V of his work Bhamaha thus justifies the place of arer in poetry and poetics : स्वादुकाव्यरसोन्मिश्रं शास्त्रमप्युपयुख्ते। प्रथमालोढमधवः पिबन्ति कट्ठ भेषजम्॥

On the other hand, Dandin says:"

विचार ककेशा प्रायस्तेनालीढेन कि फलंम् ॥ Mr. Kane refuses to believe that the latter is intended as a driticism of the former, for he srys, "It is mora then doubtful whether, if Dandin Had the whole of the 5th Paricchods of Bhamaha before him aud was in a fighting mood, he would have let off Bhamaha with xuch a mild and stave remari: 'तेनालीडेन कि फलम्।" I do not see why Dandin should be'in a fighting mood', when he could analyse the met .phor of his uppobent and show that it did not support his case ? Cover your frnr" which is a hard nut with as mach 'rer as you can, it will still cut your mouth, says Dandin in reply to Bhamaha. Is 'विचार' ever said to be 'आलोढ' Does not this unusual word-unusual in its use with *faeTr-seem to have been taken from Bhamaha : Does it not, moreover, clearly imply a mataphor of 'rg 4 If so, what could Dandin have possibly had in his mind except the line of Bhamaba-"प्रथमालीडमधवः पिबन्ति कट्ठु aTg" ? To me Dandin's line appears to have made a crashing reply to Bhamahs. BHAMAHA AND DHARMAKIRTI :-- Lastly, Dr. Jacobi hol thut Bharhaha is posterier ta Dharmakirti, the former having borrowed certain logieal defuitions and eapreetrew in eh. V, of his Kavyalamkara from the latter. Against this the elitors are rigbt in urging that the reference त्रिरूपलिङ in the त्रिरूपाल्लिय्तों ज्ञानम् (Kavyalaikara) ch. V, II ) does not prove Jacobi's case, since the doctrine of fagaarr can be traced to Dignaga and

was probably oider. I have diseussed the whole pro- blem of the relation of Buddhist with the Brahmana Nyaya in the Intrrduction to my edition of the "Nyaya- pravesa" which is now in the press, and consequently refrain here from a detailed examination of this parti- cular question. However, there are three other par- allels which cannot be explained away quite so easily : one is "प्रन्यक्षमनुमा च ते (प्रमागे)। अ्रसाधारणसामान्यविषयत्वं auh faa" in Kavyalamkara, corresponding to similar statements in the Nyayabindu. No doubt the doctrines of स्व( असाधारय)लक्षण and सामान्यलक्षण did not ori- ginate with Dharmakicti, But have they been put forth by any earlier logician to bring out the distinction between Pratyaksa and Anumana in the way Bha- maha and Dharmakirti have done ? Moreover, it is to bo remembered that the question here is not whe- ther a particular thought existed before the time of Dharmakirti or Bhamaha, but whether it has been expressed in the same way. There are two other passa- ges cited by Jacobi-Dharmakirti's 'दूषणानि न्यूनताद्युक्ति:' corresponding to 'दूषएं न्यूनताद्युक्तिः' of Bhamaha, and the former's 'दूषणाभासास्तु जातय:, corresponding to the latter- 'जातयो दूषसाभासाः'। Here there is, as the editors admit, 'a striking similarity of language' which it is diflieult to explaiu except ou the hypothesis of one borrowing from the other, Consequently they sug- gest that of the two Dharmakirti may have been the borrower. But is this probable ? Is Bhamaha known as a logician ? Does he not himself say that he has only " collected " his logical statements ( "हेतुन्यायलवो- aae' ) ? In riew of this, the passage in the Ananda-

vardhana's "Dhvanyaloka"on which the editors rely for proving the prinrity of Bhamahn to Bant and there- fore to Dharmakirti must be setaside ns untrustworthy or explained away if possible. I think the latter is not impossible, The passage which is found as ILI. 28 of Bhamaha's Kavyalamkara is not aseribed by Anandavardhana to Bhamaha by name, and poesildly the verse in question is a quotation from an earlier writer for illustrating the particular alamkarg gaaifiat". A possible objection based on Bhamaha's own statement in II. 96 that the illustrations were hia own eomposition, is inet conelusively by Mr. Kaue who quotes many facts to the contrary, Moreover, the passage under consideration oceurs in Chapter III and not in II. These are just a few of the many interesting date- problems which have arisen in connection with Bha- maha and which have received full treatmeut at the hands of the present editors. I have much pleasure in commending their work to the attention of Sanskrit Scholars.

A. B. DHRUVA.

I .- BHAMAHA AND HIS KAVYĀLANKĀRA,

BY BATUK NATH SARMA AND BALDEVA UPADHYAYA,

PRELIMINARY. In every age, in every clime, the importance of an author is weighed on the scales of ntility by the coming posterity. Plato and Aristotle command no inconsiderable recognition and deference even now-in the age which has seen cultural progress in almost all directions. This is so, not only for the reason that their works were of the highest order, but also because they were made much use of by the generations coming after them. So it seems that in order to gauge the merits of a particular author we should betake ourselves to the consideration of the kind of fame which that author has had the good fortune to call his own.

IMPORTANCE OF HTHE Let us now turn to our own anthor and see whether he can stand the test successfully. Even a desultory student of Sanskrit Poetics can bear testimony to the fact that there are a few famous names of oid eminent authors which no later writer on the subject could afford to ignore without sacrificing his own bigh ambition of celebrity. One of these such names is indeed that of WIHE. As far as we know, there is no important work on Poetics which does not refer to NTRE and his work in some way or other. His work has been very fre- quently drawn upon for quotations by almost all the important writers of Sanskrit Poetics. There are some who have even borrowed from his works 'matter' and sometimes phrase. ology. In the body of discussions he has been referred to as an authority of necessary recognition. Even those who could not manage to agree with him on certain points have shown due deference to his views. He has been commanding this respect from Sanskrit poets and poeticians, not for a century

( 2 )

OT two, but for a very large number of centuries. The name which seems to hove been most associated with the science of poetics from its early infancy (with the only exception of भरत) is that of भामह He is indeed the oldest आलङ्गारिक and in fact one of the most authoritative ones whose work has come down to us. Not oniy the old writers of India have had much to do with MTHE and his work, even the modern scholars of vast erudition and wide reputation, have been attracted towards him. There was a time when a regular warfare was going on, with regard to the date and personality of wrna, among some of the leaders of Oriental Research in India, in which some western scholars of note also took part. Though nothing perfectly quite definite was arrived at, still much was written which shed new light on some obscure corners of historical investigation. A BRIEF SURVEY OF DISCUSSIONS ON HTHE

It would not be out of place to take here a very brief survey of the various problems raised and discussed with regard to wrag along with the conclusion reached by way of their solutions. Though, as noted above, AlHe's name was to be heard everywhere among scholars, his work was not at first available anywhere. Bühler, not finding any trace of wrwa's work, inferred, with the inevitable disappointment of a real scholar, that the work had been lost for over.1 In 1880, however, a MS of the work came to the notice of Gustav Oppert but we could not know much from his description.2 In his memorable list of works on Sanskrit Poetics, Jacob noted the काव्यालङ्कार of सामह also, but even this mention

I. Buhler's Kashmir Report, :877- 2. List of Sanskrit MSS. in private Libraries of Southern India, Vol. I. No. 3731. 3. J. R. A. S. 1897-8.

( 3 )

was not of much use. In the edition of a certain Kanarese workI on Poetics, Mr. K. B. Pathak also took notice of this work but it was only in passing and had nothing directly to do with it. The first person to give publicity to wrHa's work and to make definite statements about him, was R. Narsimhachar of Bangalore. In the Introduction to his edition of a Kannada work2 on Poetics he observed-" Next to him (Bharata) in point of time, comes Bhamaha whose priority to Dandin is proved by the latter criticising his views in the first chapter of Kavyādarsa. He is one of the greatest authorities on Poatics, his view being quoted by almost all the subsequent writers of note on the subject. .Prof. Rangachurya M.A. of the Madras Presidency College has had the good fortune to come upon the manuscript of the valuable and long-sought-after work. ..... The work bears no date but the sathor probably belongs to the early part of the 6th cen- tury." But as this was written in the Introduction of a Kannada work, it could not naturally come to the notice of most of the Sanskrit scholars.

It was only when Mr. M. T. Narsinhiengar wrote an article on wrHg that the attention of Sanskrit scholars was drawn towards the great rhetorician'. Mr. Narsimhiengar raised almost all those issues which engaged the attention of Indologists for a long time later on. He thought that HIRE was a Buddhist and flourished after auet. Dr. Barnett, in that very year, wrote a note, supporting Mr. Narsimhiengar that HIwE belonged to the first half of the 8th century *. Mr. P. V. Kane tried to refute I. कविराजमार्ग edt. by K. B. Pathak, 1898. 2. काव्यावलोकनम् by नागचर्मा, edt by R. Narsimhachar, 1903. 3. J. R. A. S., 1905, P. 535 ff, 4. J. R. A. S., 1905, p. 841.

( 4 )

Mr. Narsimhiengar'e hypothesis that arng was a Buddhist, but as regards his date, he agreed with himl In 1909 विद्यानाथ' प्रनापहडयशाभूपल was putlsbedl ty Mr. K P. Trivedi in the Bombay Sanskrit Series. In an 'Appendix' to this wark, सामह's काव्यालक्कार appeared in print for the first time. Mr. Trivedt, in his learned Introduction, dealt with many questions in connection with WTHE. His arguments were mainly directed against the views of Mr. Narsimhienger. Dr. Jacoi* aud Prof. Rangacharya3 in 1910 and Mr. Anantacharya 1 Wli joined issue and mainly agreed with Nr. Trivedt. Mr. R. Narsimhachar (the first person to give pablicity to the discovery of HTHa's work) added some new arguments to those ahcady advanced in favour of the priority of ामह to दएडी. 5In the same year Mr. K B. Pathak tried in a learned paper to refute many of the arguments put forward against him6. But his refutations, as shown by Mr. Trivedi the very next year, were as unconvincing as they were learned7. This paper of Mr. Trivedi seems to have silenced his opponents, and for a number of years nothing new was added to this important discussion. In 1922, Dr. Jacobi, with his characteristic insight in all matters connected with Indology, suggested a new line of approach to the determination of aTHe's date (as did also Mr. P. V. Kane, quite independently of Dr. Jacobi). He tried to prove that arag had borrowed much from amaira and that consequently he must be

I. J. R. A. S., 1908, p. 543. 2. Z. D. M. G., 1910. 3. Introduction to काव्यादर्श, 1910. 4. Brahmavadio, 191I. 5. Ind. Ant., 1912, p. 90 ff. 6. Int. Ant, 1912, p. 232 ff. 7. Ind. Ant., 1913.

( 5 )

placed after hin1. To many this view appeared to be the last word in the discussion on the date of NTHE. Dr. De" and others3 seem to bave followed in the foot-steps of Jacobi. The last few years have seen a marked progress to- wards the study of sanskrit Poetics and a few very valuable works have appeared on the subject. Mr. P. V. Kane deserves all praise for his intensive study and extensive resenrches *. Dr. S. K. De also is entitled to an especial mention. He has rendered a valuable service to the cause of the study of the History of Sanskrit Poetics by his useful work5. Dr. Nobel's recently published book6 and Mr. B. N. Bhattacharya's paperT are also not to be lost sight of. In spite of so much writing, no attempt has so far been made to see if it is possible te throw any new light on the subject nor even to summ up in one place all that has been written before. wraa's work itself has till now been lying in a neglected condition in an obscure corner of garqsg- यशोभूषग। An attempt is, therefore, being made here to present within the limits of a brief paper every information hitherto available regarding wrHs and his work, and in course of this presentation, to examine critically the current theories and to see if any of them is compatible with the date 1. Sitzungberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissen- schaften, pp. 211-12. 2. History of Sanskrit Poeties, Vol. I, p. 48. 3- Nobel .- Foundations of Indian Poetry, p. 17. 4. Introduction to his edition of साहित्यदर्पण, Bombay, 1973. 5- History of Sanskrit Poetries, 2 Vols., 1923. 6. Foundations of Indian Poetry, Calcutta, 1925. 7. Calcutta Journal of Letters, Vol. IX.

( 6 )

recently brought to light. It is to be earnestly hoped that this humble attempt on our part will again remind the veteren scholars of their old friend wrag and will probably help to create for them a new interest in him. HTHE-WHO AND WHAT HE WAS We know very little with regard to wrng except what we find revealed in his dar. Tradition says that he was a Kashmirian, and this is believed in by Bahler! and otbers2, Thore is no reason to disbelieve it even though we have no reasonable evidence-external or ioternal-to prove it beyoud doubt. From the last sloka3 of his TM3TT, we leare that his name was भामह and that he was the son of रकिलगामिन The word रक्रिल which bears phonetic resemblance to राहुल, पातल, alfag and similar other Buddhist names, is alleged to suggest Buddhistic associations; and this suggestion would seem to gain strength from a cousideration of the term nfar which is reminiscent of the name of one of Buddha's disciples+. Mr. Pathak has shown that the word itferr used to carty with it an idea of reverence5. He refers to a sutra of the enrecaracy where the word is expressly stated to convey such a sense. Moreover, the word rtraa which occurs in the opening slokaT of wrag's work,

I. Bühler's Kashmir Report, p. 64, 2. Narsimbachar in his Introduction to नागवर्मा'S काव्यावलोकनम् Ind. Ant., 1912. Krishnamacharya : History of Classical Sanskrit Literature. 3. अवलाक्य मतानि सत्कवीनामवगम्य स्वधिया च काव्यलक्ष्म। छजनाचगमाय भामहेन ग्रथित रक्िलगंामिसूनुनेदम्। काव्या० VI,64. 4. J. R. A. S., 1905 5. Ind. Ant., 1912, 6. 'गोमिनू पूज्ये', 4. II, 144. 7. प्रणम्य सार्व सर्वज्ञं मनावाक्कायकरममि: । काव्याळङ्गार इत्येष यथाबुद्धि वघास्यते ॥ काव्या-I, I.

( ? )

cannot but point, so it is said, to the Buddha himself. The word ere in its derivative meaning stands quite in correspondence with the doctrine of universal love taught by Buddha. हमचन्द1 gives सार्व as one of the names of जिन. जिनदेवमुनीश्वर2 does exactly the same thing, except that he adds to the list of the synonyms the name eeffer. In view of the well known fact that several Buddhist names were adopted by the Jains, one might feel justified in inferring from these Jain references that ara was originally an epithet of the Buddha. The use of the word eda for Buddha3 is, of course, well known.

Now taking these points into consideration, we may at once confess that the arguments, stated above for proving arag to be a Buddhist, do not by themselves stand on a very Arm ground. As says Mr. Kane, there is not much in a name .* When the Hindus and the Ruddhists had been living in the same country for centuries and centuries together, there is no wonder if one borrowed the name of the other. When this fact is found to be possible even in the case of such heterogenous peoples as the Hindus and the Mahomedans, it is even more possible in the case of the Hindus and the Buddhists. Moreover, we are to remember that Buddha himself had come to be recognised as an अवतार of विष्णु certainly before tbe 11th century. With Trivedi, we may add that the word arfaer is not exclusively used for the Buddhists. It is explained by the नैघराटुकs as a contraction of गोस्वामिन. It is & caste designation added after the names of the Brahmanas 1. अभिधान चिन्तामणि, I,1, 25. 2. अभिधान चिन्ताशिलोळ्छ, 3. सवजः सगता बुद्ध :- अमरकाश 4, Introduction to साहित्यदर्पण, p.XVIII,

( 8 )

throughout Kashmir and Northern India and corresponds to the आचार्य of the South, An author's religion may perhaps be judged from the contents of his book, but not from his name. In the whole of t uTeETT there is nothing peculiarly Buddhistic, nor is there any reference to the incidents of Buddha's life or to any purely Buddhistic legends. The first verse. no doubt, salutes सार्व सर्वश but the appellation सार्व simply means सर्वस्मे हित and is rot given by any lexicographer as meaning Buddha exclusively. The word wefe is found in lexicons standing for Buddha as well as for Siva3. surfra in his 15aTf7 devotes a long section to the refutation of "gda", where he means by the term "Omniscient God' and not"Buddha." It is a significant fact that srafera, who was himself a Buddhist, does nowhere give the word सार्व for Buudha in his अमरकोश । The अपोहवाद of the Buddhists, which represents their theory of verbal connotation, is criticised by qrg in a language which cannot be considered possible for a Buddhist4 writer.

1. See Trivedi's Introduction to प्रतापरुद्रयशाभूषण p. xxxvii. 2. हितप्रकरणे णं च सर्वशब्दात् प्रयुञ्जने। ततस्छमिष्या च यथा सार्वः सर्वीय इन्यपि॥ काव्या०-VI, 53. CF. पाणिनि 'सर्वपुरुपाभ्यां णढजौ V. 1. 10. also. 3. कृशानुरेता: सवज्ञा धूर्जटिर्नोक्लाहित :- अमरकाश, 4. अन्यापाहेन शब्दारषर्थमाहत्यन्ये प्रचक्षते। अन्यापाहश्च नामान्यपदार्थापाकृति: किल।। यदि गौरित्ययं शब्द: कृतार्थाऽन्यनिराकृतौ। जनकेा गवि गोबुद्ेसृंग्यतामपरा ध्वनिः । काव्या°-VI, 16-17.

( 9 )

He speaks of Vedic rites and ceremonies in very high terms. The kings who drank Soma are highly spoken of1. Most of his examples refer to Brahmanical gods2 and heroes. The famous Pauranic legend of the burning of काम by श्रिब has been referred to by आामह in very clear terms9, He very frequently alludes to the characters and incidents of रामायणा. The meeting of राम with परशुराम his exile to the forest of auges in obedience to the orders of his father", his piercing with a single arrow the seven ताल trees8, the promise of हनुमान to search out the where- abouts of mar7-these are some of the famous incidents of रामायण mentioned by भामह in his काव्यालङ्गार.

भूमृतां पीतसामानां न्याय्ये वर्त्मनि तिष्ठताम् । अल करिष्णुना वश गुरौ सति जिगीषुणा॥ काव्या .- IV.48. 2. युगादौ भगबान् ब्रह्मा विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजाः । काव्या०-II.55 b. समप्रगगनायाममानदण्डो रथाङ्गिनः । पादा जयति सिद्धस्त्रीमुखेन्दुनवदर्पण: ॥ काव्या-III. 36. विदधानों किरीटेन्दू श्यामान्रह्दिमसच्छवी। रथाङ्गशूले विभ्राणी पातां वः शम्भुशार्ङ्गिणौ॥ काव्या० IV.21. कान्ते इन्दुशिरारत्ने आादधाने उदशुनी। पातां वः शम्भुशर्वाण्यौ ............ ॥ काव्या०-IV.27. 3. स एकस्रीणि जयति जगन्ति कुसुमार् घः । वृस्तापि तनुं यस्य शम्भुना न हतं बलम्। काव्याo-III.25. 4. अत्याजयद्यथा राम: सर्वक्षत्रवधाश्रयाम् । जामदग्न्यं युधा जित्वा सा ज्ञेया कापबाधिनी॥ काव्या०V.44. 5. उदात्तशक्तिमान् शमा गुरुवाक्यानुराधकः । विहायापनतं राज्य यथा वनमुपागमत् ॥ काव्या- III. 11. 6. राम: सपाभिनत् तालान्। काव्या०-III. 32. 7. उपलप्स्ये स्वर सीतामिति भर्तनिदेशतः । हनूमता प्रतिज्ञाय सा ज्ञातेत्पर्थसंश्रया॥ काव्याIV.37. 2

( 10 )

The references to the characters and incidents of asrarca are far more numerous than these of tmraw. Almost all the important characters ci HEraTTa are found mentioned !. The promise of qu to suffer the miseries of old age in lieu of his fathers, and that of भीष्म for the life of a perfect celibate", have been alluded to by arag, while illustrating different types of ofanT. Similarly, the gambling duel of युविष्टिर and शकुति,4 the terrible determination and per- formance of the drinking of emrga's blood", and many other incidentse are also referred to. In a truly beautiful sloka, wrwa describes the feeling of excessive joy expressed by विदुर on कषms arrival at his houseT. In another sloka, the name of garer, the son of go, is found coupled with that of पल पुरूरवा, the progenitor of the lurar dynasty of Kşatriyas,

I. See भामह's काव्याळङ्कार, III. 7, V. 31, V. 41. 1. जरामेथ विभमीति प्रतिज्ञाय पितुर्यया तघैव पुरुणाभारि सा स्यान्ध्मनिबन्विनी ॥ V. 36. 3. अद्यारम्य निवत्स्यामि सुनिव वचनादिति पिनुः प्रियाय म्रां भीष्मश्कें सा कामबाघिनी ॥ V.36. 4. आहूता न निवर्तेय द्यूतायेति युघिष्टिर: कृल्वा सं्धां वाकुनिना दिदेवेत्यर्थबाधिनी। V. 42. 5. आतुर्ातृव्यमुन्मथ्य पास्याम्यस्यामृगाहय प्रतिज्ञाय यधा भीमस्तञ्चकारावशो रुपा॥ V. 39. Fi. See काव्यालङ्कार, 11. 41, V, 41. 7. ... गृहागर्तं कृष्ण्मवादीद्विदुरो सथा।। अद्य या मम गाविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते कालेनेपा भवेद् प्रीतिस्तववागमनात् पुनः॥III. 5. 8. भरतस्त्व दिलीपस्त्व त्वमवैल: पुरुरा: त्वमेवर वीर प्रदुम्नस्त्वमेव नरवाहन: ।। V. 59:

( 11 )

Besides these references to the TrATaW ond the HETarra, there are obvious allusions to the stories of zana, the king of the Vatsas, and of his son, rrargaes, as described in the बृदत्कथा of गुणाढय.चागाकय, the celebrated prime minister to areuraarf, has been mentioned as going at night to the pleasure-house of king .2 Bearing in mind all these facts, we really wonder how a person professing a particular religion, should, when writing an important work, have totally forgotten his own religion and betaken himself always to another for illustra- tions, There is no dearth of legendary stories among the Buddhists. Had he so wished, he could have easily drawn upon them. This fact becomes quite clear on looking into the works of afauig and others, where it is found that all illus- trations are taken from their own religious legends. Not only this. At times, in refutiag quraara for instance, he becomes a bit aggressive to the pet ideas of the Buddhists. If we remember what the influence of the Buddhists was before the advent of sitsrstr=rTd, what homage they commanded even from royal personages, a Buddhist's partiality towards the Brahmanical religion becomes still more inexplicable. We may admit that these points by themselves do not form any firm ground for the belief that our author was a Hindu, but we have also to admit that the arguments advanced for making him a Buddhist are even more flimsy and consequent- ly less tenable. It is still an open question and will continue to be, until some evidence of definite and undisputed character is forthcoming. In the mean-time we may assure ourselves on the strength of the data within our knowledge that there is more probability in wrwg's being considered & Hindu than a Buddhist.

I. काव्यालङ्वार, IV. 39 ctc. 2, Ibid III, 13.

( 12 )

THE DATE OF HIHE The most important problem in connection with Tsrg is his date. It has been the cause of & heated controversy among a number of eminent orientalists for a number of years. After such a long and impassionate discussion, one should expect to have & better result, namely, the exact determination of his date. But unfortunately the result has been quite the reverse. Nothing seems to bave been achieved which is not even now enshrouded, to some extent, in the mist of doubt. We propose here to state, as clearly as pos- sible, the various arguments which have been put forward from time to time, to settle this vexed question. #THE, like most of the Sanskrit writers, does not give any clue to his date in bis own work. There is no way of extracting evidence-internal or external-from any known source which may determine bis date in exact numbers. What we can do is simply to try to find out the two limits to his date as correctly as the data at our disposal can allow. Even there we do not seem to be on a very firm ground. We can some how or other settle the lower limit of his date from quotations and references of later writers. But when we proceed to determine the upper limit diffculties begin to multiply. It is there that the great scholars have been crossing swords with each other. Let us, however, begin with the consideration of the lower limit to his date. By referring to the appendix of our textl or to the foot-notes in Mr. Trivedi's text, it will be found that the earliest writer to quote भामह directly is आनन्द्वर्द्धनाचार्य. Then we learn from a number of later आलङ्गारिकs that उन्भट had written a commentary upon the काव्यालङ्कार of भामह 3. On

I. Published in the Kashi Sanskrit Series, Benares. a. Appendix VIII, प्रतापस्तयशासूपण (B. S. S. XLV.) 3. "विशेषोकिलक्षणे च भामहविवरणे भट्टोनटेन एरुदेशशब्द् एवं

( 13 )

comparing the contents of sege's independent work razT- लक्वारसऊम्रह with भमह'S काव्यालङ्गार, it will appear that he had not been content with writing a commentary upon the work of wTHa, but had freely drawn upon it for his own work1. As will be shown later on, he has not only copied wrwa's definitions but has verily repeated them verbatim. बामन's अलङ्कारसूत्रवृत्ति gives clear indications of his acquaintance with the work of Mrg. It will be shown later on in detail how much and how far he was indebted to our author in the composition of his own work. It is quite sufficient to remember at present, that at some places" he seems to paraphrase the verses of Hrnaa in the form of sutras, at others+ he appears to repeat those very

व्याल्यातो यथेहासाभिनिरूपितः"-प्रतिहारेन्दुराज in his com- mentary upoa उद्न's काव्यालङ्कारसग्रह (Banhatti's Edn. p. 14). "भामट्ाक' शब्दच्छन्दीभिधानर्थः"इत्यभिधानस्य शद्ाज्न द' व्याख्या लु' भटटोहटो बभापे"-अभिनवगुप्ताचार्य in bis ध्वन्यालेकलेोचन, P. TO. Also see pp. 39, 207. "तस्माद्गडुलिकाप्रवाहेन गुणालङ्कारभेद इति भामहविवरणे यदू भटाह्वंडाइम्यधात् तननिरस्तम्"-हमचन्द्र in his अलङ्कार चूढामणि p. 17. See also p. I1O. "अपि च'शब्दानाकुलिता चति तस्य हेतूनू प्रचक्षते'इति भामहीये 'वाचा मनाकुलत्वनापि भाविकम् इति चेद्भ्रटलक्षणे' etc, अलक्कारसर्वस्व p. 183. (Nirnaya Sagara Edn.) I. See Dr. De's History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I. p. 45. and Kane's Introduction to साहित्यदर्पण, p. XLII.

2, वामन's काव्यालड्गारसूत्र, IV. 2, I.

3 भामह's काव्यालङ्कार, II. 30. 4 IV. 2, 20-21.

( 14 )

views which are held by wnragl. He has reproduced? one dloka which has been rited by errna in the name of neaea. At another place+ he inaccurately quotes a part of TAK's verses and comments upon the use of a word in it. Such a similarity of language, such a correspondence of views, can- not be a matter of accident but must be attributed to the assimilation of the work of an author of established reputation. It is clear from the above references that wrarE flouri- shed before उन्द and वामन. The date of उन्द्न can be fortunately settled with some precisione. He is referred to by आनन्द्वर्द्धनाचार्य 10 his ध्वन्यालोक and spoken of as the सभापति of जयापीड by करहण. जयापाड reigned in Kashmir from 779 to 813 A. C. As this king, on account of bis misrule, became unpopular with the Pandits in the latter part of his reign, 37C must have lived in his court before 800 A. C. So the period of as's literary activity may, with some probability, be assigned to the last quarter of the 8th century. His approximate date may therefore be taken as 800 A. C.

I. II, 50. 2, IV. 2, 10. 3, II. 46. 4 V. 2. 38 5. II. 27. 6. See N. D. Banhatti's Introduction to his Edn. of 3ars OSTINTTHAE, (B. S. S. No. LXXIX, 1925, Poona) ; See also S. K. De's History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I, p. 75: P. V. Kane's Introduction to साहित्यदूर्पण, P. XLV; Buhler's Kashmir Report, p. 65. 7. घवन्यलङ्कारान्तरप्रतिभायामपि इकेषच्यपदययो भवतीति द्शितं महो- अटेन"-ध्वन्यालेक (निर्णयसागर Edn.) p. 96. "अन्यत्र वाच्यत्वेन प्रसिद्धों या रूपकादिरलद्कारः सोडन्यत्र प्रतीयमान

( 15 )

The date of arga,1 too, may be similarly settled. KTSTUETT, who lived about 900 A.C"., refers to the school of वामन. This gives us the lower limit of वामन. He must have lived before 900 A. C. वामन quoles verses from the plays of भवभृति4. Now भवभूति lived somewhere between 700 and 750 A.C.° वामन is, therefore, later than 750. According to राजतरङगिणी, 2 certain वामन was a minister of King जयापोड of Kashmir. There is a tradition among the Pandits of Kashmir that the

तया बाहल्यन Pr 108 1, For details, see Sanskrit Introductions to Bombay and Banglore Editions of चामन3 काव्यालङ्गारसून्रवृत्ति; Dr. Jha's Preliminary note to his translation of arrs work; Dr. S. K. De's History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I- p. Siff; P. V. Kane's Introduction to साहित्यदर्पण, pp. XLVIII-L 2. Mr. C. D. Dalal's . Introduction to काव्यमीमांसा; Dr. Konow's Introduction to कपरमज्जरी (H. O. S.)

3. "कवयाऽपि भवन्तीति वामनोयाः"-काव्यमीमांसा of राजशेखर (G O. S., No. I., p. 14.) "आप्रहपरियाहदृपि पदस्थैटपर्य वसायस्तस्मात् पदानां परिवृत्तिदै- मुख्यं पाक: ' इतिवामनीयाः"-Ibid, p. 20. 4. इयं गेह्े लक्ष्मीरियममृतवर्तिनयनयो: etc .- उत्तररामचरित cited by वामन under IV. 3.6. पिङ्गालीपक्सलिस: etc, मालतीमाघव cited by वामन under V. 2. 18. 5. See R. G. Bhandarkar's preface to his edo. of मालतीमाधव (B. S. S. No. XV) p. XIII-XVII, Bombay, 1905 ; also Stith's paper in J. R. A. S., 1908., p. 793. 6. "मनेारथः शंखदतश्रटक: सन्धिमांस्तथा । बभूवुः कवयस्तस्य वामनाद्याश्न मन्न्रिणः"। IV.497.

16 )

author of काव्यालङ्कार सूत्रवृत्ति was identical with this minis- ter. Bübler! believes in this tradition and we see no reason to disbelieve it. So, as shown above, 3E and arga are almost synchronous. It is possible that they were rivals of each other. But it is curious that neither of them refers to the other. Howsoever it may be, the date of ar and arge is approximately about 800 A. C. शान्तरक्षित qcotes three slokas2 from भामह's काव्या- aaTt" which are definetely ascribed to him by the commentator कमलशील, Now शान्तरकित lived from 705 to 762 A.Cª. Thus 700 A. C. may be safely taken to be the lower limit of wrwy, though, as we shall show later on, bis real lower limit is furnished by aTw. Now we come to determine the upper limit to the date of mrwg. It is here that we have to encounter difficulties of the highest magnitude. Many suggestions have been made, many theories bave been propounded. Let us take them one by one and try to see how much water they can hold, भामह has at one place referred to a न्यासकार. Some scholars were led to think that this point would be of great help in settling a terminus of wTHE. A keen and heated controversy ensued and has been raging for a long time. The credit of raising this learned question and then fighting single-handed to maintain his hypothesis with deep scholar- ship and reasonable plausibility, belongs to the great orienta. list, Prof. K. B. Pethak. He found in arwa's mention of

I. See Buhler's Kashmir Report, p. 65. 2. तत्त्वसङह, slokas 912-914(G.O.S. No. XXX)

3- VI. 17-19. 4. तत्कसल्ग्रह P. 291. 5, Sea Mr. B. Bhattacharya's Foreword (pp, XIII-XVI) to the तच्चसङ् ग्रह

( 17 )

न्यासकार a clear reference to जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि, the Buddhist author of काशिकाविवरणपखिका, whom he placed, on the evidence of the Chinese traveller, Itsing, in the 7th century. On the basis of this supposition, he tried to prove that arna must be assigned to the 8th century.1 He found & very strong opponent in Mr. K. P. Trivedi who proved to the hilt that the structure of Prof. Pathak's hypothesis was raised upon the foundation of sands.ª Mr. Trivedi, on the merit of his stronger arguments, was supported by almost ail the writers on the subject, and was perhaps able at last to convince of bis reasonableness even the originator of this controversy.4

The verses where न्यासकार is alluded to in the काव्या- लङ्वार of भामह, run thus :-

शिष्टप्रयोगमात्रेग न्यासकारमतेन वा। तृचा समस्तपष्ठीकं न कथञ्चिदुदाहरेत।। सूतज्ञापकमात्रेर तृत्रहन्ता यथोदितः । अक्रेन च न कुर्वीत वृत्ति तद्गमको यथा॥

The simple meaning of this extract may be thus expressed-A poet should not make use of a compound, one nember of which is formed by adding the suffix aa and the

I. J. R. A. S. Bom., Vol. xxlii ; Ind. Ant., Vol. xli, 1912. 2. Introd. to प्रतापरुयशाभूयण, pp. xxxvff; Ind. Ant., xlii, 1913.

3- Mr. Kane-Introd. to साहित्यदर्पण, pp. xxxv-xxxvi ; Dr. S. K. De-History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I, p. 47; Dr. Jacobi-Sb. der Preuss. Akad. xxiv (1912) pp. 210-2I1; Sovani-Pre-Dhvani Schools, Bh. Com. Vol., p. 393.

4. As far as we know, Prof. Pathak has written nothing after 1913 on this subject. 3

( 18 )

other by the terminations of the genitive case, supporting it by reference to the usage of a learned man or following the view of न्यासकार One should not make such a use as was done, when the word aergear was cited by saying that the sutra of Panini becomes srya in such a case. Neither should he bring about a compound of words ending with a with words ending in the genitive case, as, for example, तद्मक The sum and substance of ामह's contention is simply this that पाणिनि's sutra तृजकाभ्यां कतरि (II. 2.15) should be strictly followed and no बष्ीतत्पुरुष compound formed with words ending in the subjective aa and E suffixes. Consequently no compound takes place in cases like अ्पा स्नष्टा, वज्रस्य भर्ता, शदनस्य पाचक: etc. Now the passage in जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि's काशिकाविवरणपञ्चिका (popularly known as #rtr) which discusses the use of such compounds runs as follows :- अथ किमर्थ तृचः सानुबन्धस्योच्चारएम्? तृनो निवृत्यर्थम्। नैतदस्ति तद्योगे न लोकाव्ययेत्यादिना षष्ठीप्रतिषेधात्। पवं तर्हि एतदेव ज्ञापकं सवति तद्योगेऽपि क्कचित् पष्ठी भवतीति। तेन भीष्मः कुरुणां 4यशोकद्दन्तेत्येवमादि सिद्ध भघति।

This passage is found in connection with the sutra तृजकाभ्यां कतरि (I1. 2.15). Here the न्यासकार is discussiog the utility of the अनुबन्ध 'च' in तृच. पाणिनि could have easily said त्रकाम्याम् rather than तृजकाभ्याम्। Why has he inserted a ? The answer to this question as given by जिनेन्द्र is that it serves to exclude as. But there comes in another difficulty. cannot be used with words ending in egt by न लेोकाव्ययनिष्ठाखलर्थतृनाम् (II. 3. 69). षष्टीसमास is out of question, This objection is met by sayiog that this very sutra becomes T445 so that the genitive can be used with the words ending in तृच. The prohibition by लेकाव्ययनिष्ठा

( 19 )

etc. is inconstant. So whenever we meet with a compound of a word ending with a genitive termination and another ending in a. we should say that the suffix added is not T bat ar. Now, on comparison of these two passages with each other it will be evident that wrag insists upon the prohibition of पह्ीसमास with words ending in तृच and अक- As seen in another placel, he had a very high regaid for the authority of qifufa. In this particular case also, he wants us to follow the rule of viffr quite literally. He catches this opportunity of referring to the view of a FTerart who had allowed (as would appear from the words of wtag ) the use of such compounds by saying that this sutra of qrfaf could very well be taken as a arrqs. It would also appear that the न्यासकार hid ctually cited the example वृतहन्ता and तद्मक. To ordinary eyes the words of wga are as clear as anything and they need no torture from out side, unless, of course, they are meant to yield the desired import already conceived.

Prof. Pathak takes great pains to explain this extract in his own favourite way at one place2, and elsewhere3 he gives the sum and substance of bis contention. We shall just quote a few sentences from the latter place to show the position assumed by the Professor upon this question. " It will be sufficient " he says, " for my present purpose to poit out that in the verses cited above Bhamaha condemns all genitive compounds like gerarar and araa as ungramma- tical, and says that such compounds should never be employed by young authors aspiring to eminence. When he contrasts the शिष्टप्रयोगमात्र with the न्यासकारसत, he does I. श्रद्धेय जगत मतं हि पाणिनीयम् -- काव्याळद्कार VI.63. 2. J. R. A. S. Bomb., Vol, XXIII., p. 138. 3. Ind Ant. XLI, 1912. p. 234.

( 20 )

not mean to say that this particular compound ergear is used by the farg or justified by the Nyasakara, Bhamaha mentions this word gergtar as an illustration of the class of genitive compounds justified by the Nyasakara. This is amply proved by the expression garagrfa in the sentence भीष्म : कुरूणां भयशोकहन्तेत्येघमादि t and by the arqs dis- criminating between and a which applies to all genitive compounds like a r ! " Thus Prof. Pathak would have us beheve that, in spite of the difference existing between the two, HrAg and fiaraafa mean the same thing. As shown above WTHE and Farerarr had supported the use of aar compound by the help of qrfufa's rqse | He had perhaps nothing to say about तृन at that place. But जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि speaks of a, so that wherever we meet with such compounds, he would call the termination a and not I Let us put the whole thing more clearly. qrrufar bas laid down that compounds of words ending in the genitive terminations with words ending in the subjective aa and ares affixes, should never be formed. But difficulty arose when the use of such compounds was met with in the writings of classical writers. Now the grammarians were bound to support such uses some how or other. It became especially more binding on them to support such uses for the reason that even in the sutras of पाणिनि such as जनिकर्तुः nspfa:, such compounds are to be found. The important views on the point can be thus stated :- (i) Some say that, as .qrfufa himself has made use of such compounds in the sutras जनिकर्तुः प्रकृतिः, तत्प्रयोजको हेतुश्च, the निषेध implied by the sutra तृजकाम्यां कनरि, is oot absolutely binding: in certain cases such compounds may be allowed.

( 21 )

) जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि, the famous author of the काशिकान्यास, would lke to say that the terminntion here is a and not and that the prohibition of Tgt in the case of aa by the rule न लोकाव्यय etc. is अ्रनित्य (iit; ur and others hold that in such cases we should explain the 6th case-ending as an instance of aa gt. भट्टोजिदीकित, who raised this question in his सिद्धान्तकौमुदी' and summed up all the views in his मरौढमनोरमा,2 seems to favour the view of $ur; (iv) There may be some who having too much regard for grammatical purity, would not permit such uses in any way. It goes without saying that ras would be very greatly incline1-as he surely is in his aneuraett- to hold the last view. It is known to all who have any knowledge of Sanskrit Poetics that grammatical purity is not identical with rhetorical purity. An expression may be grammatically justified, but it need not, on that account, be consistent with the canons or dicta of good poetry. In poetry expression is as important as the matter it represents. If an expression is doubtful in point of its structural purity, it will not commend itself to a good poet even though the doubt may be the slightest one. This was indeed the position of WInE, From the way in which he refers to the view of a certain FartiFrt,

I. कर्थ तहि " घटानां निर्मातुस्तिभुवनविधातुश्च कलहः" इति । शषष्ठया समास इति कैयटः । 2. गध पष्ठया इति। केचित्तु जनिकर्तु: प्रकृतिस्तत्प्रयोजकेहेतुश्चेति- निर्देशादनित्योयं निषेध इत्याहुः । न्यासकारस्तवाह। तृच्नन्तमेतत्। न लेकति षष्ठीनिषेधस्त्वनित्यः। त्रक्राम्यामिति वक्तवये तृचः सानुबन्धकस्य ग्रहणज ज्ञापकादिति ।

( 22 )

it would appear that even in his days such grammatical speculations were quite brisk, and the point in question has also ottracted the attention of scholars. Perhaps the most important view on this point was that which finds its criticism in the काव्यालङ्कार of भामह, viz., that पाणिनि's sutras were taken as जापक and the निषेध prescribed by the rule तृजका्भ्या etc. was considered अ्नित्य. Let us now compare the view criticised by HTE with the four views stated above and try to find if it corresponds with any of them. It will be seen at once that it coincides with the first one. It will also appear that the first view is distinctly different from the second one which is held by जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि

Let us now turn towards the examples. The example found in भामह' कान्यालङ्वार is वृत्रह्दन्ता but in जिनेन्द्र- बुद्धि's न्यास it is भीष्मः कुरूणां भयग्ोकहन्ता. They do not correspond. Prof. Pathak tells us that " Bhamaha has mentioned this word Eerear as an illustration of the class of genitive compounds justified by the Nyasakara." It is indeed inconceivable why wrag should bring in another set of examples and not use the same which were used by जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि, especially when he was so opposed to his view as to refer to him so very pointedly. It is a common practice among good writers that when they have to discuss or even simply refer to such things, they always cite those very examples which were given by their predecessors. शरगादव 1, for instance, when giving the substance of the passage quoted above, refers to the

. कथ भीष्म: कुरूणां भयशाकद्ृन्तेत्युच्यते। तृन्नन्तमेतत्। न च लोका- न्ययनिष्ठेति (II. 3. 69) पष्ठीनिषेधः । यतस्त्निजकाभ्यमित्यत्र तृचः सानुबन्ध- कस्योपादानं तृनो निधृत्यर्थ ज्ञापर्यात तृनो योगे कचित् पष्ीति न्यासषः ।

( 23 )

example of जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि भट्टोजिदाक्ित undoubtedly begins this discussion with a quite different sentence but his prsition was not the same as that of जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि or of शरसदेष. He is neither criticising nor summarising the statement of the TE4T. He selects the sentence from a very popular azt2 which, the tradition says, was composed by wefa while holding a verbal fight with an opponent. This context perhaps becomes a commentary upon the happy selection of an example on the part of the learned author of the सिद्धान्त कोमुदी। A scholar has to be particularly careful about his language when he is engaged in a discussion with another scholar. The same is the case with fara rfa who draws his example from the popular work, the aarrta. But the position cf wrRa was totally different. In criticising the atanrr he must necessarily quote the same example, and this is what he actually did. The word afaa:, in the sentence सुत्व्वापकमात्रेग वृन्नहन्ता यथोदित:, clearly proves it. He would have never used the word afa: if he had selected the example at random. When Prof. Pathak speaks of जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि as the only rasrr, 'he tells us something less than the truth.' In spite of his attempt to prove otherwise, there did exist several न्यास's besides the one attributed to जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि. माधवाचार्य, as ponited out correctly by Mr. Trivedi, men- tions in his धानुवृत्ति the names of नमेन्द्रन्यास, न्यासे्ोत, बाधिन्यास, शाकटायनन्यास etc. The attempt made by Prof. 1. कथं तहि घटानां निर्मातुस्तिभुवनिधातुश्च कलह इति etc. 2. See भाज प्रबन्ध (निर्णयसागर) 3. Ind. Ant., Vol, XLII, 1913, p. 261.

4. "स्परष्ट चैव गूपधूप इत्यत्र न्यासपदमज्जर्यादिषु। अन्र क्षेमेन्द्र न्यासे

24

Path ak to explain them away by saying that 'the word pnte is frequently used in the sense of grammatical treatise of commentary'1 does not seem to improve his position in ans way- वाणा in his हर्षचरित, as first pointed out by Mr. Kane2, refers to a न्यास. The expression used there is कृतगुरुपद्न्यासा which is explained by the commentator शङ्र a5 कृताऽभ्यस्तो गुरुपदे दुबेधिशब्दे न्यासे वृत्तिवि (वि) वरणं यै: None has so far tried to prove that faafer lived before the reign of हुर्पवर्द्धन. Mr. R. Narsimhachart writes about a न्यास written by qsauiq, who, according to Mr. Rice, lived about 500 A. C. Even if it were possible (but in fact it is not) to show that the न्यासकार referred to by भामह्, may be जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि it is not easy to prove that भामह came after जिनेन्द्रवुद्धि। The only ground on which Pref. Pathak placed him about 700 A C., is a string of confused statements of the Chinese traveller, Itsing, about the grammarians of those times. All पणनेः सार्वधानुकेऽप्यायविकल्प उक्त :- धातुवृनि ( Mysore Eda. ) Vol. I., p. 266. "अंकथितं च इत्यन्न न्यासे निवाहि हरि जिदण्डीन् प्रस्तुत्य ..... न्यासेद्योतेच अजादीनां ग्रामादीनां चेष्मिननमत्वमविशिष्टमित्युक्तम् ibid Vol. I., Pt. II., p. 529. वोधिन्यासेऽपि साति: सखे वतते सौत् इति। जिनेन्द्रहरदत्ती सातिहेतुमण्ण्यन्त: इति-ibid Vol. 5. Ft. I, p. 122. शाकटायनन्यासकृताऽप्ययमेव पक्षोऽभिमत :- ibid Vol. I. Pt. I.

P. 94. It is to be noted here tbat in all these quotationg जिनेन्द्रबुद्धि is distinctly referred to. I. Ind. Ant., Vol. XLI, 1912, p. 233. 2. J. R. A, S., Bomb 1909, P. 94. 3. हर्षचरित (Fubrer's Edn.) p. 133. 4. Ind. Ant. XLI, 1912, p. 9I.

( 25 )

these statements cannot be accepted as perfectly correct. Dr. Jacotal has therefore rightly called in question the date assigned by Prof. Pathak to faramggfe. Keilborn2, while noticing a fragment from faraafa's work in Poona, wrote: "My impression certainly was that Jinendribuddhi has freely copied from Haradatta's Padamanjari." Dr. Jacobi3 has shown, on the authority of iasarergtry, that ata died in 578 A.C. This will take faiagf to the 10th century at least. We have already shown that HrHa cannot be later than 700 A.C. It is impossible for faramgf to have copied from the qawad of atae and still be a predecessor of Hrs. We may now sum up this part of our discussion. The न्यासकार referred to by आामह is not जिनेन्द्रवुाद्ध 35 WaS supposed by Prof. Pathak. He was an old writer whose work has now become extinct and who is wholly unknowa to us. His view, as known from #THe, seems to be referred to by भट्टोजिदित्षित in his प्रोढमनोरमा। So an attempt to find out the other terminus of WTHT, with the help of his reference to FaTeart, cannot go very far and we must look up to something else for it. भामइ and माघ While dealing with one of the main contributions of Prof. Pathak to the determination of Wrge's date, we may, in passing, just note another interesting point raised by the Icarned professor5. This refers to an unconvincing attempt I. Sitzungsberichte der Preusssischen Akademie der Wis- senschaften, XXIV, p. 210 2. J.R.A.S. 1908, P 499 3- Sitz. d. Preuss, Akad, d. Wiss,, xxis,p. 211 4. p. 16. above 5- J. R.A.S., Bomb. Vol. XXIII, p. 31. 4

( 26 )

made by him to find out some chronological relation between मामह and साघ, भामह, at one place,1expresses his view about the conslitution of काव्य and says शब्दार्थी सहिता meg -- a view which has attracted the attention of almost all later आलङ्ारिक's of note. मात् has in शिशुपालबध II. 80 the following beautiful t4- नालम्वते दैष्टिकर्ता न निषीदति पौरुषे। शब्दार्थी सत्कविरिय इयं विद्वानपेक्षते ।

Now it is argued that are must have be n acquainted with arwe's araaragrc before he expressed himself in such a strain. This point is maintioned here, not for its importance but for its interest. We need not, therefore, gc into detail over this question. Those who feel interested may read the refutation of this argument in the paper ol Mr. Kaneª. We shall only quote & few lines from Dr. J Nobel's book" and leave the rest to the imagination o curious readers, "Magha is said," writes Dr. J. Nobel, utc refer to the definition of Kavya as given by Bhamaha, bul if this is considered as an argument I may be allowed to take as an argument of the same force that Kalidasa in Raghu- vansa I.1., by the words Vagarthariva samprktaw refers to the very same definition of Bhamaha, and that by this fact Bhamaha's priority may be taken for granted. By using the simile of Sabdartha, however, Magha probably refers to that of Kahdasa or perhaps to some other view and not the definition of Kavya in Bhamaha. This argument how- ever, is of nc great value, becnuse the so-called definition of Kavya (as consisting of word and sense unitcd) may go back to some older Alamkarikas"

I. काव्यालद्वार, I. 16. 2, J. R.A.S. Bomb. Vol. XXIII, p. 91. ff. . The foundations of Indian Poetry, p 15-16

( 27 )

आामह and कानिदास

Still more interesting and equally important is the view which seeks to establish the priority of कालिदास to our author. In भामह' S काव्यालङ्कार I. 42-44 we read-

अयुक्तिमट् यथा दूता जलभृन्मारुतेन्दवः। तथा भ्रमरहारीतचक्रवाकशुकाद्य:॥ पवाचेर व्यक्तवाचश्ष दूरदेशविच्ारिए:। कथं दू्त्यं प्रपदेरचिति युकत्या न युज्यते॥ यदि चेत्करठया यत्तदुन्मत्त इच भाषते। तथा भवतु भूम्नेहं सुमेधाभि: प्रयुज्यते॥।

WrHE is criticising here those poets who make in their works the cloud, the wind, the moon and similarly some birds to appear as messengers. He calls this an istance of अयुक्तिमहोप. It goes wholly against reasoo, he says, that such creatures should be able to perform the duties of messengers. But he concedes this in the case of those intelligent posts, who, when making use of such devices, show them to be employed by men who are out of their wits.

Now some scholarsl argue that Wrag must have had in mind the मेघदूत of कालिदास where a cloud has been usel as a messenger. It is also pointed ont that a passagel of NTE seems to borrow an idea and phraseology from two

1. Haricand .- L'Art Poetique de L'Inde, p. 77 ; V. V. Sovani-Pre-dbawani Schools, Bhandarkar commomoration Volume, p. 393 ; S. K. De .- History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol. I. 48. 2 बिन्ध्यं महानिव घनः समयेऽभिवर्षन्ञानन्दजैनयनवारिभिरक्षतु त्वाम्॥ 1. 56.

28

मोकs of कालिदास, This shows that कालिदास must bav flourished before भामह.

Others, on the other hand, hold quite an opposite view " Bhamahacharya, " writes Dr. T. Ganpati Sastri2, "it seems to me, must have lived long prior to Kalidass. For whilt he mentions such names of poets and poems as Medhavi, Rāma Šarma, Asmakavamsa, Ratnaharaņa, Achyutottara, al unknown to us, he has never mentioned the name of Kalidasa of world-wide fame or any of his works of supreme excellence But had Bhamaha ever seen the poems of Kalidasa he would have of course mentioned them or made them also as in the case of Pratijnanatika subject of his criticism." After this the learned Paudit quotes those three verses of erwa' which we have given above and remarks-"From this we cannot conclude that arHa was conversant with the: poem Meghadata, for then we could as well infer that he knew also of Sukasandesa written by a poet of yesterday. Hence, I think, that by these dlokas, our Acharya only teaches us generally that the fashion in some of our Kāvyas of lovers sending messages through such inanimate objects as the wind, the moou, the clouds and such living inarti- culate creatures as the bee, the chakravaka and the parrot is not desirable on occasions when the sender of the message is in a state of sobriety. Bearing in mind this instruction of our

अथाभिषकं रघुवंशकता: प्रार्धमानन्दजलैर्जनन्याः ।

सरित्समुद्रान् सरक्षीत्र गत्वा रक्ष: क्पन्द्र रूपपादितानि। तस्यापतन् मुष्नि जलानि जिष्णाविन्ध्यस्य मेवग्रभवा हवाप:॥ aa XIV. 7-8 z. Introductiun to स्वप्नवासवदचा and (Trivendrum Edn.) 3. कान्याबगर, 1. 42-44.

( 29 )

Acharya, Kalulasa, with his keen sense of poetic propriety, observes, in defence of his message through the cloud at the begining of Meghaduta :- ध्रूमज्योतिःसलितमरूतां सन्निपातः क मेघ: सन्देशार्था क पट्टुकरसे: प्रागिभि: प्रापनीयाः। इन्योसुक्यादपरिगणयन् मुह्यकस्तं ययाचे कामार्ता हि प्रकृतिकृपणाक्ोतनाचेतनेषु॥-पूर्वमेघ। Thus it is seen that Bhamaba lived much prior to Kalidasa." This long quotation from the most important exponent of this side of the view, will make the position quite clear. It may be interesting to know that Dr. Nobel also was formerly & believer in the priority of भामह to कालिदास. Even now, with his belief shghtly shaken, (simply because he couid not directly prove it) he is more inclined to accept the priority of भामह t० कालिदास than that of कालिदास to

Taking the arguments from both sides into consideration, we may confess that much can be said on both sides and that nothing is really settled. One cannot imagine that such a criticism can be possible without any work to be criticised and explain on the other hand, why other things connected with arfaera should not have come under the notice of WTAT, if the works of the great poet were known to him. Whatsoever may be the fact, it is needless to carry this discussion to any further length, because, even if it were decided one way or the other, it will not in any way help us in determining the date of HTAT. The date of ifaare itself is a bone of contention and cannot be made a basis for determination of other dates.

I. See Nobel's Toe Foundations of lodian Poetry, pp. 14-15.

( 30 )

मामह AND भास. Tbe same remark is to be made with regard to the chronological relation of भामह and भास, though in this case, it has not been suggested by any person that HiHa came after the author of the work he is criticising. The difficulty with us here is that we cannot exactly know what work he is criticising. The verses in the काव्यालंङ्गार of भामछ which refer to the criticism in question read thus- विज्जिगीषुमुपन्यस्थ वत्संशं बृद्धदर्शनम्। तस्यैव कृतिन: पश्चादभ्यधाच्चरशन्यताम्॥

तथाविधं गजच्छद् नाज्ञासीत् स स्वभूगतम्॥ यदि वापेक्षितं तस्य सचिवैः स्वार्थसिद्धये। श्रहो नु मन्दिमा तेषां भक्तिर्वा नास्ति भर्तरि॥ शरा दृदधनुमुंक्ता मन्युमद्भिरगतिभिः। मर्मासि परिहृत्यास्य पतिष्यन्तीति कानुमा॥ इतोडनेन ममभ्नाता मम पुत्र: पिता मम । मातुलो भागिनेयश्च रुपा संर्घचेतसः ॥ अस्यन्तो विविधान्याजावायुघान्यपराधिनम्। पक्का किनमरएयानां न हन्युर्वह्व: कथम्॥। नमोऽस्तु दैभ्यो विद्वन्वयो येडभिन्रायं कवेरिमम्। शास्त्रलोकावपास्चैव नयन्ति नयवेदिन: ।। सचेतसो वनेभस्य चर्मणा निर्मितस्यच। विशेषं वेद बालोपि कष्टं किन्तु कथं तु तत्।IV.39-48 The stories of उद्यन, the king of वतसs, were very popular in ancient India, so much so that many works, even besides those which directly devote themselves to them, refer to them here and there. So when we find such a criticism in the work of HTHT, we cannot exactly determine what is the actual object of his criticism. Dr. T. Ganapati Sastri suggests that the work criticised must be परतिक्वाय।गन्धरायण "The subject reviewed by Bhamaha above," says the eminent

( 31 )

editor, " is seen in its entirety in Pratijnanatika. Moreover, the Prakrit passage "अशोश मम भादा हदा, अलेण मम पिदा, अरोया मम सुदे" in the first Act of Pratijianatika is quoted in the form of verse, "हुतोइनेन मम ख्राना मस पुत्रः पिता मम"by Bhamaha, in his enquiry on Nyayavirodha." In spite of this suggestion made by the learned Pandit, we may observe that the case is much doubtful. NTHE does not mention the name of भास or his प्रतिक्वायागन्यरायर. He may be criticising गुान्य's वृह्दत्कथा itself which was indeed the oldest compendium of such stories. The Prakrit portion common with भामह's महोक, might have a similar representative passage there also. Moreover, the theory of the learned Sastri itself, as observes Mr. Kane, is based on a very weak foundation. if we examine the passage from wrHg more clesely, it will be found that the story criticised by him is not exactly the same as found in gaarer- Tran. It corresponds more with the versions found in gea- कथा मसरी and कथा-सरित-सागर They are known to be the epitomes of aasnT. But even if it was proved that it is wa who has been criticisel, it will not help us in any way. For the last 14 years, a sharp controversy has heen going on, not only with regard to the date of wre, but also concerning the authenticity of the works published in his name. As there is no certainty about the date of HTH, there is no us- putting it forward as a terminus of arHa.

भाभह AND भट्टि।

It will not be perhaps out of place to devote some space here for discussing the relation of wf and wrae. It is a well-known traditiou among the Pandits of India that uf, the famous suthor of the grammstical Kavya, known as राघसावध or simply as भट्टिकाव्य, tried to furnish illustrations

( 32 )

to the seuaatr in the four canlos (X-XIII) known aa प्रसनकाएड exactly as he dil in others for the sutras of Panini, This tradition finds further support from the statements of the commentators1. It would appear from the way they write that af wrote the 10th canto to illustrate fgures of word and sense, 11th, argearg, 12t, भाविक and the 13th Sanskrit and Prakrit Kavya. प्रसाद्गुल finds its illustration in all the four cantos. If we look at the इलोकs illustrating अलक्कारs in canto X, we shall find, from the order and the way they are given, that wre had भामह'५ काव्यालङ्वार before him. The commentators जयमझ्गम and afaara have freely drawn upon the work of ATHE for giving the definitions of these woretrs in their commentaries." They could have easily taken the defnitions from later and fuller rhetorcial works. But then the illustrative ares would not have so well conformed to those definitions. There is a ऋहोक in मामह's काव्यालङ्कार which is found in मट्टकाव्य with very slight alterations. The शलाक of भामह is- काव्यान्यपि यदीमानि व्यास्यागम्यानि शास्त्रयत्। उत्सवः सुघियामेव इन्त दुर्मेघस। हनाः॥ -II. :0 In भट्टिकानय we have

1. शम्दलकषणमुकमपि नक्षयन् काव्यमक्षणार्थ प्रसन्नकाण्डमुच्यते, काव्पस्यान्र प्रसमत्वात्। प्रथमं पद लक्ष्ण वत्पसन्नता नाम आविददङनाबालप्रतीताथ प्रसनवदिति !........ तथास्मिन काण्डे चत्वार: परिच्छेदाः। अळक्कार माघुर्यप्रदर्शनदया: आाषासमावेशश्वेति etC .- जयसङल i his commentary in the beginning of canto X.

माधुर्य भाविक माषासमाच्य परिच्छेदवतुट््यात्मकमारममानोऽस्मिन सरगे तावदलक्वारपरचछेद बडनाडो शजालकूृरान छेशना दर्शमति। -मद्िनाथ in his commentary on wfaamen in the beginning of canto X. 2. See परिशिष to our eria.of भामइ's काब्यालद्वार जयमप्र has no less than 33 quotations from this work.

( 38 )

व्याव्यागम्पमिदं काव्यमुत्सव: सुचियामर्रम् । बुता दुर्भेघसश्ास्मिन विद्सप्रियतया मया B -- XXII.34. Here it can be imagined quite easily that one of the two must have borrowed from the other. ifarefm ascribes the former as 1o afar. There en this authority it necessarily follows that afg must have imitated rnt in writing his as.I All these facts, stated above, cannot but point to one conclusion, in that wrmr was prior to sft. Now as regards the date of aft, the only clue which we have is his aites forming the last verse of his rer. It is-

काव्यमिद विहितं भया बलम्पा

कीतिरतो भघताम्नुपस्य तस्प प्रेमकरः क्षितिपा यतः प्रजानाम् ॥-XXII. 35, The history of Kathiawar tells us that there were four Kings with the name of घरसेन who ruled over बलमी (modern Vala). It is not quite clear which eran is alluded to by ्भार: Prof. B. C. Mazumdar® identifies the author of aftestea with arenf, mentioned in the Mandasor Sun Temple Inscription,+ dated 473 A C. on the ground of similarty between the verses of the inscription and the description of antumn in the nfera.& But this identification is considered by Prof. Keith as a 'most unfortunate suggestion'6 I. Trivedi-Ind. Ant., Vol. XLII, p. 264. 2, For more information, see Mr. Trivedi's introduction ti भहिकाव्य (B. S. S. No LVL.) 3- J. R. A, S., 1904, pp. 395-397- 44 Fleet's Gupta Inseriptions, No. 18. Canto 11. 6 J. R. A. S 1909, P 759 5

( 34 )

But the two learned professors are at one in saying the भट्टि fourigbed before मारवि and दराडी. We may gow for as to say, with Mr. Trivedi' that " our poet lived in tha latter part of the sixth and the beginning of the sevent century." But the safest course will be to side with Mr. Kaneº and say that "wfe must have lived sometimy between 500 and 650 A.C. "3 Whatever might have been the, difference with regard to the date of tfs, none was hearg to suggest till 1922 that wfe was prior to wrng- In thi year Dr. Jacobi+ struck a new line of argument in determir ing the date of wrng. He tried to prove with all plansibility that Hrt had drawn his material for the 5th chapter cf काव्यालङ्कार from the न्वायबिन्दु र्o धर्मकीति. This necessitated the placing of Hmt after 650 A. C. Now afg, as shown, above. cannot be later than 650. So the learned scholars wera compcllel to look upon the relation of afe to WTHt from quite @ different angle of vision. Dr. S. K. De, who, as far as we remember, never disagrees with Dr. Jacobi bnt always follows in his foot-steps, writes5. At one time it: was believed, on the indication given by Jayamangala on' Bhatti that the alamkars-chapters in that erer especially

1. latredectioo to his Ede. of afeirea (B. S. S. No, LVI), P. XXII. Introduction to his Eda. of sftcaeqa, P. XVI.

3 For the d'atssicos on te date of wfg. see also Dr. Jacchi- Z. D. 3. G, XLIY and alao Sit. d. Preass. Akad. d. Wias. iga8, pp. 216-17 ; V. V. Sovani-Bbasdarkar coasmomoration Volume, P. 3931 S. K. De-History of Sanskrlt Postits, Vol L p: 5of.

4, Sitr. d. Preuss Akad, d. Wiss., No. XXIV, pp-211-12. 5. Hitory of Sanskrit Poetios, Val. Ip 50. :

( 35 )

canto X, was meant to illustrate the rhetorical teachings of Batmaha mn particular, but the date now assigned to Bhamaha (i e. siter qurelfa's date 650) will re-adjust hue rolatioo to Bhatti in s new light." The two learned doctors have takon great pains in ' re-adjsting HTHt's relation to aft. Re-adfuatnont has been in the present case nothing less than perfect reversion of the former position. There is no use of examining on our part this 're-adjustment' in all its details, for it has not been so much a child of logic as one of necessity. The present case appears to as like thit of a certain taiented lawyer. He once began to put forward arguments which might have been advanced by the other side. When he was on the point of completing his arguments, he was made aware of his blunder by one of his colleagues. He remained unmoved and at once addressed the court. "My Lords, such will be the arguments put forward by the other side. Now I begin to refute them.' We wonder why the premises of the conclusion which upset the whole thing, were not more carefully examined to see if there was some uther alternative possible. Such cases of resemblance, corroboroted by the record of commentators and confirmed by the voice of tradition, as exist between the regr ं मामह and the रात्वावध of भट्टि, cannot he a matter of mere chance. As we shall try to show later on, wing cannot be carried below 600 A.C. He may be much earlier. So there is no necessity of putting the cart before the horse. द्एडी and सामइ. Now we come to one of the most important parts of the discussion opoo the date of भामह दएडी, the auther of srerrawi, has been very popular among the litersti of medisoval India, perhaps evon to some extent more than farg himself, who had the misfortuno of having his work not

( 36 )

so easily available. On a close study of the works of these great poeticians, the impression becomes irresistible that they were related to each other, some way or other. There am some passages which are identical in the works of both, net only in sense but even io phraseology1. There are otherr! more important still, which appear to involve mutual criticism," Besides, there are varions views-either similar or dissimilar to one another-which clearly point to an intimate relation existing between the काव्यालङ्गार and कान्यादुश। These impressions, culled from the works of these tey. writers, led to the discussion of their cbronological relatice, with each other. A sharp controversy ensued for settling the priority of one to the other. Mr. M. T. Narsimbeingar raisel this issue for the first time and was inclined to placs qodt before qrag* He found his arguments very ably refuted by such eminent scholars as Mr. Trivedi®, Dr. Jacobis, Prof. Rangacharya", Dr. Ganpati Sastri® and Prof. Pathak9. The last seems, bowever, to have changed his view later on1º. As the majority of vews appears to favour the priority of qrng, we need pot encumber ou humble paper with the statements of all views held either.

I. Kane-Introduction to arfaeiagel, p. XXV ; De- History of Sanekrit Poetics, I. pp. 64-65- 2. De-History of Sanakrit Poetics, L pp. 65-66. 3- Kane-Introduction to arfirarom, pp. XXV-XXXV. J. R. A. S., 1905, PP- 535 ff. 5. Introduction to yarreqaton pp. XXIlI ff. : Ind. Ant. XLII, ; Bhandarknr Com. Vol., P. 40 6. Z. D. M. G., LXIV, pp. 134 aod :39. Introdaction to bis editioa of tpeard. 8. Introdection to eaarma, p. XXV. 9. Introduction to famraa pt p 16, IO. J.B.B.R.A.S, XXIII. p. igt lat. Ant, Xi, p. 236 f.

( 37 )

agsinet or in favut of hia priorty. Mr. Kane has very cautiousiy collected the arguments of cither side and those wbo feal interestodl may refer to bis learned work1. Mr. Kane, after stating and examining ali such views with admiriable impactality, has come to the conclusion that in reahty no jndgement is yet possible on she question one way oc the other though from tne character of the arguments employed be seems to be somewhat inclined in favour of quar's priority to arara. He sums up bis position thus : " It seems probable that wian and qurt follow independent traditions, the former having more affinity with the wererc school and the latter with wra's school. Whoever may be earlier, both are very near cach other and ate to be placed between 500-630 A. C .* " Dr. De has, however, by forcibly re-stating some cogent arguments, ably demonstreted that the majority riew is the only best logical alternative3. We shall, by way of concluding this portion of our paper, state one or two points which, to our mind, would con- clusively show that srag cannot be brought down to a period later than दषडी. Recently a book named अचन्तिसुन्दरीकथा bas been discovered in the South by the Curator of the Madras Oriental MSS. Library4. It is evident from the snid MS. that it was written by qq3t. It is prefaced, as is nsually done in surs, with a number of verses. These verses inclade the praise of ar and aars along with that Introduction to anf rugom, pp. XXV-XXXV. 2. Ibid p. XXXV. 3+ History of Sanskrit Postics, Vol. I, pp. 64-70. 4. Proceedings and Transactions of the Second Oriental Conference, pp. 193-201; Journal of the Mythic Society, XIII, pp 671-685. 5. भिनस्तोक्ष्णमुसेनापि चित्रं वाणेन निर्व्यध:। कयाहारेतु जहो कोकां न मसूर :...... ॥

( 38 )

of many other. Fron this Poetic Introduction, we further leara that uet we: a great-geandson of भारवि who bss been desenbad her as a contemporary of kings gracfta and ferfang. These monarchs ware great ruling kings abomt 550 A.C. Thus it appears quite reasonable to infer that aat, berng fonrth in descent from wtcfa, mast have belonged to the last qaarter of the 7th or the begining of the Sth Cemtary. Tmis ststement tin ls an additional support from the fact that goret his not only praised runE but has nerrated the -tory of travaft along with other episodes in his eur and this narration seems to be an acchrate reprodaction of the tale as is found in the qafa of arg's rawf. It is a well keown fact that arq belonged to the court of gvaeia who reigned from 606 to 648 A.C. A porthem poet caonot be expected to have achieved in a decade or two, in those days of bard communication, so much fame as to merit such a high praise from a critic of the South.

It may be further shown oo a most reliable authority that ाब must have lived bofore बाना आवन्दवर्धन in hs are,I while asserting that the same idea, though atready expressed by one poet, appears new and charming when pat in a suggostiva garb by anotber poet, points out a case where areg, drawing upon an ides expressed by ame in ooe of ls verses of aeatairt, writes a prose

समाप्रवेव नासम्। यपा 'अपेवारमवाुना स्वं घेष: (हर्षचरत VI. para 1g of Kane's edition! द पादो 'शेवा हिममिर्सश व महान्ता गुरुवः स्थिराः। यहचदमितमर्पोराअनती विश्ते भुयम: (काव्यालक्कार III 27.) इत्यादा सलस्यपि वम्येवार्धशसयु ववसतुरनप्यब्ममाश्येय न्यम् 1-उन्यालक, Ta IV p.235.

( 39 )

passage in gfufa, It is quire char from this that Are- bad pesitive behef which must have been based on tradibens prevalent aming the Kaxmirian Pandits of his day that anne was an oll and popular predecessor of arw so that the latter ecukd aaf:ls and henourably borrow ideas fron the former. Henee unless ths statement of area is shown to militate against the verdict of accepted chrenolosy baris# on the question .as is quite unlikely) the fact of wrag # pnority can never be challenged. With due deference to those who hold that rrg and agat ate chrondlogicalls very near to and not far removed from cach other, we may be permitted to observe here, in passing, that to us it does not apprar to be the fact. ntHe most probably telongod te Krjmir andd auer undoubtedly hailed from the Soath. It cannot be imagined that the ntere sa far removed coald vie with each other in those days It cannot be denie i that vet, with an evident criti. cising mnod, tries to eclipse the work of atwt by bis own. This casc is somew bat like Arrra and aTa who, though not fer removel in space, were, in time, for away from each other. This point can be further borne out by the linguistic evidence. The qigas had not, perhaps, been so much in vogne in the time of are as they were in the time of awet. Perhaps agger which finds such a high and merited enlogy from quet had not yet been written. wrwq makes no lingnistic division of epa as awat does. If it could be proved that the sTsamarrHr, the oldest commentary on qof's wsagsts, was from the pea of this very HrHa, the author of arrt, it might be held to have been the oldest work on Prakrit Grammar, next only to arafa, the sather of the mers it comments upon. In this connection it may be pointed ont that the later Hartet-not. to say

40

the other dialects -- dore not wholy conferm to the rules of ref as explairel by wrna and that the later commen- taters, egmirra and others. have tried to explain the gas in & much more comprehensive way. Howsoever it may be, it is undoubtedly clear that the picture of society found in the work of wrmg-faintly drawn though it may be- can be rlearly distingmshed from what we find depicted in the wrmgaj of rout. The poetic luminaries so familiar t o the eyes of trg's age had, by the time of anet, totally ditappeaied from the horizon. The elegant simplicity ol the earlier Muse had not as yet hardened into sentimental idcas and artistic expressions. The sharp controversie: ranging between the Buddhists and the Hindus in the time of wrar, had led to the study of the science and art ol Polemics, so that even a work on Poetics was expected to take the topics into consideration. But the atmosphere seems te bave wholly changed by the time of amdt. The beroes ol popular stories were yet fresh in the memory of the people Coming to the feld of Poetics itself, we find not a few point: of contrast slong with those of similarity in the work! of these two aothors. There is no use enlarging upor this topic, for, it can become obvious to even a casus reader of the said works. We feel, therefore, inclined to believe that mnrg was seperated from aner not by decade: bat by centuries. मामह and धमफीति. We Have shown above that on the evidence o. आानन्दवधन iवन्यालोक, मामह cannot be placed late thas wrtt who fourished in the first half of the 7th century but thin view is seriously challenged by the hypothesis thal ane ita borrowed some logical topics from mifa. De Jacobi has diacussed this point at some length and in

( 41

tha! 0.5 has raidcr.d tne date of natfa. He Par Atf btaet the s yonts in Indin of Houen Taang #:I: R.0, The hnarr wos trivelal between 630 and ",4 *xs o rafanuro ti the Beddlist Legician, The latter, tand tx trn *1 tn. e, scams cloarly to have hadd sm Ta ihr .i : RifT acantomporary i th Tibur ag Sre reangm-pe who live! during 027.69: A s t .: m:llle: the seventh ceutury may bo faty tanr to ne th date of enfaifa. If, however, it could be pro.ed, as jacot has thed to do, that wing had actually uterl the logical work of aifa. the statement of wrrin woui.l co.sideratdy lese m value aud wtare would consequently have the chance of being dragged down to the 8tb neutury a: leat Lat us Aist esmie the arguments put fotward thereie Al the argaments pyt forward for establishing the indebtednes: of #rat in snetfa are besed upon a few points of similarity exiating in their works2. They are only three. Let us take them one hy one. WTAE has gven two defiitions of ar- त्रिरूपाजिलो व्वानमनुमान व केचन। तव्विदा नान्तरीयार्धदर्शन चापरे विद्ुः ॥ काव्या V.11 Now we know from the तान्पर्यटीका of वाचस्पनिमिश्र upo arwaifas thnt the definition of errara, as given here in the second half of the sloka, rame originally from farT". Bat what ara we tn say about the first difinition ? " Die

1 See Vidyabbneana's History of Indian Logic, pp. 305-6. 2. See Dr. Jacobi's ' Bhamaha und Dandin ihr Alterund ihre Stellung in der indischen Poetic' in Sitz, d. Preuss. Akad. d. Wiss., XXIV, 1922, pp. 211-212. 3 See Dr. Randle's 'Fragmeuts from Dinnaga,' pp. 21-22. 6

erte der herler von khamahn gegiben Defimtionen', writes Dr. Jacoba " natz ajn ton rinem andera Philosophen Eerrahran ". Ard who is thus wether philosopher: It is datf-a& Dr. Jatob, icr. at one place of his pntufieg. we res अनुमानं दविशा स्वार्थ परार्थ चा नत स्वार्थ निरूपाननिवाद्ु यननुमेये ज्ञानं तवनुमानम। In thie uase as well as in the cases followirg, the querton, which we are to pat to ourseives, should be whether a particahar view- ferger scan for instance-is peculrwr with srmeone or is .ommon to many. Such an argument can have ary werght crly when the view concerned is original. Unfartenatele ws do ent hud any such thing in the present case. fomear ire s a too well-known thing with our Aifaws to have oninotol wth sueifa. It is quite suffcient for our purpose here to show that it was known even to fesarn. Thanks to the lebours of the late lamented Dr. Vilyabhn-ana, we can have some knowledge of fe eaTrt's wor ks. दिङनाग in i- प्रमाहसक्ुशय spoke of स्वार्थानुमान thus: An infereuce for one'a self (svarthanumana, ran-don-gyi-rjes- dpag) is detned as the knowlelge of a thing derived through its mark or sign of three characters. Will it not, when turped into Sanskrit, read somewhat exactly like the extract from srafer of aletfa cited above? In this connection we are to note one thing more. The way in which HTHE gives this debnition along with that of faganr, does not only show that it came from some other source, but also to the fact that it formed an earlier and more commonly accepted view. Bendes satgerer, we have a clear description o्f लिदस्य व्ररुप्यम् i न्यायप्रवेश Whoever right be the

t. See Dr. Vidyabhisana's History of Iodian Logic. p. z80. a. This work bas been so long known only through Tibetan

( 43 )

author af rhie xork,i xoe s so far tnel to prove that it wa writtan after nwhf. Thus we see that HTHE WaS "n in wx ww ikel tu qetfa for his knowledge of fer aaaq. We ara vory murh inelined to think that he eel ne: tythaik ove fagmmi for, at least, this section of Nan Lgc He ment aave proh ty denvel ais knowledge trom come eacr gicm

The wther statement of wmrg which has been said to eapenl with thet of धर्मकोति is दृधसं न्यूनतादुक्ति: ध्मकोनि h दपशानि न्यूननादुकि:। Tre amfanty is mleed strikn.g. Bnt the question again ae op: Is it an onginal Hea of naff! The same yaestion may be raisu i with regarlt the thin correspond- m8 nateait ff ामद-जानया दूषणामासा: काव्या०V. 29). Do sanifT propeond a mew theory when he says दूषम्ामासास्तु जानयः In hota the above ca3s, धर्मकीति does rot appear to have anything pecuhar to himself. The goms and arfas have been known to earber writers

Texts. Fortunately it is now going to be pubfished by Principal A. B. Dhruva in the Gaekwad Criental Serien. We owe our koowledge of it to the kindness of Princinal Dhruva.

For the three characteristics of the Middle Term (ft er ) as found in FuTagTaT, see History of Indian Logic, p 291.

1. The question is a mooted one. We postpone its discus- sinn for the time beine.

2. Frafcr, (Peterson's Edn.) III. 138. Benares Edn reads भृषणा न्यूननागुकि: See p. 132.

3 Furuf-, Peterson's Edn, III. 140; Benares Edo. p. 133.

44 !

as welll. In न्यायनवरा w han simiar desariptions of

Mr. P. W Kang" ohe a. has froo rotel before, prntkdl rt the sad aty erihng hetweca the works of भामह 421 ध्रमकोनि qvite independently of Dr. Jacobi,

umewhnt gcacth Itve a passxce ir घमक्ीति न्यायबिन्दु,

सस्यादय: प्रमाणा न्यां प्रन्यक्षमनुमा वते। असाधारतसामान्यविषयत्व नथाः किल काव्या०-V.5 धमकानि मrte thu विविर्ष सम्परवारन प्रत्यक्षमनुमानं च (p. 101. नस्य विषयः स्वलत्तगां (p. -i) ..... अन्यत् सामान्यतक्षरं (p .- 1) साइनु- मानस्य विषय: (p2 Now it may be again pointed om hcre that this division and definition of srrs has not wrinatel with घमकोति Almist all the logicians who Were opposed to अतषाg (who propounded four पमाण) had mostly & similar view fagamr, for instance, in his प्रमाएासमुश्चय (ch. 1) states that pramanas are only two, sian, perception and iference. All objects being known through them, there is nu ether gare i Dr. Vidyabhusana bas restored the Sanskrit onginal thus : I. They are too well-known to require much argumentation for estabhshing their existence before rf. In this conoection it will be, however, interesting tu reter to a न्यायसून् of भौतम (I-2-18) and वास्यायन, माध्य thereva The sutra is साधर्म्यवधर्म्या- भ्यां प्रत्ययस्धान जाति:। वात्म्यायन ments upon it thus :- प्रयुक्के हि हती या पसबते जायने सा जानिः। म य अमह: माधम्येवे धम्याभ्यां प्रत्यचस्धान- सुपालम्मः प्रतिमंध इनि। .......... परस्यनोकभावा ज्ञायमानोरञथो जातिरििति। 2 See Vidyachnwua's History of Iudian Logic, p. 298. Intreductioa to his Edu uf साहित्यद्पण, p.XL.

: 45 )

प्रनवसमनुमान व प्रमासं हि डविलननम्। समयं नम सिर्द्ध हि न प्रमाणान्नरं भवेन्॥

It wit bn seco from the shove that all those passages from anetfa, which hate eng cced as oricinis of wrag's

cas, wiich were jutte well-snowi evea before the birth Culer such circumstences one uann afey arge tat atae aas indebted to maifa and to nobody eise. Dr. Jacobi is not such a superficial achclar as to be conviaced of wrag's indebtedness to aft simply upa the basis of accidental similarity of views. We presume that it was the pertial similarity of phrascology too. which led him to entertain such a view. But to our mend. the similariy of phraseology in the present case i nt so very sigmfcast. Striking similarity is seen ooly in the sentences which deal with antys and afas. But there again, we canuot say that eramifa was the tirst person to use them. With equal force, we may say that it was #THT who wrote them first of all. We see no absurdity in it. ff snearfera, philosopher as he was, did not find it inconvenient to repeat the phraseology of our poetician, we see no reason why enff would not do the some, if he could find something handy, cut and dried, from him.

What we want to emphasise very particularly is simply this that the similarity of phraseology, even if it could be proved to extst beyond doubt, will not by itself be of much use, In such a case there are three alternatives possible, each of which being equally tenable. Now with regard to the topic in question, unless and until more definite evidence is forthcoming, nune can be justited in claiming that MTHE bortowed views and paraseolagy from rfetfa It may be

4€ )

As fo x7 *. a ar Dr Jamhi did not point omt s cher hre of ade e shnh coul further aupport his assmptine . Dieet hotdhungen Bnam ihas" .ays the great nc tahst, * avs Dharmal irus Nyayaltlu beweisen, dass er (nge als duser, wenn ouch welluicht nur ein jungerer dergns- deselomn war". But how has the indebted- ns ol WTAR ha ol: There he writes thus: wNan Laute: Dharmakt Datathw Nyasalandu IL 3: tatra

dnIch er N amank ven gaelenen, dass kaum noch cin Zwcfel dartr bestken kant, wwher letaterer sie genommea dat. Noch deutlicher aagea ans dus Bhamaba Dennitionen der duaa mnd der jatis in V. 25." This is the sum and substance of ait his statome ts in this connection. We rrally wonder nov such o veteran scholar as Dr. Jacobi, win such faulty aed msdequte premses, could jump to such a momeatous conelusion. Mr. P. V. Kane, with characteristic cautouaness of a lamyer, did not, thoagh soggesting the same hne of agumert, commit bimselt in any way. Ile is pun aps mere michned to suggest wrwe's indebted- ues to Rear, if he could onty prove it. It is gratifying to note that Dr. Jacobi s hypothesis is not now meeting with that umveraal approbition which it was at frst expected to do. It has been called in question by Dr J. Nobel* and quietly uored by Dr. B. Bhattacharya".

See his Introdaction to arfrarda, p. XL.

2. *Die Avandisundarikatha'. Zeitschrift fur Indologie und Iranistic, Bd. V, p. 150. 3. Foreword to aranfaa's airtene (G. O. S. XXX), pp LXXIX-LXXX.

The beet aas for determne whether ATRg wAG m- lm o waf a aot woull hase beer perhnys the mnarerh of enge's vews with the peculiar views of if. It is kur in to dl who knew arything of medte.al lege that adtfa, thosch a founwer of frearT, d'd not ad pthe waws tnft. The penliarities of sẢmh hat len caschity noted by Dr. Vidyabho-ana1 and a reference to *here will surely make it clear that no spowial view of the Baddhist logician has been represented in the work of wrAs. Os the contrary. there are indations whicn pont diamneucally to the .pposite sile. We mray just rafer to some of them. The definition of प्रत्यक्ष 5 दं अ दिडनाग प्र्यक्ष कल्पनापोढम्। T this

arrgeq *. No. the term sgrea is nut such as can be snored hy any person coming .dfter him. feanr's defrnition was rather too general and consequently could be interpreted to apply to everything, so that everything will be st. sulrer did actually ir terpret it in this way4. To avoid this contingency, धर्मकीति aded पम्रान्तं which made it clear that by प्रत्यस्, we were to mean here प्रत्यक्षज्ञानं and nothing else. Who will indulye in such an inexactitude

I. See Vidyabhiapa's History of Irdian Logic, pp 315-318. 2. वासस्पतिमिश्र in his नान्पर्यटोका, while commenting upn अपरे मु मन्यनते प्रत्क्ष कल्पनापउमिति, begins, 'सम्प्रति दिव्नागस्य एरममुपन्पस्पति अपर इति। See alsa Vidyabbi.aya's History of Indian Logic, pp. 276-277 and Dr. Randle's Fragments from Dinnaga, pp. 8-10. 3. See न्गायबिन्दू Benares Edo.). p.LI. 4. He takes it as स्वरूपता न व्यपदश्यस्।

( 4x )

whencrcoit kr temn 3r port

ज्यश् कम्पनापोट ननाो वरडान वंचन-कार्या VA o of thetan demaitore-the firet of thum-halongs. on nutternty rf वाचस्प मिश्र. 1दिखनाग ard the secrod

Sna cn it ke orunel thar aqg coulll have atforded to leave

कल्पना : dवर्मकert way. Accrrding t. o रल्पना :: असिलापसंसगयोग्यप्रतिभास

भें प्रत्यक्ष 5 -: 'अथ कय कल्पना) नामजानियोजनेति। यन् ककिल न नाम्माभिधीयने न च जात्यानिभिर्ष्यपदिश्यने।2 वाचस्पि मिश्र calls it लन्ल वादिनामुसतरम+ Nowthe लक्षलवादी must he Aarr al all those who had a simdlar view. We may presume that wraq was also one of them-at least conversant with the view-for he says कमपनां नामजात्यादियोजनां प्ति जानने-काव्या V. . It may be admitted that धर्मकीति's definition of awat is more academic in tone exactly as his defnition of पत्यत is mue esatt in exrression. If भामह could afford to give two views on an important issue, he would not, we think, mind to give a third one also, if it was more useful and saitsble, as qर्मकवि's defo dd ar

1. वाक्पनिमिश begins bis comment upon 'अपरे पुनर्वणयन्ति मजउधोड विजान प्रत्यकम्। नदेयं प्रम्पक्ष ममर्थ्य वासृबन्घव तावत् प्रम्भछम वि्रल्पवितुमुपन्य्यति-ता: p.9g Sce also Dr. Randle's Fragments from Dianiga, p.ra-13. 2. न्यायायन्द, P. I3.

2. न्वायशातक, p. 44. सात्पयटोका p. IO2.

( 49 )

One thing more sheuld be qnted in this ronnestion 1e far as re know, nralfr has nowhere in his extaut works ehoan aay regard to the views of ergrasa. though his pupa, विकनाग, is his great anthonitative source Bu: ाम has referred to the wiews of the ohler Iician in onmistakable langeage. May we sot asarme with probability that, by the time of धर्मकीनि, वसुबन्धु hul he somwheipsd by his decidedly shler puol' It is quite possilde that ara lived in an age when argay was not so forgotten. He still commanded respectful attention from scholars along with दिइ्नाग

It will be undoubtedly quite prefitable to give here the results of a detailed comparison of these works: but weare afraid the space at our disposal wilt not permit it We may, in passing, just note a few point =. आामह has si पक्षामासbut ध्रमंकीति has only four If we were to look into न्यायप्रवेश we shall find no less than nine .* But what is very interesting to note is that some of the defnitions and examples of HTHE wholly correspond with those in न्यायभ्रवेश। दष्टान्त is included by धमकीति in तिरूपद्वेतु- but आाम takes it separatelys exactly as we find it in न्यायप्रवश an प्रमाएसमुच्य। In न्यायप्रवेश and nug a we further find Ferra divided into two classes according to the way they are possibe either by rard or वैघर्म्य। This is also the case with ामह। But धर्मकी्ति has

1. कान्यालङ्कार, V. 13-20. 2. स्पायबिन्दु, pp- 84.85- 3. APUTT-See in the History of Indian Logic, pp. 290-291 4. त्रिरुया हेतुरक:। तावतैवार्थप्रतीतिरिति न पृथग् दृष्टन्ता नाम साधनावययः कश्चित्। तेन नास्य लक्षणं पृथगुचमत-न्यायचिन्तु, P.I17. 5. काम्पालककार, v. 21, v. 26-27. 6, History of Indian Logic, pp. z86-7, 295-6. In these

( 50 )

no auch dinmor. Tha few ooints, noted above, are quite soffcent to cowinco an urprejwliced person that Arnr's borroa: g frum sraifa is an thing but possible. Even if these points were not available, we could have shown that wTRE's comirg after qrfenfa cannot be imagined, reinfar, as showo above, lived about 650 A. C. and hailed from the soath of Indes nrerefe lived in Bengal in the beginning of the 8th centarv. Now, we cannot, with any stretch of our imagination, erpreive that within half a century such a pragress comid be possible in those days of hard communication. uwatf becomes sufficiently famous, his warks are camit to Kashmir, there rag utilises them for writing his own work, then he also becomes well-known, his work reaches Bengal and is devoured ty sntfaa-and all this was nccomplizhed within half a century ! It seems to be hardly possible. We have no reason, therefore, to doubt आानन्दवदधन's statement that बार wes ucquainted with भामह's work, so that 600 A.C. can be safely taken to be the lower limit of mrag's date. But what should be his upper limit ? The fore-going discussion has shown that wrng was familiar with the views, which are, on the authority of arrerfafae, ascribed to fenrT I We have further shown that his views some- times correspond with those which are found in rquag i Nanjiol and Takakusuº ascribe this work to armgei | But Pandit Vidhusekbara Bhartacharya thinks thet Nanjio " has

cases resembiance in phrascology is also to be noted. qoena has, bowever, got such a division in car-atHra. I. acjio's Catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka, p. 270, Nos. 12230 1224. 2. A Record of the Buddhist Religion by Itsing, pp. 177. 166.

( 31

made a mistake in rendering the name ito Satskrit. Te cama as iven in Chinese in the booi itself, is Ta lua, the sanskrit cquivalent of which is Dianaga "t But, according to Sumiura* and Ui,# amragam is attnbutedl by the Chinese tradition to agrarit | freint's won, uecenling to this n0W, S न्यायदार juite dirtfoन्वयमचेश Dr Kandle' sees' no reasen to daubt the correctness of the Chinese attributio. of the earaarr to Dinnaga. That being the case, it is impossible that Dinmaga should have been the author of Furqgarn.' But we see no reason to doubt the correctness of the Tibetan attribution of the paranan to FrTI If that be the case. it is impossible that any other parson but fen should have been the author of the raa| Besides many eogent arguments so ably put forward by Pandit Vilhusekbara Khapacharya" for proving that न्यायग्रवेश was the work of दिङुनाग, one thing appears to turn the scale to a very great extent. It is a curious fact that ECTHT was not known to either Houen Tsang or Itsing. The Tibetan texts are quite ignorant of his name. The Tibetan translation of the Chinese trans atioa of ueT cleariy shows that at that time even the Chibese did not know of TAt | It is really inexalicable how they came, later on, to associate his name with wjanag | There seems to be some baffling confusion, lurking somewhere or other. Unless and unril this mystery is cleared up, we shall not know the real ground of its attribution by the

I. The Nyaya Pravesa of Dinntga, ' Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. III, p. 154. 2. Hiodu Logie as preserved in China and Japan, pp. 36-37. 3. Vaiseeika Philosophy, p. 68. 4. tragments from Dinnaga, p. 61. 5. Indian Historical Quarterly, Vol. III, pp. 154-159.

( 52 )

Chinese to argrrratI Rut sn far as the Tibetan Text,! as edite ! %, Pard Vknchar. Bertgoharya, is concerned, it is more then prilade that it is the wyark of feran| The lear el elitor has comparr.1 i: with the Chinese and Sanskrit Verssuns and docs not perhaps find material difference between them So what is said of the Tibetan version with regard to ns wthorship. may be. therefora, true of other ver4tous øy wull* We have every hope that this puzzling enigm wal be chared aa ny Prueipal Dhruva's Iutroduction to the Sensknt Vershn. of the Faranas: I It does not, however, matter much for us even if TeTet was to be proved the author of sarayag i He is said ty have bemn the popd of frgarr and consequently must have been his younger contemporary. So when we And clear resemblance of cerain views and expressions in मामह' work from the works of दिकनाग and न्यायप्रवेश, we can, without besitation, say that fgar's date will furnish the upper limit to wrne's age. The date of fawarr depends npon the date of bis teacher, agerq | Namio infurms us that Farcefla wrote & hfe of agreeg* between A. C. 401 aud 409 and qrura, who lived between A C 499 and 360, wrote another.5 From

I. Gaakwad Oriental Series, XXXIX Part II. 3. Dr. N. D. Minorov contributes a paper on ' Dinniga's Nyaya Pravesa and Harichadra's commentary oo it, ' to the voltme presented to Dr. Garbe. We have not as yet seen it, but from the title we may assume that he is also ioclined to attribute न्यायपपेश t० रिकनाग।

3. G. O. S. XXXIX Part I. 4. Nanio's Catal yrue of the Chinese Tripitaka, app, I. 64. 5. Ibid No. 1463.

( 53 )

eraidi we krow tha agasg was & nontemporary of fraarfa-, who is identified by V. A. Smith? with Chandra gept I of thy Gupte Dynasty. If this tine of argument is followol. as has been done he V A, Smith" and M. Perit, eg, who diel, it is said, at the age of 80, will be found to bave been living hatween 2s0-350 A.C. But unfortunately all scholars are not at one. Different scholars assign diferent dates to Een | The other most important view is that which paces him between 420-500 A. C.# But the majority of the scholars" appears to be inclined towards the former view. Undouhtedly that view appears, to say the least, much more probable. If we were to subscribe to the cther view, the whole subsequent chronology becomes awfully disturbed. Then we have to look upon Hrtafr's "Life of Vasubandhu' as a myth and disbelieve the traditions which make ageeq one of the Patriarchs and his work as having been translateJ into Chinese by Furcafta l So we have seen above that there is every probability of argarg having lived between 250 and 360 A. C. Now faaar, being his pupil, must have been his junior contemporary and so must have lived somewhere before 400. Now, if 400 A C. is to be the approximate date of fasITT, that date must also be considered to furnish the upper limit to wrag's date. .. We may, therefore, safely say

1. Takakusu, J. R. A. S., 1905, P. 44. 2. Early History of India, 3rd Eda., p. 320, 3- Ibid, pp. 328 ff. 4. Bull. de L' Ecole francaise d' Extreme-orient, XI. 355 ff. 5. Vidyabhi,ana's History of Indian Logic, pp. 266-267. 6. Keith-Indian Logic and Atomism, p. 98, Buddhist Philosophy p. 155 ; B. Bhartacharya's Furewurd to aris (G. O. S. XXX) pp. LXVI-LXXX.

( 54 )

that wrag must have ltvel between the lates of freart and arm, viz, letween 40J and 600 A. C. If we wist to bo a little more exact with regard to th date of arag. we should try to find out whether he ww nearer to fawan ar to wnetfa | We have already showa that hia views correspond much more with those of fam than those of srnnlfa t We have further shown that he wa living in an age whem the old teachers were not as ya forgotten. This fact can be further borne out by a carefa! comparison of his work with the extant works of thos teschers. At some places he has referred the reader for details t other works which are not found perhaps i fawmr's works We have further to take into consideratica that arg's fame must have taken some time for becoming so much ripe as to induce a poet of Kanouj, as arw indeed was, to become acquainted with the work of the great Kashmirian. If we may be permitted to allow a century for it, we shall be, we thihk, not wrong in placing HTHT bafore 500 A. C. But the way he writes, the atmosphere he breathes, the company he keeps,-all these leave us still unsatisfed. We are very much tempted to think that he was not far removed from fgar, though we cannot positively prove it by direet evidence. The hith chapter of hs ratarTt, teeming so mach with philosophical logic rather smacking much more, as it were, of polemics, makes us believe that he was living in an age which was permeated with debate and controversy in every quarter. Such # period in Indian History was possibie only with such scholars as fPT I We know from accounts1, preserved here and

I. Lama Tarinatha's Geschichte des Buddhismus vom Schierfner, pp. 130-135; Vidyabbaana's History of Indian Logic, pp. 272-274

ahere that the oroat srep spert his whole life t vehement -hcated rontrowrsy ard debate. He was kcown in h mes an AEgT or a fiehting ball But such an age dan ls foralee time By the time of दगडी. न्यायनिगय ur setuling the logim cf perary. which was cons lered so very pr ssary an arrondago dn e work on Poeties by arerg, carte tt he consilered as o useires anfamrel | Even in the t'me of arr, we fnd no idication of the continuation of faear's age of passionale debate and heated controversy. Further, no idicatien to that offect has been furnished even by the 5th and 6th century lnscriptione of the Guptas. Thus we are not far wiong in balisving that that age of controrersy elmost came to an end with fasnTi Hence we may conclode that wTan was either a contemporary of or came immediately after faamw, who, we know, became wilely known throughout the country on account of his incessant wanderings on controversy tours. Consequently we may state that wing was, with all probaility. living about 400 A. C. or, if srawers happens to be proved the work of sieeamit, s few yeurs later.

HTWE'S WORKS It is indeed very difficult-if not wholly impossible -~ to determine whether our author had written any other work besides the well-known arsureeat | We find, no doubt, the name of Hrwg associated with cerfain quotations which are not traceable in the ateureiTr i tremne, in his commentary, अर्थद्योतनिका, on अमिज्ञानशाकुन्तल, quotes twice in the name of wrwa extracts which are nowhere to be found in the ssaraerct One of them appears to have

1. विचार: कर्कशः प्रामस्तेनाव्मेडेन कि फलम्-काव्यादर्श #. Tiranstha's Geschichte des Buddhismus von Schiefner.

( 56 )

been taken from a werk on Metrest and the other from some wurA df Brann,a. The latte Fteace, cunously

रसअम्" उद्द n is xapl काप्रक Som aa Ho0tel by नारायनभक on his commentary on बुनर्साकर in the tame uf rmg | These seem to have been takem from a work on Metr:ca3.

1. श्रमं सर्वगु्स्तम मगणा भूमिर्देवतः इति भामहानो p.4. (नि०स्ा० edition ). 0. तहयनमुक आसंदन पर्पायोक प्रकारेश यदत्येनाभिधीयत। वाच्यवाचक शन्िम्यां मृत्येनावगनानमना । हनि। उदाहत च हयमीववधस्थ पर्ध रं प्रेक्ष्य शिरुडपि निशमीतिरनसिता। मदनरावणसुस्े मानेन हढये हर: इति ॥p. 10. 3. अवगांन सन्पत्तिमेवनि सुविवर्णाद्धनशता-

तथा होदा सौख्यं डयमरहितादशरमणाय

बृत्तरखाकर, p.6 (Benares Edition). सबुर्क मामहेनैव- देचतापाचका: सब्दा ये व महादिवाचका:। ने सर्वें नैच निन्या: स्ुर्लिंपिनो गणतोऽपि या ॥ कः रो गो प्श्च क्कर्मी वितरनि बिगश्ो इस्तथा ः सुख छ: प्रोर्ति जो मित्रलारम मयमरकरो अुभौ दठौ मेददुःखे। हः भोनों डो विशोमां अ्रमणमथ व कस्तः मुख यक्च युद्ध दो घः मौम््यं मुर्ईे नः सुखमथमरणषफेशदुःमं पवर्गः। यो रष्क्षमीं रच्च दाई व्यसनमय लवो सः सुखं वश्र सेवं मः सौन्यं हब्र मेईे विलयमपि च ला कः समृद्धि करोति। मयु्कक चेह न म्वास् सुस्मरणपटुर्वर्णचिन्यासयोग: प्धाहो मधपक बचसि य सकले प्राकतादो समोध्यम् ॥ टृभमनाकर p. 7.

( 57 )

1teartes thesu extracts, coming down to us in the mime of errag, presumably taken from works now wholly lost. we tie a well-known commertary on sreawarer, the Prakrit Grarmar written in su'ras t qrafr. It is called GRRITAT an ti- onsiler:1 to he the cldest commentry now extontI.

We have no direct evulence to prove or disprove that it was the suthor of arsar who wrote the works referred to above. Who can say if there were not several persons bearing the same common appellation? But it is uot every persn bearing a similar name who is equally famous. The anthor of the aresawarrar, Suwever, hus been identified by somewith the writer of ieiagrr. Dr. Pischel? following Peterson3 did not even doabt, that the two amngas might be different. He says -- " Der :lteste commentator is Bhar aha, ein Kaschmirer, der auch Rhetor und Dichter war. " As far as we can see, their opinion seems to have been based upon the hearsay of the Pandits. Howsouver reliable their views may be, we would very much wish that they were backed by historical evidence, so that they could be pronounced as periectly deninite. But it appears at the same time simply impossible to believe that such a versatile scholar, as the author of aeqt air seems to have been, could have remained perfectly idle before or after the writing of his brilliant work on Rhetoric. So, in a word, we do not find ourselves in a position to pronounce any definite opinion either this way or that way.

1. Pischel's Grammatik der Prakrit Sprachen, p. 35. 2. Ibid. 3 gafiarest, p. 79; See also Aufrecht's Catalogus Catalogo- rum and Pischel's Rudrata p, 6 f. 00

( 53 )

We wish verv much that we chald discuss thoronghh and caamu cnh die tha lamal and intercsting contert of the aaragre, but the cur sileration of spice does nu permit us to eniarge upon this topic at any great length. I is enough to remember here that grgg has divided his work into eix erfrezas or sectiors treating of five topics. They are as upder- 1. sreorre. To this scctien 60 verses have beer devoted. They disucze ef a few general questions aboun poatry, its nse, delmt.on, ets: 2. nRs Th trpie consists of the definitions and iustratons of the Fiqures of Speech. It is int-resting to meet here with a few nemes of ports who are now wholl onknowr. Tius portion covers 150 versos : 3. aTs. Here ATHE dicurees the demerits of poetx compositiona in 50 verses ; 4. nufaaig - Here he tries to settle the logical foundation of poetry. Really speaking, this section and the section following form parts of the diseussions on the demerits of compositions But Leg and Grammar appear to have been reigning supreme in his days, the anthor was led to devote, unlike many others, spucial sections to them. This section has for its share 7r verses : 5. af-Here the author tries to instruct the would be poets to take care of and avoid the grammatical mistakes which are ever so prone to creep in. This section has 60 verses1.

I. MrnE himself has summed up the whole thing at the end of bis psr पटण शरीरं निर्णोत शतपटपा त्वलड्कुतिः पञ्चाशता राषडृष्टि: सम्षत्या न्यायनिणीय:॥

59

WIAE-HIE PLACE IN THE HISTORY OF SANERRIT POETICS.

We have scen, at the very cutsat, in what a great esteer THE nu all nlong hern hell ky aimost all the great writers on Ssuskrm Poeties He :s fourd quoted in' the wari: nf उन्दर वामन, कुन्नक, आनन्द्वर्घन, अभिनन्रगुप, मम्मट and tranw others of diferent tmes and divergent views. With mgusl reard he has been often referred to by such writers of eminence as the anthors of अलह्वारलवम्व. प्रतापरुदीय, caramt and others1. Tiis fact cannot but rouse a sense of inquistrveness ir or hearte to stnd; the work of Hrng as thoroughty ns to dod om bi merits of such a stable and Eoduring ettraction. But thi i= not an onsy thing as it will nccessitate a thoreugh review of the iqmnant Aam karika works for comparison as well as for tracing their indebtcdness to our poencia ... But the nonsillemtion of this topic may End a fitting place in a History of Sanshit Poetics and not in a paper like this. All thit we emn do is to take a brief historical survey of our subjet a d determine as correctly as possible the place occupied therein by HTHE 1

भष्टवा शमदस्य शुद्धि: स्यानित्येवं वम्तुपज्ञकम् । उफं पडूभि: परिच्छ भामहेन क्रमेण वः ॥। For the detiiled description of the contents, see Kane's Introduction to urfarasen, pp. XVI-XVII ; for a critical review of the contents the reader is referred to Trivedi's excellent paper "Some Notes on Bhamaha" in Bhandarkar Commemoration Volume and Dr. De's History of Sauskrit Poetics, Vol. II, pp 401 -- 412.

1. For such details see Trivedi's article in Indian Antiquary, Vol. XLII (1913) and also his lotroduction to garvsq- यघ्ञाभूषण.

( 40 )

The worship of ereaat-the service of the Poetis More-has been from tery eanly times one of the favourite hobbis of the Aryan icople. Even the oldest attempt ot pootry by the primeval ancestors of the human race- the sgratq-containe many sparkling gems of genuine poetry. It appears that the Aryans had undoubtedly an artistie conception of peetry from the very beginning, for we meet even in the earhest poems, with expressions of such exquisite aesthetic charm as have been later on elaborately treated of in the works of Poetics as wrgrts or figures of speecht,

We erd a treatment of उपमा in the निरुकत of यास्क, wh0 at one placa, refers to a quite workable definition of this figure given by apers i anes gives further such divisions of #Hr* which seem to have been the fore-runners of the subtle distinctions made later on. By the time of qrfifa such technical words as उपमान, उपमेय etc. had become perfertly well-established". We find further a reference to

I. See I. 124, 7 : 1 164. 20 ; I. 164. 1 1. See aleo कगापनिधन I. 3. and मुण्डकानिषत् 11 2 3. Besides these, we may also refer to the several hymns containing charming dia'ogues, known as niera hymns found in the srar. See especially X. ID8 ; IN. 33- These bymns have been considered as the fore-runners of the Sanskrit Drama by Dr. Oldenberg and others. a. I. 4: 111. 13-18: IX. G. 3. अधान उपमा यदनन नपटमिति गाग्य:। तदासां कर्म ज्यायसा वा गुलेन प्रम्यानतमेन या कनीयामं वाप्रस्यातं वापमिमीते, अथापि कनीयसा ज्यायासम्।-निरु्क, III, I3. 4. I1I. 13/18; IX. 6. 5. Sre IfTA'N BRETONTAT II. 1. 55-56 .; II. 3.72.

( $1 )

मटसून् in the grammer of णागानि which, whatever their character, must have had something to do with the actors. Further, tradition credits qtfifa with the authorship of two महाकाव्यs known as पानालविजय विजय though, it is still an open question whether the Gramarian and the Poet werc one and the same3. From the वानिक of का:्यायन it is erident that such a division of काव्य a5 आख्यायिका had alrrady come into existerce4. qnafi, the author of the Hane OL Panim's Sutras, bus fortunately left manyiclues by which one can safely surmise that literary activities had been the characteristic of that age. He refers to one ETTa. three आख्यायिका and two नाटक by name, besides many quotations and ieferences of undoubted literary significanceB. These early crammatical works, as we have seen above do not fail to make us infer that the secular literature had began to thrive somewhat luxunantly even in the early periods of our ancient history. We find additional support to this hypothesis from the ामायसा and the महाभारत which

7. पाराशर्यशिलालिभ्यां भिश्ठुनटसूवये:, IV. 3.I10 .; कर्मन्दु- कृशाश्वादिनि:, IV. 3. I11.

8. Winlernitz : Geschichte der indischen Litteratur, Vol. III. p. 32. 3. Dr. Peterson : JBRAS. XVII (1889), 57ff, J.R.A.S. 1891, 3II. ff: Pischel: ZDMG, 39. (1885) 95 ff .; R.G. Bhandarkar, JBRAS, XVI, 344. 4. लुबाख्या यिकास्यो बहुलम् on the सूत्र, अधिकृत्य कृते ग्न्थे। 5. यत्तेत कृतं न च तेन प्रोक्तवाररुच काव्यम् । महाभाष्य Vol. II,P 315. 6. They are चासवदत्ता, समनोत्तरा and मेमरथी. महाभाष्यVol. II. P. 313. 7. वे तावदेत शोभनिका नामैत प्रत्यक्ष कृष्णं घातयन्ति, प्रत्यक्षं च बर्लि बन्धयन्तीति। Vol II, p. 34 and 36. 8. Indian Historical Quarterly Vol II, pp. 464-470

( 69 )

aa h e of hy mic passages. Some ei thrsr are fog lits lo t heor sath ontative works on

To o le ydrrd t a er both from

-i to these two epics by

Tare 3 eo uye of ffea contms a number of refero a ga' s p prive the emstence of literary artimties ir ha diya. Te fr =at ronecivahle that with the writing of so much poetre:o rpwniatmt alox' tru mature, function, division of prutry ronldd hivw leen golg on side by side. That we are not wrong mn in lalzinc in surh an inference can be cleary mede oat ty laeng i to the mleas and atres of eum' and by the inetriptions dating 2nd century on wards.

Sce s-an.m pp 63. 125.338 and EyfTh, JeSTa IV

a. Dr. Jacobi : Das Ramayana S. Spe Win'ernit: : Geschichte der indi chen Litteratur, Bd. 1I1. p 35g. See alo wdara (ly and Schmidt's Edn. P. 145 A 4- The cant-nta rf his warh, fully bear out the supposition that he waa convarsant with the dicta of sagrna. Hi wrs are d'v led lut> mis which, a required, have different meires in the end. His fragmentary cramatic wor' is caled b. h'mself a gpn, just as his two extaot - are styled as HETSTEAs. These fex points along with many other minor ones, are quite sigaificant in the cae ofa Buddhist preacher. For details see Kape- Indian Antiquary T912. p. 127 ; also Winternitz- Geschickte der indischen Litteratur, Vol. III pp. 33. 34.

( 63 )

The inscriptions of &GTAT1 which may be considered beyond doubt the enriiest of such literary inscriptions betray buth frem their form and contents their acquaintance with speeulatinns eu Peties. Though no wrrk has actually come dewn to us, we cen id out frem the HraTaTer of ar2 oad ecedly from srsumgr of mgg3 that a very large number of the writers on the subject had already contributed their quota for formnlating regular theories of Poetics and Dramaturgy. It is not possible to determine with perfect satisfaction as to which of the twu-Poetics and Dramaturgy-preceded the other. There seems to be, however, some probability that the Dramaturgy

I. See Epig: aphica Indica Vel. ViII. 36. The inscription which is mo.t weful for our purpove is found at Junagarh and dated r50 A.C. It is uot only written in a poetic style of a high mierit but contains many words and phrases which cleaily belce- their unmistakable ucquaintance with pome extinct werks on Poetics. The following few words may be taken by way of specimen. सर्क्षत्राविष्यतवीरमव्दजातेोत्सिकाविधेयानां यधियानां अ्रसह्ोत्सा- दंकन .. शब्दार्थगान्धर्वन्यायाद्यानां विद्याना मदतीर्ना पारगधारण

समयादाराल डर्कनगद्यपद्टस्वयमधिगनमहाक्त्रपनाखा नरेन्द्रकन्या स्वयंवरानेकमाल्यप्रापतदाप्ा नहाक्षत्रपण रदास्ना। In this connection the Gupta Inscriptions are also of great interest. 2. The pre-ent text, even though going by the name of wa, scarcely seems to be the work of one man Its contents betray frequent handling and rebandliag and the incorporation of matters by persons of different dates. See P. R. Bhandarkar-Indian Antiquary Vol. XLI ; Kaue-Iodian Antiquary, Vol. XLVI. 3. Trivedi-Introductiou to पतापरुद्रयशाभूषण and Indian Antiquary, Vol. XLII.

( 64 )

weat somewhat ahsnd of Poetics. The conception of s complete puttr, w i p: nisiet .. itill dramaticl and conse- quently Khee vie rr p fell wrhi ih tols of Dramaturgy *, But AN th haE. GET coul not abways remain urs raien: to drama. it elaimed an independent coos derauon for it-elf, so that in couree of time it began to inchate drateas wittan its own folds# Tre haor: uf Saelrit Pouties can, therefore, he con- vemientiv atudied in the, : three stuges, viz,, (i) the first stage when the iii-tunat.of Rhetonc fell uader Dramaturgy, (iy the souord staye when the two claimud independently seperate cuns derations4. (iin) the third stage when Dramaturgy came to te cunsidered mbler Peetics. The first stage was charactensel ns the simple and the crude specalations as is quite natura! for a growing science at its outset. The third stage covers the penod of speculative elaboration and consequentiy of a relative perfection3.

n See eaeina, XVI, n8 (aramy Edition). The theory is uphel by वामन in bis कव्याऊद्वास्सूय I. 3. 30-32 and अभिनवगुप्त in he अभिनवभारती (Chapter V1) where he says-काळ्यं तावन्मुख्यता दशरूपकात्मकमंद्र। ...-.. सर्गबन्धाड़ी हि नायिकाया अनि संस्कृतनाकिरित्यादि बहुतरमनुचितम् । 2. The wrer may be taken to be, according to wrd, one of the four constitueats of a drama. It is called qmanr and is said to have bean derived trom wart t Ste atrar I, 17. It is for this reason that w;, yas, wagrs eic. claim only a partial treatment in the माटयशान। Sce नाटपशाख अध्याय XVI. 3. अमिुराम, Chapter 337 and साहित्यदर्पण परिच्छेद VI.

5. Really speaking the conception of ia may be taken to be the determining factor of these various stages. It was at frst thought that complete varerrfa was possiblo from only a dramatic work by way ofa cembined effect of dialgues,songs

( 65 )

It was in the second stage that the real formative work was undertaken and accomplished.1 This stage can be forther considered under two sub-stages, the first of which had much to do with speculations on what is called the meix and the second on the TERT of poetry. It was 1=E- qemad, the well-known poetician of Kashmir, who initiated and laid a Arm foundation of the theory about the SIFAT of poetry, namely, ध्वनि। We have no data to determine the name and time of the author who, for the first time, undertook a scientifc study of the srt of poetry We may, however, claim

and acting. The Taz, even after tecon ing a little more indepen- dentiy popular, could only be thought as generating the HeTT of aar and anf and not of qa | This explains why we miss the treatment of qa in the werks of #Tng, avst, alHa and others. But with the advent of the अननि School of आनन्द्वर्धन, a new conception of 7 stepped in and decided the fate of the later development. The a was no mere to te theught of as ird or so by teans of a dramatic action but as aer, being suggested primarily by the words themseltes. See अभिनवमारती on नाटयशास (Chapter VI). I. The bistrionic considerations bad such an upperhand over other elements that the writers in the first stage could devote neither time nor att enticn to a detailed study of ara | Theatrical managements and stage arrangements along with the treatment of afan and avita in all their elaborately worked-out details, could peither allow them much space nor time for anything else. It has been quite natural in the growth of every science and art that as soon as it becomes liberated from a subordinate position under its genre, it begins to claim attention from all sides and conse- quently to achieve wide ramifications. Such bas also been the case with our काव्य । 9

( 60 )

from the evidence of the later writers of note that the great exponent of such rhetorical -patalations was no other person than the great wrhrg himself. There is no doubt that a number of wtiters on thissubject3 preceded amrarg but perhaps the qualty of their work as shown by the negligence showe to them by even the earlier writers of subsequent times, did not reach a very high water-mark. And it is quite natural. We cannot espist to find that scientific treatment in the enfany of a subject which becomes a necessary characteristic of it as it sradnally levelops. So we should not be wrong, if. from the revererce shown to wrg and negligence to his prwlecessors, we were to infer that the first work on Poeties wristen on a strictly scientifc plan was that of MIAE I He seams to have judiciously assimilated the material availsble in the writings of his predecessors and with the halp of & creitive genius which he undoubtedly possessed, arranged them on a sound basis with due elaboration and fitting limitation. The employment of this methol has been in his case, as shown by the result, an unqualifed success. The views which he held, the theories which he propounded, mostly stood the test of time and criticism to such an extent that they were tater on upheld by the greatest masters of the subject.

I. आम् refers to रामशर्मा in कान्याe, II. 19, 58, t0 मेघावी in Il 40, 88, to arda 1I. 47. We meet with a number of names which have been referred ty as high authorities on Poatics in the कान्यमीमांसा of राजत्रखर। Some of them are these-सानन्द, स्यामदेव, आपराजिति, द्रौहिपि and mor t No work has come down to us under their sames. 2 आामह ralers to अब्युतच्तर of रामशमो in I1. 19, 58, to राजमित्र of mrrdq in 1I. 45, 1I1. 1o and to ao anonymous work calied targ(or in III. 8,

( 67 )

It will not be, we think, out of place to take this epportunity and point out the salient features of wrHg's work by referring to a few instances of such a nature. The definition of poetry ( rea ) has all along been a matter of great controversy with the writers on Sanskrit Poetics. The easiest and the most convenient expression for denoting what broadly speaking eta represents has been given br आामह which is शब्दार्थों काव्यम्1। It is given by सम्मट2, the author of काव्यप्रकाश with certain qualifications. It is in fact in these qualifications3 that the germs of diver- gence, which different schools of Poetics show in point of wiews they propound, exist. The same observatition may be made with regard to the divison of गुणाs. The गुगाs as given in भरतs नाटयशास्त्र as also in the काव्यादर्श of दराडी are ten in number. वामन6 doubles the number by assigning them both to sor and sef t But all the later poeticians of note have had only three srus including all the others in them7. But the first person who could point out that the three गुएs-माधुय, ओजस् and प्रसाद -were all-in-all was wtags | There bas been no doubt,

I, काव्यालङ्कार I. 16.

2. काव्यप्रकाश Chapter I. 3. See समुद्बन्ध's commentary on अलङ्कारसर्वस्व P. 4 (Triven drum Edn.) He writes thus ... विशिष्टी शब्दार्थी काव्यम्। तदू वैशिष्टयं धर्ममुखेन, ्यापारमुखेन, व्यङ्ाय पुखनति त्रयः पक्षा: etc.

3. नाट्यशास्त्र p. 211 (Benares Edo.).

4. काव्यादर्श Chapter I. 6. काव्याल कारसूत्र 7. See कान्यप्रकाश Chapter VIII, साहित्यदुर्पण Chapter VIII. 8. काव्यालङ्गार II I-3

( 68 )

srme Berence of opininn' regarding the meaning of these words but as far as the comprehensiveness of the division is cercerned apre + views has stood well.

The next thu, which we are to note in this connection is the ceneilemation of sitfn by wrarg i amifes has played a important part in the history of Sanskrit Poetics. If we were to take mtn tonsferation the various modes and forms which eptfe has assumed in different times, it may be said to have a history of its own. It was indeed seres who made much of Emifer and founded a new school by wnting his वकोकिजीवित 1 I But as for as our krowicoge goes, arHE bas been the first person to speak df वका। इकोकि, as treated of by भामह 3, has not eractly the same signitication as it had with aras but he was undoubtelly the fore-ranner of aeas in recognising it at least as a vital element of poetic compositions.

The few instances cited above will be, it is believed, sufficient to convince any intelligent person of the high ability and genuine originality of arwa's expositions. This conviction is brought home to us with greater insistence by his clear statements5 that he duly exercised his critical intelligence before he wrote any thing. Coupled with this high sense of real scholarship, he had, as is evident from his examples, Poetic powers of no mean order. It is indeed

. See treera, Chapter VIII. 2. Two Chapters of this work have been ably edited by Dr. S K. De in Calcutta Oriental Series. 3- S, I1. 85. 4. For detailed intormation about arifes, see the learned Introduction of Dr. S. K. De to anaxifaa 1 5. CATTT, III. 58, VI. 64.

& rare combination that a person is gifted with profound scholarship, sound critical acumen, ond with the abilities of & clear-hended logician, a clever grammarian and abore all a master poet. There is no wonder, therefcre, that all the ariters on Sanskrit Poetics-including even the humble writers of this humble paper-should bow down their head= with s heart full of deep reverence and grateful appreciation before such an august personality.

II THE PRESENT EDITION The text of भामह'8 काव्यालक्कार, as presented in this edition, is based upon the collation of three manuseripts and the printed text which was published a an appendix to प्रतापरुदयशोभूषण by Mr. K. P. Trivedi in the Bombay Sanskrit Series. All the three manus- eripte are undoubtedly the transeripts but we are not in a position to indicate very clearly when and where these transcripts were made. We may, however, assume that their originals must have hailed from the South. If we were to compare the various roadings, we shall have Nittile doubt that the differences are nowhere to be found of a very serious nature. They can be easily adeounted for as the inaccuracies of the copyists or the corrections made by their owners. It seems to be quite probable that orginally there was only one manus- eript svailable from which all transcipts have been made from time to time, It might have beeu the one which was deposited in the Maharaja's Sanskrit Li- brary, Trivandrum. Howsoever it muy be, the material at our disposal, has, let us hope, enabled us to present a fairly tolerable text. The three manuscripts, which are mepresented in our foot-notes as , a and a, have wery greatly helped us in understanding the text and clearing many obscure readings. Mr.Trivedi's text, re- frred to by us as ( along with his foot-notes ) has also been of great help in making the selection of suitabale meadnigs. How far we have been successful in having the most appropriate readings, we cannot exactly say. If the learned readers find our text of any help to them 'we shall feel amply rewarded, 1. The only thing which now remains, is the pleasant daty of expressing our heart-felt gratitude to all those gentiemen from whom we have derived help in some shape or other. First of all, we offer our most respectful

( 71 )

thanks to all those scholars, departed or living, whoee! writinus hiv been utilised by us in some way a! othng Beyldes these, we should acknowledge withe denp avnve of nbligation, the help of all those friends, by harine discussions with whom, we have mudh profitd. We take this opportunity for acknowledging tha' help which our esteemed friend, Pandit Kesava Praau Miem has rendered to us by lending his manuseript ef HE's TETETT. Our thanks are also due to Babn Jsi Krişns Das Gupta, the Proprietor of the Chowkhansba Sapskrit Series, whose untiring energy has always bem of great help to us, not only in bringing out such worl but also procaring the manuscripts and other requirel materials. We shall be, indeed, failing in our duty, if we wen toforget in this connection to mention very particularh the two most revered names -- wre mean those of Principd A B. P'hruva and Principal G. N. Kaviraj. Principsi Dheava, in spite of many and varions calls upon his precious time,has always ungrudgingly allowed us total advantago of his wide erudition, mature intellect and rip experience. Besides his uniformly affectionate kindnem towands ue, he has found time for contribating . Foreword to the present work, We have grest pleasure in having this opportanity of offering om very cordial and respeetful thanks to him, We d not kuow how to express the feelings of our heatt which we entertain towards Pandit Gopinath Karity It is a mater of great satisfsction to us that we fiod enmelves amonget those few persons who hare realisel what he really is. Our heart goas up to him in silend with a profennd feeling of sincere gratitude, gensin admiration and heart-felt reverence,

किमपि प्रास्ताविकम्

केषामपि संस्कृतविद्यानुषां विदुर्षां-विशेषतः साहित्य साहित्य परिषकत शमुषीमता-सम्भवतो न भवेत् किमपि नवमव विज्ञापनीयं महालङ्कारिकस्य भामहस्याभिघानीयम्। तद्रन्थमदप्टवतामाप शा. अंडष्टिमताँ विपश्चिवां काव्यप्रकाशादिपठनपाठनकाले नियनमेव मामहसम्मतेन मतेन लोचनगोचरीभूतेन भवितव्यम्। किश्वदपि हबयावर्जकें वस्तु लेशतो दष्ट श्रुतं वा सम्पूर्णतयात्रलांकनाय क मिय नितरा नोत्कण्ठयति ? अतो मन्यामहे यद भामहीयकाध्या छद्ारो बहुनरमन्धविदितसारोपि सर्वाक्गणरूपतया5नयगनः स वननिथ संस्कतसाहित्ययासिकान केनाप्यलङ्कारसंस्कारेण रहनानिव सचेतसां चेतसि चिर संभावयति स्म। आशास्मह गदन सुलभ- तथा प्रफाशितोडयं अ्रनथश्रिर संचरणके रणरणक दूराकृत्य नर्वामव किमप कामनीयकमुररीकत्य विश्वेषां विद्ुष समोदाय मघेदिति। अवाउडलङ्घारिका अने के बभ्युः। तेर्षा दर्शना्य परस्परमिन्ना म्येब व्यवस्थितानि। तद्यवाह समुद्रबन्धोSलद्कारसवस्बदीकायां- 'िशिषी शब्दाथों काव्यम्। तयू वैशिष्ठयं धर्मसुखन, व्यापारमुखेन, उय कव्य मुखेनेति त्रयः पक्षा इति। धर्मोडपि द्विविधो नित्योमित्य थ। अम्रानित्यधर्माडलंकियतेऽननेति करणव्युत्पत्या सिद्धोS्- बङारा। निश्यधर्मस्तु गुण एव। एवं व्यापारोऽपि द्विविधे वक्रो किर्मवकत्यं च। तदित्थं प्राधान्यन पञ्चरूपतया व्यर्वास्थतोऽ्यमा लकारिकसमया। यत्रालद्गारा एव काव्ये प्रधानं, तैरेव बेंशशिष्टच काललस्य, तैरेवांज्जासिता भगवती क्रिममिति: परमचमत्कारचर पसु स तावस् प्रथमा पम्ष उन्द्ररादानाम् । म्रत्र पुनर्माधुर्यादिसुणै। परिनिष्ठापितम्राणा सतिरेवात्मा काडपस्थ, सदवितीय: पक्षो वामनादी नाम 1 यनन वैद्ध्यवधनभक्गिरुपा धक्रोकिरेव सहृदयहृदयमुन्याब. कुती काध्यात् स्यन्यमानाननवस्च निदानरूपत्वं भजते, तृतीया पठा कुम्बलादीनाम्। अ्रभिधावां मिबीयो बिमावाडनां साधारणी

प्रास्ताविकम्।

करणात्मको मातकत्वव्यापारः काव्ये यत्र चाकवनिष्पत्ति देतुवा मुपयाि, स तुरीय: पक्षो भटूनायकादीनाम्। यत्र न्यम्भाचित वाच्याध्यथो भिधानिविलक्षणप्रकारेण व्यअ्ञनाययेन व्यापारेणामि व्य को व्यङुष्योडये: काव्यस्य चरमचमत्कारितामादघाति,स पश्चमा पक्ष आनन्द्रवधनादीनाम्। एवमालद्वारिकाणा मतानां प्रभूतेषु विविचविधेषु मेदेशु सस्वधि प्रथमपक्षसंस्थापकानामाचार्याणां विशिष्टोडषि सन् भामहः सर्वरेवालक्कारिकप्रवररुपजव्यतया तत्तद्त्रन्येवु परमावरंख संभाविती व्रादशयते। अलङ्कारपरेषकारकर्मो- इयो भटोनुटो या काइमरिकस्य महाराजजयापीडस्य सभायो प्रर्यह दोनारलक्षेण कृतवंतनो विद्वन्मण्डलमण्डनायमान डवासीव सोउपि भामहीयकाव्यालङ्कारस्य भामहविवरण नाम विरयातं व्या सपानं तच्छार्या चोपगुह्य स्वमळङ्गारसारसंभ्रहं नाम प्रतिद्धालङ्कार सारं व प्रणिनाय।

सोउपं आामहाचार्यः के अनपद स्वजन्मनाउलख्चकार, कस्मिन कले प्रादुर्वभूध, कर्थ स्वजीवन यापयामासेति प्रम्नानधिकरष बिबिधा किळ सन्ति बािनां विप्रतिपचचया। तत्रैकैंक यथायर्य वय मालोचयाम:। तभ्न हुदवनिरामणीवकस्वेव विविधविद्याकामनीविकस्व वि भ्रमस्थानं कृड्ूमकेवरपरोह्षाणामिय कविताविलाससमारोद्याणा समुल्ला साेयानं शाषदादेश एवास्पामिजन इति निपुण वक्तु सकयते । पतस्प काव्यालम्वारनास्नो अग्धस्य दक्षिणयेद्यात् सें मुफलव्धिमान्ादेब वाक्षिवात्योश्यमिति कथयिर्तु न कंथमप पा्येते। काइमरिकाणामाच्ायारणा अ्रभ्येषवेय प्रथममेतस्थामि धानं मसें व समुहाखतं परिदश्यते । पण्डितोन्द्रटेन येतोन्ढे न मामह्यकाव्यालद्वा रसथ किमण्यपूर्व साम्प्रतमनुपलभ्यमार्न नामहायवरणं नाम विवरर्ण व्यलेखि स काइमीरक वयास्ीपि नि विश्ये नारत कोउि सम्देहलेका।सनस्यानां पण्डिताना

प्रास्ताचिकम्। ३

प्रंषादादपि वेदमवस्ञायते यत् काइमरिदेशमेवायं स्वजन्मना कामपि

• भामहस्य जीवनचरितमवलम््य सृकष्मेक्षिकया निपुणं विचार- यन्तोऽपि वर्य न पारयाम: कमपि निश्चितं सिद्धान्तं स्थिरीकर्तुम। काव्यालक्कारस्यवाभ्यन्तरपरीक्षयाऽवगम्यते यदस्य पितुर्नाम रक्िल मीमीति। भामदः स्वयमेवात्मानं रक्रिलगोमिपुत्रत्वन काव्याल झरस्पान्तिमे श्लोंके समुद्घोषयति- अवलोक्य मतानि सत्कवीना- सवगम्य स्वधिया च काव्यलक्ष्म । सुजनावगमाय भामहेन प्रथितं रकिलगोमिसूनुनेदस् ।।

तानां बौद्धानां नामभिरमिसवादात् श्री नरसिंह अयोद्गार- महोदया बौद्धोऽयमिति सिद्धान्तयन्ति। गोमीति पद्म- मुगेवार्थे दढयतीति समर्थयन्ति पण्डितवर्याः कार्शानाथ पाठकाः। 'गोमिन पूज्ये' इति चान्द्रव्याकरणस्य सूत्रेण पूज्वार्थे गोमीवि पदं निपात्यते। अतः पूज्यार्थवाचकस्य मोमीतिपदस्य यौद्धानामेवाभिध्यानेषु प्रशंसार्थ समुपळब्धबौद्ध पवासीत मामद छती तेषां मतम्। अन्पञ्च प्रणम्य सार्व सर्वक्ष मनोचाक्ककायकर्ममिः। काव्यालद्वार इत्पेष वधाबुद्धि विधास्यते।। -ग इस्पादिमेन मझलक्लोके नायमेवार्थो दढीक्रियते तत्र सर्वशस्य वन्डनीय तवेन समुल्लेखात्। सर्वकस्तु 'सर्वक्षः सुगतो वुद्धो मारजिल्लो कजिज्िजन: इत्यमरसिह्वचनात् भगवतो बुद्धस्यैव नामान्तरम् । सार्पेति पदं सर्वेम्यो हितमित्यर्ये सर्वशब्दाद मश्रत्ययेन निष्पअं भवसि। तञ्च परोपकारिणामअ्रगभ्यं भगवन्तं बुद्धमेव समुपक्षिपति। सदित्यं मकळश्छोंके बुद्धस्पंध समुल्लेखात् सुवरां निर्ज्ापते यदस्व रचयिता बौद्ध एवासीदिति। निपुर्ण विमावयतामप्यस्माक नेवं मतं समीचीनतया सिद्धान्त

४ प्रास्ताविकम्।

पदवीमधिराइति। तत्र वयसित्यं विचारयामः। 'सचशः सुगतो बुद्ध:' इत्यमरवचनात् सवजो चुद्धस्यैव नामान्तरं न त्वन्यस कस्यचन देवस्पेति कथमपि वक्तुं न पार्यते। सर्वे ज्ञानावीति व्युत्पस्या सर्वशपदेन यद्यन्य पव कश्चद्वांऽमिमतो भवेत्तहि का क्षसित कर्माशो्चते यदत्र अगवाञ्छकुर एव स्तुतः ! तस्य सर्वक्ष इति नामान्तर प्रसिद्धमेव। उक्त व अमरसिंहेन कशापुरेता: सर्वेज्ञो धुर्क, टिर्नीनलोहिन इनि। सिध्यतु वान्ह्रीयस्ुत्निपातनात् गोमीति पदा अभिदघातु च पूज्यतां, परन्तु बौद्धानामेव कृतेडस्य प्रयोगो नाम्ये षामिरत्यास्मन्नाग्रह् का वाचोयुक्ति: ! गोस्वामीत्यस्व संक्षिप्तमषं गोमीति रूपमित्यपि केऽपि पण्डिता वदन्ति। तथा च यथा दक्षिणदेशवासिनामाचार्य इसि कापि पदवी समुपलम्पते तथैव भारतस्योत्तरे गोमीति पदं ब्राह्मणास पदपीरूषेणोपळम्यमानं इश्यते इति व्यकं प्रतिपाठ्यन्ति कमलाद् इर त्रिवेददमहोदयाः। नामाभिसंवाेनापि म कोडपि सनेह विरहिनो निश्चय उपगनतुं शक्यते । किमचुनापि भारते वर्षे वैदिक वर्मोवलम्बिनां जमानां विधर्मिणा यवनानां रीर्या नामानि नी पलमपस्ते ! विधर्मिजाममिघानैर्यदा समप्रतमप्येवं साहडयमवली कयते, तदा न किमपि विचनिन्मिवाभाति नश्ित्ते यत प्राचामषि केशधिदार्याजां सह निचसतां बौद्धानामिय नामानि रइयेरन्।: अन्यश्ष, काव्याळङ्कारे न क्वापि भगवतो बुद्धस्य काषि जीवनघटना कनापि रूपेज समुलिसिता दश्यते । प्रत्युत संवेभ

नायकार्ना व मामानि कर्माणि च स्फुटाक्षरेवण्यमानानि समुपळ कम्पनसे। परतो नियतमेव भामहेम पैदिकध माचलाज्वना भवतञ्यम- स्येष वय सिद्धान्ता पूर्षोंक्ेः प्रपकतरैः प्रमाणर्यद्ातथमुभेतुं शबपम

साम्पत ममहवार्यस्वाबिर्धायकालं सक्षिपतया नरिर्णेतु मण वर्य प्रथमतस्तायवित्यमुद् मावयाम :-. अध्मशतकस्य मध्यमागे समुस्स्रेम दौद्धाचायंसा तरासेन

प्रास्ताविकम्।

स्वीये तत्वसंग्रहासिघाने प्रन्थे मामहस्य मसमुपदर्शयता तद्- भ्रम्धस्था: कतिपये शोका: प्रमाणतया विन्यस्ता: समुपलभ्यन्ते। वतोडस्त्यर्य महालक्कारिक्म्धन्य: अष्टमश्षतकात् प्राचीन हति सु निर्विवादमेय। व्यनिपरस्थापकपरमाचार्येण ओ्मवाइनन्दवर्धनेन स्वकाये सवभ्थालों के मीमहीय समयनिरूपजाय परमसाहाययप्रदंरह्स्यमेक्र्म- स्वचायि। तत्र चतुर्थोद्योव रष्टपूर्वा अपि हार्था काव्ये रसपरिम्रद्दात्। सर्वे नया इवाभान्ति मधुमास इष दुमा:॥ इति अस्तुत्य विवाकितान्यपरवाध्यस्येव शव्दशकयुद्भवातु अयनरूपष्य कयप्रकार समाश्रयेण नवत्वं भवनीनि प्रतिपाद्य अन्थकद्द दाहरि यथा-धरिणीपारणायाधुना त्वां शेधः इत्यादों शेषो हिमगिरिस्त्वं च महान्तो गुरवः स्थिय:। यदलाङ्गतमर्यादाश्चलन्तों विभ्रने भुवम् ॥ इत्यादिषु सत्यवप तस्येवाधशकत्युद्ध वाचुरणनरपव्यग्यसम - प्रयेष नवत्वमिति'। अर्थात् 'धरणीधारणायाधुनात्वं शषः इत्यस्य क्ोपो हिम्पगारसवं वति शोंकादर्वाचीनतवेपि कस्यापि न्यङ्यस्प सफुरणात् चरमचाकारितति स्फुटमेव शेषो हिमागेरिरत्वं चति पद्यस्य कापि प्राचीनता निरविवादरूपण दत्यते। अथव धरणीधार आायेत्यादि वाक्यं हर्षचरिते समुपलम्यते। तेनास्य महाकविबाण कर्तुत्यमनायासेनोझ्ेतुं शक्यते। शंषो हिमगिरिस्त्वं चेति पद्यस्यापि आमहीय काव्याळङ्कारे समुपल्धेममहनिर्मातृत्वं स्फुटमवेति वषं प्रतीमः। तेन श्रीमदानन्दवर्धनाचार्येण कृतात् समुलंसाल नि: अंशय प्रतीयत बत् तक्षर्नन्तनकाभ्मीरकारणां पणण्डितायां भखे श्रीमाणभङ्टात् प्राबीनोऽयमसमाकं सामहाचार्य इति । श्रीवाणभटख

नशीविति साधु कथयन्ति पेतिहाससिका।। सेन मामहाचार्य समय भतकात् प्राचीन इति विषये नासति सन्देहफणिकाय

प्रास्ताविकस्।

काइ्यालकुवरम्य पश्चमपरकछदगनस्य म्यायनिरषयक्य पर्यालोच

अ्रम्थप्रणतु: श्रीमतो बौद्धाचार्यात् विव्नागत प्राचीनतामासादयिवुं कथमपि नाईनि मामह इनि। भामहेन स्वग्रन्थे वहवो स्थायसंबन्धिमो विषया: प्रतिपाठिता: येवङ्नागस्य प्रच्यातः सिद्धानतेःसहस्फुटमेब संवादं भजन्ते। तत्न प्रमाणानां दविष्यं, प्रत्यक्षस्य कल्पनापोढलं कजपना वाद्च नाम जात्यादियोजनारूपत्व यत् सवे काव्यालङ्कारस्प पक्चमे परिचछदे परिष्कनरूपसया विवचितं विद्यते, तव सर्व सर्वतम्त्र स्वतन्त्रथीवाचस्पतिमिथार्णा तात्पर्यटीकाया वचनप्रमाण्याव विद्ु नागस्य मनानुगनसवेति। लिङ्गस्य व्रैरुप्ये, दूषणस्य न्यूनतायुकित्े, जनीनां च सूषणाभालयें ामहस्य दिवलागान्नहि कुत्रचत् किमपि पार्धक्यमच डडयते। अन्यदपि बहु न्यायप्रमेशस्थेन सिद्धान्तचयेन साधु सादश्यमुपमजने इत्युमावपि अन्थी विवेचनगत्या परि शालयतः कस्य विपश्चितः सघ: क्फुरितमेव न स्यात्। अतो मामहस्य दिङ्नागादर्वाचीनले भास्ति कस्यापि विमतिः। श्रीमान्रा चार्यो वसुबन्धुश्चतुर्थशतके प्रादुरभूदिति तुं निश्चितमेव। सा्छिष्य आवार्येदिकनामक्च तस्यैव शतकस्योप्तरमागे भारतवर्षम लडूचकारेन विदितमवेतिहासवानां विदुषाम। अत पव दिङ़ूनी मादयोचीनत्वन वाणमट्टाच्च प्राचीनतया श्रीमान् मामदायार्यश्व तुर्थपञ्ञमशवकयोर मध्यभागे एव प्रादुर्यमूवेति साधु वर्क्तु शक्यतें।

मामहीया ग्रम्था:।

अथ के के प्रभ्था सामहेन विराचता इति विचारयितुमनसा मेभास्मार्फ कणन विद्जनमनोरमा मनोरमानासनी वररुचिप्राकृत प्रकाशम्य वृत्तिहेप्रभ्थमारहति। सर्वत्रम विदुर्य समाजे भामदेन सतेवं मनोरमा वृत्तिरिति जगस्यैव कापि प्रासिद्धि: परन्तु मनोर्मावा: कर्वा मामह: काव्यालद्वारस्य रववितुभामहावू विश्नो डमिख्ो वेति विषय न कोऽपि पवखतसप्रमाणरतुप्रा- विता सिद्धन्ता सत्पसपतया स्थिरीकर्तु पा्यते। अन्यच्य अभि ज्नशाकुन्तउस्यार्यद्याक्षनिकारयां ठीकार्या सघवमदक्सन्दशाखता

प्रास्ताविकम्।

सम्बन्धि मामहफर्तृकं वाकयव्यं समुदरति। श्रीनारायणभट्टेन म हृसरत्नाकरस्य टीकायां कतिपये भामहयिए शांका: प्रमाणतया ससुपन्यस्ता दश्यन्ते। अनेनोल्लखह्येन सुनरामेवानुमातुं शकयते यद भामहेन कोऽपि छन्दोग्रन्थोऽपि निरमायीति। काव्यालङ्गारस्य तु भामहकर्तृत्वे न कस्थापि जातुचिदृपि विद्यते सम्दद:। अय मवनिखिला लद्कारनिबन्धानामादिम: सकलालङ्कारि काणामुपजीव्यतामादधानः कोडव्यपूर्वो ग्रन्था, वं खलु प्रकाण्डत रुनिभमाधरं समाय्रयन्ती मामहीयकीर्तियल्लरी सर्वत्रैव जगतति विरचितरास कमन:संमोदं सवर्कायसरसामोदं वितन्वानेव वरिवर्ति। अस्मिन् सलु ग्रन्थे स्वस्पेऽपि भूय सामलङ्कारसिद्धान्तानां प्रभृतञ्चय: विद्ुषशचमत्करोति। अत्र सन्ति तावसु षट् परिच्छेदा:, यंधु पञ्च आलद्वारिका विषया: सुष्ठुतया विवेचिता विधयन्ते । तत्र तावत् काव्यशरीरा्ये प्रथमे परिचछेदे काव्यस्य फलं लक्षण मेदाश्च साधु प्रतिपादितानि सन्ति। शब्दार्थों कव्यमिति वदता मामहेन शब्दे चार्यें च काव्यत्वं प्रतिपाध कापि स्वीय सूक्ष्मा विषेचनसरि प्रदर्शिता। कविपयानालङ्कारिकानपहाय अनेनेव भामहसम्मतेन मतेन सर्वेषामेवाभिमतेन भूयते इति तु विदितमेव साहित्याकलन जुषां विदुषाम्। द्वितीये परिच्छेत्वे अ्न्थकृत् प्रथमतस्तावत् गुण लक्षयित्वा तस्य न्रविध्यं प्रतिपाठ्यति। मरतोकानां दशानामपि गुणानामन्रैव त्रिष्धेवान्वर्भावात् न्रय पनते गुणा इति भामहमता- तुसारेणैव प्रवर्तते मम्मटादानामपि सरणि।। अनम्तर द्विर्तायस्याव- शिष्टेडशे समये व वृतीये भामहोS लङ्डाराणां भेदानेव विस्तृन· रूपेण विवेचयति। तत्र सैषा सर्वत्र वक्रोकिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते। यक्षोऽस्यां कविना कार्य: कोऽलङ्कारोऽनया विना' इति॥ वक्रोकिरेव सर्वेधामलङ्काराणां मूळमििति थन्मतं भामहर पूर्वे सियिरीकतवान्, तस्यैव प्रकायन्तरमाश्ितो भूयान् प्रपश्चः चक्राकिरजावितकारस्य कुन्तकाचार्यस्य ग्रन्थे समुपलस्यते । सर्व पवालह्वारिका भामहीयमतमनुसृत्य अलक्गारेत्रु वक्रांके :- अतिशयोके :- मराणदातृत्वं र्वीकुरवन्द्र्येव। चतुर्ये दशविधानां

८ प्रास्ताविकम्।

दोषाणां विदयते विशदा विषेचना। पञ्चमे चन्यायधिरो िदोषस्य परिहार्यत्वपसङ्के बहून तर्कविषयान् विशदतया आमह: समुदलिखद्। अयमेव न्यायनिर्णयात्मक: परिकछेदो बोद्धाचार्वदिकवागस्य सिद्धान्तोन संवादं भजते हति पूर्वमेवोंड्धो पितमसमाम:। षण्ठे व परिच्छेदे शब्दशुद्धिनिबन्धना कापि प्रयोग- पच्धति: परिशाधिता सम्यत्ववेचिता च विद्यते। अन्नत्यं वि. वयं सक्ष्मक्षिकया समीक्षमाणा वय स्कुमिदं तर्कयामो यत न्यायालड्कायोरिय व्याकरणपि भामहस्य जुम्भते रूम कख्न पमष्नपाषिद्वत्यपटिमा पदमिभूता न्यासकारसइया अनेके म दान्वोऽपि वैयाकरणा ख्वितगवमियात्मानं नूनमेव कल्पयन्ति हम। ग्रम्थेडास्मन समस्ता उदाहरणल्ोंका भामहनिर्मिंता पवेवि काव्यरचनायामपि ामहस्य चातुर चमतकरोति काव्यम मजान्। काव्यालङकारे भाषाया पराज्जलवा, शब्दानां मनोरम। सव्िवेशा, रीतः सहजा सरलता, आालोचनायाख् कोऽप्यमिनयो विशद: क्रम :- सर्वम्रेतत् केषां सुमनसामामोदाय न-सवेदिति।

मसुमरदीय प्रयललोऽयं काव्यालद्कारसंस्कती। आचार्यभामइस्वास्तां प्रीतये तुष्टितो विदाम् ॥

अथ विषयानुक्रमः ।

घष्ट्या शरीरं नि्णौंत शतषष्ट्या त्वलङ्गतिः। पञ्चाशता दोबडष्टिः सप्षत्या न्यायनिर्णय:। पष्टया शब्दस्य शुद्धिं: स्यादित्येवं वस्तुपञ्ञकम्। उक्रं षड़िम: परिच्छेदर्भमहदेन क्रमेण वः।।

प्रथम: परिच्छेद :- काष्यशरीरनिर्याय:। हेतुमूक्ष्मलेशा· मचर मम् स्लोक १. पृष्ठ १ नामलक्कारत्व. पम्य प्रशंसा निरसनम् ,, ८६-८७, , E सम्व साघनानि 5-94," यधासख्यम् ,, ८९-९०,,, १८

छम्मलक्षणम् १६, " उत्ेक्षा ९१-९१," काव्यभेदा: , १६-३६, ,, ३-५ स्वभावात्ति: १३-९४,,, काम्पदोषा: ,, ३५-५३, , ५-७ तृ्तीय: परिच्छेद :- अनक्कतिनिर्याय। होपानां गुणत्वम् ,, ५४-५१, , प्रेय: श्लोक ४-५, पृष्ट न्ितीय: परिच्छ्ेद :- अतक्कतिनिखयः। रसवत् ६, स्कक १-३, पृष्ठ ओजस्वी 9,

अनुप्रासः ग 4-८, म पर्यायोक्तम 33

बमकम् समाहितम्, १०, * २०

रूाकम् २१-२४, ' उकत्तम् ११-१३,म भ दीपकम् ३५-२९,,१०-११ ्लिष्टम् १४-२०,,१०-३१

उपमा ३०-३८,j,११-१२ अपह्नुति: २१-२२, , उपमादोषा: ३९-६४,,,११-९५ विशेषाकि: २३-२४,, JJ माक्षेप: ६v-७०,,,१५-१६ विरोध:

वर्थान्तरन्यास:, १६ तुल्पयोगगिता २७-२८,,,११-२२

अ्यृतिरेक: > ७५-७६, , अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा,, २९-३९,, विभाबना व्याजस्तुति: ३१-३२ , समास्रेकि: z 9-८०,, าง निदर्शना ३३-३४, ३ 5 अतिक्योकि: , 69-6५,, उरमार्मपकम्, २५-२६, j.

विषयातुक्रमः ।

उपमेवापमा बगमविरोषी,, ४७-४९,, है सह कः पञ्चम: परिच्छेद :- न्वायनिर्याय। IN

19 शास्रस्य काव्यो- समन्देहः ४१-४४,, पकारित्वम् स्लोक १-४, पृष्ठ ३ अनन्वय: 33 ४4-४६,,११-२Y प्रत्यक्षम् 33 ६-१०, ,,१- छ प्रेक्षामयन: अनुमानम् सं.सृापर: प्रतिज्ञा तददाषास्,, १२-२०,,,३३- माविकत्यम् ५३.५%,⑈ २१-५७,,, ३४ -; असी: ५५-५७,,, २४-२५ रृष्टान्त: काव्यस्य निर- अपाक्षम् २६ क्यथम् वद्यत्वम $-१9, एकाथंम् ११-१६,, षष्टः परिच्छेद:प्ब्दशुद्धिः। सुमंशमम् १७-१९,, सद्दशास्नस्य अपक्रमम् कान्यरचना. कष्दशीनम् '३१-२३, यामुपयोगि- इनिम्रषम २४, " त्वम् स्टोक १-६, पृष्ठ ४। मिन्रमुतम् २५-२६, . शब्दस्वरूप- विसांन्ध २९ निर्णय: -२०, ,४१ -* 1 देशविराषी शच्दमेदा: फलवि रेवा ३०३१, । शब्दानां साधु- कलविरोधी ३१-३४, , त्वासाधुत्व- लोकमिरोपी ३५-३२, ग विथेक: , २२-६१, ,४३-४ ननमाय विरोपी २८-४६, ,,३ -- ३१ उपसहार: a ६-६४,,,-८

भामहालङ्कार:।

श्रीगणेशाय नमः । प्रणम्प सार्व सर्वज्ञं मनोवाक्काय कर्माभ: । काव्यालङ्कार इत्येष यथाबुद्धि विधास्यते ॥ १ ॥ धर्मार्थ काममोक्षेष वैचक्षण्यं कलासु च। श्रीतिं करोनि कीरति च साधुकाव्यनिबन्धनम् ।।२।। अधनस्येत दातृत्वं क्लीवस्पेवास्त्रकौशलम्। अज्ञस्येत प्रगल्मत्वमकत्रेः शास्त्रवेदनम् ॥ ३ ॥ त्रिनयेन बिना का श्रीः का निशा शशिना बिना। रहिता सत्कवित्वेन कीदृशी वाग्विदग्धता॥ ४॥ गुरूपदेशादध्येतुं शास्त्रं जडधियोऽप्यलम । काव्यं तु जायते जातु कस्यचित प्रतिभावतः ॥५॥ उपयुषामपि दिवं सन्निबन्धविधायिनाम्। आस्त एत्र निरातङ्क कान्तं काव्यमयं वपुः ॥ ६॥ रुपद्वि रोदसी चास्य यावत कीर्त्तिरनश्वरी।। तावत् किलाऽ्यमध्यास्ते सुकृती वैधुधं पदम् ।७॥ अतोडभिव्राळछता कीरचि स्थेयसीमाभुबः स्थिने:। यत्नो विदितवेद्येन विधेय: काव्यलक्षणः ।८।।

मामहालक्कारे-

शब्दश्छन्दोडभिधानार्था इतिहासाश्रयाः कथाः । लोको युक्ति: कलाश्षेति मन्तव्याः काव्यगैवेशी। (काव्यथैरमी!) ।९। शब्दाइभिधेषे विज्ञाय कृत्वा तहिदुवासनाम्। तिलोक्याऽन्यनिबन्धांश्च कार्यः काव्यक्ियादरः ॥१०। सर्वथा पदमप्येकं न निगाद्यमवद्यवत्। विलक्ष्मणा हि काव्येन दुस्सृतेनेत्र निन्दते ॥१ १॥ अकवित्वमधर्माय व्याधये दण्डनाय वा। कुकठित्वं पुनः साक्षान्मृतिमाहुर्मनीषिणः ॥१२।

न कान्तमपि निर्भूषं विभाति वनितामुखम् ॥१३॥ रूपकादिमलङ्कारं बाह्यमाचक्षते परे। सुपां तिड़ां च व्युत्पत्ति वाचा वाञ्छन्त्यलङ्कृतिम् १४ तदेतदाहु: सौशन्यं नार्डर्थव्युत्पत्तिरी हशी। शब्दामिघेयालद्वार भेदादिष्टं द्वयं तु नः ॥१५॥ शब्दार्थौ सहिता। काव्यं गदं पदञ्ञ तद्विधा। संस्कृतं प्राकृतं चान्यदपभ्रंश इति त्रिधा ॥१ ६।। वृत्तदेवादिचरितशसि चोत्वाद्यवरतु च। कलाशास्त्राश्रयक्वेति चतुर्घा भिद्यते पुनः ।।१७।। १ काव्ययैहमी-ग। २ कयुतं ! (संस्कतर)-ग।

प्रथम: परिच्छेद: ।

सर्गबन्धोडभिनेयार्थ तथैवाख्यायकाकथे। अनिबद्धध् काव्यादि तत्पुनः पञ्चधोच्यते ॥१८॥ सर्गबन्धो महाकाव्यं महनाञ्च महच यत्। अग्राम्यशब्दमर्थ्यञ्च सालङ्कारं सदाश्रयम्॥ १९॥ मन्त्रेदृतप्रयाणाजिनायकाभ्युदयैक्ष यत्। पञ्चभिः सन्धिभिर्युक्तं नातिव्यारपेयमृद्धिम् ॥ २० ॥ चतुर्वर्गाभिधानेऽपि भूगसार्थोपदेशकृत । युक्तं लोकस्वभावेन रसैश्र सकलै: पृथक् ॥ २१॥ नायकं प्रागुपन्यस्य वंशवीर्यश्रुतादिमि:। न तस्यैत वधं बूयादन्योत्कर्षाभिधित्सया ॥ २२ ॥। यदि काव्यशरीरस्य न स व्यापतयेष्यते। न चाभ्युदयभाक्तस्य मुधादौ ग्रहणस्तवौं ।। २ ३ ॥

उक्तं तदभिनेधार्थमुक्तोऽन्यैस्तस्य विस्तरः ।॥२४॥।

गद्येन युक्तोदात्तार्थी सोच्छवासाख्यायिका मता॥२५॥ वृत्तमाख्यायते तस्पां नायकेन स्वचेष्टितमें। वक्त्रं चापरवक्तज काले माव्यार्थशसि च ॥ २६।

१ मन्त्रि-क। २ श्रहणं स्तवे-्म। ३ नारक-प्1 ४ प्रसृता-ख, प्रकता (सृता)- घ। १ स्वपेशितमनय।

भामहालक्कुर- 20

कवेरभिप्रायक्तै: कर्थानैः कैबचिदाहगिना।

न वक्त्रापरवक्त्राम्थां युक्ता नोच्छूतासवत्यपि। संस्कृतं मंस्कृता चेष्टा कथानभ्रंशभाक्तर्था। २८॥ अन्येः स्वचरितं तस्यां नायकेन तु नोच्यते। स्त्रगुणाविष्कृतिं कुर्यादभिज्ञानः कथ जनः ॥ २९ ॥ अनिबद्द पुनर्गाथाश्लोकमान्नादि तत पुनः । युक्तं वक्रस्वभावोक्तया सर्वमेत्रैत दिप्यते ॥ ३ ॥ वै्दममन्यदस्तीति मन्यन्ते सुधियोऽपरे। तदेव च किल उथायः सदर्थमपि नापरम्॥ ३१ ॥ गौडीयमिदमेतत्तु वैदर्भमिति कि पृथक्। गसानुगतिक न्यायाज्ञानाख्येयममेघसाम् ॥ ३२ ।। ननु चाइम्कवंशादि वैदभमिति कथ्यते। कामं तथास्तु प्रायेण संज्ञच्छातो विधीयते ॥ ३३ ॥ अपुष्टार्थमवक्रोंकति प्रसन्नमृजु कोमलम्। भिन्नं गेयभिव्रेदं तु केवलं श्रुतिपेशलम् ॥३४॥ अलङ्करवदग्राम्थमर्थ्य न्याय्यमनाकुलम्। गौडीयमपि साधीयो वैदर्भमिति नान्यथा ॥ ३५॥।

१ कथा (थ१) नै :- ग । २ तदा-क । १ वेदर्मनय। ४ चास्मक -ग।

पथम: परिच्छेदः ।

न नितान्तादिमात्रेण जायते चारुता गिराम् ।

नंयार्थ क्लिष्टमन्यार्थमवाचकमयुक्तिमत्। गूढशब्दाभिधानद् कत्यो न प्रयुञ्नते ॥ ३७ ॥ नेयार्थ नीयते युक्तो यस्थार्थः कृतिभिर्बलात्। शब्दन्यायानुपारूढ: कथञ्चित स्वाभिसन्धिना ॥ ३८॥ मायेत भद्रेति यथा सा चाडसाध्वी प्रकल्पना। बेणुदाकरिति च तान्नियन्ति वचनाहिना ॥ ३९ ॥ किलिष्ट व्यवहितं विद्यादन्यार्थविगमे यथा। विजहस्तस्य ताः शोकं क्रीडायां विकृतय तन् ॥४० । हिमाषहामित्रधरैव्षांतं व्योमेत्यवाचकम्। साक्षादरूढं वाच्येऽर्ये नाभिधानं प्रतीयते॥ ४१॥ अयुकक्तिमय्यथा दूता जलभृन्मारूगेन्दय: ।

अबाचो व्यक्तवाचश्र दूरदेशविचारिणः । कथं दूत्यं प्रपद्येरन्निति युक्तया न युज्यते ॥४ ३॥। यदि चोत्कण्ठया यत्तदुन्मत्त इव भाषते । तथा भवतु भूम्नेदं सुमेधोभि: प्रयुञ्पते ॥88॥ १ (दन्याथे विगमे यथा १)-ग। तेषु च-क। २ जलभृम्मान्नकेअच । (मारुतेन्द्रवा!) ग, जलनृष्मानः (रू।)

गूढशब्दामिधानश्च न प्रयोज्यं कथजन । सुधियामपि नैवेदमुनकाराय कल्पते ॥ ४५ ॥ अमिनर्तितुगद्रिच्छित स्वाक्षितां पतिरद्दिदृक्। अमिद्धि: शुभ्रदृग्दष्टैर्द्दिषो जन्नीपिषीष्ट वेः ॥४६ ॥ श्रुनिदुष्टार्थदुष्टे च कल्पनादुष्टभित्यपि। श्रुतिकष्टं तथैवाहुर्वाचां दोषं चतुर्विधम्॥४७॥

हिरण्यरेताः सम्बाधः पेलवोपस्थिताण्डजा: । वाक्काटवादयक्षेति श्रुतिदुष्टा मना गिरः ॥ ४९॥ अर्थदुष्टं पुनर्जेयं यत्रोक्ते जायते मतिः । असम्यवस्तुविषया शब्दैस्तह्वाचिमिर्यथा ॥५०॥ हन्तुमेत्र प्रवृत्तस्य स्नब्धस्ये विवरैषिण:। पतर्न जायतेऽवभ्यं कृच्छ्रेण पुनरुन्नतिः ॥५१॥ पदद्यस्य सन्धाने यदनिष्टं प्रकलेपते। तदाहु: कल्पनादुषं सशौर्याभरणो यथा॥ ५२॥

१ असितर्तिमुगद्विक्षित स्वः कितां पतिर्राद्विद्टक्। अमीमि: शुभ्रहम्टृष्टद्विपो जनीयिषीए्ट वा॥-घ।- ३ हृदयं तृता: १ (यन्त्रिता: ३)-ग । ४ स्तम्मस्य (स्तग्घस्य ?)-ग । ५ प्रगल्मते-क प्ररम्प्यते-घ।

मथम: परिच्छेद।। 9

यथाऽजिह्रददित्यादि श्रुतिकष्टव्व तदविदुः। न तदिच्छन्ति कृतिनो गण्डमप्यपरे किल॥ ५३ ॥ सन्निवेशविशेषान्तु दुरुक्तमपि शोभते। नीलं पलाशमाबद्धमन्तराले स्जामित ॥ ५४॥ किव्विदाश्रयसौन्दर्याद धत्ते शोभामसाध्त्रपि। कान्ताविलोचनन्यस्तं मलीमसमिवाञ्जनम् ॥ ५५॥ आपण्डुगण्डमेतत्ते वदनं वनजेक्षणे। सङ्गमात्पाण्ड्शव्दस्य गण्डः साधु यथोदितम् ॥५६॥ अनयाऽन्यदपि ज्ञेयं दिशा युक्तमसाध्वपि । यथा विक्लिन्नगण्डानां करिणां मदवारिभि: ॥५७॥ मदक्लिननकपोलानां द्विरदानां चतुरशती। यथा तद्दसाधीयः साधीयश्च प्रयोजयेत ॥ ५८॥ एतद् ग्राह्यं सुरि कुसुमं ग्रम्यमेतननिधेयं धत्ते शोभां विराितमिंद स्थानमस्यैतदस्य। मालाकारो रचयति यथा साधु विज्ञाय मालां योज्यं काव्येष्वत्हितिधिया तद्वदेवाडभिधानम् ॥५९॥ इति श्रीभामहालक्कारे प्रथम: परिच्छेद: ।

१ मुदषारिमि :- घ।

द्वितीय: परिच्छेद: ।

माधुर्थ मभिवाञ्छन्तः प्रसाद च सुमेधसः। समागवन्ति भूयांसि न पदानि प्रयुञ्जते ॥ १ ॥ केचिदोजोडमिधित्सन्तः समस्यन्ति बहून्यपि। यथा मन्दारकुसुमरेणुपिज्जरितालका ॥ २ ॥ श्रव्यं नातिसमस्तार्थ काव्यं मधुरभिष्यते। आतिद्वदङ्गनावालप्रतीतार्थ प्रसादवत् । ३ ।। अनुप्ासः सथमको रूपकं दीपकोपमे। इति वाचामलङ्काराः पञ्चैवाऽन्यैरुदाहता ॥४ ॥ सरूप वर्णविन्यासमनुप्रासं प्रचक्षते। किंतया चिन्तया कान्ते नितान्तेति यथोदितम ॥५॥ ग्राम्यानुप्रासमन्यत्त मन्यन्ते सुधियोऽपरे। स लोलमालानीलालिकुलाकुलगलो बलः ॥ ६ ॥ नानार्थवन्तोऽनुप्रासा न चाप्यसदृशाक्षरा: । युक्तानया मध्यमया जायन्ते चारतो गिर: ॥७ ॥

दृष्टि दृष्टिसुखां धेहि चन्द्रश्चन्द्रमुखोदितः ॥८॥ आदिमध्यान्तयमकं पादाभ्यासं तथावली। समस्तपादयमकमित्येतव पञ्चधोच्यते ॥ ९ ॥

द्विनीय: परिच्छेद:।

सन्दष्टक समुद्दगादेरेत्रैवान्तर्गतिर्मता। आदौ मध्यान्तयोर्वा स्यादिति पछ्चैत तद्यथा ॥१॥ साडधुना साधुना तेन राजताऽराजताऽडभृता। सहितं सहितं कर्त्तु सङ्गतं सङ्गतं जनम् ॥ ११ ॥ साधु: संसाराह्विम्यदस्मादसारात् कृत्वा क्लेशान्तं याति वर्त्म प्रशान्तम् । जाति व्याधीनां दुर्नयानोमधीनां वाञ्छन्तया (जजपा!)यस्त्वं छिन्धि मुक्तान(म?)यस्त्वम॥१२॥ न ते धीर्धीर भोगेषु रमणयेषु सङ्गता मुनीनपि हरन्त्येते रमणी येषु सङ्गता ॥ १३ ॥। सितासिताक्षीं सुपयोधराधरां सुसम्मदां व्यक्तमदां ललामदाम्। घना घना नीलघनाघनालकां प्रियामिमामुत्सुकयन्ति यन्ति च ॥ १४॥ अमी नृपा दत्तसमग्रशासना: कदाचिदष्यप्रतिवद्धशासनाः । कृतागसां मार्गभिदां च शासना: पितृ क्र माध्यासितताडशासना: ।।.१५॥ अनन्तरैकान्तरयोरेवं पादान्तयोरपि। १ स्पामि (दि १ ) ति-ग २ दुर्वयानांनग २

भामहालङ्कारे-

कृत्स्नं च सर्वभादेषु दुष्कृतं साधु तादशम् ॥ १६॥ तुल्यश्षुतीनां भिन्नानामभिधेयैः परस्परम्। व्णानां यः पुनर्वादो यमकं तन्निगद्यते ॥ १७॥ प्रतीनशब्दमोजरित्र सुर्लिष्टपदसन्धि च। प्रसादि स्वभिधानंच यमकं कृतिनां मतम् ॥१८ । नानाधात्वथगम्भीरा यमकव्यपदेशिनी । प्रहेलिका सा ह्युदिता रामशमाच्युतोत्तरे। १९।। काव्यान्यपि यदीमानि व्यास्यागम्यानि शास्त्रवत ।. उत्सवः सुधियामेव हन्त ! दुर्मेधसो हताः ॥ २०॥ उपमानेन यत्तत्वमुपमेयस्य रूप्यते। गुणानां समतां दृष्टा रूपकं नाम तदिदु: ॥ २१॥

द्विधा रूपकमुद्दिष्टमेतत्तच्वोच्यते यथा ॥ २२ ॥ शीकर्रोम्भोमदसृजस्तुङ्गा जलददन्तिनः। निर्यान्तो मण्डयन्तीमे शक्रकार्मुककाननमैं॥२३॥ तडिद्वलयकक्ष्याणां बलाकामालमारिणाम् । पयोमुचां ध्वनिर्धीरो दुनोति मम तां प्रियाम् ॥२॥ आदिमध्यान्तविषयं त्रिधा दीपकमिष्यते।

१ सीकर-ग २ निर्यान्तो मद्यन्तीमे शक्रकामुंक्कारणम-ए

द्वितीयः परिच्छेदः । ११

एकस्यैव व्यवस्थतवादिति तद्विद्यते न्निधा ॥२५ ॥

त्रिभिर्निदर्शनैश्रेदं त्रिधा निर्दि्यते यथा ॥२६ ॥ मदो जनयति पीतिं साडनंङ्गं मानभङ्गुरम। स प्रियासङ्गमोत्कण्ठां साऽसह्यां मनसइशुचम् ॥२७।। मालिनीरंशुकभृतः स्त्रियोडलङ्कुरुते मधुः । हारीतशुकवाचश्र भूधराणामुपत्यकाः ॥२८॥ चीरीमेतीररण्यानीः सरितशशुष्यदम्भसः । प्रवासिनां च चेतांसि द्ाचिरन्तं निनीषति॥ २९ ॥ विरुद्धेनोषमानेन देशकालक्रियादिमि: । उपमेयस्य यत्साम्यं गुणलेशेन सोपमा ॥ ३०॥ यथेवशब्दौ सादृश्यमाहतुव्यतिरेकिणोः । दूर्वाकाण्डमिव श्योंमं तन्त्री श्यामालतों यथा ॥३१॥ बिना यथेवशब्दाम्यां समासाभिहिता परा। यथा कमलपत्राक्षी शशाङ्कवदनेति च ॥ ३२ ।। वतिनापि क्रियासाम्यं तद्वदेवाभिधीयते। द्विजातितदधीतेSसौ गुरुवच्चानुझास्ति न: ॥३३ ॥ समानवस्तुन्यासेन प्रतिवस्तृपमोध्यते। यथेवानभिधानेऽवि गुणसाम्यप्रतीतितः ॥ ३४ ।। १ सानला-क्र २ चरीमती-क ३ श्यामा-व ४ स्यामलता-त, घ

१२ मामहालङ्कार-

साधु साधारणत्वादिर्गुणोऽत् व्यतिरिच्यते। स साम्यमापाद्यति विरोधेऽपि तयोर्यथा ॥३५॥ कियन्तः सन्ति गुणिनः साधुसाधारणश्रिय: । स्वादुषाकफलानम्रा: कियन्तो वाडध्त्रशाखिनः॥।३६्।। यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्था: कैश्चिन्महात्मभिः ।

सामान्यगुणनिर्देशात त्रयमप्युदितं ननु । मालोपमादि: सर्वोडपि न उयायान् विस्तरो मुधा॥ ३८॥ हीननासम्भवो लिङ्गवचोभेदो विपर्ययः। उपमानाधिकत्वं च तेनासदशतापि च ॥ ३९॥ त एत उपमादोषा: सप् मेधाविनादिता: । सोदाहरणलक्ष्माण्णे वर्ण्यन्तेऽत्र च ते पृथक्॥। ४०॥ स मारुताकम्पितपीतवासा चिभ्रत सलीलं शशिभासमब्जम्। यदुपवीरः प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्ग: सेन्द्रायुधो मेध इवाबासे ॥ ४१ ॥ शकचापग्रहादब दर्शितं किल कार्मुक्म्।

सर्व सर्वेण सारूप्यं नास्ति भावस्य कस्यचित्। यथोपपात्ति कृतिभिरुपमासु प्रयुज्यते ॥ ४३ ॥

द्वितीय: परिच्छेदः ।

अखण्डमण्डल: क्केन्दुः क कान्ताननमदयुति । यत्किष्वित् कान्तिसामान्याच्छशिनैवोपमीयते॥४४॥ किञ्चित्काव्यानि नेयानि लक्षणेन महात्मनाम्। दृष्ट वा सर्वसारूप्य राजमित्रे यथोदितम् ।।४५॥ सूर्याशुसम्मीलितलोचनेषु दीनेषु पद्मानिलनिर्मदेषु । साध्व्यः स्व्रगेहेप्विव र्तृहीना: के का विनेशुः शिखिनां मुखेदु ॥ ४६ ॥ निष्पेतुरास्यादिव तस्य दीप्षा: शरा धनुर्मण्डलमध्यभाजः । जाञ्वल्यमाना इव बारिधारा दिनार्द्वभाजः परिवेषिणोडर्कात॥। ४७।। शरास्वर्धनस्य। कथं पातोऽम्बुधाराणां ज्वलन्तीनां विवस्वता । असम्भवादयं युक्त्या तेनासम्मव उच्यते॥ ४८॥ तत्रासम्भविनार्थेन क: कुयारदुपमा कृती। को नाम बह्धिनौषम्यं कुर्बीत शशलक्ष्मण।। ४९ ।। यस्यातिशय्रबानर्थः कथं सोऽसम्भवो मतः । इष्ट चातिशयार्थत्व्रमुपमोत्प्रेक्षयोर्थथा॥ ५०॥ १ विनेदु :- क

१४ भामहालक्कार-

पुञ्नीभूतमित्र ध्वान्तमेष भाति मतङ्गजः । सरः शरत्मसन्नाम्भो नभःखण्डमिवोज्झितम् ।।५१॥ अथ लिङ्गवचोभेदावुच्येते सविपर्ययौ। हीनाधिकत्वात स द्वेधा त्रयमप्युच्यते यथा ॥५२॥ अविगाह्याडसि नारीणामनन्यमनसामपि।

क्कचिदग्रे प्रसरता कचिदापत्य निव्नता। शुनेत्र सारङ्गकुलं त्वया भिन्नं द्विषां बलम् ॥५४॥ अयं पझ्मासनासीनश्चक्रवाको विराजते। युगादौ भगवान् ब्रह्मा विनिर्मित्सुरित प्रजाः॥५५॥ ननूपमीयते पाणि: कमलेन विकासिना। अधरो विद्रुमच्छेदभासा बिम्बफलेन च॥ ५६।। उच्यते काममस्तीदं किन्तु स्त्रीपुंसयोरयम्। निधिर्नाभिमतोऽन्यैस्तु त्रयाणामपि नेष्यते ॥५७॥। स पीततासाः प्रमृहीतशाङ्गों मनोज्ञभामं वपुराप कृष्ण।

रामशर्मणः। शशिनो ग्रहणादेत्दाधिक्यं किल नह्ययम्। निर्दिष्ट उपमेयेडर्थे वाच्यो वा जलदोऽत्र तु ॥५९॥ न सर्वसारूप्यमिति विस्तरेणोदितो वरिधि: ।

द्वितीय: परिच्छेदः।

अभिप्रायात्कवेर्नात्र विधेया जलजे मतिः ॥६॥ आधिक्यमुपमानानां न्याययं नाधिकता भवेद। गोक्षीरकुन्दहलिनां विशुच्धा सदशं यशः ॥ ६१॥ एकेनैवोपमानेन ननु सादृश्यमुच्यते। उक्तार्थस्य प्रयोगो हि गुरुमर्थ न पुष्यति ॥६२।। वनेऽथ तस्मिन्वनितानुयायिनः प्रवृचदानार्द्रकटा मतगजाः। विचित्रबर्हाभरणाश्च बर्हिणो बभुर्दिवीवामलविग्रहा ग्रहाः ॥ ६३ ॥ प्रहैरपि गजादीनां यदि साद्ृशयमुच्यते। तथापि तेषां तैरस्ति कान्तिर्वाप्युग्रतापि वा ॥६४।। इत्युक्त उपमाभेदो वक्ष्यते चापरः पुनः।

आक्षेपोडर्थान्तरन्यासो व्यतिरेको विभावना। समासातिशयोक्ती च षडलङ्कृतयोडपय:।।६६।। वक्ष्यमाणोक्तविषयस्तत्राक्षेपो द्विधा मतः। एकरूपतया शेषा निर्देक्यन्ते यथाक्रमम ॥६७॥ प्रतिषेध इव्रेष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया। आक्षेप इति तं सन्ता शंसन्ति द्विविधं थथा ।।६८।।

१ न्याय्या-घ। २ एतनै०-ग। 4.

१६

अहं त्वीं यदि नेक्षेय क्षणमप्युत्सुका ततः । इयदेवास्त्वतोऽन्येन किमुक्ेनाप्रियेण तु ॥६९॥ स्व्रविक्रमान्तभुवश्चित्रं यन्न तवोद्धतिः । को वा सेतुरलं सिन्धोर्विकारकरणं प्रति ॥ ७०॥ उपन्यसनमन्यस्य यदर्थस्योदिनादृते। ज्ञेयः सोऽर्थान्तरन्यास पूर्वीर्थानुगतो थथा॥१॥। परानीकानि भीमानि विविक्षोन तब व्यथा। साधु वाऽसाधु वाऽडगामि पुंसामात्मैव शंसति ॥७२। हिशन्देनापि हेत्वर्थप्रथनादुक्तसिद्धये। अयमर्थान्तरन्यास: सुतरां व्यज्यते यथा॥ ७३ ॥ वहन्ति गिरयो मेघानम्युपेतान् गुरुनपि। गरीयानेव हि गुरून विमर्ति प्रणयागतान् ॥।७४। उपमानवतोर्ऽर्यस्य यदिशेषनिदर्शनम्। व्यतिरेकं तमिच्छन्ति विशेषापादनाघथा ॥७।। सितासित पक्ष्मवती नेवे ते ताम्रराजिनी। एकान्तशुभ्रश्यामे तु पुण्डरीकासितोत्पले ॥ ७६ ।। किपाया: प्रतिषेधे या तत्फलस्य विभावना। ्ेया तिभावनैवासौ समाधौ सुलभे सति॥७७॥ अपीमत्ताः शिखिनो दिशोऽनुत्कण्ठिताकुलाः। १ स्वानग।

द्वितीय: परिच्छेद: ।

यत्ोक्ते गम्यतेऽन्योऽथेस्ततसमानविशेषणः । सा समासोक्तिरुद्दिष्टा संक्षिपार्थतया यथा।।७९।।

आातस्तरुरयं चोचैः पातितश्र नभस्वता ॥८॥। निमिच्ततो वचो यच्तु लोकातिकान्तगोचरम्। मन्यन्तेऽतिशयोक्ति तामलङ्कारतया यथा ॥८१।। स्वपुष््छविहारि्या चन्द्रभासा तिरोहिता: । अन्तमीयन्त भुङ्गालिवाचा सप्तच्छदद्रुमाः ॥८२।। अपं यदि त्वक शिथिला च्युता स्यात् फणिनामिव। तदा शुझ्कांशुकानि स्युरङ्गेष्वम्भसि योषिताम्॥८ ३।।

सर्वैत्रातिशयौक्तिस्तु तर्कयेत तां यथागमम् ॥८।। सैषा सर्वैत् वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते। यल्नोडस्पां कविना कार्य: कोडलङ्कारोऽनया बिना ।८५।। हेतुश्च सूक्ष्मो लेशोऽय नालङ्कारतया मतः । समुदायाSमिधानस्य वकोक्त्यनमिधानतः । ८।। गतोऽस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्धान्ति वालाय पक्षिणः। इत्येव्रमादि किं काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते ॥८७।। १. संक्षिपार्था यथा वथा-क। २. स्थिरोऽश-घ।

मापहालङ्कार-

यथासङ्कयमथो ्प्रेक्षामलङ्कारद्दयं विदु: ! सङ्गयानमिति मेधाविनोत्प्रेक्षामिहिता क्चित् ।८८। भूयसामुपदिष्टानामर्थानामसधर्मणाम् । क्रमशो योडनुनिर्देशो यथासङ्गयं तदुच्यते ॥८९।।

वक्त्रकान्तीक्षणगतिवाणीबालैसत्वया जिताः॥९०। अविवक्षितसामान्या किधविच्चोपमया सह।

किंशुकव्यफ्देशेन तरुमारुह्य सर्वतः । दग्धाउ्द्ग्धमरण्यान्या; पश्यतीव विभावसुः॥९२॥ स्वभावोक्तिरलक्कार इति केचित प्रचक्षते। अर्थस्य तदवस्थत्वं स्वभावोडभिहितो यथा ॥९३॥

गा वारयति दण्डेन डिम्भ: शस्यावतारणी: ।९४।। समसनोदितमिंद धीखदायैव विस्तरः। असगृहीतमध्यन्यदभ्यूद्यमनया दिशा ॥। ९५॥ स्वयंक्तै रेवनिदर्शनरियं मया प्रकलृप्ता खलु बागलङ्गकृतिः। अतः परं चारुरने कधापरो गिरामलङ्कारविधिर्विधास्यते॥९६॥ इति श्रीभामहालङ्कारे द्विनीया परिच्छेद:।

अथ तृतीय: परिच्छेदः। प्रेथो रसकदूजस्व्र पर्यायोक्तं समाहितम् । द्विप्रकारमुदात्तं च भेदैः श्लिष्टमपि त्रिभि:॥१॥ अपहूनुति विशेषोक्तिं विशेषं तुल्ययोगित्ताम् । अप्रस्तुतप्रशसां च व्याजस्तुतिनिदर्शने ॥२ ॥ उपमारूपकं चान्यदुपमेयोयमामपि। सहोक्तिपरिवृच्ची च ससन्देहमनन्त्रयम्॥ ३। उत्प्रेक्षावयवं चान्ये संसृष्ठमपि चापरे। भाविकत्वं च निजगुरलङ्गरं सुमेधसः ।। ४ ॥ प्रेयो गृहागतं कृष्णमवादीहिदुरो यथा। अद्य या मम गोविन्द जाता त्कयि गृहागते। कालेनैषा भवेत प्रीतिस्तवैबागमनाव पुनः ।। ५। रसबद् दर्शितस्पष्टशृङ्गारादिरसं यथा । देवी समागमद धर्ममस्करण्यतिरोहिता ॥ ६॥ ऊर्जस्वि कर्णेन यथा पार्थाय पुनरागतः। द्विः सन्दधाति किं कर्णः शल्ये पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन प्रकारेणामिर्ध उवाच रत्नाहरणे चैद्यं शार्गधनु गृहेष्वध्वसु वा नानं भुञ्जमहे य

२० भामदालक्कारे-

न भुञ्जते द्विजास्तच्व रसदाननिवृत्तये । ९ ॥। समाहितं राजमित्रे यथा क्षत्रि ययोषिताम्। रामप्रसकत्यै यान्तीनां पुरोऽद्श्यत नारदा॥१॥ उदात्तेशक्तिमान् रामो गुरुवाक्यानुरोधकः । विहायोपनेंतं राश्पं यथा वनमुपागमत ॥११ ॥ एतदेवापरे ऽन्येन व्याख्यानेनान्यथा विदुः। नानारत्नादियुक्तं यत्तत किलोदात्तमुच्यते॥१२। चाणक्पो नक्तमु्याझन्दक्रीडागृहं यथा। शशिकान्तोपलच्छत्तं विवेद पयसां ग(क १)पैः॥१॥॥ उपमानेन यत्तत्वमुपमेयस्य साध्यते। गुणक्रियाम्पां नाम्ना च शलिएं तदभिधीयते ॥१४॥ लक्षणं रूपके Sपीदं लक्ष्पते काममत तु। इछ प्रयोगो युगपदुपमानोपमेययोः ॥१५॥ शीकशम्मोमदसृजस्तुङ्गा जलददन्तिनः । इत्यत्र मेघकरिणां निर्देशः क्रियते समम् ॥१६॥ शलेषादेवार्थवचसोरस्य व कियते भिदा। तत्सहोक्युपमाहेतुनिर्देशात क्मशो यथा। १७॥ छायावन्तो गतव्पाला: स्व्रारोहा: फलदायिनः ।

१. उद्दातं-ग। ३ हेतुनिईशा-म। २. पबनं-ग।

तृतीय: परिच्छेद:।

मार्गब्रुमा महान्तश्व परेषामेव भूतये ॥ १८ ॥ उन्नतालोकदयिता महान्तः प्राज्यवर्षिण:॥ शमयन्ति क्षितेस्तापं सुराजानो घना इव ॥ १९ ॥ रत्नवत्व्रादगाधत्वात स्वमर्यादाविलङ्गनातू। बहुसात्वाश्रयत्वाच्च् सदशत्वमुदन्वता ॥२० ॥ अषह्नुतिरमीष्टा च किश्विदन्तर्गतोपमा । भूतार्थापह्नवादस्याः क्रियते चाभिधा यथा ॥ २१॥। नेयं विरौति भृङ्गाली मदेन मुखरा मुहुः। अयमाकृष्यमाणस्ये कन्दर्पधनुषो व्वनिः ॥२२ ॥ एकदेशस्य बिगमे या गुणान्तरसंस्थितिः। विशेषप्रथनायासौ विशेषोक्तिर्मता यथा ॥२३॥ स एकस्त्रीणि जयति जगन्ति कुसुमायुध: । हरतापि तनुँ यस्य शम्मुना न हृतं बलम् ॥ २४॥ गुणस्य वा कियाया वा विरुद्धान्यक्रियाभिधा। या विशेषाभिधानाय विरोधं तं विदुर्धुधा: ॥२५॥

विदूरदेशानपि वः सन्तापयति विद्विष: ॥ २६ ॥। न्यूनस्यापि विशिष्टेन गुणसाम्पविवक्षया। तुल्यकार्यक्रियायोगादित्युक्त तुल्ययोगिता ॥ २७॥। १ आमन्दुमाणस्म-गा।

२२ मामडालक्कार-

शेपो हिमगिरिरत्वं च महान्तो गुरबा स्थिरा। यदलङ्धितमर्यादाश्चलन्तीं विभृथ क्षितिम् ॥२८॥ अधिकाराद्पेतस्य वस्तुनोऽन्यस्य या स्तुतिः । अप्स्तुनप्रशंसेति सा चैवं कथ्यते यथा॥ २९ ॥ श्रीणितप्रणयि स्वादु काले परिणतं बहु। विना पुरुषकारेण फलं पशयत शाखिनाम् ॥ ३०॥ दूराधिकगुणस्तोत्रव्यपदेशेन तुल्यताम। किव्विद्विधित्सोर्या निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ यथा॥। ३१॥ राम: सपाभिनत् सा(ता?)लान् गिरिं क्रौख्ं भृगूत्तम:। शतािनापि भत्रता कि तयो। सदशं कृतम् ॥३२।। क्रिययैव विशिष्टस्य तदर्थस्योपदर्शनात। ज्ञेया निदर्शना नाम यथेवत्रतिभिर्बिना॥ ३३ ॥ अयं मन्द्द्युतिर्भास्त्रानसतं प्रति यियासति। उदय: पतनायेति श्रीमतो बोधयन्नरान् ॥ ३४ ॥ उपमानेन तन्भावमुपमेयस्य साधयत। यां वदत्युपमामेतदुपमारूपकं यथा ॥ ३५ ॥ समप्रमगनायाममानदण्डो रथाङ्गिनः । पादो जयति सिद्धस्रीमुखेन्दुनवदर्षण: ॥३६। उपमानोपमेयत्वं यत्र पर्यायतो भवेत।

१ विभ्रति-क।

तृतीय: परिच्छेद:। २३

उपमेयोपमां नाम बुबते तां यथोदिताम् ॥३७॥ सुगन्धि नयनानन्दि मदिरामदपाटलम्। अम्भोजमिव वक्त्रं ते त्वदास्यमित्र पङ्कजम् ॥३८॥ तुल्यकाले क्रिये यत्र वस्तुद्दयसमाश्रये। पदेनैकेन कथ्येते सहोक्ति: सा मता यथा ॥३९॥ हिमपाताविलदिशो गाढालिङ्गनहेतवः । वृद्धिमायान्ति यामिन्यः कामिनां प्रीतिभि: सह।४०।। विशिष्टस्य यदादानमन्यापोहेन वस्तुना । अर्थान्तरन्यासवती परिवृत्तिरसौ यथा ॥ ४१ ॥ प्रदाय वित्तमर्थिम्यः स यशोधनमादितः । सतां विश्तजनीनानामिदमरखलितं व्रतम् ॥४२॥ उपमानेन तत्वं च भेदं च वदन: पुनः । ससन्देहं वच: स्तुत्यै ससन्देहं बिदुर्यथा ।। ४३ ॥ किमयं शशी न स दिवा विराजते कुसुमायुधो न धनुरस्य कोसुमम्। इति विस्मयाद्विमृशतोऽि मे मति- स्त्वयि वीक्षते न लभतेऽर्निश्चयम्॥४8।। यत्र तेनैव तस्य स्यादुपमानोपमेयता। असादृश्यत्रिवक्षातस्तमित्याहुरनन्वयम् ॥४५॥ ताम्बूलरागवलयं स्फुरद्दशन्दीघिति।

२४ भामहालङ्कारे:।

इन्दीवराभनयनं तवेव वदनं तब॥ ४६ ॥। श्लिष्टस्यार्थेन संयुक्त: किधिदुतप्रेक्षयान्वितः । रूपकार्थेन च पुनरुत्प्रेक्षावयवो यथा ॥ ४७॥ तुल्योदयावसानत्वाद गतेऽस्तं प्रति भास्व्रति । वासाय वासरा क्ान्तो विशतीव तमोगृहम् ॥8८॥ वरा विभूषा संसृष्टिर्बह्नलद्कारयोगतः । रचिता रत्नमालेव सा चैत्रमुदिता यथा ॥ ४९ ॥ गाम्भीर्यल।घत्रवतोर्युतयोः प्राज्यरल्नयोः । सुखसेव्यो जनानां त्वं दुष्टग्राहोऽम्भसां पतिः॥५०॥ अनलङ्कृतकान्तं ते वदनं वनजद्युति। निश्ाकृतः प्रकृत्यैव् चारो: का वास्त्यलङ्कृतिः ॥५१॥ अन्येषामपि कर्चव्या संसृष्टिरनया दिया। कियदुद्वहितज्ञेम्यः शक्य कथितुं मया ॥ ५२॥ भाविकत्वमिति प्राहुः प्रबन्धविषयं गुणम्। प्रत्यक्षा इव दृश्यन्ते यत्रार्था भूतभाविनः ।५३। चित्रोदात्तादभुनार्थतवं कथाया स्व्रभिनीतता। शब्दानाकुलता चेति तस्य हेतुं प्रचक्षते ।।५४।। आशीरपि च केषाल्विदलङ्कारतया मता। सौहृदय्या(स्पा!) विरोधो क्ौ प्रयोगोडस्याश्रतद्यथा॥५५। १ निझ्ञाकृत-म। २ स्वविनीतता-घ।

तृतीय: परिचछेद: । २५

अस्मिन् जह्दीहि सुहृदि प्रणयाम्यसूया- माश्लिष्य गाढममुमानतमादरेण । विन्ध्यं महानिव घनः समपेडभिवर्ष- न्नानन्दजैनयनवारिभिरुक्षतु त्वाम् ॥५६ ॥ मनन्धमात ङ्ङवि भिन्नसाला इतप्रवीर। द्रुतभीतपौरा: । स्वत्तेजसा दग्धसमस्तशोभा द्विषां पुरः पश्यतु राजलोक: ॥ ५७॥ गिरामलङ्कारविधि: सविस्तरा स्वपं विनिश्चित्य घिया मयोदितः । अनेन वागर्थविदामलङक्कृता विभाति नारीव विदग्धमण्डना॥५८॥

इति भामहालक्कारे तृतीय: परिष्छेद: ॥

अथ चतुर्थ: परिच्छेद:।।

अपार्थ व्यर्थमेकार्थ ससंशयमपक्रमम्। शब्दहीनं यतिभ्रषं भिन्नवृत्त विसन्धि च । १ ।। देशकालकलालोकन्यायागमविरोधि च। प्रतिज्ञाहेतुदृश्टन्तहीनं दुष्टं च नेष्यते ॥ २ ॥ अपार्थमित्यपेतार्थ स चार्थः पदवाक्ययोः । अर्थवान् वर्णसंघातः सुप्तिङन्तं पद पुनः ॥ ३ ॥ पदानामेव संघातः सापेक्षाणं परस्परम्। निराकाक्षं च तद्दाक्यमेकवस्तुनिबन्धनम् ॥ ४ ॥ ऋरमवृत्तिषु वर्णेषु संघातादि न युज्यंत । बुद्धौ तु सम्भवत्येतदन्यत्वेऽवि प्रतिक्षणम् ॥ ५॥ धीरन्त्यशब्दतिषया वृत्तवर्णाहितस्मृतिः । वाक्यमित्याहुरपरे न शब्दा: क्षणनश्वराः ॥ ६॥ अत्रापि बहु वक्तव्यं जायते तत्तु नोदितम्। गुरुभि: कि विवादेन यथाप्रकृतमुच्यते॥७॥ समुदायार्थशून्यं यत्तदपार्थकमिष्यते। दाडिमानि दशाडपूपा: षडित्यादि यधोदितम् ॥८ ।। १ घीरल्य शम्दविषयावृक्त वर्णाहि्िस्मृतिः-ग।

चतुर्थः परिच्छेदः। २७

निरुद्धार्थ मतं व्यर्थ विरुद्धं तूपदिश्यते।

सखि मानं प्रिये धेहि लघुनामस्य मा गमः । भर्तुश्छन्दानुर्तिन्य: प्रेम शन्ति नहि स्त्रियः ॥१०॥ उासिनगुरुत्वासं विजितेन्द्रियशत्ुषु। श्रेयसो त्रिनयाधानमधुना तिष्ठ केवलम् ॥ ११ ॥ यदभिन्नार्थमन्योन्यं तदेकार्थ प्रचक्षते । पुनरुक्तमिदं प्राहुरन्ये शब्दार्थभेदतः ॥ १२ ॥ न शब्दपुनरुक्तं तु स्थौल्यादन्नोपवर्ण्यते। कथमाक्षिप्तचित्तः सन्नुक्तमेवाडभिधास्यते ॥१३ ॥ भयशोकाव्यसूयासु हर्षविस्मययोरपि। यथाह गच्छ गच्छेति पुनरुक्तं चे तहिदु: ॥ १४ ॥

उत्तस्यपुनराखूयाने कार्यासम्मत्रतो यथा ॥ १५॥ तामुत्कमनसं नूनं करोति ध्वनिरम्भसाम्। सौधेषु घनमुक्तानां प्रणालीमुखनातिनाम्॥ १६ ॥ श्रुने: सामान्यधर्माणां विशेषस्याऽनुदाहतेः । अप्रतिष्ठं यदेकत्र तज्ज्ञानं संशयं विदु:॥ १७।।

१ विरुद्वार्थम-ग० २ न-ग०। ३ यदतरैम्ज्ञानं (यदेकत्र सन्जषानं?)-ग।

२८ भामहालङ्कारे-

ससंशयमिति प्राहुस्ततस्तज्ननं वच: । इष निश्चितये वाक्यं न वेलाघेति (बेलायति?)तद्यथा१८ व्यालवन्तो दुरारोहा रत्नवन्तः फलान्विताः । त्रिषमा भूभृतस्तेम्यो भयमाशु प्रमादिनाम् ॥१९॥ यथोपदेशं क्रमशो निर्देशोऽत्र क्मो मतः । तदपेतं विपर्यासादित्याख्यातमपक्मम् ॥ २०॥ विदधानौं किरीटेन्दू इयामाभ्रह्दिमसच्छत्री । रथाङ्गशूले विभ्राणौ पातां वः शम्भुशार्ड्गिणौ ॥२१॥ सूत्र कृत्पादकारेष्ट प्रयोगाद्योऽन्यथा भवेत। तमाप्तश्नावका: सिंद्े: शब्दहीनं विदुर्यथा॥। २२॥ स्फुर च्डिद्लयिनो वितताम्भोगरीयसः । तेजस्तिरयतः सौरं धनान् पश्रय दिवाडभिते: ॥२३॥ यतिश्छन्दोंनिरूढानां शब्दानां या विचारण। तदपेतं यतिभ्रष्टमिति निर्दिश्यते यथा ॥ २४ ॥ विद्युत्वन्तस्तमालासितवपुष इमे वारिवाहा ध्वनन्ति। गुरोलंघोश्र वर्णस्य योऽस्थाने रचनाविधि:। तन्न्यूनाधिकता वापि भिन्नवृत्तमिदं यथा ॥ २५॥ भ्रमति भ्रमरमाला काननेषून्मदासौ। विरहितरमणीकोऽईस्यद्य गन्तुम् ॥ २६ ॥ १ समाप्तभाधकासिद्धे :- घ०। ३ यतिच छन्दो-घ०। ४ 5्धिरुदानां-क० । २ दिवोऽभित :- घ०।

चतुर्थ: परिच्छेद:। २१

कान्ते इन्दुशिरोरत्ने आदधाने उदंशुनी। पातां वः शम्भुशर्वाण्धाविति प्राहुर्विसन्ध्यद्षः ॥२७।। या देशे द्रव्यसंभूतितपि वा नोषदिश्यते। तत्तद्विरोधि विज्ञेयं स्वभावात्तयथोच्यते ॥२८॥ मलये कन्दरोपान्तरूढ कालागुरुदुमे। सुगन्धिकुसुमानम्रा राजन्ते देवदारवः ।२९।। षण्णामृतूनां भेदेन काल: षोढेव भिद्ते। तदिरोधकदित्याहुर्विपर्यासादिदं यथा॥ ३०॥ उदूढेशिशिरासारान् प्रावृषेण्यान् नभस्वरतः । फुल्ला: सुरभयन्तीमे चूनाः काननशोभिन: ॥३१। कला सङ्कलनाप्रज्ञो शिल्पान्यस्याश्च गोचर: । विपर्यस्तं तथैवाहुस्तद्विरोधकरं यथा ॥३२॥ ऋषभात्पश्रमाच्तसमाव सषड्जं धैवतं स्मृतम्। अथं हि मध्यमग्रामो मध्यमोत्पीडितर्षभः ॥३३॥ इति सा धारितं मोहादन्यथैवौऽवगच्छति। अन्यास्व्रपि कलास्वेवमभिधेया विरोधिता ॥ ३४ ॥। स्थास्नुजङ्गमभेदेन लोकं तत्वविदो विदुः। स च तव्यवहारोडत्र तदिरोधकरं यथा ॥३५॥

१ उदूद-घ०। २ प्रश्ा :- प०। ३ अन्यथेष-घ०।

३० मामदालङ्कार --

तेषां कटनटभ्रष्टैर्गजानां मदबिन्दुभिः । प्रावर्त्तत नदी घोरा हस्त्यश्वस्थवाहिनी॥३६्॥ धावनां सैन्यवाहानां फेनवारि मुखच्युतम। चकार जानुदध्नापान् प्रनिदिङ्मुखमध्वनः ॥३७॥ न्याय: शासत्रं त्रिवर्गोक्तिण्डनीति च तांविदुः। अतो न्यायविरोधीष्टमपेतं यत्तया यथा॥३८॥ विजिगीषुमुपन्यस्य वत्सेशं वृद्धदर्शनम्। तस्यैव कुतिनः पश्चादम्पधाच्चारशून्यताम्।३९।

तथाविधं गजच्छदूम नाऽज्ञासीत् स स्वभूगतम्।।४।। यदि वोपेक्षितं तस्य सचितरैः स्वार्थसिद्धये। अहो नु मन्दिमा तेषां भक्तिर्वा नारित भर्तरि॥४१॥ शरा द्वदधनुर्मुक्ता मन्युमद्दिरशतिभिः । मर्माणि परिह-धाऽस्य पतिध्यन्तीति काऽनुमा ॥४ २। हनोऽनेन मम आता मम पुत्रः पिता मम। मातुलो भागिनेयश्च रुषा संर्धचेतसः ।।४.३।।

एकाकिनमरण्यान्यां न हन्युर्वेहत्रः कथम् ॥४४॥

१ पा (क्ा !)-ग०। २ अन्तयोथं शताकीर्ण-घ०। ३ नंत्र कमू-ग, नेत्रकम क०।

चतुर्थ: परिच्छेदः। नमोऽस्तु तेभ्यो विद्वल्यों येSभिप्रायं कवेरिमम्। शास्त्रलोकावपास्पैव नयन्ति नयवेदिनः ॥४५।। सचेतसो वनेभस्य चर्मणा निर्मितस्य च। विशेषं वेद बालोडपि कष्ट कि ने क्थ नु तत्।8 ६।। आगमो धर्मझास्त्राणि लोकसीमा च तत्कृता। तद्विरोधि तदाचारव्यतिकमणतो यथा॥४७।। भभतां पीतसोमानां न्याय्ये वर्त्मनि तिष्ठताम्। अलङ्करिष्णुना वंशं गुरौ सति जिगीषुणा ॥४८। अभार्योढेन संस्कारमन्तरेण ह्विजन्मना। नरवाहनदत्तेन वेश्यावान निशि पीडित:।।४९। न दूषणायाऽ्यमुद्दाहनो तिधि- न चाभिमानेन किसु प्रतीयते। कृतात्मनां तत्वद्दशा च साशो जनोडभिसन्धि क इवाऽवभोसस्यते॥ ५ ॥ इति श्रीभामहालक्कारे चतुर्थ: परिष्छेद्ः ।

१ तु-र०।

अथ पञ्चम: परिच्छेद:।

अथ प्रतिज्ञाहेत्वादिहीनं दुष्ट च वर्ण्घते। समासेन यथान्यायं तन्मात्रार्थप्रतीतये।। १ ॥ प्रायेण दुर्बोधतया शास्त्राद् विभ्यत्यभेधसः । तदुपच्छन्दनायैष हेतुन्यायलवोच्चयः ॥२॥ स्व्रादुकाव्यरसोन्मिश्रं शास्त्रमप्युपयुञ्जते। प्रथमालीढमधत्रः पिवन्ति कटु भेषजम् ॥ ३ ॥ न स शब्दो न तह्ाषं न स न्यायो न सा कला। जायते यन्न काव्याङ्गमहो भारो महान् कवेः ॥ ४॥ सस्ादयः प्रमाणाम्या प्रत्यक्षमनुमा च ते। असाधारणसामान्यविषयत्वं तयोः किल ॥ ५ ॥ प्रत्यक्षं कल्पनापोढं ततोऽर्थादिति केचन। कल्पनां नाम जात्यादियोजनां प्रतिजानैते ॥ ६॥ समारोप: किलैतावान् सदर्थालम्बनं च तत्। जात्यादपोहे वृत्ति: क क विशेषः कुतश्र सः ॥७॥ तदपोहेषु च तथा सिद्धा सा बद्धिगोचरा । अत्रस्तुकं चंद्ितर्थ प्रत्यक्ष तश्ववृत्ति हि ॥ ८ ।। १वलो'-क०।२ सदाक्यं-क० ।. ३पतिजन्यते-घ०।४ द्वितयं-घण

पश्चमः परिच्छेदः। ३३

ग्राह्यग्राहकमेदेन विज्ञानांशो मतो यदि। विज्ञानमत्र सादश्याद्विशेषोऽस्ये विकल्पना॥ ९॥ अर्थादेवेति रूपादेस्तत एवेति नान्यतेः । अन्यर्था घटविज्ञानमन्येन व्यपदिश्यते ॥ १० ॥ त्रिरूपाल्लिङ्गतो ज्ञानमनुमानञ्च केच्ने। तद्विदो नान्तरीयार्थदर्शनं चाऽपरं विदुः ॥११॥ विविधास्पदधर्मेण धर्मीकृतविशेषणः। पक्षस्तस्य च निर्देशः प्रतिज्ञेत्यभिधीयते ॥१२॥ तदर्थहेतुसिद्धान्तसर्वागमविरोधिनी। विरुद्धधर्मा प्रत्यक्षबाधिनी चेति दुध्यति ॥१३ ॥ तयै हि तदर्थस्य विरोधकरणं यथा। यतिर्मम पिता बाल्यात् सुनुर्यस्याऽहमौरसः ॥१४॥ असत्यात्मा प्रकृतिर्वेति ज्ञेया हेत्वपवादिनी।

शाश्वतोऽशाश्वतो वेति प्रसिद्धे धर्मिणि ध्वनौ। जायते भेदविषयो विवादो वादिनोर्मिथे: ॥ १६॥

१ ०स (स्व १)-०। २ न्यापत: गमन। ३ अन्यदा-ख, घ०। 8 कैम ख (केचन १)- ग०। ५ प्रसिद्ध-ग० । ६ वादिनी-स. घ०। ७ अस्यात्मा -ग० । ८ सदर्धोऽि-क0 २. वादिनो मिश्र :- घ, छादिनो मिश्र :- क० ५

३४ भामहाळङ्कारे-

कणभक्षो यथा शब्दमाचक्षीताऽविनश्वरम् ॥१७॥ सर्वशास्त्रविरुद्ध त्वात्स्वीगमविरोधिनी। यथा शुचिस्तनु: स्त्रैणी तत्प्रमाणानि सन्ति वा ।१८। आकुमारमसन्दिग्धधर्माहित विशेषणा। प्रसिद्धधर्मेति मता श्रोत्रग्राह्यो ध्वनिर्यथा ॥ १९॥ प्रत्यक्षवाधिनी तेन प्रमाणेनैव बाध्यते। यथा शीतोऽनलो नास्ति रूपमुष्णः क्षपाकरः ॥२०॥ सन् पक्षे' सदृशे सिद्धो व्यावृत्तस्तद्विपक्षतः । द्देतुस्त्िलक्षणो ज्ेयो हेत्वामासो विपर्ययात ॥२१॥ सन् द्वयोरिति य: सिद्ध: स्वपक्षपरपक्षयोः । अभिन्नलक्षण: पक्षः फलभेदादयं हिधा॥ २२ ॥ परपक्षानुपादानं तद्वृत्तेश्रानुदाहतौ। कथमन्यतरासिद्धहेत्वामासव्यवस्थितिः ॥२३॥ साध्यधमानुगमतः सद्शस्तत्र यश्च सन्। अन्योऽप्यसावेक इत सामान्यादुपचर्यंते ॥ २४॥ विपक्षस्तद्विसदशो व्यावृत्तस्तत्र यो ह्यसन्।

१ वथा धुचिस्तनुसत्रीणि प्रमाणानि (न ३) सन्ति वानग०। २ कूप-क० । रे सथो-ग०। ४ इति इवयकानुगतिभ्याधृत्ती लक्षमसाधुना-घ०

पश्चमः परिच्छेदः।

साध्यसाधनधमा्यां सिद्धी दृष्टान्त उच्यते। तद्िपर्ययतो वापि तदाभस्तदवृत्तितः ॥ २६ ॥। साध्येन लिङ्गानुगतिस्तदभावे च नास्तिता। ख्पाप्यते येन दष्टान्तः स किलान्यैद्विधाच्यते ॥२७॥ दूषणन्यूनताद्युक्तिर्न्यूनं हेत्वादिनाडत्रे च। तन्मूलत्वात्कथायाश्ष न्यूनं नेष्टं प्रतिज्ञया ॥२८॥ जातयो दूषणाभासास्ता साधर्म्यसमाधयः। तासां प्रपज्चो बहुधा भृयस्त्वादिह नोदितः ॥ २९ ॥ अपर वक्ष्यते न्यायलक्षणं काव्यसंश्रयम। इदं तु शास्त्रगर्भेषु काव्येष्वमिहितं यथा ॥ ३० ॥ अथ नित्याSविनाभावि दृष्ट जगति कारणम्। कारणं चेन्न सन्नित्यं नित्यं चेते कारणं न तव ॥३१।। लक्ष्मप्रयोगदोषार्ण भेदेनानेकेव्त्मना। सन्धादिसाधवं सिद्धथै शास्त्रेषूदितमन्यथा ।। ३२।। तञ्जै। काव्यप्रयोगेषु तत्प्रादुष्कृतमन्यथा। तत्र लोकाश्रयं काव्यमागमास्तत्वशंसिने: ॥ ३क॥। असिसङ्काशमाकाश शब्दो दूरानुपात्ययम्। तदेव बाद्पि सिन्धूनामहो स्थेमा महार्दिष ॥।३४।।

१ उथ-ग० । २ नित्पश्रेत्-घ०। ३०न-क। ४ दुर्शिन: ग०।

३६ भामहालक्कार-

रूपादीनां यथा द्रव्यमाश्चयो नश्चरीति या। इष्टकार्याभ्युभ्गमं प्रतिज्ञां प्रतिजानते ॥ ३५॥ धर्मथकामकोपानां संश्रयात् सा चनुर्विधा। जरामेष विभर्मीति प्रतिज्ञाय पितुर्यथा॥ तथैव पुरुणाभारि सा स्यान्दर्मनिबन्धनी ॥ ३६॥ उपलप्स्ये स्वयं सीतामिति भर्तृनिदेशता । हनूमता प्रतिज्ञाथ सा ज्ञातेत्यर्थसंश्रया। ॥३७॥ आहरिष्याम्यमुमद्य महासेनात्मजामिति। कृत्वा प्रतिज्ञां वत्सेन हृतेति मदनाश्रया॥ ३८ ।।

प्रतिज्ञाय यथा भीमस्तच्चकाराऽवशो रुषा।३९। कार्योऽन्यत्र प्रतिज्ञायाः प्रयोगो न कथञ्चन । परित्यागस्य कर्तव्यो नासां चतसृणामपि ॥ ४० ॥ प्रायोपवेशाय यथा प्रतिज्ञाय सुयोधनः । राज्याय पुनरुत्तस्थाविति धर्मविरोधिनी ॥४१ ॥ आहूतो न निवर्तेय द्यूतायेति युधिष्ठिरः । कृत्वा सन्वां शकुमिना दिदेवेत्यर्थबाधिनी ॥४२॥ अधारम्य निवत्स्यामि मुनिवद् वचनादिति। पितुः प्रियाय यां भीष्मश्चक्रे सा कामबाधिनी॥४३। १ निवर्ते ऽइं-ग।

पश्चमा परिच्छेद।। ३७

अत्याजयद्यथा रामः सर्वक्षत्वधाश्रयाम। जामद्ग्न्यं युधी जित्वा सा ज्ञेया कोपबाधिनी॥४४।।

अनुक्तमपि यत्रार्थादभ्युपैति यथोच्यते ॥ ४५ ॥ किमिन्द्रियद्विषाँ ज्ञेयं को निराकृतयेऽरिभिः । कों वा गत्वरमर्थिम्यो न यच्छति धनं लघु ॥६ ६।। किमत्ययं तु यः क्षेपः सौकर्य्य दर्शयत्यसौ। हेतुस्त्रिलक्ष्मैव मतः काव्येष्वपि सुमेघसाम ॥४७॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकौ हि केवलावर्थसिद्धये। यथाडभितो वनाभोगमेतदरिति महत्सरः ॥ ४८ ॥ कूजनात्कुरराणां च कमलानां च सौरभात। अन्यधर्मोडपि तत्सिद्धिं सम्बन्धेन करोत्ययम् ।।४ ९॥

अपृथक्कृतसाध्योऽपि हेतुव्ात्र प्रतीयतै ॥ ५० ॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकाम्यां विनैवर्थगतिर्यथा। दीप्रदीपा निशा जज्ञे व्यपवृत्तदिवाकरा ॥ ५१॥ हेतुप्रदीपदीपत्वमपवृत्तौ रवेरिह। तस्यादपि सुवियामिष्ठा दोषा: प्रागुदितास्त्रय: ॥५२॥ अज्ञानसंशयज्ञानविपर्ययकृतो यथा।

१ यधा-घ। २ द्विपं-क। ३.का०- क।

३८ मामहालक्कार-

काशा हरन्ति हृदयममी कुसुमसौरभातें। ५३॥ अपामम्पर्णवर्ततित्वादेने ज्ेयाः शरारत्रः । असौ शुक्ान्तनेत्रत्थाच्चकोर इति मृह्यनाम् ॥ ५४॥ तुल्यजानावदष्टत्वात्माधयत्य चकोरताम् । उक्त्स्याउर्थस्य दृष्टान्तं प्रतिबिम्वनिदर्शनम् ॥५५॥ ननूपमानमेवास्तु न हेत्वनभिधानतः । साध्यसाधनशोरुक्तिरुक्तादन्यत नेष्यते ॥ ५६॥ मुखं पद्ममिवेत्यत्र किं साध्यं किश्व साधनम्॥ इति प्रयोगस्य यथा कलावपि मवानिह। श्रेयान् वृद्धानुशिष्टत्वाद पूर्वे कार्तयुगे यथा ।।५७।। यत्र दष्टान्तमात्रेण व्यज्येते साध्यसाधने। तमाहुः शुद्धदृष्धन्तं तन्मान्नाविष्कृतेर्यथा॥ ५८॥ भरतसत्वं विलीपस्त्वं त्वमेवैल: पुरुरवाः । त्वमेव वीर प्रदयुन्नसत्वमेव नरवाहन: । ५९॥ कथमेकरदेनैत्र व्यज्येरन्नस्य ते गुणाः । इति प्रयुक्जते सन्त: केचिद्दिस्तरभीरवः ॥६० ॥ पदमकं परं साधु नाधांचीनं निबन्धनम् । वैपशीत्याद्वितर्यासं कीर्तेरपि करोति तव ॥ ६१ ॥ अह्य्यमसुभि(नि?)मेंदं रसवन्वेप्यपेशलम्। १ सौधदाब-क। २ दष्टानां-ध।

पश्चमः परिच्छेदः।

काव्यं कपित्थमाम्रं वत(मंच!) केषाखित्सदशं यथा६२।। प्रजाजनश्रेष्ठवरिष्ठभ्भृ- च्छिरोचिताङघ्रे: पृथु कीर्तिधिप्णयें। अहिमपझरय जलारिधाम्- स्तवैव नान्यस्य सुतस्य वृत्तम् ॥ ६३॥ अंशुमद्विश्च मणिभिः फलनिम्रैश्च शाखिभिः । फुलैश्र कुसुमैरन्यैर्वांचोडलङ्कुरुते यथा ॥६४॥ शुभमरकतपझरागचित्रे सफलसपलवभूरिचारुवृत्ते। बहुकुसमविभूषिते स तस्थौ सुरमुनिसिद्धयुने सुमेरुपृष्ठे ॥ ६५॥ तदेभिरङ्गैर्भूष्यन्ते भूषणोपवनस्रजः । बाचां वक्रार्थशन्दोक्तिरलङ्काराय कल्पते ॥ ६६ ॥ विरुद्धपदमस्वर्थ बहुपूरणमाकुलम्। कुर्वन्ति काव्यमपरे व्यायताभीप्सया यथा॥ ६७॥ एलातककोलनागस्फुट बकुललताचन्दनस्यन्दनाढय- सुकाकपूर चक्रागुरुमनःशिलाध्यामकाव्यापनीर:।

१ घिष्ण्य :- घ । २ य०-घ।

भामहालङ्वारे।

इति निगदितास्तास्ता वाचामलड्कृतयो मया बहुविध कतीर्दक्वाडन्येषां स्वयं परितर्क्य च। प्रथितवचसः सन्तोऽमिज्ञा: प्रमाणमेहापरे गुरुतरधियामस्वाराघं मनोऽकृतबुद्धिभि: ॥ ६९ ॥

इति श्रीमामहालङ्कारे पञ्चम: परिच्छेद:।

अथ पष्ठः परिच्छेद:।

सूत्राम्भसं पदावर्च पारायणरसातलम्। धातूणादिमणग्राहं ध्यानप्रह्बृहन्पुत्रम् ॥ १ ॥ धीरैरालेकितप्रान्तम मे घोभिरसयितम्। सदोपभुक्तं सर्वाभिरन्यविद्याकरेणुभिः ॥२॥ नापारयित्या दुर्गाधममुं व्याकरणार्णेवम्। शब्दरत्नं स्वयङ्गम(म्य?) मलङ्कर्तुमयं जनः ॥३ ॥ तस्य चाउधिगमे यत्न: कार्यः काव्यं विधित्सता। परप्रत्ययतो यत्तु क्रियते तेन का रतिः ॥ ४ ॥ नाऽन्यप्रत्ययशब्दा वगग --- मुदे सताम्। परेण धृतमुक्तेव सरसा कुसुमावली ॥ ५ ॥ मुख्यस्तावदयं न्यायो, यत स्वशक्त्या प्रवर्तते। अन्ये सारस्वरता नाम सन्त्यत्योक्तानुवादिना॥। ६॥। प्रतीतिर्येषु यैतस्तं शब्दं ब्रुवतेंऽपरें। घूमभासोरवि प्राप्ता शब्दताऽन्यानुमाँ प्रति ॥७॥

अर्थप्रतीतये गीतः शब्द इत्यमिधीयते ॥८॥

"है मल्य-म:। म बस्त-वा

भामहालङ्कारे-

प्रत्येकमसमर्थानां समुदायोऽर्वान् कथम्। वर्णानां क्रमवृत्तित्वान् न्याय्या नापि च संहति:।।९।। न चापि समुदायिभ्यः समुदायोऽतिरिच्यते। दारुभित्तिभुबोऽतात्य किमन्यत् सद् कल्प्यैते ॥१०॥ तस्मात कूटस्थ इत्येषा शाब्दी वः कल्पना वृथा। प्रत्यक्षमनुमानं वा यत्र तत्परमार्थतः ॥ ११ ॥ शपथैरपि चादेयं बचो न स्फोट वादिनाम्। नभ:कुसुममस्तीति श्रद्दध्यात क: सचेतनः ॥ १२॥ इयन्त इंदशा वर्णा ईद्गर्थामिधायिनः । व्यवहाराय लोकस्य प्रागित्थं समयः कृतः ॥१३॥ स कूटस्थोऽनपायी च नादादन्यश्च कथ्यते। मन्दा: साङ्केतिकानर्थान् मन्यन्ते पारमार्थिकान्।१४॥ विनश्वरोऽस्तु नित्यो वा सम्बन्धोऽर्थेन वा सता। नमोऽस्तु तेभ्यो विद्न्धः प्रमाणं येऽस्य निश्चितौ ॥१५॥ अन्यापोहेने शब्दोऽर्थमाहेत्यन्ये प्रचक्षते। अन्यापोहश्र नामSन्यपदार्थाSपकृतिः किल ॥१६॥ यदि गौरित्ययं शब्द: कृतार्थोन्यनिराकृतौ। जनको गि गोबुद्धेर्मृग्यतामपरो ध्वनिः ॥ १७॥ १ क्रिमन्यं सत्यकल्प्यते-घ। अन्यायोहे तु-क। ३ अन्यापोहश् नामान्य वा (प!) दार्था वा (पा?) कृति।किल-ग।

१ष: परिच्छेद्:। ४३

अर्थज्ञानफला: शब्दा न चैकस्य फलद्यम्। अपनादविधिज्ञाने फले चैकस्य वः कथम् ॥ १८॥ पुरा गौरिति विज्ञानं गोशब्दश्रत्रणादूमंवेत। येनाऽगाप्रतिषेधाय प्रवृत्तो गौरिति ध्वनिः ॥ १९।। वर्णभेदादिदं भिन्नं वर्णाः स्वांसविकल्पतः । के शब्दा: किश्व तद्वा्यमित्यहो वर्त्म दुस्तरम्॥२०॥ द्रव्यक्रियाजातिगुणभेदातू ते च चतुर्विधा । यदच्छाशब्दमप्यन्ये डित्थादि प्रतिजानते ॥ २१॥

इयत्ता केन वाडमीषां विशेषादवधार्यते ॥ २२॥ वक्रवाचा कवानां ये प्रयोगं प्रति साधवा । प्रयोक्तुं ये न युक्ताश्र तद्विवेकोऽयमुच्यते।। २३॥ नाSप्रयुक्त प्रयुस्जीत चेतःसंमोहकारिणम्। तुल्यार्थत्वेद्वपि हि ब्रूयात को इन्ति गतिवाचिनम॥२४॥ श्रोत्रादि न तु दुर्बोधं न दुष्टादिमपेशलम्। ग्राम्यं न पिण्डीशूरादि न डित्थादिमपार्थकम् ॥२५॥ नाऽप्रतीतान्यथार्थत्ं धात्वनेकार्थतावशाव। न लेश ज्ञापकाकृष्टसहति ध्याति वा यथा ॥ २६ ॥ न शिष्टैरुक्तमित्येव न तन्त्रान्तरसाधितम्। छन्दोवदिति चोत्सर्गान्न चापि च्छान्दसं वदेव॥२७॥

४४ मावहाळङ्कार-

क्रमागतं क्षुनिसुखं सन्दमर्थ्यमुदीरयेत्। अतिशेने हलङ्कारमन्यं व्यञ्ञनचारता॥ २८॥ सिद्धो यक्षोपसंख्यानादिष्ट्या यश्चोपपादितः । तमादियेत प्रायेण न तु योगविभागजम् ॥ २९ ॥ इयं चन्द्रमुखी कन्या प्रकृत्यैत मनोहरा। अस्यां सुवर्णालङ्काराः पुष्णाति नितगं श्रियम् ॥३०॥ वृद्दिपक्षं प्रयुक्जीत सड्कमेऽपि मृजेयेथा। मर्जन्त्यधररागं ते पतन्तो बाप्पविन्दवः ॥ ३१ ॥ सरूपशेषं तु पुमान् स्त्रिया यत्र च शिष्यते। यथाह वरुणाविन्द्रौ भवौ शर्वी मृडाविति॥३२॥ यथा पटयतीत्यादि णिच् प्रातिपदिकात्ततः। णात्रिष्ठवदितीषट्या च तथा करशयतीत्यपि ॥३३ ॥ प्रयुस्जीता डव्ययीभावमदन्तं नाप्यपक्चामे । तृतीयासप्मीपक्षे नालुग्विषयमानयेव ॥ ३४ ।। तिष्ठद्रगुप्रभृतौ वाच्यौ नक्त्तंदिवसगोचरौ। यथा विद्ानधीतेSसौ तिष्ठदगु च वहदगु च।।३५।। शिष्टप्रयोगमात्रेण न्यासकारमतेन वा। तृचा समस्तषप्ठीक्त न कथज्चिदुदाहरेत॥ ३६॥

१ध्यनग।

भषु: परिष्छेद: ।

सूत्रज्ञापकमात्रेण वृत्रहन्ता यक्षेदित: । अकेन च न कुर्तीत वृति तद्गमको वधा॥३७।। पञचराजीति च यधा प्रयुञ्जीत द्विगुः स्त्रियाम। नपुंसकं तत्पुरुषं पुरुहूससभं यथा।। ३८ ।। सर्वेभ्यक्ष भशादिम्यो वदेल्लुप्तहलं थथा। प्रियोन्मनायते सा ते किं शाठऽभिमनायसे॥३१।। तृतीयैकवचे: षष्टयामामन्तं च वदेत् किषि। यथोदितं बलभिदा सुरुचां विद्युतामिव । ४- # असन्तमषि यद्धाक्यं तत्तथैव प्रयोजयेव । यथोच्यतेऽम्भसां भासा यशसामम्भसामिति॥8॥ पुंसि स्त्रियां चे कस्वन्तमिच्छन्त्वच्छान्दसं किल। उपेयुषामि दिवं यका न व्येति चारुता ॥ ४२॥ इभकुम्भनिमा वाला दधुषी कन्तुके" स्तनौ। रतिस्वेदपिश्रान्ता जहार हृदयं नृणाम् ॥ १२ मे शबलादिम्बो नितयं भाति णिज़ विहितो यथा। कलाका: पकय सुगोणि धनाञछवलयन्त्यम्: ।8४॥ शिशिरासारकृष्मिकां सदशस्ते तु कङ्गशव । संवीजयति सुश्रोषि रतिसवेदालसेक्षणाम॥। ०९॥

१ तृतीयेव चतुः पषषा-क। २ पुंलियां व-न। ३ इमकुम्मनिमे-ग। ४ कम्तुको-घ।

भामहालद्कार-

एवं णिचः प्रयोगस्तु सर्वत्राऽलङ्डकृतिः परा। लिङ्गनयोपपन्न च ताच्छील्यविषयं णिनिम् ॥ ४६ ॥ तस्या हारी स्तनाभोगो वदनं हारि सुन्दरम्। हारिणी तनुरत्यन्तं कियन हरते मनः॥ ४७॥ ताच्छील्पादिषु चेष्यन्ते सर्व एव तृनादरयेः । विशेषणैवें तत्रष्टा युत्कुरज्वरजिष्णुचः ॥। 8८ ॥1 क्तिन्नन्तं च प्रयुज्जीत सङ्गतिः संहतिर्यथा। शकारौ जागुरिष्टी च जागर्या जागरा यथा ॥ ४९ ॥ उपासनेति च युच नित्यमासे: प्रयोजयेत्। ल्युट च कतृतिषयं देवनो रमणो यथा ॥ ५० ॥ अ्णान्तादपि डीबिष्टो लक्ष्मी: पौरन्दरी यथा। अण महारजनाल्लाक्षारोचनामयां तथा च ठक् ॥५१॥ ड्मतुिष्टं च कुमुदाद्थेयं भू: कुमुद्दती। ठक् चापि तेन जयतीत्याक्षिक: शास्त्रिको यथा ॥५२॥ हितप्रकरणे णं च सर्वशब्दात् प्रयुख्जते। तखस्छमिष्ठ्यों च यथा सार्वः सर्वीय इत्यपि ॥ ५३॥ वदेदिमभिजन्तं च पटिमा लघिमा यथा। विशेषेणेयसुननिष्टो उयायानाप कनीयसीम् ॥ ५४॥

१ सर्व एवाउञ नाद्य :- ग। २ विशेषेण च-गग। ३ ततख्सिध्या-क।

पछ्ठः परिच्छेद्ः।

इयसजदन्नचाविष्टौ प्रमाणविषयौ यथा। जानुदप्ी सारन् नारीनितम्बद्वयसं सरः ॥ ५५॥ मतुप्प्रकरणो ज्योत्सनातमिस्राशङ्गिणादयः । इनच् फलबर्हम्यां फलिनो बर्हिणो यथा ॥ ५६॥ इनिः प्रयुक्त:प्रायेण तथा ठश्च मनीषिभि:। तत्रापि मेखलामालामायानां सुतं मता॥ ५७॥ अभ्यस्ताउझेरदादेशे दघतीत्याद्योऽपि च। रोदितिस्वपितीत्यादि सहेटा सार्वधातुधकम् ॥ ५८॥ अभ्यस्तेषु प्रयोक्तव्यमदन्तं च विदे: शतुः । असौ दधदलङ्कारं स्रजं विभ्रच्च शोभते ॥ ५९॥ ........ ·रं योगिनं वदेत। यथैतच्छयाममाभाति वनं वनजलोचने ॥ ६० ॥ नैकत्रौकारभयरत्वं गतो यातो इतो यथा। सावर्ण्यवरसयोर्भस्य बूरयान्तान्यत्र पद्धतेः॥ ६१॥ सालातुरीयमतमेतदनुक्रमेण को वक्ष्पनीति विरतोऽहमतो विचारात। शब्दार्णवस्य यदि कश्िदुपैति पारं भीमाम्भसब्च जलधेरिति विस्मयोडमौ ॥६२॥

१ मूयान्रा०-क।

मामडाउक्कर-

विद्यानां सततमपाश्रयोऽ7रसां तासूक्ताने च वरिरुणद्दि कांधिदर्थान्। श्रद्वेयं जगति मतं हि पाणिनीयं माध्यस्थ्याद्व भवति न कस्पनित्प्रमाणम् ॥६३।। अक्लोक्य मतानि सत्कवीना- मनगम्य स्व्धिया च काव्यलक्ष्म । सुजनावगमाय मामहेन ग्रथितं रकिलगोमिसनुनेदम् ॥ ६४॥ इति श्रीभामहालङ्करे षह्टः परिच्छेदः। षछठया शरीरं निर्णीतं शतषपया त्वलङ्कृति: । पञ्चाशता दोषदृष्टिः सप्तत्या न्यायनिर्णयः॥ षछठुचा शब्दस्य शुद्धि: स्यादित्यवं वस्तुपञचकम । उक्तं षड्मि: परिच्छेदैर्भामहेव क्रमेण व:॥।

इति।

१ तासूक्तां न-ग। २ वकिल-क, रव्त्रिल-घ। 2 स्वादिश्येव-ग।

परिशिष्ट १

येवामाचार्याजा अ्रन्येषु भामहीयकाव्यालक्मारस्थइलोकाः केनापि रूपणोपलम्यन्ते, तेषाँ समुद्धृतशछोकपादिमदर्शन-

अप्पयदाक्षित: स्वचित्रभीमासाया- १४ पृष्ठे-यत्र तेनेव्र तस्य स्यादुपमानोपपेयता। असादशषविवस्षाती वदन्नि तमनन्वयम् ॥३.४०. ४२ पृष्ठे-अद्य या मप गोविन्द जाता त्वपि सृहागतें कालेनैषा भवेत् मीतिस्तवैवागमनात् पुनः॥३.५. अभिनधगुस्ती ध्वन्यालोकलोचने-

१२ दृष्ठे-धम्मोर्थकाममोक्षेषु वैंचक्षण्य कलाडु च। करोति कीर्ति मीर्ति च साधुकान्पनिर्षत्रणम् ॥ १.२. X x X उपेयुषाययि दिवं सत्निषन्वविद्यायिनाम आस्त एव निरातई कान्त कोव्यवर्य बपुः॥ १.६. ३६ पृष्ठे-प्रतिषेध इवेष्म्य यो विशेषाभिघित्सया। वक््यमाणोक्तविषमः स आक्षपो दविया मव: ।२, ६८. अहं त्वा यदि नक्षय क्षणमप्युर्सुका तना।

३८ पृष्ठे-आदिमध्यान्तविषरय त्रिया कस्पकनिष्बने : २. २५ x

परिशिष्ठ?

अपन्हुतिर भीष्टस्य किश्ञिदर्यगतीपमा। X x X X नेयं विराति भृक्गाळी मदन सुखरा सुद्धुः । अयमाकृष्यमाणस्य कन्द्रर्पेधनुषो ध्वनि: ।। एकदेशस्य बिगमे या गुणान्तरसंस्थिति:। विशेषमथनायासी विशेषोक्तिरिति स्पृता ॥ स एरसत्रीणि जयति जगन्ति कुसुमायुध: । हरतापि तनुं यस्य शम्सुना न हृतं वलम्। ३.३१-२४ ४० पृष्ठे-मदो जनमति प्रीति सानक मानभङ्गुरम्। स मियासङ्गमोत्कण्ठां साSसइथां मनसः शुचम्॥२.२७. गदेष्वध्वस्षु वा नाभं सुञ्ज्महे पदधीतिनौ। विमा न मुख्जते ।। ३. ९. ४१ पृष्ठे-तुल्योदयावसानत्वाद् गतेऽस्तं प्रति मास्वति। वासाय वामरः क्रान्तो विशतीव तमांगुहाम्॥ ३.४८. ४२ पृष्ठे-अधिकारादपेतस्य वस्तुनाऽन्स्प या स्तुति अमस्तुतम्रशंसा सा त्रिविधा परिकीर्तिता। ३.२९. १०७ पृष्ठे-उपमानेन तथ्व च मेदं च वदतः पुनः। ससन्देहं बचः स्तुत्यै ससन्देहं विदुर्षथा॥ ३. ४३. १८२ पृष्ठे-स्वादुकाव्पर सोन्मिश्रं वाक्यार्थमुपसुक्जते पथमालीदमघनः पिवन्ति कट्टु भषजम्।५. ३. २०८ पृष्ठे-वक्राभिधेयशब्दाक्तिरिष वाचामलङतिः ।१. ३६. २०९ परृष्ठे-अर्यं मन्दशुतिर्भास्वानस्तं मति यियासति उदप: पतनायेति श्रीमतो बोधयबरानू। ३.३४. आनन्दवर्धनो ध्वन्यालोकें- २०८ पृष्ठे-सैषा सवेत्र वक्रोकिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते।

परिशिष्ट १

यन्ोऽस्यां कविना कार्य: कोऽळड्कारोऽनया बिना।,८५, उड्ूट: काव्यालङ्गारसङ्ग्ह-

भूताथपह्नवेनास्या निबन्धः करियते बुषैः॥२.२१. केश व मिश्रोऽलङ्कार शेखरे- १८ पृष्ठे-कचिदगे पमरत्ता कचिदापघ निम्नता। शुनेव सारङ्गकुलं त्वया भिननं दिषां बल्षमू॥ २. ५४.

जयमङ्गलो भट्टिकाव्यहीकार्या दशमसर्गस्य- *लोके १मे-स्वरूपनर्णवरिन्यासमनुनासे पचक्षते। २.१. तुल्यश्रुवीनां भिन्नानामभिधेयें: परस्परम्। वर्णानां यः पुनर्वादो सम्कं नविरुप्पते । २.१9, * २३तमे-मदो जनयति नीतिमानन्दं मानभगुरम्। य्मियासङ्गपोत्कष्ठामसया मनसः सुचम् ॥२.२9' १, २६ तमे-उपमानेन तुल्यत्वमुपमेयस्य रप्धने। गुणाना समता रष्टा रूपके नाम तह्ियु: ॥२२१. १, ३० समे-विरुद्धेनोपमानेन देशकालक्रियादिभि:। उपमेथस्य वस्साम्यं गुणमात्रेण सोयमा ॥ २ ३०. , ३६ समे-उपन्यसनपर्थन्य प्क्रान्ताद्परस्य यह्। झेंयः सोऽर्यान्तरन्पास: पूर्वार्थातुमनो यथा॥ २.७१. १> ३८ तमे-प्रतिषेध इवेष्टश्प यो विश्वषामिधित्सया। आक्षेप इति सें सन्तः शसन्ति द्िविंधो पया ॥२.६८. ४० तम-उपमानववोर्डर्वस्य मदिशेषनिदरमेनस्। व्यतिरेकं तमिच्छन्ति विश्षत्पादनाचथा ।२.७२. ,, ४१ तमे-क्रियाषाः पतिषेधेन तरफलस्य विभावनान्।

परिशिषट १

व्ेया विभावनैवासौ सान्वर्थ कथ्यने यथा॥ २,७७,

सा समासोकतिरुडिवा संसिप्तर्थतया यथा॥ २. ७९ १४३ तमे-निमित्ता यत्र पचो कोकातिक्रान्तगोचरस्। मन्यन्तेडनिशपोकि तामलङ्कारतया यथा ॥ २. ८१. , ४४ तम्र-भूयमामुपदिष्टानां क्रियाण्मामथ कर्मेमाम्। क्रमशी पोडतुनिर्देशो यथासंख्य तदुचयते।२.८९. ,, ४५ तमे-अचिवक्षितसामान्यात् किञ्चिच्चोपमया सह।

2, ४६ तमे-स्त्रभावोकिरलङ्कार इति केचित् प्रचक्षते। अर्थस्य नादवस्थ्ये च स्वमात्रीऽमिहितो यथा ॥ २९३. गतो उस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पक्षिण:। इत्येवमादिकं काव्य बार्तामेता प्रचक्षते। २.८७. ४८ तमे-रसवदर्शित स्पषट शृंगारादिरस यथा । ३.६. ५० तमे-पर्यायोक्तं यदन्यन पकारेणाभिधीयते। ३.८. ५३ तमे-पतदेवापरेड्मेन वाक्यार्थेनान्यथा विदुः। नानारवियुक्तं,यत्तत् किलोदारमुच्यते। ३.१२. "६५ सघे-उपमानेन यत्तस्वसुपमेयस्य साध्यते। क्रिय पुणाभ्यां नान्ना च शििद्ध तद भिधीपते ॥ लक्षणं रूपकेडपीदं विद्यते काममत्र तु। दृक्ट मयोंगो सुगपदूयमानोपमेययो: ॥ ३. १५. श्लेपादेवार्थवचसो यम्य च करियते मिदा। वत्स हांत्यय माहेतुनिर्देआ्ञात् त्रिविधं यथा ॥ ३१७. "५८ तमे-अपन्हुततिरितीप्टात्र किश्चिदनवर्गतोपमा। भूवारथोपडवादेपा क्रियतेडस्पा मिदा यथा॥। ३.११. *

परिशिष्ट १

इसोके ५९ तमे-एकदंशन्य बिनमे या सुभानतारसंस्तुनिः। विशेषपचनायासौ विञ्वेषोक्तिर्मता बथा॥। ३. २१.

किश्चित्विधित्सया निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरसौं यथा ॥ ३१. "६१ तमे-उपमानकय तम्व्ावसुपमेपस्य रुषयन् यो वदन्युप्नमाभद्रसूपमारूपकं यथा। ३.३५. "६२ तमे-न्यूनस्यापि विजिष्टन गुणसाम्यविवक्षपा। .तुल्य कार्यक्रियायोगादित्युक्ता तुल्ययोगिना। ३. २७. "६३ तमे-क्रिययैव तदर्थस्य विशिष्टस्पोपदर्शनात् इष्टा निदशना नाम यथेववतिभिविना । ३.३३. '६४ तमे-गुणस्य च क्रियाषा वा चिरुद्धान्यक्रियाभिया क्रिया विशेषाभिघानाय विरोर्ष तं बिदुर्यथा । ३.३५ "६५ तमे-उपमानोपमेयत्वं यत्र पर्यायतो भवेव उपमेयोपमां धीरा ब्ुवते ना यथोदिनाम्। :,३७, * ६६ समे-तुल्यकालक्रिये यत्र वस्तुद्यसमाश्रिने वाक्पेनैकेन कथ्येते सहोकि: सा मंता बथा। ३.३९. "६ समे-विभिष्टस्प यदादानमन्यापोहदेन वस्तुनः अर्थान्तरन्यासवती परिवृतिरसौ यथा। ३. ४? "६८ तमे-उधमीनोपमेयस्य नत्तरं च पढ़तः पुनः ससन्देशवच: स्तुत्पे ससन्देहं विदुर्षथा। ३. ४३. "६९ समे-यत्र तेनैव तक्य स्थादुयमानोपमपता

"७० तमे-्लष्टस्यार्येन संयुक्कत: किश्िय्ोतमेक्षपान्वितः कपकार्थेन च पुनरुत्मक्षानपतो पथा।३.४७. "७१ तमे-परा विभूषा संसष्टिलक्करयोग

परिशिष्ट ₹

रचिता रक्मालेत सा चैव कथ्यते यथा । ३, ४९, इललोके ७२ वमे-आशीरपि केषाचिदलक्कारतया मता

द्वादशसर्गस्य "१ मे-भाविकत्वमिति माठुः प्रबन्धविषयं गुणम् पत्यक्षा इच दश्यन्ते यत्रार्या भृतभाविनः। चित्रोदात्तादुमुताथत्वं कथायास्वभिनीतता शब्दानाकुलता चेति तस्य हेतुं मचक्षते। हे.५३-५४. दण्डी काव्यादर्शस्य- द्वितीय परिच्छेदस्थे- "२६६ तमे-अद्य या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वाय सहागते कालनेषा भवेत प्रीतिस्तवेत्रागमनात् पुनः २. ५ तृनीय परिच्छेदस्थे "१२० तपे-हिमापहाषित्रधरैर्व्यासं व्योमाभिनन्दति। १.४१ "१२५ तमे-अपार्थ व्यर्थमेकार्ये ससंशयमपक्रमस् शब्दहीनं यतिभ्रष्टं भिन्नटनं विसन्धिकम् ।४.१. "१२६ तमे-देशकाळकळालोकन्पायागमविदोधि च ।४.२. "१२८ तमे-समुदापार्थशून्यं यत्तदपार्थमितीष्यते। ४.८.

१३ पृष्ठे-प्राककृते संस्कृतं चैतदपभ्रंश इति त्रिया। १. १६. १४५,,-म मारुताकम्पितर्पीतवासा विभ्रत सळीलं शशिभासि शंखम्। यदुम्रवीर: अगृहीतशाई्ग: सेन्द्रायुधो मेव इवावमासे ।। २. ४१.

परिशिष्ट?

छ पीतवासा: ममृहीतशाङों मनोन्य (?) भीमं वपुराष कृष्णः। शतहदन्द्रायुधवान् निज्ञायां संसृज्यमान: सभिनव मेघः ॥ २. ५८. निषेतुगस्याद्रिय तस्प दीक्षा: श्ञरा धनुमण्डलमध्यभाजः । जाज्वलपमाना इव वारिषारा दिनार्धभाज: परिवेषिप्योडकोंतू। २. ४७. १४६ पृष्ठे-अयं पम्मासनासीमवचक्रवाको विराजवे। युगादौ भमतान् ब्रझ्मा विनिर्मित्सुरिय प्रजा: २६५ वनेऽथ तस्मिनू वनिताविहारिण: प्रभिन्नदाना्टकटा मनङ्रजा । विचित्रबर्हाभरणाय्च वर्हिगों

परतिहारेन्दुराज उद्धटकृतका व्यालक्कारलघुषृतती- ४७ पृष्ठे-ससहोवत्युपमाहेतुनिर्देशात् त्रिविषं यथा। ३.१७. ६२ पष्ठे -अपं मन्दयुततिर्भास्वानस्वं मति यिवासति उदय: पतनायेति श्रीमतो बोषवन् नरन। ३.३६, ७४ पृष्ठे-चित्रोदाच्ताद्भुनार्थत्वं कषाया स्वमिनीतता। श्दानाकुलता चेति तस्प हेतुं मचकते। ३.५४. ७८ पृष्टे-वृत्तदेवादिचरितशंसि चोत्पाद्यवस्तु न कलानालाशय चेति चतुर्षा मिचवे पुनः । १. १७. प्रेमचन्द्रतर्क बामीक्षा काव्याद शटी क्कापं- प्रथमपरिच्छेदस्प- १ इलोके-सृपां निडन च व्युत्पानें पार्चा वाञ्छन्त्पलङ्कतिम्

नदेनदादु: सौक्षष्धं नारथेव्युपतिरीहशी। १.१४. द्विनीयपरिच्छेदस्य २२० इलद्रांके-सेपा सर्वैव वक्रोक्तिरनयायार्थो विभाव्यते यम्रोडस्वा कविना का्ये: कोऽछङ्कारोजनया चिना २.८५, २३५" - हंतुश्व मूक्ष्मलेशी च नालक्गारतया मता समुदायाभिधयस्य वक्रोत्नमिधानतः । ३े ८६. नृनयिपारकछंदस्य १२७"- पतिज्ञाहंतुद्शटन्तहीनं दुष च नेष्यते । ४. २. भाजराजः सरस्वतीकसठाभरण- २६ पृष्-असिवर्तितुगह्विच्छिन स्वाकक्षिता पतिरद्विहक अमिद्भि: युभ्रदम्दष्टैद्रिषो जन्नोभिषीष्ट व: ।१.४०. ४९०पृष्टं-किंशुकव्यपदश्ेन तरुमारुख्च सर्वेतः दग्घादग्धामरण्यानां पश्पतीव विभावसु: ।१. ९२. मम्मटः काव्यप्रकाशस्य पछ्ाल्लास -इ१कादिर लङ्कारस्या्यैवुधोहि न कान्तमपि निभूषं विभाति वनिताननम्। रूपका दिमलद्धारं वाख्माचक्षते परे सुपां तिलं च व्युत्शन्त वाचां वाञ्छन्त्यलक्कतिम्। वदेतदाबुः सौखन्धं नार्थव्युत्पततिरीदशी शव्दाभिषेयालक्कारमेदादिष्टं दवयं तु नः ।९,१३-१५. दक्षमोलामे-सेषा सर्वत्र वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते यवनोऽस्यां कविमि: कार्य: कोडलक्कारोऽनया विना२ट अय पद्मासनामीनश्चक्रवाको विराजते सुगादौ भगवान् बेघा: विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजा: २५५.

परिशिष्ट ?

स पीतवासा: मगहीनखाङों मनोज्ञभीमं वपुराप कृप्ण: । श त हदन्द्रायुधवान निशाया संसृज्यमान: वातिनेव मेघ: ॥ र. ५८. निपेतुगस्यादिव तस्प दीप्षा: श्रा धनुर्मण्डलमध्यभाजः । जाजल्यमाना इब वारिषारा: दिनार्धभाजा परित्रेषिणोडर्कात ।२.४७. मल्लिनाथो भट्टकाव्यटीकायं- एकादघा संगर्प १ मे श्लोंके-श्रव्यं नातिसमस्तार्थ कारव्यं मधुरिष्यते आविदृदङ्गनाबालमतीतार्थ प्रसादवत् ।२.३, द्ादशसर्गस्य १ मे इलोंके-भाविकत्वमिति पाहु: भवन्धविषयं गुणम प्त्यक्षा इव दृडयन्ते यन्नार्था भूतमाविन: । उदाचार्थाद्सुनायतवे कथायास्त्वभिनीनना श्दानाकुलता चंति तस्य हेतुं प्रचक्षत २. ५३-५४, रुय्यकोडलङ्कार सरबस्वे १८३ पृष्ठे-शब्दातुकूलता चेनि तस्थ हेतून प्रचक्षते २.५४. वल्लभः सुभाषितावल्यां- १५४६ -किंशुकन्यपदेशेन तरुपारय् सर्वतः दग्बादग्यपरण्यान्यां पतपतीव विभावसु:। ३९२ १६४४-ने्यं विरौति मृक्चाली मदेन मधुरस्वरा अयमाकष्यमाणस्य कन्दर्पेषनुषो ध्वनि: । ३.२२ RA

पररिशिष्ट १

वामनः स्वकाव्पालङ्कारमववृत्ती- पृछ्रे-सूर्यायुसर्मीलित ळांच नेषु दीनेषु पदमानिलनिर्मेलेसु। साध्ठय: स्वगेहेध्विव भतृहीना: केका विनेशु शिव्विनां मुखेपृ॥ २ ४६.

२३ पृष्ठे-यत्र ननेव्र नस्ष स्यादुपमानोपमेयता अमादृश्यविवक्षातो वदन्ति तमनन्तमम्। ३.४५. हमचन्द्र: काव्यानुशासने- १७ पृष्ठे-गतोऽस्तमर्कों भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाप पक्षिण: इत्येवमादि कि काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते।१. ८७. २८"-नेयं विरौति मृक्गाली मदेन सुखरा मुद्ठ: अयमाकष्यमाणस्य कन्दर्पघनुषो ध्वनि: । ३. २२. २६८" -अहं त्वां यदि नेक्षेय क्षणमप्युत्सुका ततः इयदेवास्त्वतोऽन्येन किमुक्त्तेनाभियेण ते २.६९. २७० " -स एकस्त्रीणि जयति जगन्ति कुसुमायुघ: हरतापि तनुं यस्प शम्भुना न हनं वलमू। ३. २४.

७ पृष्ठे-न स शब्दो न तद्वाचय न स न्यायो न सा कला जायते यम काव्याक्कमहो भारो गुरुः कबेः । २६७ पृप्ठ- सेषा सवेव वक्राक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते यत्नोऽस्यां कविना कार्य:कोडलङ्कारोऽनया विना२ट५ २७९ -व्यालबन्तो दुरारोहा रन्वन्तः फळान्विता: विषमार भूमृतस्वेध्यो भयमाशु प्मादिनाम् ४.१९.॥

परिशिष्ट २ भामहीयकाव्यालङ्वार स्थश्लोकनां वर्णानुक्रमणी। अ अपामभ्यणवतित्वात् १.१२. अपार्थमित्यपेतार्थ ४. ३. मखण्डमण्डल: क्वेन्दु:० २. ४४. भज्ञानसंशयज्ञान-0 ५.५३. अपार्थ व्यर्थमेकोर्थ० ४. १.

अष्णन्तादपि इनेविश: ६.५१. अपीतमत्ता: शिखितरिन:० २.७

अतोऽमिवाञ्छता कीति० १.८. अपुष्ाथमचकोर्कि० १. ३४. अत्याजयत् यथा राम:० ५. ४४. अमार्योदेन संस्कार० ४.४९ अत्रापि बहु वक्तव्यं० अभ्यस्तात् फेरदादेश:० ६५८. म्न्नार्थपुनरुकत यत्0 ४. १५ ! अभ्यस्तेषु प्रयोक्तव्य० सथ नित्याविनाभावि ५.३१. अमी नृपा दत्तसमग्रशासना१२ अ्रथ प्रतिज्वाहेत्वादि-० ५. १. अमूनि कुवते Sन्वर्थाम् २. २६.

२.५२. अंशुमद्द्रिक्च मणिमि:० ५. ६४.

५. ४५. अयुक्तिमद्यथा दूता:0 .४२-

अद्य या मम गोविन्द० ३.७- अयं पद्मासनासीन:० २.५५. अद्यारम्य निवत्स्यामि० ५.४३. अर्य मन्दद्युनिमास्वान ३. ३४. अधनस्येव दातृत्वम्० १. ३. १.५० अधिकारादपेतस्य० ३.२९. अर्थ दुएं पुनल्ेयंo ६.१८ अनयाऽन्यदपि ज्ञेयं. १.५७. अर्थज्ञानफला: शब्दा०

अनन्तर कान्तरथो: अथावेति रुपाने: ५ १० २. १६. १. ३५. अनलङ्कृतकान्तं ते ३.५१. अवलोक्न मतानि सत्कवीना-६.६४' अनिवद्धं पुनर्गाथा० १.३०. अवाची व्यक्वाचश्व १.४३े. अनुप्रासः सयमक: 2.४. अन्तर्योघशताकीर्ण अविगाह्योऽसि नारीणां २.५३.

अन्यापोह्देत शब्दोर्थम्० असन्तमपि यद्ाक्मं0 ६.४ ?. ६.१६ अन्येपामपि कतवर्या० अस्यन्तो विविधान्या जो. ४.४४. ३.५२. मस्त्यात्मा प्रकतिवति ५. ३५ अन्यः स्वचरितं तस्यां १. २९ अन्वयव्यतिरेकाम्यां असिसङ्काशमाकाशम् १.४६, ५३४ अन्वयव्यतिरेको हि० ५.४८. अस्मिन् जहीहि सुहृदि अपरं वक्ष्यते न्याय-0 ५.३० प्रणयाम्यस्याम् ३.५६. अपहतिरमीषा च० ३. २१ महृद्यमसुभि निःमेडम्० ५.६२ अपन्दु्ति विशेष्योक्ति* ३.२ अहं तवा यदि नेक्षेय २६१

परिशिष्ट -

उपासिनगुरुत्वात्म्० आकुमारममन्दिग्ध-0 ५. १९, उपेयुषामपि दिवम् आक्षेपो ऽर्थन्तरन्यास:० २.६६. ऊ आगमो धर्मशास्त्राणिश ४.89: ऊजस्वि कर्णेन यथाब ३. . आदिमध्यान्तयमकं० आठिमध्यान्तविषयं २. ९.

आधिकचसुपमानाना २.२५. ऋषमात् पञ्चमात् तरुमान्० ४. ३३ आपा ण्डगण्डमनत्तं २ ६१. १.५६. एकदेशस्य निगमे: ए आशीरपि व केषांचिन्० ३,५५. एकेने वोपमानेन० ५. ३८ १.६२ आहूतो न निवतेय२ पनद्राहां सुरभि कुसुमम्० १.५९. ५ ५२. एतदेवापरे 5न्येन० ३.१२ इति निगवितास्तास्ता: ५. ६९ मलानकोलनाग-0 ५.६८ इनि सा धारितं मोहात्० ४. २४ एवं िचः प्रयोगस्तु0 ६.४६ इत्युक्त उपमाभेद:0 १. ६५. क इनि: प्रयुक्त: प्रायेष0 ६.५७ कथमेकपदेनैव० ५.६० कथं पातो ऽम्वुधाराणां २,४८. इमकुम्भनिमी बाला० ६. ४३, कलासंकलना प्रज्ञा० ४. ३२, इयन्त ईदशा वर्णा:0 ६. १३ कवेरमिप्रायकृत:0 ६.२ इयं चन्द्रमुक्षी कन्या० ६.३०. कान्वे इन्दुशिरोरत्न कार्यो ऽन्यत्र प्रतिज्ञाया: ५४२ ३. २७

उच्यते का मस्तीई० २.५७ काव्यानि यदीमानि० २.२० उत्प्रेक्षावयवं चान्ये० ३ ४ किश्चित्काव्यानि नेयानि० २, ४५ उदाच्तशक्िमान राम:0 ३. ११. उदूढ शिशिरासारानू० ४. ३९. किमयं शशी न स दिवा विराजते ४१. किमत्ययं तु य: क्षेप:o उन्नतालोकदयिता० ३, १९. ५. 8३.

२. ७१. किमिन्द्रियद्विपा ज्ञेयं ५.४६. कियन्तः सन्ति गुणिन: २,२६ उपमानन वन्ावमूo ३. ३. कूजनात् कुररा्णों च० ५. ४९. उपमानेन यत्तत्वम्० २ २१ केच्िदोजो डमिधित्सन्त: २.२ m'mm उपमानन यत्तत्वम्० क्िन्नन्तं च प्रयुजजीत० ६.५१. उपमानेन तत्व्रं च० क्रमवृत्तिषु वर्णेपुo ४ ५ उपमानोपमेयत्वम० क्रमागतं श्रुतिसुखं: ६२८ उमारूपक चान्यतू० ३.३ उपलप्स्ये स्वयं सोताम्० ५ ३७ कचिदर्थ प्रसरता0 क्रियायोः प्रतिपेधे या० २.५? २.७७ उपन्तरुद: पवन:० ३.२६ उपासर्नाति च युनम्० क्रिययेव विशिष्टस्य० ३.३३ ६.५० क़िट व्यवितं विद्यात् १. ४०

परिशिष्ध२ "३

ग तस्मात् कृटस्थ इत्येबा ६. ६१ ३.५. तस्यादारी स्तनाभोग: ६.४S.

३.५८. ताच्छील्यादिषु चेष्यन्ते० ६.४: मुणस्य वा क्रियाया वा० २.२५. तोमुत्कमनस नूनं० ४. १६.

गुरूपदेशादध्येतुं० १ ५. ताम्तरूलरागवलयं ३.४६.

मुरोलघोश्च वर्णस्य० ४. २५. तिष्ठद््गुप्रभृनौ वाच्यो: ६.३५

गूद्शब्दाभिधानं च० १ ४५. तुल्यकाले किये चत्र

गृडेष्वध्चसु वा नानं० ३. ९. तुल्य जानावद्टपत्वात्०

गौडीयमिद्मेतत्तु० १.३२ तुल्यश्रुतीनां भिन्नानां २.१७.

प्रहैरपि गजादीनां० २.६४. तृनीयेकवच: षष्टयाम् ६. ४o.

२. ६. तेषां कटतटमुप्रे: 8. ३5. ५.११०

च चतुर्वर्गामिधानेऽपि: १, २१. द ३.३१ चाणकयं नक्तमुप्यान्० ३.१३. दूरधिकगुणस्तोत्र-

वित्रोदात्तादुभुताथत्वं० ३.५४. दुषर्ण न्यूनतादयुकि:® ४ २ चीरीमतीररण्यानी: २ २९. देशकालक्रियालाक-0 दव्यक्रिया जातिगुण-0 ६. २१ द्यसचदप्र चाविश्टौ ६५१ छायावन्तो गतव्याला: ३.१८. घ

ज. घावता सैन्यवाहानां० ४.३3 जरामेष विभर्मीति० ५. ३६- ४. ६.

जातयो दूषणाभासा: ५. २९- धी रशलोकित प्रान्तम्० ६. २.

ढ़ घूमादभ्रंकषात् साग्नेः ५.40,

ड्मतुबिष्टं च कुमुदात्० ६.५२ ५ ३६.

त. वर्मार्थका नमोक्षपु १.2.

त एत उपमादोघा:0 २. ४९. न

तज्जेः काव्यप्रयोगेप० ५. ३३. न चापि समुदायिभ्य:0 ६. १०

तडिद्व लयकक्ष्याणाम्० २. १४. न ते धीर्धीरभोगेपु० २ ६३

R. y९ न दूषणायायमुदाहती विघि: ४, ५०, वदपोद्देपु व तदा० १. ३६.

तदर्थहेतुसिद्धान्त-० ५ १३ मनु चाश्मकवंशादि० १. ३३

तदेतदाहुः सौशब्द्यम्० २. १५ ननू पमीयते पाणि:0 २.५६.

तदेमिरङ्ग भूप्यन्ते० ५. ६६. ननू पमानमेवासतुo ५.५६.

नयव हि तदर्थस्य० ५. १४. नन्वकारादिवणनां0 .८.

20 तस्य चाधिगमे यत्ञ:0 नमोडस्तु तेभ्यो विददम्या ४.५.

परिशिष्ट

परवक्ताभ्यां १. २८. प्रणम्य सा्व सर्वन्म् मपुमरुकक नु० पनिषंध इवेष्टस्य: २.६८. रक्तमित्येव ६. २9. प्रतीनशन्दरमोजस्वि० २.१८. सारून्यमिनि० २. ६०. प्रतीतिरथेषु यत:० 6. 3. शब्दों न तदूवाच्यम्० ५५, प्रत्यस्षबाघिना नेन० द्विपदी शम्या० १. २४ पत्यक्षं कल्पनाघोडमू० ५. ६. उत्वथगम्भीरा० २.११. प्रत्येकमसमर्थानाम् वन्ता नुपासा:6 २. ७. प्रदाय वित्तर्माथभ्य:० ३.४२. पाविर्पायणां ६ २२. त्ययशब्दा चाक० प्रायेण दुर्बाधतया तान्यथा तत्व्रम्० ६ै. २६. ५. २.

युञजीत० ६. २४. प्रायोपवेशाय यथा० ५.8१. येत्वा दुर्गाधम् ६.३. प्रीणितप्रणयि स्वादु० ३. ३०.

प्रागुपन्यस्य० १. २२. प्रेयो गृहागतं कृष्णम् ३.५ स्यानिच तस्य दीपात्र४७. प्रेयो रसवदूजस्वि० ३.१. थे मर्तत व्यर्थम् ४ ९ भ. क्िष्टमन्यार्थम्० ३७. मयशोका यस्यासु0 ४ १४. नीयते युक्तो० १. ३८. भरतरत्वं दिलीपस्त्वमू ५. ५९- तैति भृङ्गाली ३.२२. भाविकत्वमिति प्राह:0 ३. ५३. भूभृ तां पीतसोमानाम् गरभूयस्त्वं ६.६१ स्रमति भ्रमरमाळा० ४. २६. ५ ३९. रि विशिष्टेन० ३.२७ म.

ेति च यधा० मनुपप्रकरणे जोत्स्ना0 ६.५६' ६.३ य सन्धाने० १. ५२. १.५८.

परं साधु मदान्घ मातङ्गविभिन्नसाला० २५७. ५. ६१ व संघात :• मदो जनयति प्रीतिं० २.२७. तुपादानम् ५. २३. मन्त्रदूतप्रयाणाजि० १.२०. नि भीतानि० २.७. मळये कन्दरोपान्त० ४. २९. ।े यदन्येन० माधुय मभिबाञ्छन्त:0 २.१. ३. ८. मिच्र ध्वान्तम् २५१. मायेव भद्गेति यथा० ६. ३९. २.२८. रेति विज्ञानम्० ६. १९. मालिनीरंशकभृत:० मुखं पद्ममिवेत्यत्र० ५.५७. यां व कस्वन्तम्० ६.४२. मुख्यस्तावदय न्याय: ६. ६. कुलभव्य-० १. २५ य प्रेष्ठ वरिष्मूभृतू०५.६३. यतिश्छन्दोनिरुढानाम्० ४.२४.

पत नेनव नत्र स्यानू० वहन्ति गिरयो मेधानू यत्र दष्टान्तमात्रण ५.५८ व्यालपन्ती तुराराडा:0 ४.१९. यथाजिह्दिन्यादि0 १.५३. ४. ३% यथा पटयतीत्यादि। ६. ३३. विदधानौ किरोटेम्दू० ४.२३. यथेवशब्दी सादृश्य: २३ विद्यानां सननमपाभयोऽपरामा: यथापदशं क्रमशी: ४. १२. विद्युनून्तस्नमाला- ४.२५ 50 यदि काव्यशरीरस्य १. २३. विनयन बिना का शी:

यदि गौरित्ययं शब्य: विनश्वरस्नु नित्यो वा ६, ६५ यदि चान्कण्ठया यत्ततू० १. ४४. बिना यथवशब्दाम्यां यदि वापेक्षितं तस्य यदुर्क्त त्रिप्रकारत्वम् २. ३३. चिरुनपदमस्वथ: ५ ६७. यस्यातिशयवानथे: या देशे द्व्यसंभूति:0 २.५० .: ४. २८. विविधासपदध्मणन विशिष्टस्य यदादानं रत्नवत्वाद्गाधत्वात्० ३.२० वृत्त रेवादिच्चरित-a रसवददशितररष-० ३.६. वृत्तमाध्यायते तस्थांक १. २६ राम: सप्ताभिनत् तासा)लानू०३.३२ वृद्धिपक्ष प्रपुरज्ीत ६. ३%. रुणोद्ि रोदसी चास्य० १ S. वेदममन्यदस्तीति १.३१. रूकादिरलड्कार: रुपादीनां यत्र दध्यम्० १. ३३ ५. ३५. श

रूपकादिमलङ्कोरम्0 १. १४. शक्र चापप्रहादप- २४२.

ल शपर्थरपि चादेयं

लक्षणं रुपकेऽपोदम्० ३. १५. लक्ष्मप्रयोगदोपाण्ाम्० ५.३२. शब्दामिधेये विभाय १.११.

२.८. शब्दार्थौं सहिती काव्यं0 १ १६

व शरा दृद्धनुमुक्क्ा:a ४.५र शवलादिम्यो नितराम्० ६,४४, वक्रवाचां कबीनां ये० ६.२३. शशिना अहजादेनइ: वक्ष्यमाणोऽथ विषय:० २.६६. शाळातुरीयमतमेतइबुक्रमेण ०६ . ६२ १.४८. आाश्यतोऽ्शाश्वतो वेति० ५१६ वतिनापि क्रियासाम्य० २.३३. शिशिरासारकणिकाम्० ६४६, चदेदिमनिजर्न्त च० ६. ५४. शिष्टप्रयोगमात्रय वनेऽथ तस्मिन् २. ६३, घरा विभूषा संसृशि० ३, ४९. शीकराम्मोमदसज:0 ३.१६. 0 वर्णभेदादिदं भिन्नमू० ६. २०. शुभमरकतपम्मरागचित्रे

परिशिषट २

शया हिमगिरिस्स्ंच ३, १८. ! सर्वशास्त्रविरुद्वत्वात् ५.१८. श्व्य नातिसमस्नार्थ, २. ३. सर्वभ्वश्च भृशादिभ्य: ६. ३९ श्रत सामान्यधर्माणांक ४. १७ ससंशयमिति प्राह्ु:0 ४. १८. श्रोश्ादि न तु दुर्धोधं, ६. २५. स्वरूपशेषं तु पुमान० ६.३%. श्लिष्टस्याथेन संयुक्त: २.४७. ३. १७ स्वसिद्धान्तविराधित्वास्- ५१७

प् साधु: संसारात्:

पण्णासृनुनां मेदेन० ४. ३c. साधुना साधुना तेन८ २.११ साध्यघमानुगत: ५. २४ स साध्यसाधनधर्माभ्यां ५ २६ स एकस्त्रीणि जयतिर ३, २४. साध्येन लिङ्गानुगतिः स कूटस्थोऽनपायी च० ६. १४. साधुसाधारणत्वादि: २.२५ सखि ! मानं परि्य धेहि० ४. १०. सामान्य गुणनिर्देशात्० २.३८ सचेतसो परेभस्य: ४. ३५. सतत्वाद्य: प्रमाणाम्यां० ५.५, स्वादुकाव्यरसोन्मिशं सन्दषटकस मुहादे: २. १०. सितासिताक्षी० २ १४ सन् द्योरिति यः सिद्ध: ५.२२ सितासिते पदमवर्ती १.५8. सिद्धो यश्चोपसंख्यानाव् ६.२९ सन् पक्ष सद्गशे सिद्ध: ५ २१. सुगन्धि नयनानन्दि० ३.२८ सपीतवासा प्रगृहीतशा्ङ्गो० २,५८. ४. २३ समग्रगगनायाम० ३. ३६. सूत्रकृत पाडकार पं: ४. :२ समस्तवस्तुविषय० २. २२, ६.३७ समानवस्नुन्यासेन० २. ३४. सृत्ाम्मसं पदावतं० ६. १.

स मारुताकस्पितपीतवासा: २.४१. ह समारोपः किलैताषान् 8.9. हताऽनेन मम भ्राता ४. ४१. समाहित राजमिश्रे0 ३. १०. हन्तुमेव प्रवृत्तस्य० १.५१. समुदायार्थशन्यं वत्u g.2. हितप्रकरणे णं च० ६.५३ सरूपचणविन्यासं० २.५. हिमपाताबिलदिश: ३.४०.

१. १८. हिमापहामित्रधर:०

सर्गबन्धे महाकाव्यं हिरण्यरेता संचाघ:0 १.४१ १. ४९ १.१९. सर्व सर्वेण सारूप्य दिशब्देनापि हेत्वर्थ- हीनता संभवो लिंङ्ग-0 २७२ २,४३. २३९ सर्वंथा पदमप्येक १. ११. हेतुप्रदीपदीप्त्वम्a ५५२

परिशिष्ट ३

काव्यालङ्कारे समुल्लिखितानां ग्रन्थानां ग्रन्थकर्तृणां च वर्णक्रमेण नामानि-

अच्युतोत्तर रस्नाहरण

२ कणमक्ष राजमित्र ३ न्यासकार ६-३६ ६ रामशमा पाणिनि ६-६३ १० शाखपर्घन २-४3 पाद्कार ४-२२ ११ सालानुशेय (पाणिनि) ६-६२ ६ मेघावी २-४०, २-८८ १२ सत्रकृत् ४-२२

INDEX

बच्चु तोत्तर २१९ / कम्लक्षमम् अतिसयोप्ि मनम्वया ३४५-४६ कम्पस्व निर्वद्यत्यम अनुपरास: गुणा: २११-३ मनुमानम् ५११

अपकमम् ४१७ -२१ दीपकमू अप हनि: १/०-११ दृषन्त: अपर्थम् दमवरोषी

अप्रस्तुवप्रशसा दयारणा गुमत्वम् अर्यान्तरन्यास: निवकना ३३३-३४

माक्षेप: २६ :- ७6 न्यायावराबी आगमविरोघी न्मासकार

आशी: परिश मे:

उदात्तम् पयायाकम् ३८-१

उपमा पाषिन

उपमादोषा: पाद्कार

उपमारूपक्रम् ३ ३५- १६ प्रतिश

उपमें योपमा ३३७-३८ प्रतिज्ञ दोषा:

उत्प्रेक्षा २/९१-९ र प्रत्यक्षमू उत्पेक्षावयच: ३४७ - ४८ प्रसाप: एकार्थम् ४१२-१६ ३1४-'

बज: भाविकत्वम् मोनस्वी भिनवृत्तम् ४३५-२६

कणमक्ष ५1१७ माधुयम्

कलाविरोधी ४३२-३४ मेघाबी

कालविरोघी ४३०-३१ यांतत्रष्टम्

काव्यदाषा: १३७-५३ यथासंस्यम्

काव्य प्रशंसा यमक्म् १११-१०

काव्यमेदा: रसवत्

( २ )

रत्नाहरम ३८ विषेकः ६१११-६१ राजमित्र ६ ४५३१९१ शाखवधन रमशर्मा घःलवस्व काय्योपयोगितम् 41१-४ २८६-८' इिल्ष्टम् ३११४-३० बिभावना समासपक: विराध: ३१३५-२६ विशेषोरि: समाहितम् ३२ ३- २ ४ विसन्धि ससन्देहः ससशयः वर्तिरक: २७५-७६ ग्यर्थम्, सहोक्ि:

३१३१-३२ सालानुरीय

शब्दभेदा: ६१११ सुक्ष्मम् २८६-५

मब्दसालस्य सुन्नकृत् ४ारर

काव्यरचनायासुप योगित्वम् 619-5 संसृष्टि ३।४१-५२

श्दस्वरूपीनणेय: ६७-२० स्वमावो्कि: २९३-९४ शब्दहीनम देतु: २८६-८५ शब्दानों साधुत्वासाधुन्व- हेनु: नहींषाश्च ५२१-५७