1. Kavya Darsa Dandin Sripad Krishna Belvalkar BORI Notes

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO 3 1761 01431933 9

PK 2931 D25 1920 V.2 PT.2 c.1 ROBA

The Department of Wublic instruction, Bombay.

DANDIN'S KAVYADARSA

PARICHCHHEDA II

EDITED WITH A NEW

SANSKRIT COMMENTARY AND ENGLISH NOTES

RY

S. K. BELVALKAR, M. A., th. n, RANGACHIARYA B. RADDI, PROFESHOR OF SANSKRIT. SHASIRI, VIDYABHUSHANA, Dercan College, Poona. Karnatak College Dharwar.

PART SECOND, SECOND HALF

Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series mo. LXXV.

1920

Price One Rupee and Four Annas

Kāvyādarsa of Dandin

NOTES

PARICHCHHEDA II

LIBRARY SEP 1 4 1965 NIVERSITY OF TORONTO 1006916

PARICHCHHEDA II

Notes to II. 1-(i) Compare Note (i) to i. 10. Kāvya, ac- cording to Dandin, is-इष्टार्थव्यवच्छिन्ना पदावली; that is to say, he gives more prominence to the word.element in poetry as compared with the sense-element. This does not mean that the Gunas which are the sine qua non of poetry, and the Alamkāras which serve as decora- tion, must belong to the word-element, the विशेष्य, ex- clusively ; for, the विशेषणs, the subordinate elements of the Body, have also their own decorations. Thus there is no inconsistency in Dandin's having defined Kāvya as he has done and then having divided the Alamkāras (and impliedly the Gunas also-cp. Note (i) to i. 41) into those belonging to word and those belonging to sense. Modern Alamkārikas such as Mammața, hav- ing once subordinated both the word as well as the sense to Rasa, are constrained to regard the Gunas as well as the Alamkäras as belonging to Rasa, the angin. For a criticism of this view see our Note (iii) to i. 41 and the Sanskrit Commentary to the present stanza. (ii) The distinct function of the Gunas and the Alamkāras is brought out by Dandin by calling the former the life-breaths and the latter the ornaments of poetry. The Gunas abide in poetry समवायवृत्त्या while the Alamkaras संयोगवृत्त्या; there is between them a distinc- tion in kind,-a distinction which later became one of degree, as with वामन (iii. 1. 1-2) or with प्रतीहारेन्दुराज (p. 17)-गुणाः खलु काव्यशोभाहेतवो धर्माः । येषां तु गुणोपजनितशोभे काव्ये शोभातिशयहेतुत्वं तेलंकाराः। Compare however the following from अलंकारशेखर, p. 20- अलंकृतमपि श्रव्यं न काव्यं गुणवर्जितम्। गुणयोगस्ततो मुख्यो गुणालंकारयोगयोः ॥ अलंकारसहस्त्रः किं गुणो यदि न विद्यते। विक्रीयन्ते न घण्टाभिर्गाव: क्षीरविवर्जिताः ॥ Compare also (Agnipurāņa, 346. 1)- अलंकृतमपि प्रीत्यै न काव्यं निर्गुणं भवेत्। वपुष्यललिते स्त्रीणां हारो भारायते परम्॥ Mammata's अनलंकृती पुनः क्वापि implies the same thing.

ii. 1-] Kāvyādarsa [ 68

(iii) The progressive development in the theory, and with it in the number, of the Alamkāras forms an in- teresting chapter in the history of Sanskrit Rhetoric. The subject is too large, however, to be adequately discussed in a note. Our Introduction has attempted a rapid review of the main stages reached during the process, to which the reader is therefore referred. It would be noted in this place that Dandin must have lived at a time when the development of the Alamkāras in the way of progressive division and subdivision was in full swing; and he seems to have been anxious rather to give an epitomized statement of the principal results arrived at than to add his own quota to the process of amplification. In fact he has even had to reject some of the Alamkāras recognised by his pre- decessors (cp. ii. 358-359 and notes thereon).

Notes to II. 2-(i) The fundamenta divisionis of the Alam- karas have been variously stated in different texts. The simplest division into शब्दगत and अर्थगत, even after the addition of a third class of aRrTa, proved quite in- adequate. It is however given by the अग्निपुराण, and most elaborately by Bhoja. It was soon found necessary to introduce various subclassifications based on the psy- chological principle involved in the process, or on some such underlying peculiarity. Similarity, identity, contrast; causation, word-grouping, lokavyavahāra; Rasa, Rhetoric, Technicality : these were some of the principles of classification accepted. Compare, for instance, the Alamkārasarvasva, and particularly the following list based upon the Pratāparudriya (pp. 338- 339) [ wherein the Alamkāras not recognised by Dandin are shown in square brackets ]- रूपक, [परिणाम, संदेह, भ्रान्तिमत्, उल्लेख, ] अपहुति,- based on अभेदप्रधान- दीपक, तुल्ययोगिता, [दृष्टान्त, ] निदर्शना, [प्रतिवस्तूपमा, ] सहोकिकि, [प्रतीप, ] व्यतिरेक,-based on भेदप्रधान- साधर्म्य; उपमा, [अनन्वय, उपमेयोपमा, स्मरण, ]- based on भेदाभेदसाधारण-

69 ] Notes [~ii.2

उत्प्रेक्षा, अतिशयोक्ति,-based on अध्यवसाय; विभावना, विशेषोक्ति, [कषिम, चित्र, असंगति, अन्योन्य, व्याघात, अतद्रुण,] भाविक, [विशेष, ]-based on विरोध ; यथासंख्या, [ परिसंख्या, अर्थापत्ति, विकल्प, समुच्चय, ]-based on वाक्यन्याय ; परिवृत्ति, [प्रत्यनीक, तद्रुण,] समाधि(= समाहित), [सम, ] स्वभावोक्ति, उदात्त, [विनोक्ति, ]-basd on लोकव्यवहार ; [काव्यलिङ्ग, अनुमान, ] अर्थान्तरन्यास,-based on तर्कन्याय ; [कारणमाला, एकावली, मालादीपक, सार,]-based on शड्खलावेचित्र्य; [व्याजोक्ति, वकोक्ति, मीलन, ]-based on अपह्रव ; and समासोक्ति, [परिकर, ]-based on विशेषणवैचित्र्य. It became soon obvious that any such classificatory principle or principles, would gradually tend to become inadequate, as there would always remain some Alam- kāras recognised by rhetoricians and falling outside their scope. Thus of the 35 or rather 34 Alamkāras recognised by Dandin the following 14 are not includ- ed in the above list :- आवृत्ति, आक्षेप, हेतु, सूक्ष्म, लेश, प्रेयस्, रस- वत्, ऊर्जस्विन्, पर्यायोक्त, श्लिष्ट, विरोध, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, व्याजस्तुति, and आशी: (not to mention संकीर्ण). Some of these, e.g., प्रेयस्, रसवत्, ऊर्जस्विन्, are sometimes classed as रसमूलक ; while आक्षेप, पर्यायोक्त, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, व्याजस्तुति and आशीः will have to be classed as नाट्यालंकारs, i. e., merely as effective modes of expression, such as those enumerated by Bharata in the beginning of the 16th chapter of the Nātyaśāstra. The tendency towards a wanton increase merely in the number of the Alamkāras (and of subdivisions within an Alamkära), which marked the latest phase in the history of the Alamkāraśāstra, made any at- tempt to trace the Alamkāras to their ai-such as Dandin contemplates-an altogether hopeless task. (ii) But already in some quarters, as in the case of the Gunas,-see note (ii) to i. 41-a revolt against this gratuitous multiplication of entities had begun to assert itself. Thus Hemachandra rejects परिकर, यथासंख्य, विनोक्ति, भाविक, उदात्त, रसवत्, प्रेयस्, ऊर्जस्विन्, भाव, समाहित, आशीः, and प्रत्यनीक as distinct Alamkaras-and some of them, it will be seen, are recognised even by Dandin and Bhāmaha. Udbhața's Kāvyālamkārasārasamgraha is

ii. 2-1 Kāvyādarśa [ 70

likewise moderate in its enumeration of Alamkāras, while even so late a text as the Alamkāraśekhara of Keśavamiśra (which is believed to have utilised the Sūtras of Sauddhodani) lays down with emphasis (p. 29)-एवं स्युरर्थालंकाराश्चतुर्दश न चापरे। stating further (p.38) that he has justified the position he has taken in his अलंकारसर्वस्व, a work which apparently has not come down to us. Dandin, it will be noted, holds a middle position between the two extremes of needless ampli- fication and unwarrantable curtailment. (iii) Who the पूर्वाचार्यs are that Dandin had in his mind it is difficult to decide. As the treatment of the Alamkāras in Bharata, or in the Agnipurāna for the matter of that, is very meagre these cannot have been intended by him ; and as to Bhämaha, since his list of Alamkāras (cp. ii. 4, ii. 66, ii. 86, ii. 88, ii. 93, iii. 1-4), made up of detached and successive lists as it is, agrees in general statement and even in the order in which the Alamkaras are mentioned with that of Dandin, it is doubtful if Dandin would regard Bhā- maha-even though he be his predecessor-as one of the qaiars referred to in the present stanza. On this point see further our Introduction. It seems that a large mass of literature known to Dandin is now lost to us. Cp. note (ii) to i. 2. The Commentary श्रुतानुपालिनी enumerates, amongst Dandin's predecessors, $139, ब्रह्मदत्त, and नन्दिस्वामि, names otherwise almost unknown.

Notes to II :. 3-(i) Dandin here admits that as regards the Alamkāras there is no difference of practice bet- ween the Vaidarbhas and the Gaudas (साधारणमलंकारजातम्); but this is rather unexpected. That craving for sim- plicity and directness in the one and hyperabole and ornateness in the other which led them to cultivate distinctive aJus is bound to make itself felt even in their choice of the Alamkāras and their frequency ; although this fact, it is obvious, would not make any difference in the definitions of the Alamkāras as such.

71 ] Notes [-ii.5

Notes to II. 4-(i) We are not quite certain as to the genuineness of this list of Alamkäras (stanzas 4-7), although all the Mss. give it. It is the practice of some of the later Alamkārikas to preface their treat- ment of the Alamkāras by a few mnemonic verses of their own composition; but some writers, e. g. Mammața, have not obliged their would-be students in this manner; and just as in the case of Mammata a commentator has added a versified enumeration at the beginning of the tenth Ullāsa (although never as a part of Mammata's own work), so, it seems to us, must have been the case with Dandin. It is only on some such supposition that we can account for the ungrammatical दीपकावृती (or the 'unmetrical दीपकावृत्ती); and also for the further fact that in this enumeration some figures (e. g. लव, अप्रस्तुतस्तोत्र) appear under strange, and others (e.g. विशेष for विशेषोक्ति) under misleading, names. We cannot bring ourselves to believe that Āchārya Dandin could not have avoided such sole- cisms and ambiguities if he had meant it. (ii) Vibhāvana is often rendered as Presumption, -but that is a name that we must reserve for areriufa, which and others recognise as a distinct figure-of- speech-or as Peculiar Causation. It is rather an imagining or a guessing or a divining of a novel cause to account for the effect that has already taken place. Possibly ' Unmotivated Effect' will explain the idea of the figure and would serve to distinguish it from 'Non-operative Cause', by which term we could render the figure विशेषोक्ति as it is ordinarily defined. Dandin's account of the figure is however a little bit different. See below. (ii) The latter half of this stanza is identical with Bhāmaha ii. 66, first half.

Notes to II. 5-(i) The second half of this staza is identi- cal with Bhamaha iii. 1, first half. We have already commented upon the name 'Lava'. Later Alam- kärikas make a distinction between the figure called

ii. 5 ~- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 72

समाधि (which is the same as Dandin's समाहित) and the figure समाहित which is a रसमूल Alamkara Compare Ruyyaka, pp. 163, 185; Viśvanātha, pp. 568, 576; Viś- veśvara in the Alamkārakaustubha, pp. 372, 416. Bhoja gives the two figures, but what he calles Hme approaches the समाधिगुण ( cp. note (ii) to i. 93-92), while he does not at all recognise the रसमूलक Alamkara called समाहित in other texts. Bhoja, however, agrees with Dandin in calling by the name समाहित the figure named समाधि by मम्मट and others.

Notes to II. 6-(i) We have already commented upon the use of the abbreviated name विशेष for विशेषोक्ति. Visesha as a figure distinct from विशेषोत्ति is recognised, amongst others, by Rudrata, Ruyyaka, Mammata, Viśvanātha, and Jagannatha.

Notes to II. 7-(i) The figure aaft: recognised by Dandin is recognised by no other Alamkārika except Bhāmaha and Vagbhata the author of the Kāvyānuśāsana. It should be noted, however, that the name occurs amongst the 36 effective literary devices mentioned by Bharata in the beginning of the 16th Chapter. Bhavika usually translated by 'Vision' will have to be rendered, consistently with Dandin's explanation of the term, by some such expression as Sustained- Intuition.

Notes to II. 8-(i) Besides the two names for this figure given by Dandin the figure is also called स्वभाव (अलं- कारशेखर, p. 35) and स्वरूप (अग्निपुराण 344.3); while र्द्रट groups this figure along with a number of others under the head of वास्तव figures, i. e., those that have the por- trayal of the thing-as-it-is as their object. Compare (viii. 10-12)- वास्तवमिति तज्ज्ञेयं क्रियते वस्तुस्वरूपकथनं यत्। पुष्टार्थमविपरीसं निरुपममनतिशयमशलेषम्॥।

73 ] Notes [-ii. 8

तस्य सहोक्तिसमुच्चयजातियथासंख्यभावपर्यायाः। विषमानुमानदीपकपरिकरपरिवृत्तिपरिसंख्याः॥। हेतुः कारणमाला व्यतिरेकोन्योन्यमुत्तरं सारम्। सूक्ष्मं लेशोवसरो मीलितमेकावली भेदा: ॥ The first question that has to be determined in re- gard to this figure is whether a mere photographic faithfulness to the object under description is what is demanded. Can we for instance regard the following from भामह (ii. 94)- आक्रोशन्नाह्वयन्नन्यानाधावन् मण्डलै रुदन्। गा वारयति दण्डेन डिम्भ: सस्यावतारणीः ॥ as a valid example of स्वभावोक्ति ? On this point opinion seems to have been divided : at any rate, some of the earlier writers did not think it necessary to speci- fically formulate the requirements of this figure, although it must have been all along assumed that वैचित्र्य, strikingness, that sine qua non of all अलंकारs, would be demanded in the case of this अलंकार also. When the question was actually asked, there was no doubt as to the answer to be given. Thus Ruyyaka says (p. 177)-इह वस्तुस्वभाववर्णनमात्रं नालंकारः । तत्त्वे सति सर्वे काव्यमलंकारः स्यात्। न हि तत् काव्यमस्ति यत्र न वस्तुस्वभाववर्णनम्। It was the कविप्रतिभामात्रगम्यं सूक्ष्मवस्तु that alone came legiti- mately under the province of this Alamkāra. Hence the साहित्यदर्पण says (x. 93)-स्वभावोक्तिर्दुरूहार्थस्वक्रियारूपवर्णनम्।

(ii) Bhoja finds it necessary to distinguish this figure from the [Artha-]guna called अर्थव्यक्ति, which he understands in a sense different from that of Dandin (compare our Sanskrit Commentary to i. 73, p. 83). But his distinction- अर्थव्यक्तरियं[=जातिः ] भेदमियता प्रतिपद्यते। जायमानमियं वक्ति रूपं सा सार्वकालिकम्॥ is not always observed, and Mammata was perhaps justified in regarding the अर्थव्यक्तिगुण defined as वस्तुस्वभाव- स्फुटत्वम् as comprehended under the figure स्वभावोक्ति.

10 Kavyādarsa]

łi. 9] Kāvyādarśa [ 74

Notes to II. 9-13-(i) Besides the classification given by Dandin, which has for its basis the fourfolds uaa of words recognised by the grammarians (of. बतुष्टयी शब्दानां प्रवृत्तिः। जातिशब्दा गुणशब्दा: क्रियाशब्दा यदच्छाशब्दाश्च। Mahabhashya I. 19), Svabhāvokti can also be differentiated into var- ious sorts according to its आश्रय, स्वरूप, and हेतु. The आश्रय is the theme; and this can be अर्भक, तिर्यक्, मुग्धाक्गना, and the like. Svarūpa indicates the particular aspect which is chosen for description, and this can be (A) बुद्धिपूर्वक: शरीरावयवसंनिवेश: or संस्थान, (B) अबुद्धिकारितः शरीरावयकसं- निवेश: or अवस्थान, (C) वेष, and (D) व्यापार. By हेतु are meant the particular conditions of देश, काल, शक्ति, etc. which are adduced to lend probability to the theme under description. For details see Bhoja iii. 6-8 and the examples there given. (ii) The tendency of most writers is to make short shrift with this figure, which is rather a pity; for, apart from simile and other embellishments, there is a considerable skill involved in the process of observa- tion and the subsequent operation of chosing the details and marshalling them out in an effective order. It is the presence of this very skill in a pre-eminent degree which makes those long descriptive passages in writers like Scott such fascinating reading. Not that there is no nature-description in Sanskrit poetry ; poets like Kālidāsa and Bhavabhūti- and the Epics above all- contain many a descriptive passage that can stand comparison with the best in other literatures; but quite as often the description has been vitiated by the intrusion of the subjective factor and a penchant for pretty turns and quaint conceits which lend an un- pleasant artificiality to the whole. Primitive poetry depends for its effect almost exclusively upon Svabhā- vokti.

(iii) There are two figures more or less allied to Svabhävokti that have to be distinguished from it. The figure 3a1 (below, ii. 300) aims also at a descrip- tion, but its object is some exalted personage or extra- ordinary eminence of some sort, whereas it is dis-

75 ] Notes [-ii.14

tmctly laid down (Bhoja, iii. 8)- मुग्धाङ्गनार्भकस्तिर्य ड्ननीचपात्राणि :1 Further, as understood by later writers, the exalted theme in the case of the उदात्त must always be brought in subordinately (उपलक्षणतया), although Dandin does not lay down this condition. The other figure allied to Svabhāvokti is Bhāvika (ii. 364), taking it in the sense in which भामह, उद्ट, मम्मट and others under- stand it and not in the peculiar sense which Dandin assigns to it. The difference between Svabhāvokti and Bhävika is one of time. The former deals with the actual present : the latter is an attempt to reha- bilitate the past or to visualise the future. For fur- ther remarks on the subject compare our Notes to ii. 364ff.

Notes to II. 14-(i) A few leading definitions of Upamā given by other writers are-

Bharata (Nātyaśāstra xvi. 42)- यत्किंचित् काव्यबन्धेषु सादृश्येनोपमीयते। उपमा नाम सा ज्ञेया गुणाकृतिसमाश्रया॥ Agnipurāņa (344. 6)- उपमा नाम सा यस्यामुपमानोपमेययोः। सत्ता चान्तरसामान्ययोगित्वेपि(?) विवक्षितम्॥ किंचिदादाय सारूप्यं लोकयात्रा प्रवर्तते। Udbhața in the Kāvyālamkārasamgraha (P. 16)- यच्चेतोहारि साधर्म्यमुपमानोपमेययोः । मिथो विभिन्नकालादिश्दयोरुपमा तु तत्।। Rudrața (Kāvyālamkāra, viii. 4)- उभयोः समानमेकं गुणादि सिद्धं भवेद्यथैकत्र। अर्थेन्यत्र तथा तत् साध्यत इति सोपमा द्वेधा॥। Bhāmaha (ii. 30)- विरुद्वेनोपमानेन देशकालक्रियादिभिः। उपमेयस्य यत् साम्यं गुणलेशेन सोपमा ।। Vāmana (Kāvyālamkārasūtrā, IV. ii. 1)- उपमानेनोपमेयस्य गुणलेशतः साम्यमुपमा !

ii. 14-] Kāvyādarsa 1 76

Bhoja (Sarasvatīkaņțhābharaņa, iv. 5)- प्रसिद्धेरनुरोधेन यः परस्परमर्थयोः। भूयोवयवसामान्ययोगः सेहोपमा मता॥ Ruyyaka (P. 25)- उपमानोपमेययोः साधर्म्ये भेदाभेदतुल्यत्वे उपमा। Mammața (x. 1)- साधर्म्यमुपमा भेदे। Vāgbhațālamkāra (iv. 50)- उपमानेन सादृश्यमुपमेयस्य यत्र सा। प्रत्ययाव्ययतुल्या्थसमासरुपमा मता ॥ Vāgbhața (Kāvyānuśāsana, P. 33)- चमत्कारिसाम्यमुपमा। सा प्रत्ययाव्ययतुल्यार्थसमासैश्चतुर्धा। Hemachandra (Kāvyānuśāsana, P. 239)- हृद्यं साधर्म्यमुपमा। Vidyādhara (Ekāvalī, viii. 2)- विलसति सति साधर्म्ये स्यादुपमानोपमेययोरुपमा । Vidyānātha (Pratāparudrīya, P. 351)- स्वतःसिद्धेन भिन्नेन संमतेन च धर्मतः। साम्यमन्येन वर्णस्य वाच्यं चेदेकदोपमा ॥ Viśvanātha (Sāhityadārpaņa, x. 14)- साम्यं वाच्यमवैधर्म्ये वाक्येक्य उपमा द्वयोः। Appayyadīkshita (Chitramīmānsā, P. 6)- उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययोरर्थयोरद्योः। हृद्यं साधर्म्यमुपमेत्युच्यते काव्यवेदिभि:॥ Jagannātha (Rasagangādhara, P. 157)- सादृश्यं सुन्दरं वाक्यार्थोपस्कारकमुपमालंकृतिः । Viśveśvara (Alamkārakaustubha, P. 4)- एकवाक्यवाच्यं साद्ृश्यं भिन्नयोरुपमा।

(ii) It will be noticed that all these definitions of the Alamkarikas agree in the main. The यथाकथंचित् in Dandin's definition, which has its analogue in the de- finitions of the Nātyaśāstra and the Agnipurāņa, im- plies that the similarity is largely कविकल्पित and that it may hold in respect of any conceivable aspect or aspects of the two things to be compared. This neces-

77 ] Notes [-ii. 14

sarily requires that the objects be two in reality ; and it is this implication that has been expressly brought out by qualifications such as मिथो विभिन्नदेशकालादिशब्दयोः, द्वयोः, भेदे or भिन्नयोः । The word उद्भ्तम् is represented in other definitions by चेतोहारि, चमत्कारि, हृद्यम् or सुन्दरम्. The specific mention of the technical terms उपमान and उपमेय in the definitions and the substitution of the word साधर्म्यम् (समानो धर्मो ययोस्तौ सधर्माणौ तयोर्भावः) for the simpler सादृश्य, as also some late qualifications like, एकवाक्यवाच्य (उपमेयोपमायां वाक्यद्वयम् तदतिव्याप्तिवारणाय), उपमानोपमेयत्वयोग्ययो, etc. serve to exclude from the sphere of 39H such varieties as अन्योन्योपमा, अद्भुतोपमा, मोहोपमा, संशयोपमा, निर्णयोपमा, प्रतिषेधोपमा, असाधारणोपमा, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, and तुल्ययोगोपमा which Dandin em- braces under the general term 34HT but which later Ālamkārikas raised to the dignity of independent figures. Dandin's conception of उपमा, and of सादृश्य which is its basis, is thus very wide and general.

(iii) We have already given above (Note (i) to ii. 2) Vidyānātha's list of figures based on similarily, and the extracts in our Commentary (P. 129) sufficiently illustrate this point. The fundamental importance of the relation of semblance was indeed very early perceiv- ed. The Agnipurana for instance divides सादृश्यम् (defin- ed as धर्मसामान्यम्) into उपमा, रूपक, सहोक्ति and अर्थान्तरन्यास and रुद्रट similarly defines औपम्यम् as (viii. 1)- सम्यक् प्रतिपादयितुं स्वरूपतो वस्तु तत्समानमिति। वस्त्वन्तरमभिदध्याद्वक्ता यस्मिस्तदोपम्यम्॥ and enumerates the following figures as based upon that relation- उपमोत्प्रेक्षारूपक अपह्ृतिः संशयः समासोक्तिः। मतमुत्तरमन्योक्तिः प्रतीपमर्थान्तरन्यासः॥ उभयन्यासभ्रान्तिमदाक्षेपप्रत्यनीकदृष्टान्ताः। पूर्वसहोक्तिसमुच्चयसाम्यस्मरणानि तद्द्ेदाः॥ The justification for the enumeration of these (and others) as distinct figures (and not mere varieties of उपमा) should consist in the circumstance that the सादृश्य- मूलकवैचित्र्य in these figures is subordinated to some other वैचित्र्य (of identity, doubt, error, contrast, etc.). Dandin at least, as we will presently see, brought in this

ii. 14-| Kāvyādarśa [ 78

other वैचित्र्य as the basis for a distinctive figure none too frequently; and hence it is that Dandin has been able to get on with fewer figures but with larger sub- varieties under each figure than most writers. (iv) Upamā has played a very large rôle even outside the Alamkāraśāstra. It is usual to derive the word उपमा from उप + Vमा, to measure, in the sense of what approximates another in measure, dimension, quality, etc .; but in the Rigveda the word seems to have been connected with the adjective 3y4 in the sense of the highest: cp .- दधो यत् केतुमुपमं समत्सु (vii. 30. 3); or pre- eminent: cp,-ईयुषी'णामुपमा शश्रतीनाम् (i. 113.15). The two words, it is probable, are quite distinct; but the influ- ence of the one in determining the evolution of the meaning of the other is undeniable. The Satapatha- brāhmaņa was already familiar with the later use of of the word : cp. तदप्युपमास्ति (xii. 5. 1. 5). (v) The Niruktakāra Yāska has an elaborate note on the use of 3HT in the Rigveda. After pointing out (i.4, iii. 15f.) that the निपातs इव, न, चित्, and नु as also यथा, था, आ, वत् are under certain circumstances used उपमार्थे he says (iii. 13ff.)-यदतत् तत्सदृशमिति गार्ग्यः । तदासां कर्म। ज्यायसा वा गुणेन प्रख्याततमेन वा कनीयांसं वाप्रख्यातं वोपमिमीते। अथापि कनीयसा ज्यायांसम्। Then he gives the following varieties of उपमा with their illustrations- कर्मोपमा-यथा वातो यथा वनं यर्था समुद्र एजति (V. 78·8); भूतोपमा-मेषो भूतो 3 भियन्नयः (Viii. 2·40 ); रूपोपमा-हिरण्यरूपः स हिर्रण्यसंदक् (ii. 35.10); सिद्धोपमा-अङ्गिरस्वन्महिव्रत प्रस्कण्वस्य श्रुधी हर्वम् (i. 45.3); and लुप्तोपमा=अर्थोपमा-सिंहः (पूजायाम्), काकः (कुत्सायाम्). He has also elsewhere pointed out the influence of simile in the building up of the language (काक इति शब्दानु- कृतिः । तदिदं शकुनिषु बहुलम्, iii. 18, दुन्दुभिरिति शब्दानुकरणम्, ix. 12); in the formation of technical terms (उष्णीषिणी वेत्यौपमिकम्, vii. 12, पिपीलिकमव्येत्यौपमिकम्, vii. 13); and upon the growth of Vedic mythology in general (अपां च ज्योतिषश्च मिश्रीभावकर्मणो वर्षकर्म जायते तत्रोपमार्थेन युद्धवर्णा भवन्ति, ii. 16).

79 j Notes l-ii. 14

(vi) Only two of these varieties recognised by Yāska deserve a particular attention. What he calls लुप्तोपम is the 547 of the Ālamkārikas, and Dandin's definition of that figure is suggestive in that connection: उपमैव तिरोभूतभेदा रूपकमुच्यते। The degree of this तिरोधान upon which the later distinction between रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति is made to depend is equally ignored by Yāska as well as Dandin. Next, the सिद्धोपमा of Yaska is what might be called a well-known or कविसमयसिद्ध analogy. Com- pare in this connection the definition of «e quoted above. This सिद्धोपमा contained in it the germ of what are known as मूर्धाभिषिक्त दृष्टान्तs or popular न्यायs which, as we saw, were made the basis or aia of a number of Alamkaras. Interpreted more scientifically the सिद्धोपमा eventually became a regular प्रमाण called उपमिति which is a process of analogical knowledge from the known and the familiar to the unknown and the unfamiliar. Bhoja who recognises a distinct figure of speech corresponding to each of the several Pramānas of the Mimansakas (प्रत्यक्षपूर्वाणि प्रमाणानि च जैमिने:, iii. 3 ) defines the alamkara called उपमान as follows :- सदृशात् सदृशज्ञानमुपमानं द्विधेह तत्। स्यादेकमनुभूतेर्थेननुभूते द्वितीयकम्॥ His example is - तां रोहिणीं विजानीहि ज्योतिषामत्र मण्डले। समूहस्तारकाणां यः शकटाकारमाश्रितः ॥। Most people would probably fail to see any figure in the example or at least any valid ground for regarding it as a new figure. (vii) Having defined 4HT Dandin next gives us a number of sub-varieties of it-some 32 or 33 in number -which do not seem to have been based upon any principle of division. And some of the sub-varieties mentioned by him have so little distinctive about them that अभिनवगुप्त in his commentary on the नाट्बशास्त्र (Madras Govt. ms. fol. 390) observes :- शिक्षितैरपि दण्डिप्रभृतिभिर्ये निरूपिता उपमाभेदास्तत्र यो भेदकोंशः आचिख्यासासंशयनिर्णयादिरर्थः स ताद्ृक् पृथगलं- कारतया गणितः। Bhamaha's criticism (ii. 37 f.) is in the same vein, no matter whether it is directed against Dandin or some other writer -

il. 14~] Kāvyādarša [ 80

यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्याः कैश्चिन्महात्मभिः । निन्दाप्रशंसाचिख्यासाभेदादत्राभिधीयते॥ सामान्यगुणनिर्देशात् त्रयमप्युदितं ननु। मालोपमादि: सर्वोपि न ज्यायान् विस्तरो मुधा ॥ It has to be noted however that the Agnipurāna gives a classification of the 3yHs analogous to that of Dandin [ viz :- धर्म, वस्तु, परस्पर, विपरीत, नियम, अनियम, समुच्चय, व्यतिरक, बहु, माला, विक्रिया, अद्भुत, मोह, संशय, निश्चय, वाक्यार्थ, गमन (रशना ? ), प्रशंसा, निन्दा, कल्पिता, सदृशी, and असदृशी], besides giv- ing another classification into 18 sub-varieties similar to those of Mammata ( 344. 7-9 )- समासेनासमासेन सा द्विधा प्रतियोगिनः ॥ विग्रहादभिधानस्य ससमासान्यथोत्तरा। उपमा द्योतपकदेनोपमेयपदेन च।। ताभ्यां च विग्रहात् त्रेधा ससमासान्तिमा त्रिधा। विशिष्यमाणा उपमा भवन्त्यष्टादश स्फुटाः ॥। The varieties called निन्दा and प्रशंसा are even mentioned and illustrated by Bharata himself ( xvi. 48 ff.), though neither Bharata nor the Agnipurana mentions the आचिख्यासोपमा, the main butt of attack. The author of the Alamkāraśekhara gives the following ten sub- varieties of उपमा (xi. 3)- वाक्यार्थातिशयश्लेषनिन्दाभूतविपर्ययाः । संशयो नियम: स्वं च विक्रियेत्युपमा दश ॥ But no other writer whose work is extant divides 34HT in the manner adopted by Dandin. Daņdin's classi- fication is primitive and, so far as any principle underlies the division, it is just the sense intended by the speaker (अर्थानुरोधेन विभागः). (viii) We can here advantageously consider some other classifications of 3yHT that have been advanced. There is one in particular which might be styled grammatical classification (व्याकरणप्रयोगानुरोधेन) which has been adopted by उद्भट (p.16), रुद्रट ( viii. 5 ff.), मम्मट and most other later writers. But it seems to be not unknown to the author of the Agnipurāna ( cp. 344. 8-9) who gives, as just mentioned, 18 varieties based on this principle as against Mammata's 25. These last we will now exhibit in a tabular form-

11 Kāvyādarśa] 81 ]

उपमा, 25 Kinds

पूर्णा, 6 Kinds 1 लुप्ता, 19 Kinds

श्रौती, 3 Kinds आर्थी, 3 Kinds

• 1

1-

१ वाक्ये २ समासे ३ तद्धिते ४ वाक्ये ५ समासे ६ तद्धिते 1-

एकलुप्ता, 13 Kinds त्रि[वाचकधर्मोपमान]लुप्ता, 1 Kind द्विलप्ता, 5 Kinds

--

1- 1

वमलुप्ता, 5 Kinds उपमानलुप्ता, 2 Kinds वाचकलुप्ता, 6 Kinds (all आर्थी) २५ समासे Notes

१२ आर्थी वाक्ये 1 १३ आर्थी समासे

वाक्ये समासे ११ तद्धिते (आर्थी)

• • 1-

७ श्राती ८ आर्थी ९ श्रौती १० आर्थी 1-

१४ समासे १५ कर्मक्याच १६ आधारक्यचि १७ क्यडि १८ कर्मणमुलि १९ कर्तृणमुलि [-ii. 14

वाचकधमेलुप्ता, 2 Kinds धर्मोपमानलुप्ता, 2 Kinds वाचकोपमेयलपता, 1 Kind

२० क्किप्गा 1 २१ समासगा २२ समासे २३ वाक्ये २४ क्यच

ii. 14-) Kāvyādarśa [ 82

Later writers have introduced further subtle com- plexities in this classification which is in the first place made to contain 7 more varieties, 3 under quf and 4 under gHT and in the next place there is introduced a further principle of five-fold sub-classification : इयं चैवं- भेदोपमा वस्त्वलंकाररसरूपाणां प्रधानव्यङ्गयानां वस्त्वलंकारयोर्वाच्ययोश्चोपस्कारक- तया पञ्चधा। इतश्वान्येपि प्रभेदाः कुशाग्रीयधिषणैः स्वयमुद्भावनीयाः। तत्र क्वचिदनुगाम्येव धर्मः । क्वचिच्च केवलं बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभावमापन्नः। क्वचिदुभयम्। क्वचिद्वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावेन करम्बितं बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभावम् । क्वचिदसन्नप्युपचरितः । क्वचिच्च केवलशब्दात्मकः । एभिभेदैः प्रागुक्तानां सधर्माणां भेदानां यथासंभवं गुणने बहुतरा भेदा भवन्ति (रसगङ्गाधर, p. 172 ff.). (ix) Another principle of division is suggested by Bharata ( xvi. 43)- एकस्यैकेन सा कार्या एकस्य बहुभिस्तथा। अनेकेषां तथैकेन बहूनां बहुभिस्तथा॥ For illustrations see अलंकारकौस्तुभ p. 141 f. The varieties known as मालोपमा and रशनोपमा are sub-varieties under the second division of Bharata. Upamā, like Rūpaka, can also be divided as follows :- उपमा द्विविधा निरवयवा सावयवा च। निरवयवा द्विधा शुद्धा मालारूपा च। सावयवापि द्विधा समस्तवस्तु- विषया एकदेशविवर्तिनी च। For details see Bhoja (iv. 20 ff.) (x) Our Sanskrit Commentary on p. 129 quotes a passage from Chitramīmānsā illustrating how an example like चन्द्र इव मुखम्, by a slight phrasing, can be turned into a number of other Alamkāras. As an Alamkara Upama is to be kept distinct from रूपक where the सादृश्य (usually defined as तद्भिन्नत्वे सति तद्गतभूयो- धर्मवत्त्व) is तिरोभूत; and from उत्प्रेक्षा wherein, in spite of the occasional presence of words like इव, the matter of the similarity is not लोकप्रसिद्ध but purely a creation of the poet's imagination. Compare- यदायमुपमानांशो लोकतः सिद्धिमृच्छति। तदोपमैव येनेवशब्दः सादृश्यवाचकः॥ यदा पुनरयं लोकादसिद्धः कविकल्पितः । तदोत्प्रेक्षैव येनेवशब्दः संभावनापरः ॥ (xi) The fourfold requirement of an उपमा, viz. उपमेय, उपमान, साधारणधर्म, and वाचकशब्द is not always present to Dandin's mind. As Visvesvara observes (p. 19) दण्डिनस्तु सादृश्यस्य प्रतीयमानतामात्राभिप्रायेणोपमाव्यवहारः। He has in fact

83 ] Notes [-ii. 16

given many a variety where no वाचकपद is given and where the सादृश्य is only तात्पर्यपयालोचनया गम्यम् ; cp.ii. 25, 26, 27 etc. Dandin's whole conception of उपमा and his attempted classification of it is very crude and uncriti- cal. Nor is there any attempt to present a systematic grouping of the varieties given.

Notes to II. 15-(i) This and the next variety have been thus defined in the Agnipurāņa (344. 10)- यत्र साधारणो धर्मः कथ्यते गम्यतेथवा। ते धर्मवस्तुप्राधान्याद्धर्मवस्तूपमे उभे॥ The point of distinction between the two seems to be the fact that while in the first the उपमान is summoned up merely to bring out the nature of the उपमेयगतधर्म, in the second the उपमान as a whole is compared with the उपमेय as a whole, the two being regarded as entirely alike. (ii) The intended साधारणधर्म can be expressed in various ways : by a simple word as in ii. 15 (आताम्रम्), by श्लिष्ट epithets which are शब्दपरिवृत्तिसह as in ii. 28 ( see Com.), or by श्िलिष्ट epithets which are शब्दपरिवृत्त्यसह as in ii. 29 (सालकानन). Again the साधारणधर्म may be made the theme of a solitary sentence as in करतलम् अम्भोरुहमिव आताम्रम् or of compound or coordinate sen- tences as in यथा करतलम् आताम्रं तथा अम्भोरुहमाताम्रम् or करतलम् आताम्रम् अस्ति अम्भोरुहं च आताम्रम् अस्ति। In the latter case we sometimes have what is called the वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव (एकस्यैव धर्मस्य पृथक्छब्दाभ्यामुपादानम्) as in करतलमाताम्रं रक्तिमोद्भासितं चाम्भोरुहम् or the बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव (वस्तुतो भिन्नयोर्धर्मयोः परस्परसादृश्यादभिन्नयोः पृथगुपादानम्) as in-अम्भोरुहं भ्रमद्भङ्गं लोलनेत्रं मुखं तव where नेत्र and भङ्ग are related to each other as बिम्ब and प्रतिबिम्ब although the लोलत्व of the one and the भ्रमण of the other being practically one have between them the वस्तुप्रतिवस्तु relation. Jagannatha would call this वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावकर-

Notes to II. 16-(i) The first line gives two separte exam- ples of वस्तूपमा. If we were to read the line-राजीव इव

ii. 16-] Kāvyādarša [ 84

ते वक्त्रे (Loc. case) नेत्रे मधुकराविव it would be the second kind of वाक्यरथोपमा illustrated in ii. 45.

Notes to II. 17-(i) This is recognised as distinct Alamkāra by रुद्रट, र्य्यक, मम्मट, विश्वनाथ, जगन्नाथ and most other modern writers. The Sāhityadarpana defines it as (x. 87)- प्रसिद्धस्योपमानस्योपमेयत्वप्रकल्पनम्। निष्फलत्वाभिधानं वा प्रतीपमिति कथ्यते॥ Dandin's enumeration of it as a variety of उपमा has been thus criticised by Jayaratha, in his Alamkāra- sarvasva-Vimarsini (p. 165)-उपमाप्रकारत्वं चानयोर्न वाच्यम्। उपमानस्याक्षेपादुपमेयकल्पनाच्च। न हि तत्र तदस्तीति ततोनयोः (प्रतीपप्रकारयोः) सुप्रत्यय एव भेद: । This in effect means that the प्रतीप has a वैचित्र्य which does not necessarily go to the formation of the real essence of an उपमा. But as Dandin began by making his definition of उपमा rather very wide, he had no option but to regard the प्रतीप as a sub-variety of 3THT. It is so recognised by Bhoja (iv. 23) and by the Agnipurana (344. 12) where it is called विपरीतोपमा. (ii) This विपर्यासोपमा is to be distinguished from निन्दोपमा (ii. 30) and प्रतिषेधोपमा (ii. 34) from the circumstance that the degradation of the प्रसिद्धोपमान is only implied in विपर्यासोपमा but is explicitly brought out in the other two varieties, stating points of inferiority in the 34HT7.

Notes to II. 18-(i) A good example of this variety would be हास: प्रसूनमिव हास इव प्रसूनं पाणिः प्रवाल इव पाणिरिव प्रवालः । केशो द्विरफ इव केश इव द्विरफ: सा भाति वीरुदिव सेव विभाति वीरुत्।। It is recognised by the Agnipurana and thus defined (344.11)-तुल्यमेवोपमीयेते यत्रान्योन्येन धर्मिणौ। परस्परोपमा सा स्यात्। In the examples of this variety given above the common quality is not stated; but it has got to be the same, being conveyed by the same word or by synonymous expressions. Hence the example- सविता विधवति विधुरपि सवितरति तथा दिनन्ति यामिन्यः। यामिनयन्ति दिनानि च सुखदुःखवशीकृते मनसि॥

85 ] Notes [-ii. 18

cannot constitute an अन्योन्योपमा, as the साधारणधर्म in सविता विधवति is शीतलत्व and that in विधुरपि सवितरति the दाहकत्व.

(ii) This variety is raised to the dignity of a distinct figure called उपमेयोपमा by later Alamkarikas. It has been defined by उद्ट as (p.67)- अन्योन्यमेव यत्र स्यादुपमानोपमेयता। उपमेयोपमामाहुस्तां पक्षान्तरहानिगाम् ।। Regarding the qualification पक्षान्तरहानिगाम् in the above definition प्रतीहारेन्दुराज observes-नात्र उपमानोपमेयभावे तात्पर्य किंतु एतदेव द्वयमेवंविधं विद्यते नत्वन्यदेतयोः सदृशं वस्त्वन्तरं विद्यते इति। अतश्च एतः त्पक्षद्वितयव्यतिरिक्तस्य पक्षान्तरस्यात्र हानेर्विवक्षितत्वात् परस्परमुपमानोपमेयभावो न दुष्यति। It is doubtful however whether Dandin is here thinking of the तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद as much as of the heigh- tening of their mutual excellence - अन्योन्योत्कर्षशंसिनी. This implies that both the उपमेय and the उपमान must be प्रकृत, as nobody would spend any effort in showing forth to advantage the charm of what is not the theme on hand. Compare the examples given by हेमचन्द्र and अप्प- यदीक्षित as quoted in our Sanskrit Commentary. Bhoja (iv. 23) calls this उभयोपमा.

(iii) In नियमोपमा (ii. 19) the तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद is express- ly made. Here it is implied only. The implication is to be explained as follows-चन्द्र इव मुखमिति मुखे चन्द्रसाम्ये वर्णिते चन्द्रेपि मुखसादृश्यमर्थतः सिध्यति साधारणधर्मस्योभयानुगामित्वात्। तत्र चन्द्रे मुखसाम्ये शब्दतो वर्ण्यमाने मुखचन्द्रयोः परस्परमेव साम्यं न त्वन्येनेति सदृशान्तरव्यवच्छेद: फलति (अलंकारकौस्तुभ, p. 176). (iv) Bhamaha recognises उपमेयोपमा as a distinct figure and it is worth observing that Dandin does not feel the necessity of criticising the recognition of the उपमे- योपमा as a distinct figure as he has done for instance in the case of अनन्वय, ससंदेह, उपमारूपक, and उत्प्रेक्षावयव (ii. 358- 359 ) all of which are figures admitted by Bhāmaha. Nor does Bhamaha for his part offer any justification for regarding उपमेयोपमा as a distinct figure. As for as this circumstance goes therefore we cannot establish any conclusion either way regarding the chronological relation between दण्डिन् and भामह.

ii.19-] Kāvyādarša 86

Notes to II. 19-20-(i) In अनियमोपमा the तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद is made highly probable but is not विवक्षित. In नियमोपमा it is openly asserted. In अन्योन्योपमा, as we saw. it was left to be inferred. Both these varieties are recognised by the Agnipurana. The अलंकारशेखर defines नियमोपमा as-यत्र इतरव्यावृत्त्या साम्यलाभः ।

Notes to II. 21-(i) In धर्मोपमा there is only a single common quality sought to be expressed ; in the present variety a large number of those are mentioned; in अतिशयोपमा, the next variety, their number is so overwhelming that the poet contents himself by stating just the one solitary aspect or quality which is not common. Again, in समुच्चयोपमा more than one साधारणधर्म is brought in; in बहूपमा (ii. 40) more than one उपमान is adduced. The result is that while in the former between the उपमेय and the उपमान a number of distinct common qualities are sought to be conveyed, in the latter it is the intensity of the one self-same quality that stands out prominently. The variety is recognised by the Agnipurāna.

Notes to II. 22-(i) See Note (i) to ii. 21. This variety fails to produce the impression of an identity between the उपमेय and the उपमान because the भेद is not entirely तिरोहित, as happens in a रूपक ( see ii. 66, below). At the same time it must be remembered that the solitary He between the उपमेय and the उपमान which is put forward is not meant to suggest the superiority or the in- feriority of the one over the other, as is the case, for instance, in निन्दोपमा, प्रतिषेधोपमा, and the Alamkara called व्यतिरेक (ii. 180). (ii) This variety is not recognised by the Agni- purāna, unless we choose to identify it with what the Purana styles व्यतिरकोपमा which is thus defined (345. 13)- बहोर्धर्मस्य साम्येपि वैलक्षण्यं विवक्षितम्। यदुच्यतेतिरिक्तत्वं व्यतिरेकोपमा तुसा॥ The Agnipurāna, be it noted in passing, does not re- cognise व्यतिरेक as a distinct figure-of-speech, whereas

87 ] Notes [-ii. 24

Dandin who does it can only be supposed to have dis- tinguished between अतिशयोपमा and व्यतिरेक in the manner above indicated. A good example of this variety is given by the अलंकारशेखर (p.30)- कल्पद्रुमो न जानाति न ददाति बृहस्पतिः । अयं च जगतीजानिर्जानाति च ददाति च।।

Notes to II. 23-Dandin seems to have been alone in re- cognising उत्प्रेक्षितोपमा as a sub-variety of Upama. Wehave already indicated in a general way (cp. Note (x) to ii. 14 ) the distinction between उपमा and उत्प्रेक्षा. Utpre- kshā may be said to be more particularly concerned with that human faculty which, Shakespeare tells us, "bodies forth the forms of things unknown and gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name." In a regular Utpreksha it is the actual साम्य between the उपमेय and the उपमान-or some aspect connected with it -that is poetically conceived. In the variety before us there is an उत्प्रेक्षण ; but it has nothing to do with the साम्य between मुख and पद्म which is the immediate sub- ject of assertion. The उत्प्रेक्षण comes in only second- arily : the poetic fact of the stanza could have been ex- pressed without bringing in the 'bragging of the Moon': for instance-अस्या: मुखश्रीः न केवलमिन्दावेव अपि तु पद्मेपि सा अस्त्येव। The introduction of the bragging Moon lends an added surprise-element which is not disagreeable. Hence this is not a regular उत्प्रेक्षा but merely an उत्प्रेक्षितोपमा. The Com. श्रुतानुपालिनी however explains-यस्यकस्यचिदन्य- थावस्थिताया वृत्तेरन्यथाकथनमुत्प्रेक्षा।अन्रापि मुखश्रियं चन्द्रे निरस्य पद्मेपि तदुत्प्रे- क्षाकथनात् उत्प्रेक्षितोपमेति।

Notes to II. 24-(i) , as the more difficult reading and also the one intrinsically more poetic, seems to be the genuine reading which got ousted by the more familiar word yy. (ii) This variety has been admitted by the Agni- purāņa and is thus defined (344. 16)- त्रैलोक्यासंभवि किमप्यारोप्य प्रतियोगिनि। कविनोपमीयते या प्रथते साद्भुतोपमा ॥

ii. 24-] Kāvyādarśa | 88

To assert that the प्रतियोगिन् (=उपमान) resembles or can resemble the अनुयोगिन् only under conditions impossible of fulfilment is in effect to say that the उपमेय is without a peer. As the conditions are अद्भत or त्रैलोक्यासंभवि the variety is called अद्भतोपमा, the अद्भुतता consisting not in the component elements ( उद्गतभ्रकुटित्व, विभ्रान्तलोचनत्व etc.) taken by themselves, but in the peculiar combination of them that is demanded : अद्भुतोपमायां सिद्धस्य धर्मिणो धर्म्यन्तरा- वयवैर्योग: अद्भतः as Ca remarks. The Alamkarasekhara calls this same variety अभूतोपमा (defined, p. 30, as-यत्रा- संसृष्टज्ञानेन संसर्गमारोप्य साम्यप्रसज्जनं सा), a name which Dandin has reserved for another distinct variety ( see ii. 38, below. ) (ii) Adbhutopamā is to be distinguished from Abhū- topamā and from Asambhavitopamā; and the distinc- tion is rather subtle. In अभूतोपमा the presumptive उपमान is not a विशेषणविशिष्टवस्तु wherein the विशेषणs cannot coexist with the विशेष्य, but rather a single simple वस्तु which is nowhere to be met with in nature, as for in- stance the concentrated essence of the charms of all lotuses; cp. उपमानस्य वस्तुन उपमेयेसंभाव्यमानस्य कथनादभूतत्वेनाभू- तोपमामिति (श्रु. पा., p. 36). In असंभावितोपमा it is not the धर्म of a new धर्मिन which is ascribed to the प्रस्तुतधर्मिन् and which is inconsistent with it ( as happens in the अद्भतो- पमा), but the प्रस्तुतधार्मन is itself said to have a quality which it can never have. Or, looking at it from another point of view, for effecting the comparison between the उपमेय and the उपमान, in an अभूतोपमा a non-existent उपमान is postulated and in an अद्भतोपमा an existing and well- known उपमान is associated with impossible विशेषणs brought over from another धर्मिन्. The ultimate result is that the उपमेय remains without peer. Such is not the case in an असंभावितोपमा where the point of comparison is just the fact of the incompatibility of the धर्मs that the धर्मिन् ( the उपमान ) is expected to possess; and the comparison does become possible in that respect. (iii) The कल्पितोपमा as recognised by भरत and the Agni- purāņa (which merely quotes aa ) comes most near to अद्भुतोपमा. Bharata thus illustrates it (xiv. 51)-

89 Notes [ -ii. 25

क्षरन्तो दानसलिलं लीलामन्थरगामिनः। मतङ्गजा विराजन्ते जङ्गमा इव पर्वताः ॥ Here जङ्गमताविशिष्टपर्वतs or moving mountains is an अद्भत phenomenon. What भोज calls उत्पाद्योपमा is no other than this अद्भतोपमा. Bhoja's illustration is the verse उभौ यदि व्योम्नि etc; regarding which he remarks (p.352)-अत्रोपमा- नार्थमुत्पाद्योपमेयेन प्रतीयमानमभिधीयमानं च सादृश्यमभिहितमिति सेयमुत्पाद्यो- yHT | Hemachandra (p. 247) unsuccessfully attempts to make a sort of a distinction between उत्पाद्योपमा and कल्पि- तोपमा ; but the most clear presentation of that view is to be seen in Rudrata viii. 13-16. Mammața regards Dandin's अद्भुतोपमा as a subvariety of अतिशयोक्ति.

Notes to II. 25-(i) Mohopamā springs from the close similarity between the उपमेय and the उपमान, so close thata rational being would go to the length of actually mistak- ing the one for the other. This variety is accordingly not only a step in advance of अतिशयोपमा (where the element of difference was consciously realised) but in advance of रूपक, where the भेद is completely submerged, though it is there at the back of one's consciousness so that an actual blunder cannot arise. (ii) In संशयोपमा (ii. 26) the person is struck by the close similarity but is still doubting. If he perceives the उपमान as उपमान the result would be निर्णयोपमा (ii. 27) ; but if he perceives the उपमान as उपमेय, the result would be मोहोपमा. Again, if after a temporary but actual error the person corrects himself and perceives the thing as it is, the result would be तत्वाख्यानोपमा (ii. 36). As between निर्णयोपमा and तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा it is to be noticed that while in both the ultimate perception is a real perception, in the former it is preceded by a moment of doubt or hesitation, in the latter by one of actual blunder. (iii) All the four varieties of 34HT just considered must be based upon सादृश्य. If the doubting or the blun- dering is the result of normal causes mentioned in-

अभूतानपि पश्यन्ति पुरतोवस्थितानिव॥। 12 Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 25- ] Kāvyādarśa Í 90

the result cannot be an अलंकार. It goes without say- ing also that the सादृश्य ought to be कविप्रतिभानिर्मित. (iv) The मोहोपमा of Dandin has given rise to two in- dependent Alamkaras of later writers: भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख. Ullekha might be said to be a मालाभ्रान्ति and is thus defined by जगन्नाथ (p. 270)-एकस्य वस्तुनो निमित्तवशाद्यदने- कैर्ग्रहीतृभिरनेकप्रकारकं ग्रहणं तदुल्लेखः। The common property be- tween the उपमेय and the उपमान which has been the source of the error is not stated in the example ; but it can be stated also ; compare- नीलोत्पलमिति भ्रान्त्या विकासितविलोचनम्। अनुधावति मुग्धाक्षि पश्य मुग्धो मधुव्रतः ॥ And this circumstance makes it possible for us to in- clude under मोहोपमा the figures of speech called मीलित, सामान्य, and तद्गण, for definitions of which and for their mutual distinctions see particularly साहित्यदर्पण x. 89-90.

Notes to II. 26-27-(i) This and the next variety of उपमा have given rise to an independent Alamkāra called संशय, संदेह or ससंदेह with its sub-varieties of शुद्ध, निश्चयगर्भ, and निश्चयान्त. Suddha is an ordinary संशयोपमा a good example of which is furnished by Rudrata (viii. 60)- किमिदं लीनालिकुलं कमलं किं वा मुखं सुनीलकचम्। इति संशेते लाकस्त्वय सुतनु सरोवतीर्णायाम्॥ while निश्चयान्त is निर्णयोपमा. Of निश्चयगर्भ the stock example is- अयं मार्तण्डः किं स खलु तुरगैः सप्तभिरितः कृशानुः किं साक्षात् प्रसरति दिशो नैष नियतम्। कृतान्तः किं साक्षान्महिषवहनोसाविति चिरात् समालोक्याजौ त्वां विदधति विकल्पान् प्रतिभटाः ॥ Visvanatha's निश्चयालंकार (x. 39) illustrated in- वदनमिदं न सरोजं नयने नेन्दीवरे एते। इह सविधे मुग्धद्ृशो भ्रमर मुधा किं परिभ्रमसि॥ is slightly different from निर्णयोपमा or निश्चयान्तससंदेह. As Visvanatha himself remarks-न ह्ययं निश्चयान्तः संदेहः । तत्र संशयनिश्रययोरेकाश्रयत्वेनावस्थानात्। अत्र तु भ्रमरादेः संशयः नायकादेर्निश्चयः। (ii) From ii. 358 below it seems clear that some pre- decessors of Bhamaha did regard ससंदेह as an inde-

91 Notes [-ii. 30

pendent figure. Now Bhämaha thus defines and il- lustrates the figure ( iii. 42-43)- उपमानेन तत्त्वं च भेदं च वदतः पुनः । ससंदेहं वच: स्तुत्यै ससंदेहं विदुर्येथा। किमयं शशी न स दिवा विराजते कुसुमायुधो न धनुरस्य कौसुमम्। इति विस्मयाद्विमृशतो[पि मे] मति- स्त्वयि वीक्षिते न लभतेर्थनिश्चयम्॥ But we do not have merely in that fact any certain indication that Dandin could have meant no other writer but Bhāmaha.

Notes t II. 28-29-(i) These two varieties differ from धर्मोपमा (ii. 15) only in the added circumstance that the तुल्यधर्म is here expressed by paronomastic words, the शलेष being आर्थ in the former and शाब्द in the latter (श्लिष्टे खलु अर्थवशेन साम्यम् अत्र शब्दवशेन). The two varieties can therefore both of them in a sense be called शलेषोपमा, as has been done by the author of the अलंकारशेखर who gives the joint example (p.30)- तमालपत्राभरणा राजते विलसद्वयाः। बालेवोद्यानमालेयं सालकाननशोभिनी॥ (ii) The variants सरूपोपमा and संदानोपमा for समानोपमा are worth noting. The first is an attempt to bring the first word of the definition into the संज्ञा, while the second (which has the high authority of J and N and which therefore we might have adopted) implies that the 3y- मेय and the उपमान are in this variety tied together (like miscellaneous cattle in a cowpen) to one and the same rope in the form of similarly-sounding words, and resemble each other only in that accidental circum- stance.

Notes to II. 30-31-(i) A normal 34H1 contains the common quality in a more pronounced degree than a normal उपमेय; and this is the reason why in a विपर्यासोपमा (ii. 17) the mere reversal of that relation inplied the lowering of the उपमान in respect of that common quality. The

ii. 30- ] Kavyādarśa 99

fight for superiority between the उपमान and the उपमेय about pre-eminence in this quality is represented as still undecided in विरोधोपमा (ii. 33). In निन्दोपमा the claim of the उपमान is allowed in regard to the common quality, but certain extraneous facts are adduced (e. g. बहुरजस्त्व, क्षयशालित्व, etc.) which should lower it and consequently the उपमेय also in our estimation. In प्रति- षेधोपमा (ii. 34) the उपमान is represented as fighting a for- lorn fight for regaining its normal pre-eminence in res- pect of the common quality. All these varieties there fore can be regarded as 3yH1 varieties, because under- lying them all is the presupposition that the 34HT and the उपमेय have a certain specific quality in common; and the 'question at issue merely is, who has the quality to a greater or less degree. The figure-of-speech called व्यतिरेक (ii. 180) has also to be distinguished from these 34HT varieties, in regard to which see our Notes to ii. 180. (ii) As observed before, भरत and the author of the Agnipurāna mention these two varieties of 39HT, and their recognition is criticised by Bhamaha (see Note (vii) to ii. 14, above). The illustrations for them given by Bharata are (xvi. 49-50)- प्रशंसाया यथा- दृष्टवा तु तां विशालाक्षीं तुतोष मनुजाधिपः । मुनिभि: साधितां कृच्छात् सिद्धिं मूर्तिमतीमिव॥ निन्दा यथा- सा तं सर्वगुणैहीनं सस्वजे कर्कशच्छविम्। वानकं नकिनं [१ वने कण्टकिनं ] वल्ली दवदग्धमिव द्रुमम्। From these it would seem that Vamana is probably right when he says (iv. 2.7, वृत्ति)-स्तुतौ निन्दायां तत्त्वाख्याने चास्या: प्रयोग:। What is intended by this three-fold divi- sion is therefore उपमानमात्रस्य विषयप्रदर्शनम् as the कामधेनु observes. Dandin however seems to have taken a different view of the case. Whether he was the first to do so is however difficult to decide. The निन्दोपमा as defined and illustrated in the Alamkāraśekhara comes near to the प्रतिषेधोपमा (ii. 34); for there the .definition

93 ] Notes [ -ii. 37

is-यत्रोपमानस्य निन्दया प्रतिक्षेपः सा निन्दोपमा, and the illustra- tion- नागेन्द्रहस्तास्त्वचि कर्कशत्वादेकान्तशैत्यात् कदलीविशेषाः। लब्ध्वापि लोके परिणाहि रूपं जातास्तदूर्वोरुपमानबाह्याः ॥

Notes to II. 32-See note (vii) toii. 14 above. Because no other Alamkāra writer known to us (except Vāmana ) mentions आचिख्यासोपमा and because Bhamaha criticises the recognition of this variety, it would be perhaps unfair to conclude that Bhämaha must have meant Dandin alone, seeing that a vast amount of literature known to Bhämaha and even mentioned by him by name is no longer available to us,

Notes to II. 33-34-See Note (i) to ii. 30 above. The variety called प्रतिषेधोपमा it must be admitted comes near- est to the व्यतिरेक; we can possibly distinguish them from each other by supposing that in प्रतिषेधोपमा the point at issue is the degree of कान्ति or आह्लादकत्व (the common quality) of the जडत्वकलङ्गित्वविशिष्ट इन्दु and the मुख. Both possess it and the moon is declared to be not a match to the face as far as the possession of this quality goes. In व्यतिरेक some quality or qualities are stated wherein the उपमान and the उपमेय are declared to be equal to one another; but at the same time another distinct quality possessed by the उपमेय and denied to the उपमान is adduc- ed which serves to establish the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान considered as a whole.

Notes to II. 35-36-The name yHr has nothing very dis- tinctive or appropriate about it .- For the distinction between निर्णयोपमा and तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा see Note (i) to ii. 25.

Notes to II. 37-Dandin uses both कक्षा (i. 53,95) and कक्ष्या in the sense of area, region, boundary-line, province, equality, similarity, etc. The reading कान्तिम् (which our Sanskrit Commentary explains) seems to be merely an

ii. 37-] Kāvyādarša [ 94

easier substitute for कक्ष्याम्. The word कक्ष्या is Vedic, regarding which see Nirukta ii. 2.

(ii) As Dandin himself tells us (ii. 358), this variety was regarded by others as constituting a distinct alamkara called अनन्वय Bhamaha thus defines and illustrates it (iii. 44-45)- यत्र तेनैव तस्य स्यादुपमानोपमेयता। असादृश्यविवक्षातस्तमित्याहुरनन्वयम्।। ताम्बूलरागवलयं स्फुरद्दशनदीघिति। इन्दीवराभनयनं तवेव वदनं तव।। The stock example of this alamkāra is the one given by Vāmana (iv. 3. 14.)- गगनं गगनाकारं सागरः सागरोपमः । रामरावणयोयुद्धं रामरावणयोरिव॥ (iii) As अन्योन्योपमा results in तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद S0 असाधारणो- पमा results in द्वितीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद. In the अन्योन्योपमा example in ii. 18 आनन is both उपमान and उपमेय, but in different sentences; whereas in असाधारणोपमा in one and the same sentence the face becomes both उपमान and उपमेय. It must be distinctly understood, however, that if yester- day's face is compared with to-day's face of the same lady that becomes an ordinary 34HT pure and simple. In other words, between मुख the उपमेय and मुख the उपमान in the example under discussion there must be only कल्पितभेद and not देशकालदशाविशेषादिकृतभेद. In the same way the verse- एतावति प्रपश्चे सुन्दरमहिलासहस्रभरितेपि। अनुहरति सुभग तस्या वामार्ध दक्षिणार्धस्य।। does not contain an असाधारणोपमा, but is merely a वस्तूपमा. Nor again does the verse given by Dandin later (ii. 276)- अद्य या मम गोविन्द जाता त्वयि गृहागते। कालेनैषा भवेत् प्रीतिस्तवैवागमनात् पुनः॥ regarding which अप्पय्यदीक्षित observes (चि० मी० p. 42)- अत्र गृहागतं श्रीकृष्णं प्रति विदुरवाक्ये इयं त्वदागमनप्रभवा प्रीतिर्बहुकालव्यवहितेन पुनरपि त्वदागमनेनैव भवेत् नान्येनेत्युक्तिभङ्गया त्वदागमनप्रभवप्रीतेः सैव सदशी न त्वितरप्रभवेति व्यज्यते -- constitute an example of this variety.

95 j Notes Í -ii. 40

(iv) In असाधारणोपमा although the face is declared to be without a peer the form of the assertion is conceived outwardly in the manner of an उपमा. Where however even this outward form is not preserved that is re- cognised by जगन्नाथ as a distinct figure called असम. As he says (p.210f.)-सर्वथवोपमानिषेधोसमाख्योलंकारः । यथा- भुवनत्रितयेपि मानवैः परिपूर्णे विवुधैश्च दानवैः। न भविष्यति नास्ति नाभवन्नृप यस्ते भजते तुलापदम्॥ अत्र सर्वथैवोपमाननिषधेन सादृश्यस्याप्रतिष्ठानान्नोपमागन्धोपि। This however is over-subtlety for which Jagannātha has been taken to task by the author of the Alamkāra-kaustubha (p. 174).

Notes to II. 38-39-See Note (ii) to ii. 24 above. In regard to the illustration given for असंभावितोपमा it has been well observed ( aneant the ruling that उपमान must be लोकप्रसिद्ध while चन्दनप्रभवविष is not लोकप्रसिद्ध )-अत्र चन्द्रप्रभवविषादेर्वा- गुपमाया अविवक्षितत्वात् किंतु यथा चन्द्रबिम्बाद्विषमसंभावितं तथा त्वन्मुखात् पुरुषा वागू इत्युपमास्वीकारात्। एवं च असंभावितोपमा इत्यस्य असंभावितोपमा- नकत्वं नार्थ: किंतु असंभावितत्वं तदुपमायाः साधारणधर्म इत्येव।

Notes to II. 40-(i) Compare Note (i) to ii. 21 above. Bharata already tells us (xvi. 43)- एकस्यैकेन सा कार्या एकस्य बहुभिस्तथा। अनेकेषां तथैकेन बहूनां बहुभिस्तथा॥ And his examples in order are-तुल्यं ते शशिना वक्त्रम्, शशा- कवत् प्रकाशन्ते ज्योतींषि, श्येनबर्हिणभासानां तुल्याक्ष: and घना इव गजाः। Here of course, in its most primitive form, the distinc- tion is made to depend upon whether the उपमान or the उपमेय or both are in the singular or the plural gender. Now मालोपमा (ii. 42) is एकस्य बहुभिः उपमा, and in Dandin's statement the distinction between बहूपमा and मालोपमा is this. In बहूपमा a number of उपमानs are adduced in the hope that in their cumulative effect at least they would approximately convey the extent of the common quality possessed by the उपमेय, which they are unable to do singly. In मालोपमा on the other hand any one of the several ayHlas is conceived as being adequate by

ii.40- j Kāvyūdarśa 96

itself to bring out the common quality, and the wealth of illustration serves merely to show off the poet's प्रतिभा.

Notes to II. 41-(i) The Alamkāraśekhara thus defines and illustrates this variety (p.31)-यत्रोपमेयमुपमानविकारतयो- च्यते सा विक्रियोपमा यथा- हरिणादथ तन्नयनादथ पद्मात् पद्मपत्राच्। आहृत्य कान्तिसारं विधिरसृजत् सुभ्रुवो दृष्टिम्॥

Notes to II. 42-See Note (i) to ii. 40 above. The illustra- tion in the text is based upon identical साधारणधर्म; but this is not essential. With भिन्नसाधारणधर्म a good example of मालोपमा is the familiar stanza- मातेव रक्षति पितेव हिते नियुङ्क्ते कान्तेव चाभिरमयत्यपनीय खेदम्। कीर्ति च दिक्षु वितनोति तनोति कीर्ति किं किं न साधयति कल्पलतेव विद्या।। The अलंकारकौस्तुभ gives also the following example- अलक्षितगतागतैः कुलवधूकटाक्षरिव क्षणानुनयशीतलैः प्रणयकेलिकोपैरिव। सुवृत्तमसृणोन्नतैर्मृगद्दशामुरोजैरिव त्वदीयतुरगोत्तमैर्धरणिचक्रमाकम्पते ॥। Apparently it is a series based upon भिन्नसाधारणधर्म which alone is recognised as मालोपमा by the author of the Agnipurāņa. Compare (344. 14-15)- यत्रोपमा स्याद्वहुभि: सदृशैः सा बहूपमा। धर्माः प्रत्युपमानं चेदन्या मालोपमैव सा । (ii) Dandin does not recognise what is known as रशनोपमा defined by the Agnipurana (344. 20) as- उपमेयं यदन्यस्य तदन्यस्योपमा मता। यद्युत्तरोत्तरं याति तदासौ गमनो(? रशनो) पमा ।। and thus illustrated by रुद्रट (vii. 28)- नभ इव विमलं सलिलं सलिलमिवानन्दकारि शशिबिम्बम्। शशिबिम्बमिव लसद्द्युति तरुणीवदनं शरत् कुरुते॥ For other varieties see रसगङ्गाधर pp. 181 ff. and अलंकार- कौस्तुभ pp. 146 ff.

97 Notes [-ii. 45

Notes to II . 43-45-(i) By वाक्य Dandin seems to have meant a complete utterance of a thought setting forth all its aR77 relations: in other words a picture with all appropriate details and back-ground. The face, the eyes, and the teeth form one set as against which is placed the lotus, the bees, and the pollen in the first example; and similar corresponding sets are present in the second example. And when in this manner an अवयवसंपन्न अवयविन् is compared with another similar अवयविन-with the trifling subsidiary distinction of the presence or absence of an additional independent n for each अवयव-the result is a वाक्यार्थोपमा. Hence it is that after dividing उपमाs as shown below- उपमा

1 निरवयवा सावयवा परंपरिता

शुध्दा मालारूपा

समस्तवस्तुविषया एकदेशविवतर्तिनी

श्लिष्टा अ्लिष्टा=भेदे

शुध्दा मालारूपा शुध्दा मालारूपा the author of the Alamkārakaustubha cites stanza ii. 45 as an example of भेदे परंपरिता, the comparison be- tween one pair of उपमान and उपमेय leading on to and depending upon the next pair. (ii) In the two examples of वाक्याथोपमा given by Dandin the समानधर्म between the various pairs of उपमानs and उपमेयs in each is clearly felt although not actually expressed. But it is not absolutely necessary that there should be this सादृश्यापेक्षता everywhere. The अलंकार- शेखर cites the following where there is प्रत्येकं सादृश्यानपेक्षा- कामिनीनयनकज्जलपङ्कादुत्थितो मदनमत्तवराहः । कामिमानसवनान्तरचारी कन्दमुत्खनति मानलतायाः॥ 13 Kavyšdaréa]

ii. 45-] Kāvyādarša [ 98

(iii) It is perhaps necessary to draw attention to the fact that वाक्योपमा is different from वाक्यार्थोपमा. We have just seen what वाक्यार्थोपमा is. The nature of वाक्योपमा becomes evident from the circumstance that it is dis- tinguished from what is called समासोपमा and प्रत्ययोपमा (following Rudrata) or from वृत्त्युपमा (following Hema- chandra) वृत्ति being समासतद्धितनामधातुभेदेन त्रिविधा. The stock example of वाक्यार्थोपमा given by Vamana is- पाण्डयोयमंसार्पितलम्बहारः कृप्ताङ्गरागो हरिचन्दनेन। आभाति बालातपरक्तसानुः सनिर्झरोद्वार इवाद्रिराज:॥

Notes to II. 46-47-Although in this variety the साम्य is always implied and never actually expressed, there being no उपमावाचकशब्द present, Dandin is perhaps justi- fied, in view of his own general conception of उपमा, in not regarding प्रतिवस्तूपमा as a distinct Alamkara. It is not recognised as such by भोज, भामह, and रुद्रट. The further subsidiary difference as to the manner of imply- ing the साम्य (by वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव or by बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव, regard- ing which see Note (ii) to ii. 15 above) upon which the distinction between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त turns is also not of consequence enough to give rise to a new alamkāra, and Jagannātha practically concedes this (pp. 337-8)-अस्य चालंकारस्य प्रतिवस्तूफ्माभेदकमेतदेव यत् तस्यां धर्मो न प्रतिबिम्बितः किंतु शुद्धसामान्यात्मनैव स्थितः इह तु प्रतिबिम्बितः । ......... । एकस्यैवालंकारस्य द्वौ भेदौ प्रतिवस्तूपमा दृष्टान्तश्र। यच्चानयोः किंचिद्वलक्षण्यं तत् प्रभेदताया एव साधकम् नालंकारताया इति सुवचम् । Hence Dandin's प्रतिवस्तूपमा as an उपमा variety may be said to stand in the place of both प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त of later आलंकारिकs. (ii) The following quotation from जयरथ's Alamkara- sarvasvavimarśinī (p. 28) is illuminating as to the distinction between वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव, where the things are really one but two only in the phrasing, and बिम्बप्रतिबिम्ब- भाव, where the two things are really distinct but have to be temporarily identified-लोको हि दर्पणादौ बिम्बात् प्रति- बिम्बस्य भेदेपि मदीयमेवात्र वदनं संक्रान्तमित्यभेदेनाभिमन्यते।अन्यथा हि प्रति-

99 ] Notes [-ii.49

बिम्वदर्शने कृशोहं स्थूलोहमित्याद्यभिमानो नोदीयात् भूषणविन्यासादौ नायिका नाद्रियेरन्। (iii) Some remarks of the श्रुतानुपालिनी on this stanza are also worth quoting-प्रतिवस्तूपमा। प्रतिशब्द: सदृशार्थवाची तेन सदृशवस्तूपमेत्यर्थः । ननु इबादिरहितसदृशोपन्यासः अर्थान्तरो नाम भवति। तथाहि- ज्ञेयः सोर्थान्तरन्यासो वस्तु प्रस्तुत्य किंचन। तत्साधनसमर्थस्य न्यासो योन्यस्य वस्तुनः ॥ इति वक्ष्यति (ii.169)। अत्रापि-वस्तु किंचिदुपन्यस्य सदनं (v.1.) तत्सधर्मण इत्युक्त्तम्। तस्मादयमर्थान्तरन्थास एव कथमुपमेत्याह-साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति । सदृशप्रतिभानं विद्यते इत्युपमेत्युच्यते। एतदुक्तं भवति। इवाद्यभावे समानताप्रतीतिः उपमःनवादिना (?) तद्योतनाय प्रयुक्तेः। अर्थान्तरस्त्वलंकारः असदृशस्योपन्यासेन वस्त्वन्तरसाधनमिति तत्साधनसमर्थस्येतिवचनात् न तत्सधर्मण इति। In other words-अर्थान्तरन्यासे समर्थ्यसमर्थकभावो विवक्षितः अत्र पुनरुमानोपमेयभावः। (iv) In order to give adequate account of a number of devices other than उपमा and रूपक for expressing similarity between two things Bhoja has invented a new alamkara called साम्य or सामान्य which he thus defines and divides (iv. 34)- द्वयोयत्रोक्तिचातुर्यादौपम्यार्थोवगम्यते। उपमारूपकान्यत्वे साम्यमित्यामनन्ति तत्।। तदानन्त्येन भेदानामसंख्यं तस्य तूक्तयः । दृष्टान्तोक्ति: प्रपच्चोक्तिः प्रतिवस्तूक्तिरेव च।। तत्रेवादेः प्रयोगेण दृष्टान्तोक्ति प्रचक्षते। इवादेरप्रयोगेण प्रपञ्चोक्तिं मनीषिणः ॥ वस्तु किंचिदुपन्यस्य न्यसनात् तत्सधर्मणः । साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति प्रतिवस्तूक्तिरुच्यते॥ This alamkara accordingly would do duty for प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त of the alamkarikas. For the various sub- divisions of प्रतिवस्तृक्तिसाम्य and the illustrations followed by Bhoja's illuminating critical remarks see Sarasva- tīkaņțhābharaņa itself. Sāmyā as an alamkāra is recognised by Rudrata also (viii. 105ff.).

Notes to II. 48-49-(i) How to distinguish this variety from the figure-of-speech called तुल्ययोगिता which Dan- din defines and illustrates in ii. 330-332 is a rather subtle question. Both are attempts at समीकरण between

ii.49-] Kāvyādarsa [ 100

two things one of which is distinctly superior ( or गुणोत्कृष्ट), and the common property adduced is some fur, which word includes both qualities and actions, as is evident from the examples given. The only express condition present in the definition of the figure तुल्ययोगिता and absent in the definition of the sub-variety तुल्ययोगोपमा is स्तुतिनिन्दार्थम्; but it is not quite satisfactory to make the distinction turn upon this circumstance, for then तुल्ययोगिता would come nearer to the varieties निन्दोपमा and प्रशंसोपमा (ii. 30-31). We can probably bring out the distinction by supposing that in the उपमा variety the हीन is consciously realised as the उपमेय or the प्रकृतवस्तु while in the figure तुल्ययोगिता the उपमान-उपमेय relation, even though actually present (as in ii. 331), is deliberately set aside, the साम्य being only गम्य or implied and not शब्दोपात्त as in the other case; and this agrees with the later definitions of तुल्ययोगिता like that of मम्मट (नियतानां सकृद्धर्मः । नियतानाम् =प्राकर- णिकानामेव अप्राकरणिकानामेव वा). Udbhata is even more ex- plicit (p. 60)- उपमानोपमेयोक्तिशन्यैरप्रस्तुतैर्वचः । साम्याभिधायि प्रस्तावभाग्भिर्वा तुल्ययोगिता ।। (ii) If this statement of the difference between तुल्ययोगोपमा and तुल्ययोगिता is correct it follows that Dan- din's तुल्ययोगोपमा approaches the figure-of-speech called दीपंक as it is defined by मम्मट-सकृद्वृत्तिस्तु धर्मस्य प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनाम्- for there the common property exists between things consciously realised as उपमेय and उपमान. Compare रुय्यक (p. 71)-प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतयोर्व्यस्तत्वे तुल्ययोगिता समस्तत्वे दीपकम्। From Dandin's view of the case however the distinction between दीपक and तुल्ययोगोपमा is clear. In तुल्ययोगोपमा there is an attempted समीकरण between अधिक and हीन things; this is absent in the दीपक of मम्मट. At the same time the दपिक requires the साम्य to be expressed only once for all; in तुल्ययोगोपमा it may be repeated. Dandin is thus looking to the etymology of the name all along, while there is a tendency in later writers to ignore that altogether. It would be noted in passing that the दीपक here spoken of is not the दीपक as Dandin de-

101 ] Notes [-ii.50

fines it (ii. 97ff.) which is more a शब्दालंकार than an अर्थालंकार. See Notes to the figure in question. (iii) We have so far attempted to set forth the dis- tinction that Dandin probably must have made be- tween तुल्ययोगोपमा and तुल्ययोगिता; but writers who do not admit this उपमा variety have defined तुल्ययोगिता in terms that Dandin might have reserved for तुल्ययोगोपमा. The definition of Bhāmaha is (iii. 26)- न्यूनस्यापि विशिष्टेन गुण्यसाम्यविवक्षया। तुल्यकार्यक्रियायोगादित्युक्ता तुल्ययोगिता।। That of Ruyyaka (p. 70)- औपम्यस्य गम्यत्वे पदार्थगतत्वे नप्रस्तुतानामप्रस्तुतानां वा समानधर्मा- भिसंबन्धे तुल्ययोगिता। That of Vämana (iv. 3. 26)- विशिष्टेन साम्यार्थमेककालक्रियायोगस्तुल्ययोगिता। Bhoja, finally, while giving for तुल्ययोगिता a definition identical with that of Dandin, further adds (iv. 55)- अन्ये सुखनिमित्ते च दुःखहेतौ च वस्तुनि। स्तुतिनिन्दार्थमेवाहुस्तुल्यत्वे तुल्ययोगिताम् ।। for which his illustration is- आहूतस्याभिषेकाय विसृष्टस्य वनाय च। न मया लक्षितस्तस्य स्वल्पोप्याकारविभ्रमः॥

(iv) The distinction between प्रशंसोपमा (ii. 31) and तुल्ययोगोपमा seems to be the circumstance that in the former some extraneous facts not germain to the intended साम्य (e.g. शम्भुशिरोधृतत्व) are adduced for heighten- ing the value of the उपमान while in तुल्ययोगोपमा the superiority is based upon the degree or intensity of the self-same HTT as measured by marked difference in results achieved, difficulties encountered, etc. In other respects the two varieties seem allied. We do not think that the fact of the सादृश्य being वाच्य in the one (तौ तुल्यौ) and व्यङ्गय in the other would have been adduced by Dandin as the additional distinctive feature.

Notes to II. 50 -- (i) An ordinary उपमा-अम्भोरुहमिवाताम्रं करतलम् can be put in the form of a हेतूपमा in this manner:

ii. 50-] Kāvyādarsa [ 102

करतलमाताम्रत्वेन अम्भोरुहमनुकरोति. In समुच्चयोपमा (ii. 21) we had a similar presentation of the similarity; only there a number of हेतुs were adduced to bring out the साम्य between the same उपमेय and उपमान ; while in the ex- ample before us a number of as are adduced to bring out the साम्य between one and the same उपमय and a series of 3yH4s with which it is to be compared .- As in बहूपमा (ii. 40) or मालोपमा (ii. 42) a series of successive उपमानs are here given but that वैचित्र्य upon which this variety primarily turns is the presentation of the H in the form of a aa. It is perhaps not essential that the हेतुs (and the उपमानs) in a हेतूपमा be always more than one.

Notes to II. 51-56-(i) Like गुणs the दोषs have been most elaborately treated by Indian Ālamkārikas. They have been named and classified according as they belong to syllables, words, sentences, sense, sentiments, and alamkāras. A detailed treatment of these is given in the Sāhityadarpaņa vii, or Kāvyaprakāśa vii. Daņdin affords a treatment of them in this place and later in iii. 125-185. In regard to the Upamādoshas our Sans- krit Commentary supplies the needful supplementary information from Vamana, Bhoja, and other writers. (ii) The extra line in ii. 56 which we have enclosed in square brackets, like a number of other lines and verses, is clearly an interpolation ; but having been once accepted in the editio princeps of Premachandra and so passed on into works of reference it would have been most inconvenient to omit them and so change the subsequent verse-numbering. In one place (ii. 158-163) where a transposition of stanzas was felt by us to be on critical grounds absolutely called for we have for the same reason transposed the stanzas and yet retained their criginal verse-numbering, believing that nobody would grudge us giving credit for being able to count the numbers from 158 to 163 correctly.

103 ] Notes [-ii.66

Notes to II. 57-65-(i) Dandin's list of सादृश्यसूचक words is helpful and is in any case borrowed from him by most subsequent writers, and naturally with variations and attempts at completion. Thus the अलंकारकौस्तुभ supplies words like सुहृद् चौर, सोदर, and their synonyms, and even the Mss. variants add one or two more. As the matter is not very vital we did not think it neces- sary to go into all these later lists with a view to determine the text of Dandin's list, especially as it would have been necessary not only to refer to the printed editions but even the Ms. material of these other alamkāra works. (iii) The colophon इत्युपमाचक्रम् (and other similar colo- phons to mark the conclusion of the treatment of an alamkāra with a number of subdivisions) is generally given in Mss. with omission of gfa and substitution of synonyms like सङ्घ etc. for चक्र and other small vari- ants. We haveignored the variants and have generally followed best Ms. authority in giving the colophons or omitting them.

Notes to II. 66-(i) The name of this figure is thus explain- ed-यदा तु विषयी (उपमानमप्रकृतम्) विषयं (प्रकृतमुपमेयम्) रूपवन्तं करोति तदा अन्वर्थाभिधानं रूपकम्। Rupaka has to be carefully dis- tinguished from 34HT (especially the varieties of it called अतिशयोपमा and मोहोपमा), from समासोक्ति (ii. 205), from अतिशयोक्ति (ii. 214), from उत्प्रेक्षा (ii. 221), and from अपह्ृति (ii. 304)-amongst alamkāras recognised by Daņdin; and from परिणाम, ससंदेह, भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख-amongst alam- kāras not recognised by Daņdin. The various defini- tions of 544 given by ālamkārikas (we quote a few of the more important of them below) are an attempt merely to sharpen the outline of the figure with a view to this differentiation. Thus Bharata (xvi. 57) defines the figure as under- स्वविकल्पैर्विरचितं तुल्यावयवलक्षणम्। किंचित्सादृश्य संपन्नं यद्रपं रूपकं तु तत्।। Bhāmaha (ii. 21)- उपमानेन यत् तत्त्वमुपमेयस्य रूप्यते। गुणानां समतां दष्टा रूपकं नाम तद्रिङुः ॥

ii.66-1 Kāvyādarša f 104

Udbhața (p. 9)- श्रुत्या संबन्ध विरहाद्यत् पदेन पदान्तरम्। गुणवृत्ति प्रधानेन युज्यते रूपकं तु तत् ।। Rudrața (viii. 38, 40)- यत्र गुणानां साम्ये सत्युपमानोपमेययोरभिदा। अविवक्षितसामान्या कल्प्यत इति रूपकं प्रथमम् ।। उपसर्जनोपमेयं कृत्वा तु समासमेतयोरुभयोः । यत्तु प्रयुज्यते तद्रपकमन्यत् समासोक्तम्॥ Vāmana (iv. 3. 6)- उपमानेनोपमेयस्य गुणसाम्यात् तत्त्वारोपो रूपकम् । Bhoja (iv. 24)- यदोपमानशब्दानां गौणवृत्तिव्यपाश्रयात्। उपमेये भवेद्वत्तिस्तदा तद्रपकं विदुः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 34)- अभेदप्राधान्ये आरोपे आरोपविषयानपह्नवे रूपकम्। Vidyānātha (p. 371) आरोपविषयस्य स्यादतिरोहितरूपिणः । उपरञ्जकमारोप्यमाणं तद्रूपकं मतम्।। We have already quoted the definition of Jagannāth: in the Sanskrit Commentary.

(ii) The distinction of रूपक from उपमा Dandin has given in his very definition of 54 by the qualification तिरोभूतभेदा. The distinction between उपमान and उपमेय (for the साम्य between them always presupposes a भेद) can be made to disappear when, in spite of the difference, one asserts their identity either because he errone- ously believes in their identity (cp मोहापमा and the re- marks made in our Notes to ii. 25 regarding भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख); or because he wants purposely (poetically speaking) to deceive some one (e. g. in अपहृृति, cp. our Notes to ii. 95 also); or because he is himself in doubt (e. g. संशयोपमा and the figures ससंदेह etc.) ; or because, in a poetic fancy, he imagines them to be identical (as happens in an उत्प्रेक्षा). It may also happen when, for purposes of poetic effect and with a view to bring out the extreme similarity of the उपमान and the उपमेय, the उपमान is made not only to lend its रूप to the उपमेय but actually to usurp its place so that only one word and

105 ] Notes [-ii. 66

one name-that of the उपमान-is used instead of two. . As the प्रतापरुद्रीय (p. 371) trenchantly remarks-संदेहालंकारे विषयस्य संदिह्यमानतया तिरोधानम्। भ्रान्तिमदलंकारे भ्रान्त्या विषयतिरोधानम्। अपह्वत्यलंकारे अपह्रवेनारोपविषयतिरोधानम् ।-to which we might add-उत्प्रेक्षायां कविसंभावनया विषयविषयिणोरभेदाध्यवसायः। अतिशयोक्तौ कविप्रौढोक्तया विषयस्य विषयिणा निगरणात्मकोध्यवसायः । Regarding our last statement it will be noted that Dandin's con- ception of अतिशयोक्ति is somewhat different from the one given above after the manner of मम्मट; but on this point see our Notes to ii. 214. (iii) As to the rest, it may be observed that while रूपक involves an आरोप or superimposition of the उपमान upon the उपमेय, that आरोप has to be based upon simi- larity and not upon कार्यकारण relation as in आयुर्घृतम्; but the ground of the आरोप-the common property-can never be expressed as such in the Rupaka (अविवक्षितसा- मान्या as Rudrata says: see below, Note ix) and there is also an absence, naturally, of the सादृश्यवाचकशब्द. A रूपक in its simplest form therefore comes nearer to the धर्म- वादिलुप्ता उपमा and if the example बाहुलता is taken as बाहु: लता इव it would be not a रूपक at all. Where such a con- fusion is likely to result there must always be some- thing in the sentence which is either रूपकसाधक or उपमा- बाधक, regarding which, besides the remarks in our Commentary, compare the following from the काव्यप्रकाश (pp. 927ff.)-तत्र सौभाग्यं वितनोति वक्त्रशशिनो ज्योत्स्नेव हासद्युतिः। इत्यत्र मुख्यतया अवगम्यमाना हासद्युतिर्वक्त्रे एवानुकूल्यं भजते इत्युपमायाः साधकम् शशिनि तुन तथा प्रतिकूलेति रूपकं प्रति तस्या अबाधकता। वक्त्रेन्दौ तव सत्ययं यदपरः शीतांशुरभ्युद्यतः । इत्यत्र अपरत्वमिन्दोरनुगुणं न तु वक्त्स्य प्रतिकूलमिति रूपकस्य साधकता प्रति- पद्यते न तूपमाया बाधकताम्। राजनारायणं लक्ष्मीस्त्वामालिक्गति निर्भरम्। इत्यत्र पुनरालिङ्गनमुपमां निरस्यति सद्ृशं प्रति परप्रेयसीप्रयुक्तस्य आलिङ्गनस्या- संभवात्। पादाम्बुजं भवतु नो विजयाय मञ्जु-

14 Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 66-] Kāvyādarša [ 106

इत्यत्र मजजीरशिञ्जितम् अम्बुजे प्रतिकूलमसंभवादिति रूपकस्य बाधकम् नतु पादेनु- कूलमित्युपमायाः साधकमभिधीयते विव्युपमर्दिनो बाधकस्य तदपेक्षया उत्कटत्वेन प्रतिपत्तेः। एवमन्यन्नापि सुधीभिः परीक्ष्यम्। (iv) A समासोक्ति (see ii. 205, below) involves an asser- tion about the अप्रस्तुत which suggests a corresponding assertion about the प्रस्तुत, one assertion being made to do duty for both on the basis of an implied आरोप of the अप्रस्तुत upon the प्रस्तुत based upon साद्ृश्य. However, in a समासोक्ति the प्रस्तुत is not actually expressed as in a रूपक, and it is because the व्यवहार predicated of the अप्रस्तुत resembles the व्यवहार of the प्रस्तुत which is intended to be described that the प्रस्तुतप्रतीति results by way of an implication. In Rupaka, on the other hand, the अप्रस्तुत in its entirety (रूप, व्यवहार, and all) is identified with the प्रस्तुत but, at the same time, the basis of this identifica- tion or superimposition is not actually expressed. Cp.on the point साहित्यदर्पण (p. 534)-रूपके अप्रकृतम् आत्मस्वरूप- संनिवेशेन प्रकृतस्य रूपमवच्छादयति। इह तु स्वावस्थासमारोपेणावच्छादितस्वरूपमेव तं पूर्वावस्थातो विशेषयति । अत एवात्र व्यवहारसमारोपो न तु स्वरूपसमारोप इत्याहुः। For further remarks see our Notes to ii. 205. (v) The figure called परिणाम, which not only our author but even HHE does not recognise and regard- ing which, even between those that recognise it-सुय्यक, विश्वनाथ, विद्याधर, जगन्नाथ and अप्पय्यदीक्षित-there seems to be a slight difference of opinion, is in our opinion a matter of over-subtlety. In the line-प्रसन्नेन दगब्जेन वीक्षते मदिरेक्षणा if दगब्ज is regarded as a रूपक the lotus or अब्ज must transfer its रूप completely to the eye or दक्. The eye, in other words, must lose all its character as an eye and take upon itself the character of the lotus. Accordingly दृगब्ज can bloom but cannot see. This is not a रूपक therefore. It cannot also be an उपमा, for वीक्षते or प्रसन्नत्व cannot become a common property re- siding more prominently on the उपमान lotus and less prominently on the उपमेय eye. We must hence invent a new figure in which the भेद between the उपमान and the उपमेय is तिरोभूत, but the result is not that उपमान has transferred its रूप to the उपमेय, but rather उपमान has itself assumed the रूप of the उपमेय so that the lotus can

107 ] Notes [-ii. 66

see. This therefore is the figure called परिणाम. Com- pare the Chitramimansa (p. 59)-रूपके प्रकृतमप्रकृतरूपापनं भवांत परिणामे तु अप्रकृतं प्रकृतरूपापन्नं भवति। In this connection it has to be observed that न्यायपञ्चानन (as quoted by the अलंकार- कौस्तुभ, p. 161) regards दृगव्ज in the line in question as an उपमा based upon a common property like रमणीयत्व, and this seems to be the best solution of the difficulty. (vi) We will consider one little point about this figure before we pass on to a consideration of its sub- divisions. Rupaka as we saw is an आरोप of the उपमान upon the उपमेय based upon सादृश्य, and the question is, is the आरोप primarily of the word upon the word, or of the thing-denoted-by-the-word upon the thing-denoted- by-the-word, or of both simultaneously. Says Pratī- harenduraja (p. 11)-तत्र त्रयो दर्शनभेदाः । केचिदत्र शब्दारोपपूर्वकम- र्थारोपं ब्रुवते अपरे त्वर्थारोपपूर्वकं शब्दारोपम्। अन्यैस्तु शब्दारोपार्थारोपयोयौंग- पद्यमभिधीयते। अयमेव च पक्षो युक्त इव दृश्यते। तदाहुः- शब्दोपचारात् तदरपं रूपके कैश्चिदुच्यते। ताद्रप्यारोपतश्चान्यैः शब्दारोपोत्र कथ्यते॥ उपमानगुणैस्तुल्यानुपमेयगतान् गुणान्। पश्यतां तु सकृद्भाति तत्र तच्छब्दरूपता ॥ तत्रेति उपमेये इत्यर्थः तच्छब्दरूपतेति उपमानशब्दारोप उपमानशब्दारोपक्च। (vii) As Dandin himself observes (ii. 96) Rūpaka, like Upamā, is capable of infinite divisions made more or less on the same basis. There is first of all the merely grammatical aspect of it which gives the first three varieties of Dandin: समस्त, असमस्त and समस्तव्यस्त, as also the सविशेषणरूपक (ii. 82). Next, there is what might be called the rhetorical aspect, which accounts for the varieties called आक्षेपरूपक (ii. 91), समाधानरूपक (ii. 92), and तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक (ii. 95), as well as for विरुद्धरूपक (ii. 84), हेतुरूपक (ii. 86), उपमारूपक (ii. 89), and व्यतिरेकरूपक (ii. 90), where it will be seen that Rūpaka proper is associated with some other additional rhetorical de- vice. The usual divisions of 54 given in the Texts are the same as those exhibited in the tree given under Note (i) to ii. 43-45 above. Dandin's सकलरूपक is the same as साङ्गसमस्तवस्तुविषयरूपक while his अवयव, अवयविन्, and

ii.66- ì Kāvyādarša [ 108

एकाङ्गरूपकs (with the further sub-divisions of युक्त, अयुक्त and विषम) may roughly correspond to एकदेशविवरतिरूपक. What is known as परम्परितरूपक with its two sub-divisions of अश्लेषमूल and शलेषमूल are practically one with Dandin's रूपकरूपक (ii. 93) and श्लिष्टरूपक (ii. 87), while the subdivi- sions based on simple or serial arrangement Dandin does not recognise at all. (viii) The Alamkārakaustubha observes (p. 228) that some attempt to make out a variety of 544 called वाक्यार्थरूपक on the analogy of the वाक्यारथोपमा described in ii. 43ff .- वाक्यार्थे विषये वाक्यार्थोन्तरारोपः वाक्यार्थरूपकम्। यथा विशिष्टो- पमायां विशेषणानामुपमानोपमेयभावोर्थगम्यस्तथात्रापि वाक्यांर्थघटकपदार्थानां रूपकमर्थगम्यम्। तद्यथा- आत्मनोस्य तपोदानैर्निर्मलीकरणं हि यत्। क्षालनं भास्करस्येदं सारसैः सलिलोत्करैः ॥ This however is regarded by the majority of Alam- karikas as निदर्शना. Compare the familiar example of it- त्वत्पादनखरत्नानां यदलक्तकमार्जनम्। इदं श्रीखण्डलेपेन पाण्डुरीकरणं विधोः॥। After a long and technical discussion the अलंकारकौस्तुभ- कार decides against the acceptance of वाक्यार्थरूपक, the instances quoted for it being merely those of निदर्शना. See further our Notes to ii. 348.

(ix) We have said above (Note iii) that in a Rūpaka the common property can never be expressed as a common property. For a common thing has to be shared by more than one while in a रूपक the उपमान and उपमेय are conceived as but one thing. All the same there is always a common property implied as the very basis of the आरोप required for रूपक, and if this धर्म is expressed as belonging to उपमान alone, or primarily to the उपमान and secondarily in a sort of a reflex fashion to उपमेय, that does not violate the requirements of the figure. Consider for example the illustration in ii. 87. The compound word वक्त्राम्बुज is to be dissolved here in a manner so as to give more prominence to अम्बुज (i. e. वक्त्रमेवाम्बुजम् according to Panini II. i. 72) and therefore the adjectives राजहंसोपभोगार्हे and भ्रमरप्रार्थ्यसौरभम् must be

109 ] Notes [ -ii. 72

primarily predicable of अम्बुज alone, which they are, seeing that the senses of राजहंस and भ्रमर that suit वक्त्र are only secondarily suggested and that too after an effort. With this important condition governing the expression of the common property, therefore, we can obtain for 544 the various sub-varieties that turn upon the manner of expressing the common property. Says Jagannatha (p. 243)-साधारणधर्मश्रात्राप्युपमायामिद कचिदनुगामी क्कचिंद्विम्वप्रतिबिम्बभावमापन्नः क्वचिदुपचरतः क्वचिच्च केवलशब्दात्मा। सोपि क्वचिच्छव्देनोपात्तः क्वचित् प्रतीयमानतया नोपात्तः। For the corres- ponding examples see रसगङ्गाधर itself.

Notes to II. 67-68-(i) The अलंकारशेखर thus versifies Dan- din's examples of समस्तरूपक- तस्या बाहुलता पाणिपझमं चरणपल्लवम्। मुखेन्दुरक्षिभ्रमरौ सर्वस्वं पुष्पधन्वनः ॥ It will be noted that the illustration in ii. 67 is also a सकलरूपक, but it is adduced merely to illustrate the nature of the Metaphor-out-of-Compound.

Notes to II. 69-70-(i) The compound ताम्राङ्गुलिदलश्रेण should rather have been dissolved as-अङ्गुलिरेव दलम् अङ्गुलिदलम्। ताम्रं च तत् अङ्गुलिदलं च ताम्राङ्गुलिदलम्। ताम्राङ्गुलिदलानां श्रेणय: यस्मिन् तत् ताम्राङ्गुलिदलश्रेण। This mode connects ताम्र primarily with दल the उपमान. Compare Note (ix) to ii. 66 above .- Similarly the common property between चरण and पङ्कज- मूर्धि धारण-is to he so understood as being applicable primarily to the lotus and secondarily to the foot. This is what Dandin intends to imply by तद्योग्यस्थानविन्यासात् in ii. 70.

Notes to II. 71-72-(i) In the example given it will be noted of course that मुक्तारुच:, the adjective qualifying HTf:, involves just an ordinary Upamā. What object the poet intended to superimpose upon ya does not clearly appear. It cannot be TH3 as we do not asso- ciate पह्लव and मजरीs with it.

ii. 73- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 110

Notes to II. 73-74-(i) The compound वदनपङ्कजम् can be dis- solved so as to result in उपमा as well as in रूपक. If the other adjectives (वल्गितभ्र, गलद्वर्मजलम्, आलोहितेक्षणम्) as well as the predicate (मदावस्थां वितृणोति ) had been such as to apply primarily to पङ्कज and only secondarily to वदन that would have been रूपकसाधक. As it is, unless we accept Premachandra's proposed emendation into वदनमम्बुजम्, it would be very hard to establish a रूपक here. Appearances point towards 34HT based upon an extrane- ous साम्य such as आह्लादकत्व (see our Note (v) to ii. 66); and if an extraneous साम्य has to be after all brought in why not imagine it to be, say, फुल्ल or विकसित, which would go primarily with पङ्कज and so make वदनपङ्कज a रूपक (निरङ्गरूपक as it would be called ) in accordance with Dandin's intentions ?

Notes to II. 75-76-(i) The divisions intended can be thus exhibited- रूपक having आरोप upon

अवयविन्+ अवयविन् alone अवयवs alone all अवयवs अवयविन्+ = अवयवरूपक, some अव- = सकलरूपक, ii. 70. ii. 74. यवs alone = विषमरूपक, ii. 79.

all अवयवs some अवयवs alone =अवयवरूपक, ii. 72. = एकाङ्गरूपक, ii. 76.

युक्तरूपक ii. 77. अयुक्तरूपक ii. 78. (ii) The word अत्र in ii. 76 cannot refer to एकाङ्गरूपक seeing that in the examples given all the अवयवs or constituent parts have the आरोप; it can refer to con- stituent parts, and the divisions into युक्त and अयुक्त are divisions of रूपक involving आराप on (some or all)

111 ] Notes [-ii. 86

अवयवs. They cannot be divisions of रूपक according to a fresh fundamentum divisionis seeing that we can have incompatibility between अवयवs and अवयवs, and between the अवयविन् and some of its अवयवs, but never between the अवयविन् and all its अवयवs; the अवयविन् cannot in fact be called अवयविन् at all in that case.

Notes to II. 79-80-(i) In the example given the विषमता consists in the fact that while कपोल and भ्र are the अवयवs of मुख the उपमेय, इन्दु the उपमान has only some अवयवs corresponding to it that are actually stated (or are suggested) but not all. For instance, कपोल suggests the प्राचीदिक् reddened at moon-rise, but as लता cannot be associated with the moon the y should in this ex- ample have been conceived of as the कलङ्कलेखा. In spite of this circumstance the general impression is that of the superimposition of the उपमान along with its अवयवs upon the उपमेय along with its अवयवs, although the correspondenc does not exist in all the details as in a सकलरूपक.

Notes to II. 81-82-(i) This सवविशेषणरूपक can be distinguish- ed from सकलरूपक by reason of the circumstance that in the latter it is possible to have the आरोप on the अवयविन् (e.g. चरणे पङ्कजत्वम्) independently of the अवयवारोपs, which merely serve to heighten the charm of the अवयव्यारोप. In the present variety the आरोप of ध्वजत्व upon पाद the अवयविन् becomes meaningless taken by itself. It can become plausible only if पाद as well as the ध्वज are taken as विशेषणविशिष्ट. The विशेषणविशेष्यभाव is a more intimate relation than the अवयवावयविभाव.

Notes to II. 83-84-(i) The विरोध would have been more pointedly brought out if for the word a3 in the illustra- tion had been substituted the synonym अमृतांशु.

Notes to II. 85-86-(i) The distinction between हेतुरूपक and हेतूपमा (ii-50) is of course sufficiently obvious.

ii. 87-] Kāvyādarśa [ 112

Notes to II. 87-(i) See note (ix) to ii. 66. The stanza is omit- ted by M. The usual explanatory stanza is lacking in this case, regarding which the श्रुतानुपालिनी observes- स्पष्टत्वात् [श्िलिष्टरूपकं ] शास्त्रकृता न व्याख्यातम्। This might seem to raise a suspicion about the genuineness of ii. 87, but it is given by the best Mss. Compare also ii. 313.

Notes to II. 88-90-(i) Our Sanskrit Commentary follows प्रेमचन्द्र. But प्रेमचन्द्र has not been able to explain the varieties satisfactorily and had to give a new example of his own to suit his own explanation of the definition in ii. 88. A better explanation perhaps would be to take गौण=the secondary or आरोपित (moon) and मुख्य = the actual moon. As in both the varieties illustrated in ii. 89 and ii. 90 the मुखचन्द्रमा: is compared (or contrasted) with the actual moon it is evident that such a compari- son can only take place if and after the aacq is super- imposed upon the face. The 54% must therefore already exist, and all that is done in addition is to bring out the similarity of the मुखचन्द्रमा: (and impliedly but not expressedly of the मुख) with the actual moon in an उपमानरूपक and the dissimilarity between them in a व्यतिरेकरूपक. The श्रुतानुपालिनी apparently so interprets these varieties; for it says-गौणोप्रधान: मुख्यः प्रधानः। मुख- चन्द्रस्य साक्षाच्चन्द्रस्य चेति। And we can accordingly take प्रतिगजति=आह्वानं करोति तेन सदृश इत्यर्थ: following again the same commentary. For a similar use of गौण and मुख्य compare ii. 160. (ii) In the second line of ii. 90 the reading of M is decidedly superior, but all other Mss. are against it. (iii) Bhāmaha alone amongst extant ālamkārikas accepts उपमारूपक as a distinct alamkara. He thus defines and illustrates it (iii. 34-35)- उपमानेन तद्भावमुपमेयस्य साधयत्। यां वदत्युपमामेतदुपमारूपकं यथा॥ समग्रगगनायाममानदण्डो रथाङ्गिणः । पादो जयति सिद्धस्त्रीमुखेन्दुनवदर्पणः ।। Here Vishnu's foot is declared to be a novel mirror. The conceipt is quite out of the common; and while

113 ] Notes [ -ii. 92

the आरोप of दर्पणत्व upon पाद does give rise to the Rūpaka, yet in so far as the aqur is said to be a new or strange दर्पण, the full force of the रूपक does not show itself, being thwarted by a possible 39HT standing out in the back-ground. This is probably the purport of Bhamaha's definition. Dandin's definition of the figure is so differently worded from that of Bhamaha that it would be hazardous to imagine that there is some kind of a connection between the two in spite of the fact that Dandin and Bhamaha are the only two writers extant who have anything to say of उपमारूपक. Bhamaha accepts it as an independent figure; Dandin ( cp. ii. 358) turns it into a sub-variety of Rūpaka: but there is nothing of the nature of a dispute or contro- versy between the statements of the two concerning this figure. It is likely therefore that the two writers are following independent traditions in regard to their explanation of this figure. (iv) The tenth canto of the Bhattikāvya is composed to illustrate figures of speech. Amongst them 3464% is illustrated by x. 60 --

जलनिवहं दधतं मनोभिरामम्। गलितमिव भुवो विलोक्य रामं धरणिधरस्तनशुक्लपट्वचीनम्॥ Here the foaming river-mouths as they fell into the ocean, are compared to the dropped upper-garment (गलितं प्चचीनमिव) from the mountain-breasts (धरणिधरस्तन) of the earth at the sight of her lord Rama. The compar- ison of the streams with the garment is based upon the आरोप of स्तनत्व on the mountains; and so this is उपमारूपकम्-उपमासहितं रूपकमित्यर्थः-as the commentator भरतमल्लिक says. It would be difficult to apply Dandin's definition to the present example.

Notes to II. 91-92-(i) The distinction between आक्षेपरूपक and विरुद्धरूपक is sufficiently obvious. Premachandra understands ii. 91 all wrong, and Böhtlingk follows Premachandra. An आक्षेपरूपक is an आक्षेप following up- 15 Kāvyādarśa

ii. 92-] Kāvyādarsa [ 114

on a रूपक and serving to weaken the full effect of the आरोप required for the रूपक, while a समाधानरूपक is, so to say, an आक्षेप of an आक्षेपरूपक. Thus in ii. 91 the नायक, while calling the face the moon, suggests that in as much as the face is अन्योपतापिन while the real moon is शीतल, the चन्द्रत्वारोप made upon the मुख is not com- pletely justified. The समाधानरूपक adds to all this a further remark to the effect that possibly the face-moon might be शीतल in reality (and so the आरोप might be fully justified): only his own ill luck comes in the way of his realising the शीतलत्व or the आह्लादकत्व of the face moon. Premachandra (perhaps under the influence of the ideas in the two earlier stanzas) thinks that in ii. 91 the नायक wishes to say that the चन्द्रत्वारोप is deroga- tory to the मुखचन्द्र because the real moon is अन्योपतापिन् while the face-moon is not so. Any सहृदय reader would at once perceive that such an interpretation murders all the delicate suggestions of the stanza.

Notes to II. 93-(i) Regarding the designation of the figure the following extract from the श्रुतानुपालिनी is quite explicit-अत्र मुखस्य पङ्कजत्वेन रूपितस्य पुना रङ्गत्वेन रूपणात् ्रुवोर्लतात्वेन रूपितयोः नर्तकीत्वेन रूपणात् रूपकरूपकमिति संज्ञा। It will be observ- ed however that रङ्ग is not an अवयव of the नर्तकी as दल was of the पङ्कज in ii. 69, the example for सकलरूपक. The नर्तकीत्वारोप is helped by, and is only rendered possible by the रङ्गत्वारोप; hence this variety comes nearer to the परंपरितरूपक of later writers, which has been defined as (साहित्यदर्पण, x. 29)-यत्र कस्यचिदारोपः परारोपणकारणम्। Whether, however, Dandin intended to make every रूपकरूपक a परंपरितरूपक as thus explained we have no definite grounds to assert. Seeing however that the पङ्कजत्वारोप upon the face and the लतात्वारोप on the eye-brows are not based upon any definite साधर्म्य that would help the principal आरोप in the verse, it is possible that Dandin wants us to understand रूपकरूपक as रूपकेण रूपकम् i. e. रूपकानुप्राणितरूपकम् or परंपरितरूपकम् and that the subordinate आरोपs of the पङ्कजत्व and लतात्व do notvitally affect the character of this Rūpaka variety.

115 ] Notes [-ii. 95

Notes to II. 94-95-(i) Compare the nature of तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा (ii. 36). There, subsequent to an erroneous judgment (whether of the nature of मोह or of अपह्वृति the author does not indicate: but both are possible) based upon सादृश्य between the उपमेय and the उपमान, the real nature of the उपमेय was finally determined upon. In the pre- sent Rūpaka variety there is just an opposite process of the mind from reality to error-only the error is not अनाहार्य but is a conscious poetic device which can deceive neither the speaker nor anybody else. In so far however as there is an attempt to conceal facts the name of the variety explains itself. (ii) Dandin admits an independent figure of speech called अपह्ृति (ii. 304-309). In ii. 309 he alludes to what is called उपमापह्ृति by which he presumably means a sub-variety of 39H1-but there is none with this name amongst the given 3THT varieties-and in the present stanzas he mentions a तत्त्वापह्मवरूपक. It is rather difficult to determine in the first instance whether these are three independent alamkāras and in the next place what is the exact distinction between them as Dandin sees it. Now some hold that by उपमापहवति Dan- din means तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक-उपमारूपकयोरनतिभेदात् as Ca puts it. Cp.ii. 96 also. Cb thinks that by उपमापह्ृति is meant अपह्वतोपमा or लुप्तोपमा, adding शशाङ्कवदने इत्यत्र द्योतकसामान्यलोपः दृष्ट एव । Premachandra explains उपमापहृतिः by सादृश्यापह्नुतिः -सादृश्यापह्नवपूर्वकसादृश्यातिशयस्थापनरूपेत्यर्थः-and thinks that प्रति- षेधोपमा (ii. 34) is what Dandin intends in ii. 309. Cs also agrees in this. Now in view of the fact that in outward form at least the 34H1 variety exemplified in ii. 36 bears an unmistakable resemblance to any ordi- nary case of अपह्रव, and in view further of the fact that the तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा may be a judgment subsequent to a तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक (as also to a मोहोपमा), it is not impossible that in ii. 309 Dandin might be equally plausibly thinking of ii. 36. And in any case we can regard the उपमापह्ृति as separate from तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक. If उपमापह्ृति= ii. 36 we have already-Note (i) above-shown its dis- tinction from तत्त्वापह्नवरूपक ; while if उपमापह्ृति= ii. 34, as

ii. 95-] Kāvyādarša ( 116

प्रतिषेधोपमा and तत्वापह्नवरूपक are quite distinct on the very face of them no attempt need be made to distinguish the one from the other. (iii) But we must learn to clearly distinguish arar- पह्नवरूपक from the figure अपह्ृति as Dandin defines it. To later writers the two are undistinguishable. Some think that in the Rūpaka variety one dharmin as a whole is negated and another asserted in its place, while in the alamkara called अपह्ृति there is the nega- tion of a certain dharma of the dharmin and the assertion of another instead. This, however, will not hold in the case of स्वरूपापह्ृति (ii. 308). A better dif- ferentia would be what is supplied by the adjective उभ्ासितगुणोत्कर्षम् in the definition, which suggests that the negated (प्रकृत, उपमेय) and the asserted (अप्रकृत, उपमान) things ought to have a similarity between them. This is not the case in the figure अपह्ृति where anything can be negated and another asserted in its place : cp. अपह्नुत्य किंचिदन्यार्थदर्शनम्।

Notes to II. 96-(i) Regarding the sub-divisions of Rūpaka Bhamaha says (ii. 22)-समस्तवस्तुविषयमेकदेशविवर्ति च। द्विधा रूपकमेवेष्टम्। Consequently when Dandin mentions in- numerable varieties of Rūpaka as being current he must have had others than Bhāmaha in his mind.

Notes to II. 97-(i) In the various definitions of Dīpaka that are in the field two or three issues have been raised. In the first place, is it necessary that दीपक be based upon similarity ? Bharata, Dandin, Bhamaha, Bhoja, the author of Vāgbhatālamkāra, and Viśva- nātha are quite silent on the point. Rudrata regards Dipaka as a matter-of-fact (वास्तव) figure and not an औपम्य figure. Udbhata explicitly demands साम्य (p. 14)- आदिमध्यान्तविषय: प्राधान्येतरयोगिनः । अन्तर्गतोपमाधर्मा यत्र तद्दीपकं विदु:॥ while Vamana (iv. 3. 18-उपमानोपमेयवाक्येष्वेका क्रिया), Ruy- yaka (p. 71), Mammata (p. 775-सकृद्वत्तिस्तु धर्मस्य प्रकृताप्रकृतात्म-

117 ] Notes 1-ii. 97

नाम्), and Jagannatha (p.322 -- प्रकृतानामप्रकृतानां चैकसाधारणधर्मा- न्वयो दीपकम्), do the same thing; though Mammata, for instance, admits a variety of दीपक (the so-called कारक- दीपक) where the साम्य is not in evidence. In as much however as every Dīpaka demands one word syntacti- caliy related to more than one sentence, we can always regard the thing connoted by that word as the साम्य, and so we need not make much of the condi- tion about the औपम्य being गम्य, as Ruyyaka puts it. The next issue raised is about the धर्मिन्s that are said to possess the गम्य common धर्म. Most writers insist that the धर्मिन्s be partly प्रकृत and partly अप्रकृत but they must not be all either प्रकृत alone or अप्रकृत alone. This last, according to them is a case of तुल्ययोगिता (see Note (i) to ii 48, above). Now Dandin is not parti- cular on this point: his examples suggest that he admits all प्रकृतs (e.g. ii. 100), all अप्रकृतs (e. g. ii. 101), and some प्रकृतs and some अप्रकृतs (e.g. ii. 99). Regard- ing the distinction between दीपक and तुल्ययोगिता the following extract from the अलंकारकोस्तुभ (p. 296-297) may be said to be the last word on the controversy- अत्र वदन्ति-दीपकमपि तुल्ययोगितायामेवान्तर्भवति धर्मस्य सकृद्वत्तेरुभयत्रा- विशेषात् प्रकृताप्रकृतत्वादिविशेषस्य चावान्तरभेदसाधकत्वेपि अलंकारान्तरताया- मसाधकत्वात्। अन्यथा श्लेषस्य तद्द्ेदयोरपि भिन्नालंकारत्वापत्तेः। तस्मात् प्रकृतानामेव प्रकृताप्रकृतानां चैकधर्मान्वय इति तुल्ययोगिताया एव त्रयो भेदा वक्तुमुचिताः । तस्माद्दीपकस्य तुल्ययोगिताया भेदं वदतां प्राचीनानां दुराग्रह इति तच्चिन्त्यम्। नानाधिकरणस्थानां शब्दानां संप्रदीपकः । एकवाक्येन संयोगो यस्तु दीपकमुच्यते॥ यथा- सरांसि हंसै: कुसुमैश्र वृक्षा मत्तैर्द्विरेफैश्च सरोरुहाणि। गोष्ठीभिरुद्यानवनानि चैव यस्मिन्नशून्यानि सदा क्रियन्ते॥ इति भगवता भरतमुनिना (xvi, 55-56) दीपकस्याङ्गीकारात् तत्रैव तुल्ययोगि- तान्तर्भावस्यौचित्यादिति दिक्। (ii) Å large number of varieties of Dīpaka are con- ceivable. Dandin first gives a four-fold distinction based upon the same principle as in ii. 13 and then gives three sub-varieties under each according to the position of the common word. Regarding this last principle of sub-division Jagannātha remarks (p. 327) -

ii. 97-] Kāvyādarśa [ 118

वस्तुतस्तु धर्मस्यादिमध्यान्तगतत्वेपि चमत्कारवैलक्षण्याभावात् त्रैविध्योक्तिरापातमा- त्रात्। अन्यथा धर्मस्य उपाद्युपमध्योपान्त्यगतत्वे ततोपि किंचिन्न्यूनाधिकदेशवृत्तित्वे चानन्तभेदप्रसङ्गात्। -Mammata and others, as before ob- served, admit a variety called कारकदीपक defined in the अलंकारकौस्तुभ (p. 291) as-यत्रैकमेव कारकमन्वयमेति क्रियासु बह्वीषु and illustrated by विश्वनाथ (p. 520) as- दूरं समागतवति त्वयि जीवनाथे भिन्ना मनोभवशरेण तपस्विनी सा। उत्तिष्ठति स्वपिति वासगृहं त्वदीय- मायाति याति हसति श्वसति क्षणेन ।। In connection with this variety another similar gra- tuitous principle of sub-division (not enunciated by Dandin) turns upon the case of the common कारक, and so we have Dipakas of कर्तृ, कर्म, करण, संप्रदान, अपादान, संबन्धिन्, and अधिकरण -all severally illustrated in the अलंकारकौस्तुभ pp. 292 ff. Regarding कारकदीपक Jayaratha remarks (p. 73)-अत्र ... क्रियाणां प्रस्तुतानाशेकाधारगतत्वेम समुच्चीयमानत्वाच्च समुच्चयालं- कारो न तु कारकदीपकम्। तद्धि प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतानां क्रियाणामौपम्यसद्भावे भवति। Similar remarks are also passed by Jagannātha (pp. 324-325). The varieties illustrated by our author in ii 109, ii. 111, ii. 113 are an attempt to combine the दीपकवैचित्र्य with the वैचित्रय of some other figure or mode of expression; while the माला variety and other chain- varieties can always be superadded to almost every figure-of-speech. This alamkara is liable to लिङ्गवचन- भेददोष (illustrated by Jagannatha, p. 328 f.) which makes the syntactical relation rather difficult to establish.

Notes to II. 98-102-(i) The first line of ii. 99 seems to have been misunderstood by Böhtlingk. The elephants are of course the king's war-elephants and not 'die welt tragenden Elephanten.'

Notes to II. 103-106-(i) The distinction between the Dīpaka variety illustrated in ii. 106 and the figure called सहोक्ति illustrated in ii. 352-354 consists in the fact that while कृतम् has to be supplied severally in the

119 ] Notes [-ii. 119

various statements in ii. 106, no such necessity exists in the सहोत्ति illustrations. The omission of त्रयमेतत् समं would have been an improvement.

Notes to II. 107-115-(i) As Dandin says distinctly, the instance in ii. 107 contains an आदिदीपक, Since the word r is the common word it follows that in an आदिदीपक it is enough if it occurs somewhere in the first sentence and not necessarily in the very begin- ning of that sentence. (ii) The variety illustrated in ii. 111 is distinct from the so-called कारकदीपक of the moderners. See above Note (ii) to ii. 97. The emendation suggested by Premachandra is good but not backed up by any manuscripts. (iii) The statement in ii. 115 testifies to the exist- ence before Dandin's day of writers who gave a still larger number of Dīpaka varieties. Bhāmaha (ii. 25) gives just three.

Notes to II. 116 -- (i) Dandin distinctly says that every आवृत्ति is an amplified दीपक; the one can therefore always be turned into the other. Consequently, re- garding the necessity of a basic HIE, and the require- ment that the things adduced be all naas alone, or ayEds alone, or both together, the remarks made in Note (i) to ii. 97 hold true of this figure also. This figure is not recognised as a distinct figure by any other writer except Jayadeva the author of the Chandrā- loka ( stanza 45) who calls it आवृत्तिदीपक. Bhoja (iv. 78) regards it as a sub-variety of Dīpaka.

Notes to II . 117-(i) The figure called एकार्थदीपक illustrated in ii. 111 also employed synonyms; but they were connected with one word; here the synonyms विकसन्ति etc. are connected with separate words.

Notes to II. 118-119-(i) The शब्दालंकार called यमक also has words or syllabic groups repeated; but there the

ii. 119-] Kāvyādarsa [ 120

repetitions cannot be dispensed with, while in an आवृत्ति the sense of the passage does not suffer by doing away with the repetitions. In other words, आवृत्ति can be turned into a दीपक while यमक cannot be so trans. formed.

Notes to II. 120-(i). Different views about the nature of Äkshepa are current and naturally the definitions of this figure differ from writer to writer. Dandin's de- finition-प्रतिवरेधोक्तिराक्षेप :- is the simplest in the field and of widest application. As Jegannātha (p. 424) remarks- इतरे तु निषेधमात्रमाक्षेपः । चमत्कारित्वं चालंकारसामान्यलक्षणप्राप्तमेव। तच्च व्यङ्गयार्थे सति संभवतीति सव्यङ्ग्यो निषेधः सर्वोप्याक्षेपालंकारः। Others delimit the field of this alamkāra to the negation of the उपमान alone. As Vamana (iv. 3.27) says-उपमानाक्षेप- श्वाक्षेपः । तुल्यकार्यार्थस्य नैरर्थक्यविवक्षायामाक्षेपः, as he explains the Sūtra in his Vritti. Vāmana's example is- तस्याश्रेन्मुखमस्ति सौम्य सुभगं किं पार्वणेनेन्दुना सौन्दर्यस्य पदं दृशौ यदि च ते किं नाम नीलोत्पलैः। किं वा कोमलकान्तिभिः किसलयैः सत्येव बिम्बाधरे हा धातुः पुनरुक्तवस्तुरचनारम्भेष्वपूर्वो ग्रहः ॥ This is the same as प्रतीपालंकार which Mammata (p.894) thus defines and explains- आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतीपमुपभेयता। तस्यैव यदि वा कल्प्या तिरस्कारनिबन्धनम्॥ अस्य धुरं सुतरामुंपमेयमेव वोढुं प्रौढमिति कैमर्थ्येन यत् उपमानमाक्षिप्यत यदपि तस्यैवोपमानतया प्रसिद्धस्य उपमानान्तरविवक्षया अनादरार्थमुपमेयभावः कल्प्यते तत् उपमेयस्योपमानप्रतिकूलवर्तित्वात् उभयरूपं प्रतीपम्। As we have seen Mammata's second Pratipa is the same as Dandin's विपर्यासोपमा (ii. 17); while Dandin's प्रतिषेधोपमा (ii. 34) per- haps comes nearer to the first kind. The प्रतिषेधालंकार recognised by the कुवलयानन्दकारिकाकार (stanza 164) is of course a different species altogether. (ii) Others introduce other delimiting conditions. They say for instance that while आक्षेप is a प्रतिषेधोक्ति it ought not to be a real downright प्रतिषेध. The thing intended ought to be conveyed (in an even more telling fashion) by the apparent denial of it. As the Alamkārasarvasva (p. 114) clearly puts it-

121 ] Notes [ -ii. 120

इह प्राकरणिकोर्थः प्राकरणिकत्वादेव वक्तुमिष्यते। तथाविधस्य विधानार्हस्य निषेध: कर्तु न युज्यते। स कृतः बाधितस्वरूपत्वात् निषेधायत इति निषेधाभासः संपन्नः । तस्येतस्य करणं प्रकृतगतत्वेन विशेषप्रतिपत्त्यर्थम्। अन्यथा गजस्नानतुल्यं स्यात्। The definitions of most later writers are framed so as to include all these conditions. Thus- Mammata- निषेधो वक्तुमिष्ठस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया। Viśvanātha (x. 65)- वस्तुनो वक्तुमिष्ठस्य विशेषप्रतिपत्तये। निषेधाभास आक्षेप: । Bhāmaha (ii. 68) and Udbhata (p. 29)- प्रतिषेध इवेष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया। आक्षेप इति तं सन्तः शंसन्ति द्विविधं (कवयः) यथा (सदा)॥ It will be seen that Dandin's example of वृत्ताक्षेप fits in with all these requirements and it would be a regular illustration for the figure as above defined. (iii) With regard to the आक्षेप described in Note (ii) the negation of the इष्टप्राकरणिक theme is usually ground- ed on the fact of the thing being already too well known, or of the speaker's being powerless to do justice to it-वक्ष्यमाणविषये अशक्यवक्तव्यत्वम् उक्तविषये अतिप्रसिद्धत्वं च- as a commentator observes. It is divided into four sub-varieties. Compare Sāhityadarpaņa (p. 547)- त्र वक्ष्यमाणविषये क्वचित् सर्वस्यापि सामान्यतः सूचितस्य निषेधः कचित् अंशोक्तो अंशान्तरे निषेध इति द्वौ भेदौ। उक्तविषये च क्वचित् वस्तुस्वरूपस्य निषेधः क्वचित् वस्तुकथनस्येति द्वो। इत्याक्षेपस्य चत्वारो भेदा:। For illustrations see the work cited. Dandin is alone, amongst extant writers, to give a classification of this figure based upon आक्षेप्यभेद. (iv) As the Äkshepa described in Note (ii) was of the nature of an apparent negation of what is intended to be asserted, so on the same analogy we can have another variety of the nature of an apparent asser- tion of what is sought to be negated. Compare Alamkarasarvasva (p. 120)-यथा इष्टस्येष्टत्वादेव निषेधोनुपपत्रः एवमनिष्रस्याप्यनिष्ठत्वादेव विधानं नोपपद्यते। तत् क्रियमाणं प्रस्खलद्रपत्वान्निषेधे पर्यवस्यति। ततश्र विधेरुपकरणीभूतो निषेध इति विधिनायं निषेधोनिष्ठविशेष- पर्यवसाया। It will be seen that most of Dandin's exam- 16 [Kāvyādarśą]

ii. 120-] Kūvyādarsa [ 122

ples of Äkshepa fall under this variety. The figure- of-speech called रोध is, as Bhoja says, (iv. 64)- नाक्षेप: पृथक्। Its nature is-क्रियासूदयोगिनां हेतुद्वारा उक्त्या युक्त्या च निवारणम्। Some of our author's examples (e.g. वर्तमानाक्षेा, ii. 123) are primarily of the nature of Rodha as thus understood. (v) Howsoever understood Äkshepa has to be distin- guished from Virodha and from Apahnuti; and the dis- tinction is not very difficult to make. In Virodha (see ii. 333) there is expressed contradiction between the two things with a view to bring out some peculiar faaq of the theme under discussion. In Äkshepa with the same intention there is a contradiction; but it is between the actual expression and the real intention of the speaker which is not expressed .- In an Apa- hnuti a certain thing (in some aspects of it or as regards its entire nature) is negated and another asserted in its place, the negated and the asserted things being both actually expressed in words. Such is not the case in an Äkshepa as we have just seen .- The distinction between some specific varieties of Äkshepa and other allied figures admitted by Dandin will be dealt with in our Notes to the stanzas concerned.

Notes to II. 121-126-(i) Vrittākshepa is the same as Uktavishaya Akshepa of later writers. The four-fold condition for this variety, in the words of the Alamkāra- sarvasva, is-एवं च आक्षेपे इष्टार्थः तस्य निषेधः निषेधस्यानुपपद्यमानत्वाद- सत्यत्वं विशेषप्रतिपादनं चेति चतुष्टयमुपयुज्यते। Here अनङ्गविजय is the theme intended to be described; that has been declar- ed to be impossible; this declaration of course is not seriously intended; and ultimately the marvellous nature of the victory stands out most prominently before the readers. Hence this is a regular example fulfilling all conditions. (ii) Vartamānākshepa is otherwise designated as Rodha. Bhoja (p. 422) however calls it शुद्धो निषेधाक्षप: and observes-अत्र कुतः कुवलयं कर्णे करोषि इत्यस्य निषेधवाक्यस्य

123 ] Noles l-ii. 132

किमपाङ्गमित्यादिना प्रश्नपरेणापि निषेधपर्यवसायिना वाक्येन समर्थनं क्रियत इत्ययं शुद्धो निषेधाक्षेप: । - As to Bhavishyat Akshepa it is to be noted that it is not the same as the वक्ष्यमाणविषय variety of the other school; for in that variety वस्तुकथनमेव निषिध्यते, whereas here it is the thing that might happen in future that is attempted to be averted by anticipation.

Notes to II. 127-130-(i) Compare the illustration given in ii. 127 with the illustration of Virodha in ii. 337. Most modern writers would regard both as cases of Virodha. It will however be observed that while the second line of ii. 127 is enough to make it an ex- ample of Virodha, it is the first line with its denial of 'tenderness' that makes the verse an example of Äkshepa. (ii) The principle underlying these two varieties is the same as that in ii. 15-16.

Notes to II. 131-132-(i) The example is of the nature of an attempt to deny an actually existing fault and the consequent fear. The epithet अदुष्टस्य is to be noted. Now in a Vibhāvană (ii. 199) there is a negation of the cause but an assertion of the effect, leading to a guessing of some subsidiary cause. Here there is a negation of the [प्रधान or principal] cause (दोष), but likewise a negation of the effect (7H). In addition, there is an assertion of subordinate causes of fear such as &RTT etc. together with a negation of their effect, viz. fear. Thus fear is an effect of दोष (प्रधानकारण) as well as of चक्षूराग (अप्रधानकारण), and if the principal cause is said to be lacking there is nothing unusual if the result does not follow irrespective of whether the subordinate causes are or are not present. Consequently Prema- chandra's attempt to distinguish this figure from Vibhā- vanā (which is reproduced in our Sanskrit Commentary) is not very much called for. The main point of the illustration is the cool and unblushing denial of his fault by the lover.

ii. 132- ] Kāvyādarša | 124

(ii) We can more reasonably attempt to distinguish this variety from Viśeshokti (ii, 323), esp. the variety known as हेतुविशेषोक्ति (ii. 328). Mammata defines विशेषोक्ति as-अखण्डेषु कारणेषु फलावच:, and we have seen that in the illustration under discussion at least the subordinate aRus are all there, but no effect ensues. But the gist of the illustration is in the epithet अदुष्टस्य. That is what makes this a प्रतिषेधोक्ति.

Notes to II. 133-134-(i) In ii. 131 the subordinate causes were present but as the principal cause was negated the effect was lacking. Here in ii. 133 the causes (all of them) are present and yet the expected result does not follow. This would accordingly be a case of विशेषोक्ति as usually understood. Only, Dandin's idea of Viśeshokti appears to have been a little different from that of Mammata and others (see Notes to ii. 323). According to our authora विशेषोक्ति is intended विशेषदर्शनायैवं. The ndry of death, the expected result, does not imply any special विशेष belonging either to the कारणs or the नायिका that we can discover. Hence this is no विशेषोक्ति in Dandin's acceptance of the term. (ii) An Ākshepa as understood by the writers quoted in Note (ii) to ii. 120 is also for विशेषप्रतिपत्ति ; compare- न निषेधमात्रमाक्षेप: किंतु यो निषेधो बाधितः सन्नर्थान्तरपर्यवसितः कंचिद्विशेष- माक्षिपति स आक्षेप:। But that is not Dandin's view of the matter, and while we are trying to read Dandin's work we must lay aside all extraneous ideas.

Notes to II. 135-156-(i) In these verses Dandin shows how one identical theme-the hinderance of the lover's departure-can be poetically treated in various ways so as to form examples of different kinds of Akshepa. The verses are probably of Dandin's own authorship, which shows that he was not without some poetical powers: The verses have been much quoted in other writers : see the Appendix on Parallelisms. The Alamkārakaustubha gives an ex-

125 ] Notes [ -ii. 156

ample of ray which combines most of these prohibi- tion-varieties and adds some more of its own (p. 309)- मा याहीत्यपमङ्गलं व्रज पुनः स्नेहेन हीनं वच- स्तिष्ठेति प्रभुता यथारुचि कुरुष्वेवाप्युदासीनता। नो जीवामि विना त्वयेति वचनं संभाव्यते वा न वा तत् किं शिक्षय नाथ यत् समुचितं वक्तुं त्वय प्रस्थिते॥ Our readers are probably already familiar with the classical passage in this strain from the end of the Pūrvārdha of Bāņa's Kādambarī. (ii) Regarding the illustration of प्रभुत्वाक्षेप (ii. 137) Bhoja observes (p. 427)-अत्र यद्यपि यात्रोद्यतः प्रियो रुध्यते [तथापि] प्रभूतार्थलाभादीनां कारणानां गमनपरत्वमेव न निवारणपरत्वम् । अतोयं न रोध: किं तर्हि आक्षेप एव भवति। (iii) Regarding the illustration of आशीर्वचनाक्षेप (ii. 142) Bhoja observes (p. 421)-अत्र गच्छ इत्यस्य विधिवाक्यस्य ममापि जन्म तत्रैव भूयात् इत्याशिषानुकुलतयैव मरणसूचनान्निषेधः क्रियते इति शुद्धोयं विध्याक्षेप:। The Alainkarasarvasva passes the following comment on the same stanza (p. 120)-अत्र कयाचित् कान्तस्य प्रस्थानमात्मनोनिष्ठमप्यनिराकरणमुखेन विधीयते। न चास्य विधिर्युक्तः अनिष्ट- त्वात्। सोयं प्रस्खलद्रपत्वेन निषेधमागूरयति। फलं चात्र अनिष्ठस्य प्रस्थानस्यासं- विज्ञानपदनिबन्धनमत्यन्तपरिहार्यत्वप्रतिपादनम्। एतच्च ममापि तत्रैवेत्याशीःप्रति- पादनेनानिष्ठपर्यवसायिना व्यजितम्। (iv) Regarding the illustration of यत्नाक्षेप (ii. 147) Bhoja observes (p. 424)-अत्र यथोक्तमुक्त्वा किं करोमि इत्यानुकूल्ये- नैवाह। अन्न किमः प्रश्नार्थत्वेपि युक्त्या निषेधार्थत्वं गम्यते। सोयं यौक्तोनुकूलश्र विध्याक्षेपो रोध इत्युच्यते। अयमेव चास्या वैयात्योक्तिपक्षे यौक्तः प्रतिकूलविव्या- क्षेपो रोधो भवति। -(v) The two stanzas about मूर्छाक्षेप (ii. 155, 156) are probably interpolations. Our oldest Mss. J and N omit them, and the fact that the Madras edition takes them before the two stanzas dealing with रोषाक्षेप points to the same conclusion. The interpolated stanzas were naturally placed at the end of a series dealing with the same theme. We had to retain them in the text so as not to disturb the numbering of the editio princeps.

ii. 157- j Kāvyūdarša [ 126

Notes to II. 157-158 and 161-162-(i) Even our oldest Mss J and N give in the first pāda of ii. 158 the hy per- metrical reading-असावनुक्रोशाक्षेपः। The reading given by us is a conjectural emendation suggested by the variant given by V. Our Ms. N puts stanzas ii 159, 160 after stanza ii. 162 and this fact we believe is not a pure accident. Probably this was Dandin's sequence. In any case this sequence can afford an explanation of the change of the original correct reading to the present hypermetrical reading which is clearly in- fluenced by असावनुशयाक्षेप: of ii. 162, which words were probably, in the original exemplar, written imme- diately underneath the words सानुकोशोयमाक्षेप: or in such a position as to make the wandering of the eye from the one to the other quite easy .- Since all our Mss. give the hypermetrical reading, it further fol. lows that our present copies are traceable to one original copy, and that the variæ lectiones are accord- ingly subsequent to the date of J, our oldest extant copy.

Notes to II. 159-160-(i) While most of the preceding varieties of Äkshepa were based upon some psycholo- gical or other attendant of the prohibition, in the varieties which follow Dandin as usual is attempting to combine the आक्षेपवैचित्र्य with the वैचित्र्य of some other figure. The examples are self-explaining. (ii) In view of the use of the words मुख्य and गोण in this stanza as applied to the actual and the figurative moon the explanation of the same words we gave in our Notes to ii. 88 gains additional plausibility.

Notes to II. 163-164-(i) Compare ii. 26 and 27. It will be noticed that in संशयोपमा the पद्म was अप्रकृत and the भुख the nad; such a distinction is not intended between शरदम्भोद and हंसकदम्बक. Further in the उत्तरार्ध of ii. 163 there is only a removal of the doubt, not an assertion as in ii. 27, second line.

127 ] Notes [ -ii. 169

Notes to II. 165-166-For Dandin's conception of sraf=a- रन्यास see Note to ii. 169 below.

Notes to II. 167-168-(i) In ii. 131 the कारण itself was negated ; here something else is negated on the strength of a कारण or हेतु adduced. Generally a कारण is कारक or productive cause and a हेतु a ज्ञापक or probatory cause. See ii. 235.

Notes to II. 169-(i) As in the case of Äkshepa, Dandin's definition of Arthāntaranyāsa is also rather crude and wanting in the later pruning and refining with a view to make it more precise and to delimit its field from that of other alamkāras or sub-varieties of them. To begin with, Dandin speaks of वस्तु प्रस्तुत्य अन्यस्य वस्तुनः न्यास: and aJ has been here taken to mean a theme or a com- plete statement, so that an ordinary हेतु of an अनुमान is naturally excluded. Compare Vāmana, Vritti on iv. 3. 21-वस्तुग्रहणात् पदार्थस्य हेतोर्न्यसनं नार्थान्तरन्यासः । The figures-of-speech known as अनुमान or काव्यलिङ्ग (neither of which however our author admits) are in consequence differentiated from this figure. Between काव्यलिङ्ग and अनुमान the element of mutual distinction is the fact that in the former it is the कारकहेतु (e.g. वहि of धूम) while in the latter it is the ज्ञापकहेतु (e.g. धूम of वहनि) that is set forth, and there is further the circumstance that in the figure-of-speech known as अनुमान there is ad- duced the complete paraphernalia of a logical infer- ence including the व्याप्ति. Both the figures neverthe- less agree in this that both वहधि the कारकहेतु and धूम the ज्ञापकद्देतु are individual objects and not statements or वस्तुs. (ii) Objections can be taken however to the above statement of the case on the ground that in an अनुमान the पश्चम्यन्तहेतु is often a condensed and even complex statement, and in the काव्यलिङ्ग Mammata and others recognise a variety where the कारकहेतु is a वाक्यार्थ. Hence a better differentia between अनुमान and काव्यलिङ्ग

ii. 169- ] Kāvyādarša [ 128

on the one hand and अर्थान्तरन्यास on the other is furnish- ed by the condition that while the relation between say वहि and धूस in first two figures is not of the nature of genus-to-species or species-to-genus, it is invariably that in the case of the समर्थ्यवस्तु and the समर्थकवस्तु Occur- ring in the latter alamkāra. As Dandin does not lay down this condition and does not also recognise the figures अनुमान and काव्यलिङ्ग, the problem does not arise in his case at all. Dandin's हेत्वलंकार however (ii. 235) does duty for both अनुमान and काव्यलिङ्ग and in our Notes to that figure we shall attempt to distinguish it from the figure now under discussion. (iii) We will next draw attention to the word aer in the definition of this figure. This means that in an अर्थान्तरन्यास it is always the प्रस्तुत or the प्राकरणिक that is sought to be corroborated by the अप्रस्तुत, both प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत being actually expressed, and that further the statement of the nda should come first in order. Where the order of statements is reversed Bhoja re- cognises a distinct sub-variety. Compare (p. 429)- जो जस्स हिअअदइओ दुक्खं देन्तो वि सो सुहं देइ। दइअणहदूमिआणं वि वड्ढइ त्थणआणं रोमश्चो।। अत्र साधनसमर्थ वस्तु प्रथमत एवोपन्यस्य पश्चात् तत्साध्यमभिहितमिति विपर्यासा- दयं विपर्ययो नामार्थान्तरन्यासः। Similarly when an attempt is made to suggest (and corroborate) the unexpressed प्रस्तुत by the expressed अप्रस्तुत or the unexpressed अप्रस्तुत by the expressed प्रस्तुत there results the figure of speech called समासोक्ति (ii. 205) that has to be dis- tingnished from अर्थान्तरन्यास, where both प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत are expressed. With reference to this distinction it may be noted in passing that Dandin's समासोक्ति em- braces both समासोक्ति proper (प्राकरणिकेनाप्राकरणिकाक्षेपः) and the अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा of Mammata and others (अप्राकरणिकेन प्राकरण- काक्षेप:), and that his account of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (ii. 340) is slightly different from the one usually current [ see Notes to that figure]. (iv) If we compare Dandin's definition of अर्थान्तरन्यास with his definition of प्रतिवस्तूपमा (ii. 46) we_become conscious of a distinctive characteristic of this figure

129 ] Notes [ -ii. 169

which must be carefully grasped. In an अर्थान्तरन्यास there is always समर्थ्यसमर्थक relation between the two aas, one being adduced in corroboration of the other. Jagannātha gives a clear exposition of 'corroboration' (p. 471)- समर्थनं च इदमेवम् इदमनेवं वा स्यादिति संशयस्य प्रतिबन्धकः इदमित्थमेवेति दृढप्रत्ययः । In प्रतिवस्तूपमा (and in Dandin's view this embraces the so-called Erd-compare Notes to ii. 46 ) the two aas are merely related by an element of similarity, upon which in fact the figure depends : cp. साम्यप्रतीतिरस्तीति in the definition. The साम्य or analogy, it is true, may be eventually used as a corroboration but that is not the primary and immediate object of the figure. Compare प्रतीहारेन्दुराज (p. 35)-न खलु तस्य [दृष्टान्तस्य ] समर्थ्यसमर्थकभावपुरःसरीकारेण प्रवृत्तिः बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभावमात्रस्य शब्दस्पृष्ठत्वात्। अर्थाद्धि तत्र समर्थ्यसमर्थकभावावसायः । अर्थान्तरन्यासे तु समर्थ्यसमर्थक- भावेनैवोपक्रमः । (v) The analogical semblance required for प्रतिवस्तूपमा [ and -a] is more likely to be found between two general statements or between two particular state- ments, while corroboration is usually made of a particular by a general or of a general by a particular statement. Most later writers accordingly introduce the above circumstance into the very definition of अर्थान्तरन्यास which has been accordingly defined by Ruyyaka ( viii. 79)- धर्मिणमर्थविशेषं सामान्यं वाभिवाय तत्सिद्धयै। यत्र सधर्मिकमितरं न्यस्येत् सोर्थान्तरन्यासः। by Mammața (p. 804)- सामान्यं वा विशेषो वा तदन्येन समर्थ्यते। यत् तु सोर्थान्तरन्यासः। and by Jagannātha ( p. 471 )- सामान्येन विशेषस्य विशेषेण सामान्यस्य वा यत् समर्थनं तदर्थान्तर- न्यास:। Our author however does not regard this as essential and accordingly in ii. 175 he makes one particular corroborate another particular (see Notes to the stanza ). Bhāmaha (ii. 71), Bhoja ( iv. 67 ), Vāmana ( iv. 3. 21 ), and others give also non-commital defini- 17 [ Kāvyādarśa ļ

ii. 169-] Kāvyādarśa [ 130

tions similar to that of Dandin. We give the first- उपन्यसनमन्यस्य यदर्थस्योदिताह्टते। ज्ञेयः सोर्थान्तरन्यास: पूर्वार्थानुगतो यथा॥ and the last- उक्तसिद्धयै वस्तुनोर्थान्तरस्यैव न्यसनमर्थान्तरन्यासः। (vi) Finally, अर्थान्तरन्यास has to be distinguished from निदर्शन (ii. 348). According to the अलंकारकौस्तुभ (p. 265) the two themes or statements brought together in a निदर्शना have an identical or very nearly identical pur- port (किंचित् तत्सदृशं फलम्), while in an अर्थान्तरन्यास there is between the two a समर्थ्यसमर्थक-relation based upon सामान्यविशेषसंबन्ध. Compare (ibid.)-एवं च पूर्वोत्तरवाक्यार्थकार्यकारण- भावद्वये यत्र सामान्यविशेषरूपधर्मावाच्छन्नत्वं तत्रैवार्थान्तरन्यास इति फलितम्। (vii) As to the divisions of अर्थान्तरन्यास Dandin's classification stands alone by itself. Other principles of division adopted are according to Bhoja ( iv. 68)- स उपन्यस्तवस्तूनां साधर्म्येण च कथ्यते। वैधर्म्येण च विद्वद्भिवैपरी्येन कुत्रचित्।। Udbhata (p.32) gives a further classification हिशब्दोक्त्या- न्यथापि वा। Alamkarasarvasva (p.109), Sahityadarpana ( x. 62) and other works mention a third important sub-variety :- कार्ये च कारणेनेदं कार्येण च समर्थ्यते। The majority of writers however refuse to recognise this sub-varie- ty. Viśvanātha tries his best to establish its exis- tence, while the last and one of the very best incisive comment on the same is by Jagannātha (p. 474). We refrain from going here into the controversy. (viii) A further varying upon the nature of this figure is responsible for the figures of speech known as विकस्वर, उभयन्यास, प्रत्यनीकन्यास, and प्रतीकन्यास. An illus- tration of विकस्वर is-स न जिग्ये महान्तो हि दुर्जयाः सागरा इव। regarding which the Alamkārakauštubha observes (p. 320)-अत्र विशेषसमर्थनाय सामान्योपन्यासेपि पुनः सामान्यसमर्थनाय विशेषोपन्यास इति विकस्वरोलंकारान्तरम्। Rudrata ( viii. 85-86 ) thus explains and illustrates Ubhayanyāsa- सामान्यावप्यर्थो स्फुटमुपमाया: स्वरूपतोपेतौ। निर्दिश्येते यस्मिन्नुभयन्यासः स विज्ञेयः॥

131 ] Notes [-ii. 175

सकलजगत्साधारणविभवा भुवि साधवोधुना विरलाः । सन्ति कियन्तस्तरवः सुस्वादुसुगन्धिचारुफलाः ॥ Bhoja, finally, thus illustrates and explains प्रत्यनीकन्यास and प्रतीकन्यास (p. 430)- विरला उवआरिच्चिअ णिरवेक्खा जलहरव्व वच्चन्ति। झिज्जन्ति ताण विरहे विरलच्चिअ सरिप्पवाहव्व।। अत्र यदिदमुपकृत्य अनपेक्षितप्रत्युपकाराणां गमनम् यच्चाकृतप्रत्युपकाराणां तद्विरहे- वसादनम् तदुभयमपि जलधरसरित्प्रवाहयोरन्योन्यातिशयितयोरुपन्यस्यमान प्रत्यनी- कन्यासो भवति। का कथा बाणसंधाने ज्याशब्देनैव दूरतः । हुंकारेणैव धनुषः स हि विन्नानपोहति॥ अत्र विन्नप्रोत्सारणसमर्थाया बाणमोक्षणलक्षणायाः क्रियायाः प्रथमावयवभूतं ज्या- शब्द धनुषो हुंकारमिवेति तत्साधनमुपन्यस्य प्रतीकन्यासमभिधत्ते। Vikasvara is admitted by the Kuvalayānandakāra ( verse 123); Ubhayanyāsa as an independent Alam- kāra by Rudrața and Vāgbhața ( p. 44), and as a sub- variety of अर्थान्तरन्यास by Bhoja, who is alone in recognising the last two alamkāras as additional sub- varieties of the same figure.

Notes to II. 170-173-(i) Dandin's distinction between विश्वव्यापि and विशेषस्थ is not strictly logical. It turns upon the mere extent of the denotation. But the proposition-All obey Fate, and the proposition-All great men relieve suffering, are equally universal propositions as Logic understands them, and can both be adduced with equal cogency in support of the particular propositions subsumed under them.

Notes to II. 174-175-(i) The eight sub-varieties given by Dandin go by pairs and hence our Sanskrit Com- mentary, following the commentary called श्रुतानुपालिनी, renders शलेषाविद्ध by अविरोधिन्. In the illustration the अविरोध is brought out from the circumstance that प्रियभवन and दाक्षिण्य go harmoniously together, while the विरोध is shown in as much as मालिन्य (or दोष) and आह्लादन do not sort together. This is perhaps possible; al- though iu this interpretation varieties 3 and 4 have

ii. 175-j Kāvyādarša [ 132

little to distinguish them from the next pair. As it is however not absolutely necessary that all the varieties go by pair, it would perhaps involve less forced interpretation if »y is given the usual interpretation of the use of words in two senses. The word दाक्षिण्य- upon which the entire point of the corroboration turns -is so used in ii. 174. Othor sub-varieties, it is true, may also use paronomastic words; but in शलेषाविद्ध variety it is the most important word that is so used Compare Cb-दाक्षिण्यशब्दस्य स्वाभाविकार्था बहवः। तेषु अन्यतमः साध्यतया निर्दिष्टः साधनभूतेनान्यतमेन साध्यते इति श्र्लेषाविद्धः। विरोधवति युक्तात्मनि युक्तायुक्ते च अर्थान्तरन्यासे श्लेषाभुबन्धे सत्यपि प्रागुक्तन्यायेन न तद्वयपदेशः । (ii) In ii. 175 the समर्थ्यवस्तु is made up of a proposition which embraces a विरोध and it is corroborated by an- other proposition which also embraces a similar विरोध. The two propositions, as we understand matters, are both particular. It would accordingly be an instante of दृष्टान्त in other writers; but Dandin would classify it as अर्थान्तरन्यास because the idea of corroboration is evidently the leading idea of the उत्तरार्ध. If the idea of साम्य were the more prominent one it would be, according to Dandin, a case of प्रतिवस्तूपमा. We consequently prefer taking the word द्विजेश्वर in the sense of 'a good brah- man '.

Notes to II. 176-17è-(i) The distinctive principle under- lying the last four varieties is very elusive. In ii. 176 the समर्थ्यवस्तु [and not the समर्थकवस्तु also as in ii 175 ] involves some one doing something improper or against one's nature; in ii. 177 both the समर्थ्य and the समर्थक propositions involve the doing of an appropriate action; in ii. 178 the action in the समर्थ्य proposition is accordant for one agent but discordant for another agent; and in ii. 179 the action is discordant for one agent and therefore accordant for another agent. Cb and Cs understand विपर्यय=अन्यभावापत्ति: or अतथाभवनम् and explain इन्दोः शीततया [तस्य] संबन्धिनामपि शीतत्वेन भवितव्यम्। अतथा- भनं विपर्ययः। The point is however debatable.

133 J Notes [-ii. 180

Notes to II. 180-(i) Vyatireka consists of two parts- साधम्यकथन and भेदकथन-both of which are essential to the nature of the figure. The Upama-variety called अतिशयोपमा (ii. 22) aimed at bringing out the साधर्म्य alone (इयत्येव भिदा नान्या); the varieties called निन्दोपमा and प्रशंसोपमा, although mentioning with disapprobation or approbation certain points of inferiority or superiority in the Upamāna, did nevertheless content themselves with asserting, the साधर्म्य with more or less emphasis (cp. समानमपि सोत्सेकम् and तौ तुल्यौ); and the variety named विपर्यासोपमा, ii. 17, (= प्रतीप of later writers) mentioned साधर्म्य but did not mention the भेद, which was left merely to be inferred from the circumstance of the उपमेय and the उपमान having changed their normal relation. It must also be noted that the साधर्म्य and the भेद must each concern itself with a distinet गुण. As Jagannatha observes (p.347)-प्रतीपादौ उपमान- तामात्रकृत एवोत्कर्षः न वैधर्म्यकृतः । साधर्म्यस्थैव प्रत्ययात्। अधिकगुणवर्व- मात्रम् उपमानगतापकर्षमात्रं वा न व्यतिरेकस्वरूपम् । The same writer later likerwise remarks (p.350)- ननु अस्यालंकारस्य वैधर्म्य- मूलस्य उपमाप्रतिकूलत्वमेवोचितम् न तूपमागर्भत्वम् तस्याः साधर्म्यमूलकत्वात् अस्य च तन्निषेधरूपेणैव प्रवृत्तेः। न चेष्टापत्तिः सिद्धान्तभङ्गप्रसङ्गात्। सत्यम्। यद्रुणपुरस्कारेण यस्य यत्सादृश्यनिषेधः उत्कर्षपर्यवसायी तस्य तद्रुणपुरस्कारेण तत्सादृश्य स्याप्रतिष्ठानेपि गुणान्तरेण सादृश्यप्रत्ययस्य दुर्वारत्वात्। यदि च तत्सादृश्य- सामान्यनिषेधो विवक्षितः स्यात् गुणविशेषपुरस्कारोनर्थकः स्यान् धनेनायमस्मादधिक इत्युक्ते विद्यया रूपेण कुलेन च सम इति सर्वजनीनप्रत्ययात्। एवं च प्रतीयमानमपि सादृश्यं गुणान्तरकृतनिषेधोत्थापितेनोत्कर्षेण हृतप्रभमिव बन्दीकृतमिव न चमत्कार- विशेषमाधातुं प्रभवतीति प्राचामाशयः । (ii) The variety called प्रतिषेधोपमा (ii. 34) comes nearer to this figure. As Daņdin gives it as an Upamā variety some kind of साम्य between the moon and the face must evidently have been intended, The point of the H is not here actually expressed. If we imagine that it is the कान्ति the example becomes a regular व्यतिरेक with the implied साम्य as regards कान्ति and the expressed भेद in consequence of कलकू and जडता-compare ii. 187 below. If however we regard the point of साधर्म्य and वैधर्म्य to be the same-say आह्लादकत्व-and interpret the example to mean that the moon, because of its two defects, cannot be a match to the face as regards charm-

ii.180-] Kāvyādarsa [ 134

ingness-and this is how Dandin wants us to under- stand the passage-we can distinguish प्रतिषेधोपमा from व्यतिरेक because in the former there is not गुणविशेषवत्त्वेन उत्कर्ष: as Jagannatha would say. Compare to the same effect the definition of Rudrata ( vii. 86)- यो गुण उपमेये स्यात् तत्प्रतिपन्थी च दोष उपमाने। व्यस्तसमस्तन्यस्तौ तौ व्यतिरेकं त्रिधा कुरुतः ॥ As the Agnipurāņa does not recognise Vyatireka as a distinct figure, what it defines as Vyatirekopamā (344. 13-14)- बहोर्धर्मस्य साम्येपि वैलक्षण्यं विवक्षितम्। यदुच्यतेतिरिक्तत्वं व्यतिरेकोपमा तु सा। must be taken to include both व्यतिरेक and प्रतिषेधोपमा. (iii) As to the varieties of this figure, since one aspect of it is उपमा, - as Jagannatha observes-उपमाप्रभेदा: सर्व एवात्र संभवन्ति। But it is usual to recognise only three of them according as the साधर्म्य is शब्दोपात्त (i. e. both इवादीनामुपादाने शाब्दम् and तुल्यादीनामुपादाने आर्थम्) or प्रतीत. Next as to भेदकथनम्-उपमानस्यापकर्षनिमित्तम् उपमेयस्योत्कर्षनिमित्तं चेत्युभयमपि यत्रोक्तं तत्रैकः । अपकर्षहेतुमात्रस्य उत्कर्षहेतुमात्रस्य उक्तौ द्वयोरप्यनुक्तौ च त्रयो मैदा: इति चत्वारः। This gives by combination 12 varieties, and the introduction of शलेष in the statement of भेद at once doubles their number. A further principle of sub-division is the relation between the two things brought together for comparison and contrast, which might be either class-concepts or individuals (स्वजाति- व्यतिरेक or स्वव्यक्तिव्यतिरेक); and the last differentia is the motive for H which may be simple or rendered complex by involving a further process of similarity within the difference, as in ii. 193, 194. All these principles are admitted by Dandin, though not actually illustrated. (iv) In all latter-day discussions about Vyatireka there is a theme that comes in invariably for treatment the genesis of which is to be found in the following statement of Rudrata ( vii. 89-90 )- यो गुण उपमाने वा तत्प्रतिपन्थी च दोष उपमेये। भवतो यत्र समस्तौ स व्यतिरेकोयमन्यस्तु ॥ क्षीणः क्षीणोपि शशी भूयो भूयो विवर्धत सत्यम्। विरम प्रसीद सुन्दरि यौवनमनिवर्ति यातं तु॥

135 ] Notes [-ii. 184

Ruyyaka ( p. 80) explains the point of the example of this उपमानादुपमेयस्याधिकगुणत्वे व्यतिरेक by saying-चन्द्रापेक्षया च यौवनस्य न्यूनगुणत्वम्। शशिवैलक्षण्येन तस्यापुनरागमात्। As against this Mammata asserts (p. 784)- अत्र यौवनगतास्थैर्याधिक्यं हि विवक्षितम्। Jayaratha the author of अलंकारसर्वस्वविमर्शिनी and Visvanatha the author of साहित्यदर्पण side with the older school while Jagannatha follows Mammata. The following full extract from the रसगङ्गाधर (pp. 352-353) will make the position on either side quite clear- नन्वत्र उपमानादुपमेयस्य न्यूनत्वं व्यतिरेक इति न युक्तम् तस्य हि वास्तवेनाहृद्य- त्वात्। यौवनस्य चास्थिरत्वे प्रतिपाद्ये चन्द्रापेक्षयाधिकगुणत्वमेव विवक्षितम् यदेत- च्चन्द्रवत् यातं सन्न पुनरायातीति। [इति चेदसदेतत्।] यतोत्र चन्द्रवद्गतं सद्यौवनं यदि पुनरागच्छेत् तत् प्रियं प्रति चिरमीर्ष्याद्यनुबन्धो युज्येत। इदं पुनर्हतयौवनं यातं सत् पुनर्नागच्छतीति ईर्ष्याद्यन्तरायपरिहारेण निरन्तरतयैव प्रियेण सह जनु: सफलयितव्यम्। धिगीर्ष्याम्। त्यज प्रियं प्रति मन्युम्। कुरु प्रसादम्। इति प्रिय- वयस्योपदेशे प्रियं प्रति कोपोपशमाय चन्द्रापेक्षया यौवनस्यापुनरागमनं न्यूनगुणत्वेन विवक्षितमिति न्यूनत्वमपि व्यतिरेकः रसपरिपोषकतया चास्यापि हृद्यत्वम् इति। [Jagannatha replies] तदुभयमप्यसत्। अस्मिन् हि प्रियहितकारिण्या वचने चन्द्रादप्यधिकगुणत्वमेव विवक्षितम् न न्यूनगुणत्वम्। चन्द्रो हि पुनः पुनरा- गमनेन लोके सुलभः अत एव न तादृशमाहात्म्यशाली । इदं च पुनर्योवनमपुनरा- गमनेनातिदुर्लभतरत्वादत्युत्कृष्टभिति मानादिभिरन्तरायैः शठजनश्रलाघनीयैर्विदग्वया भवत्या मुधा गमयितुमसांप्रतमिति तावदुपात्तगुणकृतमुत्कृष्टत्वं स्फुटमेव। सकल- सुखनिदानत्वाद्यनुपात्तगुणकृतोप्युत्कर्षोत्र वाक्यार्थपरिपोषाय सहृदयसरणिमवतरति। अन्यथा किमित्यस्य कदर्ययावनस्य कृते मया मानाद्विरंस्यते यातु नाम यौवनमिति प्रतिकूलेनार्थेन प्रकृतार्थस्यापुष्टतापत्तेः।

Notes to II. 181-184-(i) As we have seen ( Note (iii) to ii. 180) it has been customary to have, along with T3 and उभय Vyatireka, अनुभय Vyatireka with the three sub-varieties depending upon the manner of express- ing साधर्म्य, each with further two-fold differentiation depending upon the presence or absence of शलेष. The three शलेष varieties from out of these six are declared to be impossible. Says Uddyota on Kāvyaprakāśa. pradipa (p. 793)-अत्रेदं चिन्त्यंम्।उपात्तवैधर्म्योशे श्लेषेणैव व्यतिरेकस्य श्लेषमूलकत्वमुचितम् नतु यत्रकुत्रापि श्लेषेण। एवं चोभयानुपादाने श्लेषकृतभेदत्रयं चिन्त्यमेव। To which may be added the conclusion of Jagannatha-इत्थं च चतुर्विशतिर्भेदा इति प्राचामुक्तिर्विपुलोदाहरणा-

ii. 185-] Kāvyādarsa [ 136

Notes to II. 185-188-(i) These three varieties are an attempt, after Dandin's manner, to combine the वैचित्र्य of this figure with that of some other figure or figures.

Notes to II. 189-(i) As before observed ( Note (iii) to ii. 180), शब्दोपादानसादृश्य includes what is called शाब्दसाधर्म्य as well as आर्थसाधर्म्य. Regarding this distinction Mammata notes (pp.664 ff.)-यथववादिशब्दाः यत्पराः तस्यैवोपमानताप्रतीतिरिति यद्यप्युपमानविशेषणान्येते तथापि शब्दशक्तिमहिम्ना श्रुत्यैव षष्टीवत् संबन्धं प्रति- पादयन्तीति तत्सद्भावे श्रौती उपमा। तथैव तत्र तस्येव (पा० V. i. 116) इत्यनेन विहितस्य वतेमपादाने ।I तेन तुल्यं मुखम् इत्यादावुपमेये एव तत् तुल्यमस्य इत्यादौ चोपमाने एव इदं च तच्च तुल्यम् इत्युभयत्रापि तुल्यादिशब्दानां विश्रान्ति- रिति साम्यपर्यालोचनया तुल्यताप्रतीतिरिति साधर्म्यस्य आर्थत्वात् तुल्यादिशब्दो- पादाने आर्थी। तद्वत् तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद्वतिः (पा० V. i. 115) इत्यनेन विहितस्य वतेः स्थितौ ॥ In प्रतीयमानसादृश्य the उपमावाचकशब्द is al- together absent.

Notes to II. 190-192-(i) Compare ii. 190 with ii. 22. In the latter इयत्येव भिदा नान्या emphatically declares the साधर्म्य. In the former only the भेद is stated and the साधर्म्य is left to be inferred. It should also be noted that ii. 22 mentions a circumstance that can be regard- ed as उपमानोत्कर्षहेतु while the जलसंरोहि of ii. 190-by an easy change into जडसंरोहि and even without it-can con- stitute an उपमानापकर्षहेतु. (ii) On ii. 191, which Bhoja quotes, he observes (p.237)-अत्र कान्तामृगेक्षणयोः प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोः भ्रविलासमदरागौ तदभावौ च विसदृशौ भेदकाविति सोयं प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोरसदृशव्यतिरेकः ।

Notes to II. 193-196-(i) The essence of a सदृशव्यतिरेक con- sists in the fact that in it what is offered as a भेदक or distinguishing characteristic between the उपमान and the उपमेय has in it an element of सादृश्य. The सादृश्य how- ever is sufficiently subdued to allow the भेदप्रतीति to gain hold upon our mind at least in the first instance. Bhoja observes on this stanza as follows (p. 305)-

137 ] Notes [ -ii. 196

अत्र मुखाम्भोजयोः फुलले, सुरभिगन्धिनी इति पदाभ्यामभिधीयमानसादृश्ययोः सहशमेव भ्रमद्धमरत्वं लोलदृष्टित्वं च भेदकमुपन्यस्तमिति सोयं शब्दोपात्तसादृश्ययोः सदृशव्यतिरेकः । (ii) The illustration in ii. 194 and its explanation in ii. 195 have given rise to a serious difference of opinion amongst the commentators, which is partly helped by a difference of reading in ii. 195. The read- ing adopted by us is supported by strong manuscript authority while P's substitution of चन्द्रहंसयो: for वियदम्भसोः is hardly motivated, although he remarks-अत्र पूर्वारधान्ते वियदम्भसोरिति उत्तरार्धान्ते चन्द्रहंसयोरिति पाठो न मनोरमः। It is even doubtful if P. had any Mss. to back him. (iii) The commentaries A and B printed in the Madras edition are at one in regarding ii. 194 as containing two illustrations of सदृशव्यतिरेक, one in each ardha, the first being प्रतीयमान(=कथचित् उन्नीयमान)साधर्म्ये and the second प्रतीत(=प्रसिद्ध)साधम्ये, both however being dis- tinct from ii. 193, which is a case of शब्दोपात्तसाम्य. The full statement of the figure according to this view is- पूर्वारध उत्तरार्धे उपमान-चन्द्र उपमान-नभस् उपमेय-हंस उपमेय-पयस् प्रतीतसाम्य-शुद्धि प्रतीयमानसाम्य-शौक्ल्य [v. 1. सौक्ष्म्य] भेदक-अम्बर, तोय भेदक-नक्षत्र, कुमुद भेदकसादृश्य-नलित्व भेदकसादृश्य-मनोहारित्व. Our criticism of this view is-(i) it is not quite clear why two examples are needed: Dandin hardly ever introduces an extra sub-variety in this way. (ii) The words प्रतीत and प्रतीयमान are given a rather unusual sense. (iii) The भेदकसादृश्य has to be extraneously brought in. It is not likely that where the main point of the illustration is the सादृश्य of the भेदक Dandin would leave that to be entirely supplied. (iv) It is not explained why the भेदकs of the first example are made the उपमान and उपमेय in the second. It cannot be a mere accident. Lastly, (v) Why should शुद्धि be प्रसिद्ध and शोक्ल्य [or सौक्ष्म] be अप्रसिद्ध? And in any case why does ii. 195 first explain the example in the उत्तरार्ध and then that in the पूर्वार्ध rather than vice versa? 18 [ Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 196-] Kāvyādarśa [ 138

(iv) A better way of understanding the passage would probably be to regard ii. 194 as forming one exam- ple of सदृशव्यतिरेकिता with प्रतीयमान(=शब्दानुपात्त)साम्य. Thus- उपमान-चन्द्र उपमेय-हंस शब्दानुपात्तसाम्य-शुद्धि, which is apprehended first (प्रतीत) भेदक-नभस्, पयः भेदकसादृश्य-नक्षत्रमालिता, उत्फुल्लकुमुदत्व; this is apprehended as an after-thought. The only difficulty in the way of this interpretation is the two dual locatives (or genitives) connected by a in ii. 195. The locatives can be translated by-"between the moon and the hansa, in regard to sky and water, a difference etc."; and a could be regarded as explative. Bhoja, it must be added, favours the earlier interpre- tation. His remarks on this stanza are (p. 305)- अत्र पूर्वार्धे चन्द्रहंसयोः प्रतीयमानसादृश्ययोरम्बरोत्तंसत्वतोयभूषणत्वे उत्तरार्धे तु नभःपयसोर्नक्षत्रमालित्वोत्कुमुदत्वे सदृशे एव भेदके । सोयं प्रतीयमानसाहृश्ययोः सदृशव्यतिरेकः ।

Notes to II. 197-198-(i) Bhoja remarks on this illustra- tion as follows (p. 303)-अत्र यौवनप्रभवस्य तमसः तमोजात्या सह दृष्टिरोधकरमिति सादृश्यमुक्त्वा अरत्नालोकसंहार्यमवार्य सूर्यरश्मिभिरिति व्यतिरेको विहितः । सोयं स्वजातिव्यतिरेकः । (ii) This stanza is made to support the weight of a chronological argument for the priority of Bāna's Kādambarī over the Kāvyādarsa of Dandin-a weight which it is too weak to sustain; for, even though the conclusion be sound it should not be supported by an unsound argument. Peterson (Daśakumāra, First Edi- tion, Preface) and Pandit Maheśchandra Nyāyaratna before him (A.S. B., Proceedings 1887, p. 193) regard Kāvyādarśa ii. 197 as a reminiscence of Bāņa in his Kadambari, (B.S.S.p.102, 1. 16)-केवलं च निसर्गत एव अभानु- भेद्यमरत्नालोकोच्छेद्यमप्रदीपप्रभापनेयमतिगहनं तमो यौवनप्रभवम्। Nothing need hinder us, as far as the two passages alone are concerned, from regarding the Kādambarī idea as an elaboration of that in the Kāvyādarśa. More probably the two are quite independent of each other.

139 ] Notes [-ii. 199

Notes to II. 199-(i) Compare Notes (i) and (ii) to ii. 131- 132. In further distinction of कारणाक्षेप from विभावना it may be stated that while the former stops at a mere denial of the cause the main point of the latter turns rather upon the विभावन or imagining of the new cause (or स्वाभाविकत्व) to explain the effect. The name of this figure can be explained as विभाव्यते कारणान्तरादि यस्याम् (the way that Dandin suggests) or विशिष्टस्य कार्यस्य भावनं यत्र (the way that Bhāmaha (ii. 77), Udbhata (P. 38), and Ruy- yaka (P. 124) prefer), both explanations of course amounting to the same thing. But it is interesting to note, as an indication of a difference in tradition, that Dandin and Bhamaha give different explanations. We may also mention another fact in this connection that would point to the same conclusion. In the definition of this figure Bhāmaha, Udbhața, Vāmana Mammata and others use the word क्रिया instead of कारण or ag, which is chosen by Dandin, Bhoja, Ruyyaka, Rudrața, Viśvanātha, Jagannātha, and others. Pratī- harenduraja explains the use of the word क्रिया as follows (p. 38)-इह यत्किंचित् ज्ञायते तत् सर्वे क्रियाफलम्। क्रियामुखेन कारणेभ्यः कार्योत्पत्तेः प्रातीतिकेन रूपेण परिदृश्यमानत्वात् सर्वेषां फलभूतानां क्रियैवाव्यवहितं कारणम्। यत्र च क्रिया प्रतिषिध्यते अथ च क्रियाफलस्योत्पत्तिरुप- दिश्यते तन विभावनाख्योलंकारः । Ruyyaka's comment on this terminology is worth quoting (p.125)-इह च लक्षणे यद्यप्यन्यैः कारणपदस्थाने क्रियाग्रहणं कृतं तथापीह कारणपदमेव विहितम् । नहि सवैः क्रियाफलमेव कार्यमभ्युपगम्यते वैयाकरणैरव तथाभ्युपगमात्। अतो विशेषमनपेक्ष्य सामान्येन कारणपदमेवेह निर्दिष्टम्।

(ii) The production of an effect without a cause is a violation of the natural law of causation-is a gfz- क्रमविरोध. As Jagannatha observes (p. 435)-विरोधमूला हि विभावनाद्यलंकारा: ! विरोधस्यैव विद्युत्प्रभाववदापाततः प्रतिभासमानस्य चमत्कार- बीजत्वात। Vibhavana, however, is to be distinguished from the figure-of-speech called Virodha (ii.333 ff.) where the things brought in opposition to each other are equipotent and are not related to each other by any causal relation. As the Alamkārasarvasva says (p. 124)-कारणाभावेन चोपकान्तत्वात् बलवता कार्यमेव बाध्यमानत्वेन प्रतयते न तु तेन कारणाभावः इत्यन्योन्यबाधकत्वानुप्राणिताद्विरावालंकारात् भेद:। To

ii. 199- ] Kāvyādarsa [ 140

the same effect writes the author of the Sāhitya- darpana (p.551)-विभावनायां कारणाभावेन उपनिबध्यमानत्वात् कार्यमेव बाध्यत्वेन प्रतीयते। विशेषोक्तौ च कार्याभावेन कारणमेव। इह त्वन्योन्यं द्योरपि बाध्यत्वमिति भेदः। We can in brief say that Virodha is a general name for figures-of-speech based on contradic- tion, and that विभावना as well as विशेषोक्ति are parti- cular cases of Virodha that have been recognised as independent figures.

(iii) The contradiction involved in a Vibhāvanā is of course an apparent contradiction which admits of an easy solution by कारणान्तरविभावन or स्वाभाविकत्वविभावन. The solution, however, ought to be quite easy: समाधौ सुलभे सति, as Bhamaha (ii.77) and Udbhata after him (p.38) observe; and yet at the same time there must be some kind of an actual problem to be solved. Thus in the illustration in ii. 200 क्षीबत्व has two senses: पानमत्तता, the primary sense, and शरत्कालजनितोत्साहविशेष:, the secondary sense. Now सुरापान is not the cause of the उत्साहविशेष and so there is no contradiction in the statement that the कादम्बs are अपीतक्षीव. Such is the solution or समाधि. The difficulty arose from the identification of the secondary sense of क्षीबता with the primary sense. Adapting the explanation of Jagannatha (p.432) to the case in point we can say-अत्र यस्य कार्यस्योत्पत्तिर्निबध्यते न हि तदीयकारणंत्वेनावगतस्य व्यतिरेकः प्रतीयते। यदीयकारणव्यतिरेकश्र प्रतीयते न हि तस्य कार्यस्योत्पत्तिर्निबध्यते। क्षीबत्वं चात्र शरत्कालजनितोत्साहविशेषः । न तु पानमत्तता। पानं च न कालजनितमत्ततायाः कारणम् । अपि तु वारुणीविकार- विशेषस्य। तथा च कथमत्र विभावना इति चेन्न। मुख्यं हि क्षीबत्वं पानमत्तता । गौणं च शरत्कालजनितोत्साहविशेषः । तयोरगौणमुख्ययोः क्षीबयोः सादृश्यमूलेन अभेदाध्यवसानरूपेणातिशयेन सति भेदस्थगने मत्तताकारणमपि पानं शरत्कालीनो- तसाहकारणं संपद्यते। तदभावे चात्र कार्याभिन्नतयाध्यवसितस्य पीडाविशेषस्योप- निबन्धनान्न विभावनानुपपत्तिरूपो दोषः । एवं चास्मिन्नलंकारे सर्वत्रापि कार्योशे अभेदाध्यवसानरूपातिशयोक्तिरनुप्राणकतया स्थिता। तथा च आयसादिपिण्डवदेकी- कृतस्य वस्तुतः सदृशवस्तुद्वयैकावयवसंबन्धिकारणव्यतिरेकसामानाधिकरण्येन अपरा- वयवमादाय पर्यवसानं भवति। तत्र च कार्योशः कारणभावरूपविरोधिनो बाध्यंतयैव स्थितः न वाधकतया। कार्योशस्य कल्पितत्वात् कारणाभावस्य च स्वभावसिद्धत्वात्। अत एव कार्योशो रूपान्तरेण पर्यवस्यति इति। तथा च प्रकृतस्थले एवं निष्पन्नम्। वस्तुतः कारणभेदात् पानादिजन्यं क्षीबत्वं भिन्नम् भिन्नं च शरत्कालजन्यम्। तच् साहृश्यात् अभेदाव्यवसानेन अभिन्नं भवति। तथा च पानादिकारणाभावेपि शरज्जन्यस्य

141 ] Notes 1 -ii.199

विजातीयस्य क्षीबत्वस्य स्थितिः संभवत्येव। तस्मात् कारणाभावे कथं कार्योत्पत्तिः इति शंकाया नोत्थितिः । (iv) Vibhāvanā can be variously sub-divided. The commonest division is two-fold: उक्तनिमित्ता and अनुक्तनि- मित्ता; but we can have more. For instance the प्रसिद्धहेतु might be itself bodily negated (स्वरूपतः) or there may be a statement of its powerlessness to discharge its function though actually present (व्यापाराभाव: as in ii. 338), or its deficiency in regard to its qualities and attributes (अवच्छेदकाभाव: as in ii. 324) or as regards its associated adjunct (सहकार्याभावः). For illustrations and details see Alamkārakaustubha, pp. 311-12, where some of the examples given are, according to Dandin, examples of Virodha and not of Vibhāvana. The Kuvalayānandakāra gives six kinds of Vibhāvanā, as under (stanzas 76ff.)- विभावना विनापि स्यात् कारणं कार्यजन्म चेत्। अप्यलाक्षारसासिक्तं रक्तं तच्चरणद्वयम्॥ हेतूनामसमग्रत्वे कार्योत्पत्तिश्र सा मता। अस्त्ररतीक्ष्णकठिणैर्जगज्जयति मन्मथः ॥ कार्योत्पत्तिस्तृतीया स्यात् सत्यपि प्रतिबन्धके। नरेन्द्रानेव ते राजन् दशत्यसिभुजंगमः ॥ अकारणात् कार्यजन्म चतुर्थी स्याद्विभावना। शङ्-खाद्वीणानिनादोयसुददेति महदद्भुतम् ॥ विरुद्धात् कार्यसंपत्तिर्दष्टा काचिद्विभावना। शीतांशुकिरणास्तन्वीं हन्त संजापयन्ति ताम् ॥ कार्यात् कारणजन्मापि दृष्टा काचिद्विभावना। यशः पयोराशिरभूत् करकल्पतरोस्तव।। In criticism of this six-fold division Jagannātha says (p. 434)-तस्मादाद्येन प्रकारेण प्रकारान्तराणामालीढत्वात् षद प्रकारा इत्यनुप- पन्नमेव । Rudrata (ix. 16-21) in a like manner, after laving down that विभावना is a figure of speech based upon अतिशय, attempts a three-fold division of it, which is also not distinctive enough. More worthy of con- sideration is the classification of Bhoja who, after giving the two-fold distinction of कारणान्तरविभावना and स्वाभाविकत्वविभावना after the manner of Dandin, gives a three-fold sub-classification as follows (iii. 10ff.)- शुद्धा चित्रा विचित्रा च विविधा सा निगदते। शुद्धा यत्रैकमुद्दिश्य हेतुरेको निवर्तत॥

ii. 199- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 142

अनेको यत्र सा चित्रा विचित्रा यत्र तां प्रति। तयान्यया वा गीर्भङ्ग्या विशेष: कश्चिदुच्यते॥ Vibhāvanā is closely allied to Viśeshokti and more comment on this figure will be found in our Notes to ii. 323.

Notes to II. 200-202-(i) Bhoja regards these as examples of शुद्धा विभावना as above defined. His explanation of ii. 200 is-अत्रैकैकं कादम्बादिकमुद्दिश्य क्षीबतादे: पीतत्वादिरेकैकः प्रसिद्धहेतु- व्यावतेते हेत्वन्तरं च शरत्प्रभावो विभाव्यते। सेयं शुद्धा नाम कारणविभावनायां विभावना । and of ii. 201 in similar terms-अत्रैकैकं दृष्टयादिक- मुद्दिश्य असितत्वादेरनज्जितत्वादिरेकैको हेतुर्व्यावर्त्यते स्वाभाविकत्वं चासितत्वादि दृष्टयादेर्विभाव्यते। सेयं शुद्धा नाम स्वाभाविकविभावनायां विभावना।

Notes to II. 203-204-(i) In ii. 203 there is no विभावन of anything. There is no कारणान्तर and the स्वाभाविकत्व is शब्दोपात्त. We can possibly say that the प्रसिद्धहेतु that is denied is itself विभाव्य; but it is a question if Dandin so understands the matter.

Notes to II. 205-207-(i) The following are some of the more important definitions of Samāsokti-

Agnipurāņa (345. 17)- यत्रोक्तं गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समानविशेषणः । सा समासोक्तिरुदिता संक्षेपार्थतया बुघैः ॥

Bhǝ̄maha (ii. 79)- यत्रोक्ते गम्यतेन्योर्थस्तत्समानविशेषणः । सा समासोक्तिरुद्दिष्टा संक्षिप्तार्थतया यथा॥

Udbhata (page 39)- प्रकृतार्थेन वाक्येन तत्समानैर्विशेषणैः। अप्रस्तुतार्थकथनं समासोक्तिरुदाहता॥

Vāmana (iv. 3. 3)- उपमेयस्यानुक्तौ समानवस्तुन्यास्रः समासोक्तिः। संक्षेपवचनात् समा- सोक्तिरित्याख्या।

143 ] Notes [ -ii. 207

Ruyyaka (page 84)- विशेषणानां साम्यादप्रस्तुतस्य गम्यत्वे समासोक्तिः।

Bhoja (iv. (6, 49)- यत्रोपमानादेवैतदुपमेयं प्रतीयते। अतिप्रसिद्धेस्तामाहुः समासोक्ति मनीषिणः ॥ संक्षेपेणोच्यते यस्मात् समासोक्तिरियं ततः । सवान्योक्तिरनन्योक्तिरुभयोक्तिश् कथ्यते।

Mammata (page 741)- परोक्तिर्भेदकैः श्िलिष्टैः समासोक्तिः । Viśvanātha (x. 56)- समासोक्तिः समैर्यत्र कार्यलिङ्गविशेषणैः । व्यवहारसमारोपः प्रस्तुतेन्यस्य वस्तुनः ॥ And finally, Jagannātha (page 367)- यत्र प्रस्तुतधर्मिको व्यवहारः साधारणविशेषणमात्रोपस्थापिताप्रस्तुत- धर्मिकव्यवहाराभेदेन भासते सा समासोक्तिः ।

(ii) It will be observed that while Dandin gives for this figure a most elementary definition, the advance in the various other definitions consists in introducing further conditions and qualifications in the definition with a view to delimit its sphere and to distinguish it from other allied figures such as प्रतिवस्तूपमा, तुल्ययोगोपमा, अंर्थान्तरन्यास, तुल्ययोगित्ता, and अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. The first point to be noted is that, as far as Dandin's definition goes, it includes cases where the अप्रस्तुत conveys the प्रस्तुत or the प्रस्तुत the अप्रस्तुत; but all the writers whose definitions are quoted above-except the first two-include only the former case under समासोक्ति, designating the latter as अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. Dandin recognises the figure अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, but as he understands प्रशंसा as स्तुति and not mere कथन, his definition is not अतिव्याप्त. See our note to ii. 340 .. In the second place, while Dandin only requires that the two वस्तुs be तुल्य, some of the later writers want that they should be alike as regards their faarus and that further these विशेषणs be paronomastic or श्िलिष्ट. Ruyyaka's remarks in this connection are quite ex- plicit (p. 84)-इह प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतानां क्वचिद्वाच्यत्वं क्वचिदम्यत्वमिति द्वैवि- ध्यम्। वाच्यत्वं च श्लेषनिर्देशभङ्गया पृथगुपादानेन वेत्यपि द्वैविध्यम्। एतद्विविधमपि

ii. 207-1 Kāvyādarśa [ 144

श्लेषालंकारस्य विषयः । गम्यत्वं तु प्रस्तुतनिष्ठमप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाविषयः अप्रस्तुतनिष्ठं तु समासोक्तिविषयः । तत्र च निमित्तं विशेषणसाम्यम् । विशेष[ष्य]स्यापि साभ्ये श्लेषप्राप्तेः । विशेषणसाम्याद्धि प्रतीयमानमप्रस्तुतं प्रस्तुतावच्छेदकत्वेन प्रतीयते। अवच्छेदकत्वं च व्यवहारसमारोपः न रूपसमारोपः । रूपसमारोपे तु अवच्छा- दितत्वेन प्रकृतस्य तद्रपरूपित्वादेव रूपकम्। तच्च विशेषणसाम्यं श्लिष्टतया साधारण्येनौपम्यगर्भत्वेन च भावात् त्रिधा भवति। (iii) In प्रतिवस्तूपमा, तुल्ययोगोपमा, तुल्ययोगिता, and अर्थान्तरन्यास, for one reason or another, both the प्रस्तुत and the अप्रस्तुत are शब्दोपात्त; in समासोक्ति only one of them is present, the second being Ey by one of the three modes described at the end of the above quotation. We have just referred to Dandin's conception of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. Dandin does not recognise the figure called शलेष, regarding which the प्रतापर्द्रीय says (p. 410)-समासोक्तौ विशेषणविशेष्ययोद्वयो- रुपादानाभावाच्छ्लेषाद्विशेष:। Lastly the commentators spend much ingenuity in distinguishing एकदेशविवर्ति रूपक from समासोक्ति, regarding which the following brief statement of conclusion should suffice (Jayaratha, p. 85)-uå समासोक्तौ व्यवहारसमारोपाद प्रस्तुतेन प्रस्तुतस्य वैशिष्टयलक्षणमवच्छेदकत्वं विधीयते रूपके तु रूपसमारोपाद्रपरूपितत्वाख्यमाच्छादकत्वम् इत्यनयोर्भेदः । This statement of the case has however been much criti- cised. We would refer the curious to Sāhityadarpana (p. 530), Kuvalayānanda (stanza 60, Vriti), Rasagan- gādhara (pp. 373 ff.), Alamkārkaustubha (pp. 254 ff.) and Sāhity asāra, (pp. 446 ff.). (iv) For sub-divisions of Samāsokti see Notes to ii. 208 below. Samasokti is liable to a दोष called अनुपादेयत्व, which Mammata (p. 958) thus explains- साधारणविशेषणवशादेव समासोक्तिरनुक्तमपि उपमानविशेषणं प्रकाशयतीति तस्यात्र पुनरुपादाने प्रयोजनाभावादनुपादेयत्वम्। यथा स्पृशति तिग्मरुचा ककुभः करे- दयितयेव विजम्भिततापया। अतनुमानपरिग्रहया स्थितं रुचिरया चिरयापि दिनश्रिया॥ अत्र तिग्मरुचे: ककुभां च यथा सदृशविशेषणवशेन व्यक्तिविशेषपरिग्रहेण च नायकतया नायिकात्वेन च व्यक्ति: तथा ग्रीष्मदिवसश्रियोषि प्रतिनायिकात्वेन भविष्यतीति किं दयितयेति स्वशब्दोपादानेन।

145 ] Notes [ -ii. 214

Notes to II. 208-213-(i) A detailed classification of this figure is as follows (cp. Alamkārasarvasva pp. 88f.)- समासोक्ति

शुद्धकार्यसमारोपेण विशेषणसाम्येन उभयमयत्वेन

श्लिष्विशेषणै: 1 साधारणविशेषणे: औपम्यगर्भविशेषणैः

धर्मसमारोपेण कार्यसमारोपेण उपमासंकरेण समासेन And this has been combined (loc. cit.) with another four-fold classification-सर्वत्र चात्र व्यवहारसमारोप एव जीवितम्। स च लौकिके वस्तुनि लौकिकवस्तुव्यवहारसमारोपः। शास्त्रीये वस्तुनि शास्त्रीयवस्तु- व्यवहारसमारोपः । लौकिके वा शास्त्रीयवस्तुव्यवहारसमारोपः। शास्त्रीये या लौकिकवस्तुव्यवहारसमारोप इति चतुर्धा भवति। तदेवं बहुप्रकारा समासोक्तिः। (ii) Bhoja gives an independent eight-fold classifica- tion as under (iv. 47)- प्रतीयमाने वाच्ये वा सादृश्ये सोपजायते। श्लाघां गर्हामुभे नोभे तदुपाधीन् प्रचक्षते॥ as also the varieties called अन्योक्ति, अनन्योक्ति, and उभयोक्ति, the अनन्योक्ति (=अध्यासविषया तद्भावापत्तिः) being further dis- tinguished into शुद्धा and चित्रा. (iii) Bhoja quotes stanza ii. 208 (= Bhoja iv. 48) read- ing तुल्यातुल्य for भिन्नाभिन्न. Mammata would regard ii. 209 as an अतिशयोक्ति of the first variety.

Notes to II. 214-(i) The treatment of अतिशयोक्ति by Alam- kārikas falls under two main categories. Some writers look to the etymology of the word and describe the figure in a general manner as a heightened or hyper- bolic mode of expression. The main definitions in accordance with this view are the following- Agnipurāņa (344. 25)- लोकसीमानिवृत्तस्य वस्तुधर्मस्य कीर्तनम्। भवेदतिशयो नाम संभवारसभवादद्विधा। 19 [Kāvyādarśa]

ii: 214- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 146

Bhāmaha (ii. 81) and Udbhața (p. 40)- निमित्ततो वचो यत्तु (यत्तु वच: Udbhata) लोकातिक्रान्तगोचरम्। मन्यन्तेतिशयोक्तिं तामलंकारतया यथा (बुधाः Udbhata) ।l Hemachandra (p. 264)- विशेषविवक्षया भेदाभेदयोगायोगव्यत्ययोतिशयोक्तिः । Vāgbhața (p. 37)-

Vāmana (iv. 3. 10)- संभाव्यधर्मतदुत्कर्षकल्पनातिशयोक्तिः । and Bhoja who, besides quoting Kāvyādarśa ii. 214 and ii. 220, gives the following extra characterisation of the figure (iv. 82, 83)- सा च प्रायो गुणानां च क्रियाणां चोपकल्प्यते। नहि द्रव्यस्य जातेवा भवत्यतिशयः क्वचित् ॥ प्रभावातिशयो यश्च यश्चानुभवनात्मकः । अन्योन्यातिशयो यश्च तेपि नातिशयात् पृथक्॥ (ii) It is during the process of division and sub- division of the possible hyperbolic statements of a thing-the most complete is by अप्पय्यदीक्षित, (Kuvalaya- nandavritti on stanza 36) into [रूपकातिशयोक्ति, ] भेदकाति- शयोक्ति, संबन्धातिशयोक्ति, असंबन्धातिशयोक्ति, अक्मातिशयोक्ति, चपलाति- शयोकि, and अत्यन्तातिशयोक्ति-that the later idea of the five-fold अतिशयोक्ति as understood by Mammata comes to the fore. Some of these later division-definitions are-

Mammața (p. 762)- निगीर्याध्यवसानं तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यत्। प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यत्वं यद्यर्थोक्तौ च कल्पनम् ॥ कार्यकारणयोर्यश्च पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययः । विज्ञेयातिशयोक्ति: सा ............ ।। Viśvanātha (x. 47)- भेदेप्यभेदः संबन्धेसंबन्धस्तद्विपर्ययौ। पौर्वापर्यात्ययः कार्यहेत्वोः सा पञ्चधा ततः ॥ Ruyyaka (p. 65) is most explict in the matter- अध्यवसाने त्रयं संभवति-स्वरूपं विषयो विषयी च। विषयस्य हि विषयिणान्तर्निगीर्णत्वेध्यवसायस्य स्वरूपोत्थानम्। तत्र साध्यत्वे स्वरूप- प्राधान्यम् सिद्धत्वे त्वध्यवसितत्वप्राधान्यम्। विषयप्राधान्यमध्यवसाये

147 ] Notes [ -ii. 214

नैव संभवति। अध्यवसितप्राधान्यैवातिशयोफ्तिः । अस्याक्ष पञ्च प्रकाराः । भेदेभेदः। अभेदे भेदः । संबन्धेसंबन्धः । असंबन्धे संबन्धः । कार्य-

Rudrața perhaps marks the middle stage in this pro- cess of evolution in as much as he regards अतिशय not as an independent figure-of-speech but as a rhetorical devise of the same kind as comparison or contrast and giving rise to a number of figures (12 in all) which he thus enumerates (ix. 1-2)- यत्रार्थधर्मनियमः प्रसिद्धिबाधाद्विपर्ययं याति। कश्चित् क्वचिदतिलोकं स स्यादित्यतिशयस्तस्य ।।

विषमासंगतिपिहितव्याघाताहेतवो भेदा: ॥ Just the opposite of this is the view of Hemachandra who says (p.267)- एवंविधे चं सर्वत्र विषये अतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणत्वेनाव- तिष्ठते तां विना प्रायेणालंकारत्वायोगादिति न सामान्यमीलितैकावलीनिदर्शनाविशे- षाद्यलंकारोपन्यास: श्रेयान्। (iii) Atiśayokti understood in this extended sense is called वकोक्ति by Bhamaha in the oft-quoted stanza (ii. 85)- सैषा सर्वैव वकोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते। यत्नोस्यां कविना कार्यः कोलंकारोनया विना॥ Vakrokti is formally defined by Vāmana (iv. 3.8) as सादृश्याल्लक्षणा, the point being-यत्र सादृश्यलक्षणा सहृदयहृदयेष्वविलम्बेन लक्ष्यार्थप्रतिपत्तिमुद्भावयितुं प्रगल्भते तत्र वकोक्तिरलंकार इति रहस्यम्। (iv) The most modern school as represented by Jagannātha (p. 313) and others refuses to recognise the five or more sub-varieties for the figure put forward by the Middle School. As the Alamkārakaustubha observes (p. 285)-उपमानोपमेयस्य निगीर्याध्यवसानमेवातिशयोक्तिः। प्रकारान्तरे त्वतिरिक्तालंकारान्तरकल्पनमेवोचितम्। न ह्येतच्चतुष्टयसाधारणमति- शयोक्तिलक्षणं संभवति यत्रैकधर्मावच्छिन्नत्वेनालंकारत्वं स्यात्। न चैतदन्यतमत्वमेव सवानुगतमस्तीति वाच्यम्। विच्छित्तिवैलक्षण्यसत्त्वेन्यतमत्वस्याप्रयोजकत्वात्। अन्यथा उपमानरूपकादिकतिपयान्यतमत्वं सकलान्यतमत्वं वातिशयोक्तिलक्षणं विधाय उपमादीनामप्येतद्द्ेदत्वापत्तेः । This school therefore ap- proaches the most ancient school represented, amongst others, by Dandin.

il. 214- j Kāvyādarsa 148

(v) Bhoja's statement (iv. 82) quoted above probably differentiates अतिशयोक्ति from कान्ति (i. 85); see also our Sanskrit Commentary p. 236 11. 6-12.

Notes to II. 215-216-(i) Verse 215 is given by Bhoja (p. 462) as an example of कान्त्यतिशय with the remark-अत्रैवं चन्द्रालोकस्य लोकसीमातिक्रमेण बाहुल्योत्कर्षविवक्षा येन तस्मिन् समानाभिहारेणाभिसारिका अपि न लक्ष्यन्ते सोयं कान्त्यतिशयो नामातिशयभेदः । Hemachandra (p. 265) cites this as an example of योगे अयोग :- अत्राभिसारिकाणां लक्षणक्रियायोगेपि ज्योत्स्नाबाहुल्योत्कर्षविवक्षया अयोग उक्तः। Mammata would regard the example as containing an indepen- dent figure called मीलित or पिहित ; but Bhoja observes- अथास्य पिहितान् को विशेषः । उच्यते। पिहिते चन्द्रातपस्योत्कर्षेणाभिसारिका- तिरस्कारो विवक्ष्यते इह त्वभिसारिकातिरस्कारेण चन्द्रातपोत्कर्ष इति। (ii) The foot-note on p. 237 contains a misprint. For सर्वाङ्गीणादर read सर्वाङ्गेणाईर for सर्वाङ्-गीणार्दर; and for क्षोमवत्यो in the last line read क्षोमवन्त्यो.

Notes to II. 217-218-(i) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an example of तनुत्वातिशय with the remark-अत्रैवं मध्यस्य लोकसी- मातिक्रमण तानवातिशयविवक्षा येन तदत्ति नास्तीति वा संदिह्यते। सोयं तनुत्वा- तिशयो नामातिशयभेदः ।

Notes to II. 219-(i) Bhoja (p. 462) gives this as an ex- ample of गुणातिशयेन महत्त्वातिशयः and remarks-अत्रैवरं यशोराशे- रशक्यमानस्याप्यतिशयोक्त्या विशेषविवक्षा येन त्रिभुवनोदरमपि संकीर्णमाशङ्क्यते। सोयं महत्त्वातिशयो नामातिशयभेदः। Mammata and others re- cognise this as an indeperdent figure-of-speech called अधिक.

Notes to II. 220-(i) Bhoja gives other sub-varieties of this figure such as प्रभावातिशय, अनुभवातिशय, and अन्योन्यातिशय or क्रियातिशय. (ii) Bhāmaha also delivers himself in a similar strain (ii. 84)- इत्येवमादिरुदिता गुणातिशययोगतः । सवैवातिशयोक्तिस्तु तर्कयेत् तां यथागमम्॥

149 ] Notes [-ii. 221

We have already mentioned Rudrata's attempt to regard अतिशय as a fundamentum divisionis for classi- fying figures.

Notes to II. 221-225-(i) We give below some of the more important definitions of Utprekshā - Agnipurāņa (344.24)- अन्यथोपस्थिता वृत्तिश्चेतनस्येतरस्य च। अन्यथा मन्यते यत्र तामुत्प्रेक्षां प्रचक्षते।। Udbhata (p. 43)- साम्यरूपाविवक्षायां वाच्येवाद्यात्मभिः पदैः।

Bhāmaha (ii. 91)- अविवक्षितसामान्या किंचिच्चोपमया सह।

Vāmana (iv. 3.9)- अतद्रपस्यान्यथाध्यवसानमतिशयार्थमुत्प्रेक्षा। Ruyyaka (p. 55) -- अध्यवसाये व्यापारप्राधान्ये उत्प्रेक्षा। Rudrața (viii. 32, 36)- अतिसारूप्यादैक्यं विधाय सिद्धोपमानसद्भावम्। आरोप्यते च तस्मिन्नतद्रुणादीति सोत्प्रेक्षा।। यत्र विशिष्टे वस्तुनि सत्यसदारोप्यते समं तस्य। वस्त्वन्तरमुपपत्त्या संभाव्यं सापरोत्प्रेक्षा।। Vāgbhața (p. 34)- अत्यन्तसादृश्यादसतोपि धर्मस्य कल्पनमुत्प्रेक्षा। Vāgbhata (iv. 90)- कल्पना काचिदौचित्याद्यत्रार्थेस्य सतोन्यथा। द्योतितेवादिभि: शब्दैरुत्प्रेक्षा सा स्मृता यथा॥ Bhoja (iv. 50)- अन्यथावस्थितं वस्तु यस्यामृत्प्रेक्ष्यतेन्यथा। द्रव्यं गुण: क्रिया चापि तामुत्प्रेक्षां प्रचक्षते॥ Tiemachandra (p. 247)- असद्धर्मसंभावनमिवादिद्योत्योतपरेक्षा।

ii. 221 --- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 150

Vidyānātha (p. 383) and Chitramīmānsā (p. 73)- यत्रान्यधर्मसंबन्धादन्यत्वेनोपतर्कितम्। प्रकृतं हि भवेत् प्राज्ञास्तामुत्प्रेक्षां प्रचक्षते।। Vidyādhara (viii. 12 ;- अप्रकृतत्वेन स्यादध्यवसायो गुणाभिसंबन्धात्। साध्यः प्रकृतस्य यदा कथितोत्प्रेक्षा तदा तज्ज्ञैः ॥ Mammata (p. 707)- संभावनमथोत्प्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य समेन यत्। Visvanātha (x. 40)- भवेत् संभावनोत्प्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य परात्मना। Jagannātha (p. 285) -- तद्भिन्नत्वेन तदभाववत्वेन वा प्रमितस्य पदार्थस्य रमणीतद्वत्तितत्स- मानाधिकरणान्यतरतद्धर्मसंबन्धनिमित्तकं तत्त्वेन तद्वत्त्वेन वा संभावन- मुत्प्रेक्षा। And Viśveśvara (p. 180) -- संभाव्यते सह यदा साम्यप्रतियोगिना तदुपमेयम्। तासुत्प्रेक्षामाहुर्भिन्ना हेत्वादिविषयत्वात्।। (ii) All these definitions from the simplest to the most elaborate agree as to the essentials. The points to be noted are 1. that it should be a संभावन = अन्यथोत्प्रेक्षण= अन्यथाध्यवसान=अन्यथा कल्पन =अन्यत्वेनोपतर्कण = असदारोपण, i. e., उत्कटकोटिकसंदेह. 2. That it should be deliberate or आहार्य and not due to actual error. 3. That it should be between things having similarity, and so based on similarity. 4. That it should be striking or pictures- que. 5. And that it should concern itself with the धर्म or गुण and क्रिया or व्यापार of the thing under discussion. Regarding this last requirement Pratihārendurāja observes (p. 44)- द्रव्यधर्मः सिद्धो गुणः । साध्यस्वभावस्तु क्रिया। इदं खलु विश्वं स्वतन्त्रपरतन्त्रपदार्थात्मकत्वात् द्विविधम्। यश्च स्वतन्त्रः पदार्थः स धर्मीत्यभिधीयते। तच्च इदं तदिति सर्वनामप्रत्यवमर्शयोग्यत्वात् द्रव्यम्। परतन्त्रस्य पदार्थस्य धर्मरूपता। तस्य च द्वैविध्यम् सिद्धसाध्यताभेदात्। तत्र यः सिद्धो धर्मः स गुणः यस्तु साध्यः सा क्रिया! एतावन्तश्च लौकिकाः पदार्थाः सामान्यादीन।मत्रैव प्रातीतिकेन रूपेणान्तर्भूतत्वात्। (iii) Numerous subdivisions of this figure are given by Ālamkārikas: compare Alamkārasarvasva (p. 57),

151 ] Notes [ -ii. 225

Rasagangädhara (pp. 286-87), and especially Pratāpa- rudrīya (p. 386). We can exhibit them in a tahular form thus- उत्प्रेक्षा

वाध्या प्रतीयमाना

जातिविषया गुणविषया क्रिया विषया द्रव्यविषया

जातिविषया गुणविषया क्रियाविषया द्रव्यविषया Further subdivisions of each of these varieties are as under- जातिविषया वाच्या

भावाभिमानरूपा अभावाभिमानरूपा

गुणनिमित्ता क्रियानिमित्ता गुणनिमित्ता क्रियानििता

1 उपात्तनिमित्ता अनुपात्तनि० उ०नि० अ०नि० उ०नि० अ०नि० उ०नि० अ०नि० The four main divisions of areqr are in this way divi- sible into 8 sub-varieties, thus giving rise to a total of 32 varieties under वाच्या. Each of these varieties can be further sub-divided into three sorts thus -- उपात्तभावरूपगुणनिमित्ता जातिविषया वाच्या

स्वरूपोत्प्रेक्षा हेतूत्प्रेक्षा फलोत्प्रेक्षा

Thus we have -- वाच्या जातिविषया of 24 varieties; वाच्या गुणविषया of 24 varieties ; वाच्या करियाविषया of 24 varieties; वाच्या द्रव्यविषया of 8 varieties ( ड्रव्यस्य प्रायः स्वरूपोत्प्रेक्षणमेव); प्रतीयमाना जातिविषया of 12 varieties (निमित्तस्यानुपा- दानं तस्यां न संभवति);

ii. 225- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 152

प्रतीयमाना गुणविषया of 12 varieties; प्रतीयमाना क्रियाविषया of 12 varieties ; प्रतीयमाना द्रव्यविषया of 4 varieties ;

Total 120 varieties. Illustrations for all these varieties, especially the प्रतोयमाना varieties, are not always quotable. Jagan- nātha's criticism of these manifold varieties is also worth quoting. He says (p. 295) -- इह जात्यादयो हि भेदा: प्रांचामनुरोधादुदाहताः। वस्तुतस्तु नैषां चमत्कारे वैलक्षण्यमस्तीत्यनुदाहार्मतेव। चमत्कारवैलक्षण्यं पुनर्हेतुफलस्वरूपात्मकानां त्रयाणा प्रकाराणामेव। (iv) For the distinction between उत्प्रेक्षा and उत्प्रेक्षितोपमा compare our Note to ii. 23. Bhoja, however, considers (iv. 51) उत्प्रेक्षोपमा as उपमागर्भोत्प्रेक्षा and says that it is not distinct from उत्प्रेक्षा proper. His example is -- किंशुकव्यपदेशेन तरुमा ह्य सर्वतः। दग्धादग्धामरण्यानीं पश्यतीव विभावसुः ॥ अत्र व्यपदेशशब्देन किंशुककुसुमानामन्निसादृश्यमभिधाय दर्शनक्रिया उत्प्रेक्ष्यते। This however is distinct from the 34HT variety recog. nised by Dandin.

(v) As to उत्प्रेक्षावयव being उत्प्रेक्षा compare our Notes to ii. 359.

Notes to II. 226-234-(i) This famous discussion of the लिम्पतीव stanza which has been taken over from our author by most subsequent writers such as Ruyyaka, Mammața, Viśvanātha, Jagannātha, etc, raises certain side issues which we shall first dispose of. Dandin refers to this stanza as 'having been already, before his days, the subject of discussion : it cannot therefore be of Dandin's own composition, and he cannot be reasonably supposed to have been the author of the work from which the stanza is taken. The next question is to determine the source of the quotation. Until the discovery of Bhasa's [Daridra-]Chārudatta all were content to assign the Mrichchhakatika i. 34 as the source for Dandin; but there are reasons to suppose that the Mrichchhakatika is itself an elabora- tion of the Charudatta (compare a paper on the subject

153 } Notes [-ii. 228

read by me before the First Oriental Conference held at Poona, 1919), and this leaves it an open question as to whether Dandin was indebted to Sūdraka or to Bhāsa. Exact grounds are lacking for determining the question one way or the other; but so much we have gained by the discovery of Bhäsa's plays: we need not any more link the date of Dandin to that of Sūdraka. (or of Bhāsa). If Sūdraka is to be assigned, say to cir. 600 A. D., and if reasons exist to assign Dandin to an earlier date, we can do soby making him refer to Bhāsa who gives our stanza in Chārudatta i. 19 as well as in Balacharita i. 15. If on the other hand Bhāsa turns out to be a ninth-century play-wright (I have seen this only asserted but not actually proved or even made probable) and if Dandin comes earlier, we can still preserve our countenance and make Dandin borrow from Südraka. Dandin here quotes the first balf of the stanza. One of our Mss. quotes the full stanza in this place and gives besides another extra stanza which is noticed in the Chitramimānsā (p. 77). The full stanza is repeated also as [ii. 362] which we regard as an interpolation (see Note to the stanza).

(ii) The word इव is used in उपमा as well as उत्प्रेक्षा. Compare Note (x) to ii. 14. In the latter half of ii. 227 Dandin is actually quoting the words of Patañjali. See our Sanskrit Commentary.

(iii) The qug in ii. 228-229 can be thus exhibited: The stanza लिम्पतीव तमोङ्गानि contains an उपमा with- उपमान-लिम्पति उपमेय-तमस् i. e. तमसः अधःप्रसरणं लेपनमिव।

साधारणधर्म-लेपन

वाचक-इव. Here of course one word is made to perform two func- tions, which is obviously a mistake.

(iv) In the above पूर्वपक्ष the verb लिम्पति was interpre- ted as लेपनव्यापार following the usual practice of the Vaiyākaraņas or Grammarians. According to them [ 20 Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 228- ] Kāvyādarša [ 154

लिम्पति =अमुककर्तृक-अमुककर्मक-लेपनव्यापार. Now we have seen that we cannot make the व्यापार the उपमान. Can we make the simile turn upon the subordinate elements of the व्यापार, the कर्तृ and the कर्म ? This is the point con- sidered in ii. 230. The answer is in the negative; for if the व्यापारप्रधान interpretation of लिम्पति is to be retained, the गौण factors are lost in the principal and can have no independent locus standi. This is quite obvious. (v) The पूर्वपक्ष in ii. 231 suggests that, following the Naiyayikas, we should so interpret the verb लिम्पति as to give a non-subordinate position to the कर्तृ of the लेपनक्रिया. In this view लिम्पति=अमुक[ कर्म ]वृत्तिफलजनक- लेननानुकूलकृतिमान्-कर्ता. So the proposed उपमा statement is- उपमान-लिम्पतिकर्ता or लेपक उपमेय-तमस् साधारणधर्म -? वाचकइव Now the question is, who is the लेपक? If the idea is यथा कश्चित् पुरुषः [भित्ति] लिम्पति तथा तमः अङ्गानि लिम्पति, we obvi- ously can connect अङ्गानि with the उपमेय alone and not with the उपमान also, whereas, as a matter of fact, अङ्गानि seems to be intended in the stanza as going with both. Hence Dandin says-अङ्गानीति न संबद्धम् (or adopting the variant which also has good ms. authority-संगतः अङ्गानीति न संबन्ध:). Further, the point of similarity between the proposed उपमान and उपमेय (or, adopting the variant, the point in which तमस् the उपमेय is compared with the लेपक the उपमान) has got to be extraneously supplied: it is not actually given in the stanza.

(vi) Can we not, as a possible alternative, connect अङ्गानि with both the उपमान and the उपमेय proposed in (v) above, and in this manner ?-- यथा कश्चित् पुरुषः अङ्गानि लिम्पति (or लिम्पेत्) तथा तमः अङ्गानि लिम्पति। This would obviate the first difficulty of अङ्गानीति न संबद्धम् ; but the second diffi- culty still remains. We can, it is true, conceivably imagine सान्द्रत्व or some such characteristic of the लेपन as the supposed common dharma, but it is किष्ट and

155 ] Notes l-ii. 234

more or less unsatisfactory. The common property in an FTHT, as Dandin says (ii. 232), ought to be evident, which is not the case here.

(vii) The proper way to understand the verse is not to regard it as containing an उपमा but rather an उत्प्रेक्षा. The poet intends to ascribe to anH the character of a लेपक-the उपश्लेषण or व्यापन is भ्रमातिशयकारकत्वसकलवस्तुमलिनी· करणत्वादिनिमित्तेन लेपनादिरूपतया संभावितम् as it has been well observed. The word इव accordingly can be a वाचक of उत्प्रेक्षा also.

(viii) We have said that the line लिम्पतीव etc. con- tains an उत्प्रेक्षा. There are however two possible ways of understanding the उत्प्रेक्षा. We could say that here तमःकर्तृक-अङ्गकर्मक-व्यापनं (which is the अनुपात्तविषयप्रस्तुत) नभःप्रभृति- भूपर्यन्तसकलवस्तुसान्द्रमलिनीक रणेन निमित्तेन (which is also अनुपात्त) तम:कर्तृक-अङ्गकर्मक-लेपनतादात्म्येन संभाव्यते। Or we could say. that here-अङ्गवृत्तिफलजनकव्यापनानुकूलकृतिमत्तमः (the उपात्तविषय) व्यापनेन निमित्तेन (this being अनुपात्त) अङ्गवृत्तिफलजनकलेपनानुकूलकृति- मत्कर्तृतादात्म्येन संभाव्यते। The first is the वैयाकरण view adop- ted by Daņdin, Mammața, Viśvanātha, Appayya- Dikshita and others; the second, the नैयायिक view coun- tenanced by Alamkārasarvasva, Rasagangādhara and other modern texts. The difference does not however seem to be very vital. Compare Alamkārakaustubha pp. 194-195.

(ix) Some Mss. give here (after ii. 226, first half) an extra verse which can be thus rendered- "The Ocean, by its billowy summits, is as-if grounding sandal-ointment-in-the-form-of-foam ; taking that by his hands Crays> the moon is besmearing as-it-were the Ladies-in-the-form-of- Quarters."

(x) It is usual to render उत्प्रेक्षा by Poetic-fancy. Fancy, however, is a lighter product of our plastic or creative faculty, which generally concerns itself with associations or combinations of ideas which are re- mote, recondite, arbitrary, and unexpected; while Ut-

ii. 234- ] Kāvyādarsa t 156

prekshā knows of no such limitations. At the same time, while a simile is a more or less sustained effort of the imagination to hold two things together in one consciousness with a view to establish a complete picture, an Utprekshā is a passing suggestion of the intended similarity, which may occasionally be very picturesque and which, while it lasts, gives a point of view from which the poet wishes us to understand the fact, the quality, or the action described. Hence we would render the word by Poetic-Conception.

Notes to II. 235-(i) The three figures हेतु, सूक्ष्म, and लेश, and in this order, are enumerated by Bhāmaha (ii. 86) who however says- हेतुश्र सूक्ष्मो लेशोथ नालंकारतया मतः।, the view of Dandin being just the contrary. The question about the chronological relation between the two writers cannot be settled either way on the strength of this circumstance alone. Compare, however, Notes to 244 below. Other writers who recognise all these three figures by these names are I (iii. 12, iii. 21, iv. 56), स्द्रट (vii. 82, vii. 98, vii. 100), वाग्भट (p. 43), and कुवलयानन्द (stanzas 166, 150, 137). Others recognise one or two of them only, subsuming the remaining under some other figure or figures. Dandin illustrates Hetu in ii. 236-259, defines and illustrates Sūkshma in ii. 260-264, and treats of Leśa in ii. 265-272.

(ii) Hetu is a poetic cause, and Indian Ālamkāri- kas recognise a number of figures of speech based upon causal relation. These are (cp. Note (i) to ii. 2 also)- अर्थान्तरन्यास (ii. 169), विभावना (ii. 199), समाहित (ii. 298), विशे- षोक्ति (ii. 323), निदर्शन (ii. 348),-amongst the alamkaras recognised by Daņdin-as also the alamkāras known as काव्यलिङ्ग, अनुमान, कारणमाला, अहेतु, विषम, विचित्र, समुच्चय, समाधि, व्याघात, अंसंगति, etc., not to mention alamkaras like दृष्टान्त, प्रतिवस्तूपमा, or तुल्ययोगिता (where similarity serves to illus- trate as well as to corroborate), or some sub-varieties like कारणाक्षेप or Mammata's last variety of अतिशयोक्ति (where causal relation comes in only secondarily).

157 ] Notes l -ii. 235

Ignoring the last two groups of alamkāras, and con- sidering first the alamkāras not found in the Kāvyā- darsa, it is to be noted that समाधि=समाहित, Dandin pre- serving the first word for the yur and the second for the alamkāra. Writers like Bhoja (iii. 34, iv. 44), Ruyyaka (p. 163, p. 189), and Viśvanātha (x. 86, x. 96), it is true, recognise both समाधि and समाहित as two dis- tinct alamkaras, but the समाहित of the last two writers is a रसालंकार, while we have already commented upon Bhoja's Samādhi as an alamkāra (see Note (ii) to ii. 99). About समुच्चय we shall have something to say in the Notes to ii. 298, while कारणमाला is only the हेतु with शृङ्खलावचित्र्य super-added. The figure अहेतु as recognised by Bhoja (iii. 18), Rudrata (ix. 54), and वाग्भट (p. 44) comes very near to our author's विशेषोक्ति (ii. 323). The figure काव्यालङ्ग (defined by Mammata as हेतोर्वाक्यपदार्थता) is practically the same as Dandin's हेतु, while अनुमान is the same हेतु set forth with the usual व्याप्ति and other paraphernalia of a logical inference. For the rest compare Notes (i) to (vi) to ii. 169. The other figures need not be here considered in details. See however Notes on चित्रहेतु varieties. (iii) Daņdin has given illustrations for 16 varieties of हेतु of which 14 are illustrations of कारकहेतु and only 2 (viz. ii. 244, ii. 245) are of the ज्ञापकहेतु. We have already (p. 127 above) explained the distinction between कारक and ज्ञापक हेतु, from which it will be clear that the कारकहेतु (e.g. वहनि) normally precedes the कार्य (धूम), while the ज्ञापक is the logical mark or लिङ्ग (e. g. धूम) which in its most valid from is actually the कार्य of the ज्ञाप्यवस्तु (viz. (वह्नि). But a poetic ज्ञापक need not always have that rigorous validity in its व्याप्ति which logic requires. For instance in ii. 245 the व्यापि-यत्र इन्दुपादाबाध्यश्चन्दनाम्भसामसाध्यश्च देहोष्मा तत्र कामातुरत्वम्-may conceivably be vitiated in a particular person who is restless, but not by love. It is only if the ज्ञापक is the कार्य of the ज्ञाप्य that the व्याप्ति is invariably valid.

ii. 235- j Kāvyādarša [ 158

(iv) An अर्थान्तरन्यास, as we have seen above (p. 128), involves a साध्यसाधन relation between two things or वस्तुs. Now although it is true that the most valid form of proof is the one that depends at each stage upon demonstrable causal relation between one thing and another, we are not always so rigorously exacting in ordinary life and much less so in poetry. Even analogy is often given and accepted as valid proof. Generally, however, the साध्य and the साधन are related as particular to universal, or vice versa. The particular is the result of the universal by deduction, while the universal is the result of the particular by induction. In अर्थान्तरन्यास, accordingly, the causal relation between the two statements (even where it is demonstrable) is ignored and attention is fixed upon the समर्थ्यसमर्थक rela- tion between them. In a हेतु, even in the ज्ञापक variety, the causal relation is naturally what comes to the fore ; and as the two as in question are normally two particular objects (e. g. ऊष्मा and काम in ii. 245) and not two statements as in an अर्थान्तरन्यास, the distinction between that figure and ज्ञापकहेतु is generally not very difficult to make.

(v) Some important definitions of हेतु are given below :-

Agnipurāna (344.29-32)-

सिषाधयिषितार्थस्य हेतुर्भवति साधकः। कारको ज्ञापक इति द्विधा सोप्युपजायते।।

Bhoja (iii. 12)-

क्रियायाः कारणं हेतुः कारको ज्ञापकश्च सः। अभावश्चित्रहेतुश्च चतुर्विध इहेष्यते।।

Vāgbhața (iv. 105)- यत्रोत्पादयतः कंचिदर्थ कर्तुः प्रकाश्यते। तद्योग्यतायुक्तिरसौ हेतुरुक्तो बुधैर्यथा।

159 ] Notes [ -ii, 235

Rudrața (vii. 82)- हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदकृद्रवेद्यन्न। सोलंकारो हेतुः स्यादन्येभ्यः पृथग्भूतः ॥

Vāgbhața (p. 43)- कार्यकारणयोरभेदो हेतुः।

Viśvanātha (x. 64)- अभेदेनाभिधा हेतुर्हेतोर्हेतुमता सह।

Kuvalayānanda (stanzas 166-167)- हेतोर्हेतुमता सार्ध वर्णनं हेतुरुच्यते।

... हेतुहेतुमतोरैक्यं हेतुं केचित प्रचक्षते।

(vi) Of these definitions while the first two and the first given by the Kuvalayānandakāra agree with that of Dandin, in the others is distinctly noticeable an attempt to give a special वचित्र्य to the figure besides the mere fact of one thing being the ag of another. Bhāmaha, it will be remembered, had already raised his voice against the recognition of aa as a distinct figure in as much as there was no वक्रोक्तयभिधान in it at all; and this criticism has so much weighed upon later Ālamkārikas that even so astute a writer as Jagannatha questions the validity of काव्यलिङ्ग (which with these later writers does duty for ag) as a distinct figure-of-speech. The view is thus set forth and criti- cised by Visvesvara (p. 340 f.)-यत्तु [रसगङ्गाधरे ]-काव्यलिङ्गं नालंकारः कविप्रतिभानिर्मितत्वप्रयुक्तचमत्कारविशेषात्मकविच्छित्तिविरहात् । हेतु- हेतुमद्भावस्य लोकसिद्धत्वात्। श्लेषादिसंमिश्रणजन्यस्तु चमत्कारः श्लेषप्रयुक्तत्वात् तदंशस्यैवालंकारतां कल्पयति न तु काव्यलिङ्गस्य तत्प्रयोज्यचमत्कारान्तराभावादिति तत्तुच्छम्। लौकिकत्वेपि कविप्रतिभामात्रजन्यतया चमत्कारजनकत्वात्। ...... । एवमुपमादेरप्यलंकारत्वं न स्यात् सादृश्यस्य वास्तवत्वेन कविप्रतिभाकल्पितत्व विरहात्।

(vii) The sixteen varieties of Hetu illustrated by Dandin are exhibited in the following Tabular state- ment. Bhoja has elaborated Dandin's own scheme adding minor sub-varieties .-

ii. 235- ]

हेतु

1 कारक ज्ञापक ii. 244, 245

भावरूपहेतु चित्रहेतु अभावरूपहेतु

1 Kāvyādarsa

दूरकार्य : कार्यसहज कार्यानन्तरज अयुक्तकार्य ii. 255 ii. 256 युक्तकार्य

ii. 257 ii. 258 ii. 259

निवेर्त्य विकार्य T प्राप्य

ii. 242 ii. 243 भावप्रतियोगिकाभावरूप अभावप्रतियोगिकाभावरूप

1- 1

भावरूपकार्य अभावरूपकार्य

ii. 236 ii. 238 प्रागभावप्रति० प्रध्वसा० ii. 251 अन्योन्या० अत्यन्ता० not illustrated

• प्रागभाव अन्योन्याभाव 1

प्रध्वसाभाव

ii. 247 अत्यन्ताभाव

ii. 248 ii, 249 ii. 250 [ 160

161 ] Notes [ -li. 240

Notes to II. 235-237-(i) Bhoja thus explains the illus- tration-सोयं य्थोक्तो मलयमारुतः प्रीत्युत्पादनक्रियासमावशात् प्रवर्तको नाम कारकहेतुभेद:।

Notes to II. 238-239-(i) Bhoja thus explains the illus- tration-अन्रैवंविधस्य पवनस्य पथिकप्रमाथसाधनक्रियायां कर्तृत्वेनावेशान्नि- वर्तको नामायं ......... कारकहेतुभेदः । (ii) In ii. 239d the reading आरोचक, as being the lectio difficilior and as yielding a very good sense has to be naturally preferred to the other variants available.

Notes to II. 240-(i) The threefold division of कर्म here given by Dandin is also to be found in the Vākya. padiya of Bhartrihari (iii. 45-88, कर्माधिकार), some perti- nent stanzas from the section being- निर्वर्त्ये च विकार्य च प्राप्यं च त्रिविधं मतम्। तत्रेप्सिततमं कर्म चतुर्धान्यत्तु कल्पितम् ॥ ४५ ॥ औदासीन्येन यत् प्राप्तं यच्च कर्तुरनीप्सितम्। संज्ञान्तरैरनाख्यातं यद्यच्चाप्यन्यपूर्वकम् ॥४६॥ सती वा विद्यमाना वा प्रकृतिः परिणामिनी। यस्य नाश्रीयते तस्य निर्वर्त्यत्वं प्रचक्षते॥४७ ॥ प्रकृतेस्तु विवक्षायां विकार्य कश्चिदन्यथा। निर्वत्ये च विकार्य च कर्म शास्त्रे प्रदर्शितम्॥४८॥ यदसज्जायते सद्वा जन्मना यत् प्रकाशते। तन्निर्वर्त्य विकार्य च कर्म द्वेधा व्यवस्थितम् ॥४९ ॥ प्रकृत्युच्छेदसंभूतं किंचित्काष्ठादिभस्मवत्। किंचिद्रुणान्तरोत्पत्त्या सुवर्णादिविकारवत्॥५० ॥ क्रियाकृतविशेषाणां सिद्धिर्यत्र न गम्यते। दर्शनादनुमानाद्वा तत् प्राप्यमिति कथ्यते ॥५१॥ विशेषलाभः सर्वत्र विद्यते दर्शनादिभिः । केपांचित् तदभिव्यक्तिसिद्धिर्दष्टिविषादिषु॥५२॥

यथा चैकमपादानं शास्त्रे भेदेन दर्शितम्। तथैकमेव कर्मापि भेदेन प्रतिपादितम् ॥७७॥ निर्वतयों वा विकार्यो वा प्राप्यो वा साधनाश्रयः । क्रियाणामेव साध्यत्वात् सिद्धरूपोभिधीयते॥ ७८॥ (ii) Professor K. B. Pathak (Ind. Ant. XLI, Oct. 1912, p. 237) has argued that this three-fold division of कर्म- 21 [ Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 240-] Kāvyādarśa [ 162

unknown both to Pānini and Patañjali-was evolved out of Pānini's sūtra I. iv. 49 by the genius of Bhartri- hari himself, Dandin having borrowed it from Bhartri- hari. No definite proof, however, has been adduced to prove that the three-fold division of a was first made by Bhartrihari himself. The fragmentary Berlin Ms. of Bhartrihari's commentary on Patañjali's Mahābhā- shya-the only Ms. of the work hitherto discovered- unfortunately does not go beyond I. i. 55, and we have no other clear evidence one way or the other. Seeing, however, that Bhartrihari himself, as Kielhorn points out (M. Bh., vol. ii, Preface p. 20), had an 'extensive commentorial literature' before him, it is unsafe to assert in the absence of compelling evidence that a particular doctrine originated with Bhartrihari, and to base upon that assertion other chronological super- structure. So far as the evidence goes therefore it is not proved that Dandin lived after 650 A. D., the tra- ditional date of Bhartrihari's death. (iii) A निर्वर्त्यकर्म is कट in the sentence भृत्यः कटं करोति। Here the causal activity consists in the manufacture of the az, and its exact nature is determined by the object to be produced. A विकार्यकर्म is सुवर्ण in the sentence सुवर्णकारः सुवर्णे संस्करोति. Here again the exact nature of the causal operation depends upon the sort of faar or संस्कार effected. As distinct from these is the प्राप्यकर्म, viz. ग्राम in the sentence रामो ग्रामं याति or रामो ग्रामं पश्यति. Here the गमन or दर्शन involves the same kind of activity whether its object is ITH or something else. Hence Dandin says that in निर्वर्त्य and विकार्य कर्मs the हेतुत्व is कर्मापेक्ष; while in प्राप्य it is generally (प्रायःशब्देन वुद्धिसुख- दुःखादिषु च प्राप्येषु तदपेक्षयैव हेतुत्वमिति ज्ञाप्यते-says Ca) क्रियापेक्ष only. As a further consequence it follows that in the first two instances other साधनs (expressed by other कारक cases) are required; but they are unnecessary for the last. It will be incidently noted that दर्शन involves the गमन or the issuing out of the चक्षुरिन्द्रिय to its objects, in accordance with the इद्रियाणां प्राप्यकारिता theory of sense- perception.

163 ] Notes [ -ii. 241

Notes to II. 241-245-(i) In ii. 242 the forests have been transformed into poison. A faar involves a change of form and quality, the inner substance remaining the same.

(ii) Bhoja has given ii. 243 as an illustration of what he calls प्रयोजकः क्रियानाविष्टो हेतुः। For explanation see Sarasvatīkanthābharaņa, p. 274 f.

(iii) Dandin has given for arnd an illustration that depends upon our understanding the doctrine of faerri FIRar. A straight-forward illustration would have used an ordinary verb of motion. This he has done in ii. 244; only, mere statements like "birds are repair- ing unto their nests" have no poetry if interpreted wholly and solely as containing the statement of a FA. Bhamaha criticises such bald or unpoetic statements in the following words (ii. 87)- गतोस्तमर्को भातीन्दुर्यान्ति वासाय पक्षिणः । इत्येवमादि किं काव्यं वार्तामेनां प्रचक्षते॥।

(iv) Here an interesting chronological question has been raised. Is Dandin by his words-इतीदमपि साध्वेव (ii. 244c)-expressing his dissent from Bhāmaha's unjust condemnation of the aroy; or is Bhämaha criticising Dandin by refusing to allow as poetry what Dandin gives as good poetry. At first blush both views seem to be equally correct; but it seems to us that if one of the two writers is quoting the other at all, it is Bhämaha who is criticising Dandin, though it is possible that the verse was one of the floating tradi- tional lines-like many another in Patañjali's Mahābhā- shya-which had been made the object of exposition by several Ālamkārikas before them. Daņdin, we think; gives it as his opinion that the line is unpoetic, and so is not an illustration of कारकहेतु with प्राप्यकर्म. But it can be a good aruaa for indicating the time. Mammata thus brings out the suggestion about the कालावस्था (P. 290)-गतोस्तमर्कः इत्यतः सपत्नं प्रत्यवस्कन्दनावसर इति अभिसरणमुपक्रम्यतामिति प्राप्तप्ायस्ते प्रेयानिति कर्मकरणान्निवर्तामहे इति सांध्यो विधिरुपकम्यतामिति दूर मा गाः इति सुरभयो गृहं प्रवेश्यन्तामिति संतापोधुना न

ii. 245- ] Kāvyādarta İ 164

भवतीति विक्रेयवस्तूनि संहियन्तामिति नागतोद्यापि प्रेयानित्यादिरनवधिर्व्यङ्गयोर्थ- स्तत्र तत्र प्रतिभाति। (v) Dandin uses the words इतीदमपि साध्वेव to explain why he has not taken a regular verb implying motion as his illustration for प्राप्यकर्म. A mere motion as that of birds to their nests has no afax if understood as an illustration of a कारकहेतु with प्राप्यकर्म. But, says he, the instance can be a good illustration for a ज्ञापकहेतु. After this Dandin proceeds to give a regular example of a ज्ञापकहेतु in ii. 245. Similarly Bhamaha can be under- stood as criticising the line in question even as the illustration of a ज्ञापकहेतु. It then becomes mere वार्ता, mere report of the weather, and hence void of any alamkāra. The chronological relation between Dan- din and Bhãmaha cannot in any case be made to rest upon the doubtful testimony of this passage alone.

Notes to II. 246-252-(i) Bhoja quotes from Dandin stanzas ii. 247, 248, 249, 250 and 251. His comments on these are: ii.247-अत्र विद्यानभ्यासादे: प्रागभावस्य व्यसनादिकारणत्वम्। ii. 248-अत्र कामकथोन्मादगमनादे: प्रध्वंसाभावस्य पुण्याश्रमानुसंधानकारणत्वम् (with the variant गतो for क्षतो ). ii. 249-अत्र वनानि अमूनि न गृहाणीत्यादेरि- तरेतराभावस्य मनःप्रमोदकारणत्वम् । ii. 250-अत्रानालोचितचेष्टितस्यात्यन्ताभावो विभूतीनां निर्विघ्नवृद्धिहेतु: (with the variants तेषु for तेषां and निर्वि- बन्धा विभूतयः for सततं सर्वसंपदः). ii. 251-अत्र वस्तुन उत्पाद: प्राग- भावाभाव उच्यते। तेनेह सहकारमअ्जरीणामुद्भेदस्य पथिकनारीणां मरणे कारणत्वम्। For a more accurate explanation of the last illustra- tion see our Sanskrit commentary ii. 2517. The com- mentary also gives the other three illustrations not given by Daņdin.

Notes to II. 253-254-(i) A चित्रहेतु is a violation of the law of Nature. Hence Dandin suggests that the viola- tion should not be prominently expressed but should be conveyed in a secondary or subdued tone. Otherwise it would be a different figure-of-speech.

165 1 Notes l -ii. 257

Notes to II. 255-(i) The example given involves only स्थलकृतदूरता; Bhoja gives also an example of कालकृतदूरता in the verse अनश्नवानेन etc. quoted by us in our Sanskrit commentary to ii. 255. (ii) Several writers who do not recognise Hetu as a distinct alamkara designate the स्थलकृतविदूरत्व between कारण and कार्य as a distinct figure-of-speech known as असंगति. Mammata thus defines it (p. 869)- भिन्नदेशतयात्यन्तं कार्यकारणभूतयोः । युगपद्धर्मयार्यत्र ख्यातिः सा स्यादसंगतिः॥ explaining the point thus in his Vritti-इह यद्देशं करणं तद्देशभेव कार्यमुत्पद्यमानं दृष्टम् यथा धूमादि। यत्र तु हेतुफलरूपयोरपि धर्मयोः केनाप्यतिशयेन नादादेशतया युगपदवभासनम् सा तयोः स्वभावोत्पन्नपरस्परसंगति- त्यागादसंगतिः ।

Notes to II. 256-(i) A more familiar example of this variety is- सममेव समाक्रान्त दवूयं द्विरदगामिना। तेन सिंहासनं पित्र्यमखिलं चारिमण्डलम्।। regarding which Bhoja observes-अत्र राज्याभिषेकरिपुमण्डला- क्रमणयोहेतुहेतुमद्द्ावेन सत्यपि पौर्वापरयें क्षिप्रकारित्वात् तुल्यमेव कार्यकारणभावो विवक्षितः । तेन सहजो नामायं चित्रहेतुः । (ii) The figure can be confused with सहोक्ति (ii. 352-354). The distinction between the two is explained in our Sanskrit Commentary, p. 324, lines 8-10. Compare, for the distinction between this figure and the Dipaka variety illustrated in ii. 106 our Note to this last stanza. (iii) Several later writers have subsumed this faa variety under अतिशयोक्ति, and particulaily that variety of it known as कार्यकारणयोः पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययरूपा. विपर्ययश्च द्विविध: कार्यस्य प्राथम्येन सहभावेन चेति-as a commentator explains. Thus this variety of अतिशयोक्ति would include also the next or the कार्यानन्तरज variety of चित्रहेतु.

Notes to II. 257-(i) Bhoja thus explains the illustration -- अत्र चन्द्रोदयलक्षणाद्वेतो: पूर्वकालमेव रागसागर उदर्णण इति कार्यम्योदयलाभः । स इह गुणघृत्त्यांश्रयणे हेतावतिशयं पुष्यतीत्ययं कार्यानन्तरजो नाम चित्रहेतुः ।

ii. 258- ] Kāvyādarša [ 166

Notes to II. 258-259-(i) The figure called विचित्र as recog- nised by रुय्यक (who defines it, P. 133, as-स्वविपरीतफलनि- षपत्तये प्रयत्न:), by विश्वनाथ, and by most later writers differs from these two varieties, if at all, only in the circum- stance that the aRu is in that figure supposed to be making a voluntary effort to produce an unsuitable effect. When such an effect is produced unexpectedly and disconcerts the agent we have the figures-of-speech called faqy in its several varieties, thus defined by Mammața (p, 875)- क्वचिद्यदतिवैधम्यान्न श्लेषो घटनामियात्। कर्तुः क्रियाफलावाप्तिनैवानर्थश्र यद्भवेत्॥ गुणक्रियाभ्यां कार्यस्य कारणस्य गुणक्रिये। क्रमेण च विरुद्धे यत् स एष विषमो मतः॥ or, the figure of speech known as व्याघात, if the agent of the unexpected or disconcerting result is different from the original agent. Cp. Mammata (p. 911)- यद्यथा साधितं केनाप्यपरेण तदन्यथा। तथव यद्विधीयेत स व्याघात इति स्मृतः॥

(ii) Bhoja quotes Kāvyādarśa ii. 83 as an illustration for the अयुक्त variety of चित्रहेतु. Daņdin apparently re- gards the a alamkāra in the stanza as subordinate to the रूपक. Probably there is a mixture (संसृष्टि) of both these figures in that stanza. The azg alamkāra defined by Bhoja as (iii. 18)- वस्तुनो वा स्वभावेन शक्तेवा हानिहेतुना। अकृतात्मीयकार्य: स्यादहेतुर्व्याहतस्तु यः ॥ can also be-यथासंभवम्-subsumed under Dandin's चित्रहेतु.

Notes to II. 260-264-(i) Ruyyaka, Rudrața, Mammața, Vāgbhata, Viśvanātha and most subsequent writers recognise Sūkshma as a distinct alamkāra. It is not easy to understand why Bhamaha found the alamkāra . void of वक्रोक्ति or वैचित्र्य. Sukshma involves a process of inference, but it is not to be confused with arqzaa since the a is here subtle and discovered only by shrewd observation of gestures or postures.

167 ] Notes [ -ii. 267

(ii) A figure-of-speech called पिहित and defined in the कुवलयानन्द (151) as-पिहितं परवृत्तान्तज्ञातुः साकूतचेष्टितम्। is very difficult to distinguish from सूक्ष्म. The चन्द्रिकाकार thus formulates the distinction (ibid, p. 191)-सूक्ष्मालंकारे परा- भिप्रायमवगत्य साकृतचेष्टितेनोत्तरसमर्पणम्। पिहितालंकारे तु गुढ परत्ृत्तान्तं ज्ञात्वा साकूतचेष्टया तत्प्रकाशनमिति भेदो वोध्यः। Normally, however, पिहित is understood differently. Vāgbhata (p. 43) defines it as-एकत्राधारे यत्राधेयद्वयस्यैकेनेकं पिधीयते तत् पिहितम्। Rudrata on the other hand defines it as (ix. 50)- यत्रातिप्रबलतया गुणः समानाधिकरणमसमानम्। अर्थान्तरं पिदध्यादाविर्भूतमपि तत् पिहितम् ॥

Notes to II. 265-267-(i) In H& there is the discovery of the hidden thing, but not disclosure. In लेश (No. 1) there is (a) a concealing, (b) a discovery leading to imminent disclosure, and (c) an attempt to prevent the disclosure under some other pretext. This figure is known in other writers as व्याजोक्ति defined by Rudrata (p. 174) as-उद्भिन्नवस्तुनिगूहनम् and by Visvanatha (x. 92) as-व्याजोक्तिर्गोपन व्याजादुद्भिनस्यापि वस्तुनः । Vamana's defini- tion (iv. 3. 25)-व्याजस्य सत्यसारूप्यं व्याजोक्ति: is tantamount to the same thing.

(ii) This figure has to be distinguished from अपह्नति (ii. 304). As will be clear from Dandin's definition of the latter figure (cp. also Note (iii) to ii. 95) he does not regard साम्य as the invariable basis of an अपह्वति ; and so the usual distinction between these two figures cannot be stated as it is generally stated by commen- tators -साम्यमूलकापह्ववोपह्नतिः । अन्न (i. e. [व्याजोक्तौ or लेशे) तु न साम्यविवक्षेति भेदः। We can perhaps formulate the distincti- on between them by saying that in an अपह्नति neither the thing negated nor the thing asserted is anything like subtle or mysterious. In लेश the subtlety of the thing constitutes the very essence of the figure.

(iii) Vāmana's example for the figure is- शरच्चन्द्रांशु(V. 1. च्छशाङ्क)गौरेण वाताविद्वेन भामिनि। काशपुष्पलवेनेदं साश्रुपातं मुखं कृतम् (v. 1. मम)॥।

ii. 267- 1 Kāvyādarta [ 168

This is from Bhāsa's Svapnavāsavadattā (iv. 7). Our example (ii. 267) uses the same but under entire- ly different circumstances.

Notes to II. 268-272-(i) Writers who define लेश in the alternative way mentioned are-

. Bhoja (iv. 56)- दोषस्य यो गुणीभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य यः । स लेशः स्यात् ततो नान्या व्याजस्तुतिरपीष्यते॥

Rudrața (vii. 100)- दोषीभावो यस्मिन् गुणस्य दोषस्य वा गुणीभावः । अभिधीयते तथाविधकर्मनिमित्तः स लेशः स्यात् ॥

Kuvalayānanda (137)- लेश: स्याद्दोषगुणयोर्गुणदोषत्वकल्पनम्। Vāgbhața (p. 43)- कार्यतो गुणदोषविपर्ययो लेशः । and Jagannātha (p. 512)- गुणस्यानिष्टसाधनतया दोषत्वेन दोषस्येष्ठसाधनतया गुणत्वेन व वर्णनं लेशः । But none of these writers are earlier than Dandin, and it is difficult to ascertain what writers Dandin desig- nates by एके. Bhamaha cannot be one of them, as he rejects लेश in both the alternative forms.

(ii) Bhoja already has raised the question of the distinction of this figure from व्याजस्तुति (ii. 343). We have already quoted the view of Appayya Dīkshita on the point in our Sanskrit Commentary (p. 26913 .- p. 27051). Dandin who recognises both लेश (No. 2) and व्याजस्तुति as distinct figures makes the distinction turn naturally upon the word लेशतः in ii. 268d. The Alam- karakaustubha (p. 407 f.) would subsume लेश (No. 2 under anra, an alamkara not recognised by Daņdin.

(iii) The निन्दा or स्तुति may at times involve a simi- larity between things; and Bhoja accordingly gives

169 ] Notes [-ii. 274

examples involving what he calls a समासोक्ति and also not involving it (see p. 409). For further remarks see Notes to ii. 343.

Notes to II. 273-274-(i) Except Bharata, Agnipurāņa, Hemachandra, and Alamkāraśekhara this figure-of- speech is recognised by all extant writers. Some dis- tinctive definitions may here be collected- Bhāmaha (ii 89) and Udbhata (p. 42)- भूय सामुपदिष्टानामर्थानामसधर्मणाम्। क्रमशो योनुनिर्देशो यथासंख्यं तदुच्यते॥ Rudrața (vii. 34)- निर्दिश्यन्ते यस्मिन्नर्था विविधा ययैव परिपाट्या। पुनरपि तत्प्रतिबद्धास्तयैव तत् स्याद्यथासंख्यम् ॥ Vāmana (iv. 3. 17)- उपमेयोपमानानां क्रमसंबन्धः क्रमः । Bhoja (iv. 79)- शब्दस्य यदि वार्थस्य द्वयोरप्यनयोरथ। भणनं परिपाट्या यत् क्रमः स परिकीर्तितः॥ and Mammata (p. 803)- यथासंख्यं क्रमेणैव क्रमिकाणां समन्वयः । (ii) It will be noticed that while Vāmana requires that the things mentioned in succession should have between them a relation of similarity, Bhāmaha con- trarywise holds that the things should not be so re- lated. Jagannātha, as also Hemachandra before him, argues (p.478) that यथासंख्य should not be recognised as a distinct figure. His words are-यथासंख्यम लंकारपदवीमेव तावत् कथमारोढुं प्रभवतीति तु विचारणीयम्। न ह्यस्मिलोकसिद्धे कविप्रतिभानि- र्मितत्वस्यालंकारताजीवा तोरलेशतोप्युपलब्धिरस्ति येनालंकारव्यपदेशो मनागपि स्थाने स्यात्। अतोपक्रमत्वरूपदोषाभाव एव यथासंख्यम् । Vamana's require- ment of similarity would probably supply the element of वैचित्र्य needed for the figure. It is however a fact that quite apart from the similarity there is a charm even in the orderly succession of things, and hence the alamkära deserves to be recognised as an independent alamkāra,

22 [ Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 275- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 170

Notes to II. 275-(i) Dandin now defines together a group of three Alamkāras known as uraRs. Bhāmaha (iii. 1-7) and Udbhata (p. 49, generally following Bhā- maha in his treatment) are alone amongst ancient writers to recognise these three alamkāras in the sense in which Dandin understands them. Ruyyaka (P. 185), Viśvanātha (x. 95-96) and one or two later writers accept these alamkāras and even add to their number the alamkāras designated as Samā- hita, Bhāvodaya, Bhāvasamdhi, and Bhāvaśabalatā (see Kuvalayānandachandrikā on stanzas 169f.), but they have radically altered the nature of these figures in as much as they require that in these figures the रस, भाव, etc. ought to be introduced in subordination to another anae and not prominently and for their own sake. This view was first propounded by the author of the ध्वनिकारिकाs (cp. ii. 5, p. 71)- प्रधानेन्यत्र वाक्यार्थे यत्राङ्गं तु रसादयः। काव्ये तस्मिन्नलंकारो रसादिरिति मे मतिः॥ Ānandavardhana's Āloka on this kārikā runs as follows :- यद्यपि रसवदलंकारस्यान्यैर्दर्शितो विषयस्तथापि यस्मिन् काव्ये प्रधानतयान्योर्थो वाक्यार्थीभूतस्तस्य चाङ्गभूता ये रसादयस्ते रसादेरलंकारस्य विषय इति मामकीन: पक्षः। Dandin, Bhamaha, or some pre- decessor of them is perhaps intended to be alluded to in the kārikā in question: Abhinavagupta in his ध्वन्यालोकलोचन to the passage actually mentions Bha- maha. Our Sanskrit Commentary on ii. 275 lines 123ff. quotes Premachandra's attempt to defend the position . taken by Dandin and Bhāmaha as against the new school.

(ii) We have explained in a general way in our Note (i) to i. 18 the nature of Rasa, but it is neces- sary to afford a detailed exposition of the theory of Rasas in all its bearings. Poetry consists of two ele- ments : words and sense (ignoring the question of their relative prominence). Now there are excellences and defects belonging to words and to sense, and these are treated at great length in the works of the earlier Ālamkārikas. They were considered as character-

171 ] Notes l -ii. 275

istics inherent in the "body" of poetry. Dandin calls them Hus or life-breaths (i. 42). And as a body can have extraneous ornaments to set forth its natural charm so poetry also had its "ornaments" or alam- käras, these being specific turns of expression or thought which could not be covered by the usual JuTs (and arqs). For a time advance in the science of Poetics consisted mainly in an elaboration of the 0Ts and adans, their number and mutual distinction. The next step of importance taken was the formulation of the doctrine of ffas or styles. It was probably dis- covered that certain schools, courts, or literary cote- ries developed only specific guņas and alamkāras to the exclusion of others; and as these originally were confined to definite territorial divisions the styles cultivated by them got the nicknames of वैदर्भी, गौडी, qraT, etc. This may have led to emulation which in time degenerated into jealousy and animosity; and the ultimate compromise effected only ended in the doctrine that all the ffas had each an element of good and of evil in it.

(iii) All this time however no attempt was made to explain why certain गुणs or अलंकारs afford pleasure more than others. A mere external labelling and classification was naturally felt to be inadequate in a science of Æsthetics. Help was sought at first from the sister science of Dramaturgy. The Nātyaśāstra had led down the Sutra-विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद्रसनिष्पत्तिः (Adhyāya vi, p. 62, where this ancient theory is quoted and explained). The generating and intensifying factors (आलम्बन and उद्दीपन विभावs) are सीता, शकुन्तला, etc. and वसन्त, ज्योत्स्ना, मेघोदय, etc. And they produce in राम, दुष्यन्त etc. in the first place one or more of the 8 सात्त्विक HTHIqs, which are somewhat involuntary and physio- logical in origin, and along with them a number of psychological moods or feelings through which the hero passes. These latter are some of them dominent feelings or स्थायिभावs of which there are nine enume- rated; and some, concurrent feelings or व्यभिचारिन्s of

ii. 275- ] Kāvyādarsa [ 172

which no less than 33 are enumerated. The अनुभावड स्थायिभावs and व्यभिचारिभावs together make up the 49 (50) kinds of भावs, and these भावs, belonging to राम, दुष्यम्त, etc. (or to the actors representing them), called into existence by definite "factors," produce in the audi- ence by sympathy the nine Ts or sentiments. This is the theory of the Nātyaśāstra which can be graphi- cally thus presented :- आलम्बन (विभावs produce 8 सातत्विक अनुभावs produce 8(9) उद्दीपन (in Actor) रसs. 33 व्यभिचारिनूs (in Audience ) The eight अनुभावs are enumerated in our Sanskrit Com.ii. 27575-76, the स्थायिभावs in ii. 27558-58, and व्यभि- चारिनूs in ii. 27588-90. The eight (or nine) रसs corres- pond to the nine स्थायिभावs- रति to शङ्गार क्रोध to रौद्र जुगुप्सा to बीभत्स हास to हास्य उत्साह to वीर विस्मय to अद्भत शोक to करुण भय to भयानक [ निर्वेद to शान्त ] (iv) Dandin is aware of the existence of the TH theory (cp. i. 51, ii. 280, iii. 170, and especially the last passage) but he did not know how to organically incorporate it with his theory of Poetics. Accordingly he merely gives a recognition to the T theory by introducing a new variety of अलंकारs for cases where the Ts for their own sake were pre-eminently develop- ed in a poem which was otherwise devoid of the usual गुणs or अलंकारs. The रस comes in for recognition also in connection with Dandin's treatment of माधुर्य (i. 51). This was merely borrowing a feather from the sister science. Rasa is of the nature of an inner consciousness (hence called चर्वणा), and it is evident that it can be felt even in poems not containing the रसवत् alarkara. Some Ālamkārikas, as we saw, tried to get out of the problem by recognising रसवत् alamkara only in those cases where the « is felt as being subordinated to the वाक्यार्थ proper. (v) The real solution of the matter came from the grammarians. If poetry consists of words having specific sense (or words and sense), it is necessary to

173 1 Notes [ -ii. 275

determine at first the varieties of sense or rs. There is the expressed sense or the वाच्यार्थ and the figurative or indicative sense or लक्ष्यार्थ. In the stock instance TaT means literally and primarily the stream, which is the वाच्यार्थ. But in statements like गङ्गायां ग्राम: the word must mean not the stream but the bank. This is the secondary significance of the word or its लक्ष्यार्थ. Now why should a person be prompted to say गङ्गायां ग्राम: instead of गङ्गातटे ग्राम: ? Clearly there must be a प्रयोजन (ignoring for the moment the few cases where of overpowers it), and this was discovered to be the in- tention to bring out the शैत्य, पावनत्व, and other qualities inherent in the TH by reason of its proximity to the stream. The प्रयोजन of a लक्षणा is therefore the व्यङ्गय sense. In cases like the above where the q and the लक्ष्य senses can be clearly distinguished from the व्यङ्गय sense there is no difficulty of any kind. But there are cases where the व्यङ्गय is असंलक्ष्यक्रम ; where the state- ment as a whole brings in a subtle suggestion without our being able to locate it as resulting from some spe- cific word or words; and all Ts could now come in under the असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्गय. (vi) One inevitable consequence of the share which the grammarians had in the formulation of the af theory was the adoption of their स्फोट theory by the Alamkarikas. Anandavardhana in his ध्वन्यालोक (p. 47-48) clearly recognises this indebtedness. He says-प्रथमे हि विद्वांसो वैयाकरणा: व्याकरणमूलत्वात् सर्वविद्यानाम्। ते च श्रूयमाणेषु वर्णेषु ध्वनिरिति व्यवहरन्ति। तथैवान्यैस्तन्मतानुसारिभिः सूरिभिः काव्यतत्त्वार्थदर्शि- भिर्वाच्यवाचकसंमिश्रः शब्दात्मा काव्यमिति व्यपदिश्यते व्यञकत्वसाम्याद्ध्वनि- रित्युक्तः। In other words :- वैया० call शब्द=ध्वनि, as being the व्यञ्जक of स्फोट (to which गकारादि sounds are subordinate); आलं० call शब्दार्थ=ध्वनि, as being the व्यञ्जक of व्यङ्गय (to which the वाच्य sense is subordinate). This means that there is no उत्पतत्ति but only an अभिव्याक्ति of the Ts. That is to say, the gestures and move- ments of the actor can prevail over you only if you are सहृदय and have once experienced feelings and emo-

ii. 275 -- ] Kāvyādarsa [ 174

tions answerable to those depicted or enacted. The Ālamkārikas who followed this view of the case natu- rally gave no independent place to रसवत् and other Alamkaras. If Mammața in one place (Ullāsa i. p. 23) mentions the रसवत् it is भामहभट्टोद्भट प्रभृतिचिरंतनालंकारिकमतेन, as a commentator explains it. (vii) If शब्द (or शब्दार्थो) be the body and गुणs the life- breaths of poetry, the question-what is the soul of poetry-which is naturally suggested by the metaphor is answered (i) by Vamana (I. ii. 6) as रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य ; (ii) by the ध्वनि school (ध्वनिकारिका 1) as काव्यस्यात्मा ध्वनि: and (iii) by Visvanatha (i. 3) as वाक्यं रसात्मकं काव्यम्. On this point compare Notes to i. 10. The question can have only an academic interest once we have realised the function of रस, रीति or ध्वनि in poetry. (viii) How रस is produced in the heart of the सहृदय d&T, its exact modus operandi, has given rise to a number of divergent views which it would take us too far afield to discuss here in detail. Consult on the question ध्वन्यालोकलोचन p. 69, Mammata, Ullasa iv., pp. 101-111, and Rasagangādhara pp. 22-31. (ix) The distinction between प्रेयस्, रसवत्, and ऊर्जस्विन् can be thus formulated. If the 50 wras described above (Note iii) are any of them produced by certain विभावs the nature of which prevents the manifestation of a corresponding full-fledged ₹ in the audience or the reader-when, for instance, the स्थायिभाव called रति is produced not by some lady-love but by गुरु, देव, नृपति, पुत्र, etc .- we have an incomplete रस or rather अप्राप्तरसावस्थभाव, which gives rise to प्रेयोलंकार. The alamkara is some- times called भावालंकार also :- cp. अलंकारसर्वस्व p. 189. A रसवत् alarkara of course exhibits the विभावs, अनुभावs, and व्यभिचारिन्s in regular sequence. As Bhamaha says (iii. 6) रसवद्दर्शितस्पष्टश्टङ्गारादिरसं यथा। Finally an ऊर्जस्विन् exhibits an inchoate Rasa (as in Preyas) or a full.fledged Rasa (as in Rasavat), but the manner of exteriorisation adopted is अनुचिन, is शास्त्रसंविद्विरुद्व, is in flagrant opposition to the normal or the conventional, purposely with a view to stamp one's own individuality upon it. Thus in the

175 ] Notes l-ii. 278

example given (ii. 293-4), to allow an enemy hemned in battle to depart is what is unexpected; but the hero does it owing to his over-weening self-confidence.

Notes to II. 276-277-(i) The same example is given by Bhāmaha iii. 5. Cp. also our Note (iii) to ii. 37. The verse seems to be an adaptation of the last verse in the 92nd Adhyaya of the Udyogaparvan. It is difficult to ascertain whether the adaptation was the work of Bhämaha or of Dandin or of an unknown predecessor of both. The example illustrates the nira of विदुर for श्रीकृष्ण and also of श्रीकृष्ण for विदुर.

Notes to II. 278-279-(i) The example illustrates the ytfa on the side of the King alone. The श्रुतानुपालिनी gives us this information about the King-रातवर्मा नाम केरलानामधि- पतिरत्यन्ताशवभक्तः । सोपि दिग्विजयवशेन कैलासं प्राप्तः पाशुपतमन्त्रेण पशुपति त्र्यम्बकमाराध्य दृष्टवान्। The Keralas are mentioned in Rock Edict II of Asoka. Their most ancient capital was Vanji or Vanchi about 28 miles from Cochin on the Malabar Coast. But as our knowledge of their geneo- logy is almost nil Dandin's mention of a king of that line-supposing he really belongs to that line-gives us no solid ground for any chronological conclusion. On the other hand Dandin in iii. 114 mentions a city with a name of 5 varnas, the middle one being a nasal, where rule kings with a name of 8 qus. Here although the city could be वश्ची or वजी (the capital of ancient Kerala) as well as rfr (Conjeeveram) the capital of the Pallavas, yet the name qaar: consists of 8 qois (in- cluding the visarga) while the Kerala kings, even adopt- ing their ancient local name of 'Cheraldan' do not give the required number of varnas. In the present state of our knowledge therefore Dandin seems to have definitely alluded to the Pallavas of Kañchī; and the temptation to regard रातवर्मन् as a Pallava king is irresistible. Unfortunately, in the published names of the Pallava kings, there is none of this name; but if the variant राजवर्मन् is adopted we can identify him

ii. 279- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 176

with नरसिंहवर्मा II who had राजसिंहवर्मा as his other name. Narasimhavarman's date is A. D. 690-715 (see G. Jou- veau-Dubreul, Ancient History of the Deccan, p. 70), and he is described as a devout Saiva and as a builder of several Śiva temples including the noble Kailāsa- nātha temple (Indian Antiquary for 1912, p. 90-92). Hiuen Tsang who visited Kāñchī in A. D. 640 during the reign of Narasimhavarman I (630-668) affords some testimony for the triumph of Saivism at the time.

(ii) In partial variance with this we have the testi- mony of the Ms. of अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथासार (Report of the Peri- patetic Party of the Government Or. Mss. Library, Madras, for the years 1916-19, Ms. No. 194) which connects Dandin's grand-father with the Pallava king Simhavishņu (575-600) thus making Dandin a contem- porary of Narasimhavarman I (630-668). The pertinent verses from the poem (copied down on the occasion of the First Oriental Conference in Poona, where the Ms. was amongst the exhibits) may here be given :- अस्ति प्रासादविस्तारग्रस्तव्योमान्तरा पुरी। काश्चीपुराख्या कल्याणी ककुभ: कुम्भजन्मनः ॥

तस्यां जज्ञे बुधव्रातध्वस्ताखिलविपल्लवः । प्लवेषु महीपाल: सिंहविष्णुरिति श्रुतः ॥

अदृष्टपूर्वो गन्धर्वस्तं सभासदमेकदा। उदञ्जलि महीपालमुपवीणयदार्यया।

श्रुत्वेनामत्युदारार्थों कुतूहलबलान्नृपः । अव्रवीद्धद्र केनेयं निर्मिता वर्णपद्धतिः।। इत्युचिवांसं प्रत्यूचे गन्धर्वस्तं धनेश्वरम्।

अस्त्यानन्दपुरं नाम प्रदेशे पश्चिमोत्तरे। आर्यदेशशिखारतं तत्रासन् बहवो द्विजाः ॥ ततोभिनिसृता काचित् कौशिकी व्रह्मसंतदिः।

तस्यां नारायणस्वामिनाम्नो नारायणोदरात्। दामोदर इति श्रीमान्, =

177 ] Notes [ -ii, 279

स मेधावी कविर्विद्वान् भारविः(वि) प्रभवं गिराम्। अनुरुध्याकरोन्मैत्रीं नरेन्द्रे विष्णुवर्धने ॥

तस्यान्तिके वसत्येष तेनार्येयमुदीरिता। इति श्रुत्वा महीपालस्तदालोकनलोलुपः।

नृपनिर्बन्धनिर्दिष्टे प्रकृष्टविभवे गृहे। वहतः पैतृकीं वृत्ति तस्यासीत् तनयत्रयम्॥ मनोरथाह्वयस्तेषां मध्यमो वङ्गवंशगः (?)। ततस्तनूजाश्चत्वारः स्रष्टुर्वेदा इवाभवन्॥ श्रीवीरभद्र इत्येषां .... - यवीयानस्य च श्लाध्या गौरी नामाभवत् प्रिया॥ ततः कर्थचित् सा गौरी द्विजाधिपशिखामणेः । कुमारं दण्डिनामानं व्यक्तशक्तिमजीजनत्।। स बाल एव मात्रा च पित्रा चापि व्ययुज्यत। अयुज्यत गरीयस्या सरस्वत्या श्रुतेन च।। सविक्रिये पुरे तस्मिन् परचक्रोपरोधतः । स चचार शुभाचारः सर्वामुर्वीमुदारधीः ॥

अथाहूतः क्षितीशेन प्रशान्तोपद्रवे पुरे। स्वसुहृद्धन्धुमध्यस्थः स भेजे निजमास्पदम् ।। The story goes on to mention a visit which Dandin subsequently pays to the temple of Vishņu in Mahā- mallapuram in Keral country adjoining the sea- महामल्लपुरे देवः स्वैरं वारिधिसंनिधौ। आस्ते मुकुन्दः सानन्दं फणीन्द्र इव मन्दिरे॥ (iii) We need not of course take all the gossiping tales in the अवन्तिसुन्दरीकथा as sober history; but the pre- sent story has some verisimilitude about it. Daņdin is here made a contemporary of Simhavishnu's suc- cessors Mahendravarman I (600-630) and Narasimha- varman I (630-668), the first of whom is famous as the king under whose orders were constructed the remark- able monolithic temples known as the 'Seven Pagodas' at Mamallapuram (see Smith's Early History, 3rd ed., p. 474). The trouble hinted at in the last verse above quoted is therefore probably the invasion of the Pallava 23 [Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 279-] Kāvyādarśa [178

country by the Chalukya monarch, Pulakeśin II, about 609 or 610. Pulakeśin was victorious at first, but was later defeated by Narasimhavarman I in 642 A. D. Mahendravarman is reported to have been a Jain originally, and to have been converted to faith in Siva by a famous Tamil saint. If therefore we can imagine that राजवर्मन् is a poetic variant for महेन्द्रवर्मन् or that महेन्द्रवर्मन् bore रातवर्मन् as an additional name, we have here all the evidence that we can expect from tradition for placing Dandin at the court of the Pallavas of Kanchi in the first half of the 7th century. And as the Pallava power was at its height during this very period, their kingdom might have at this time included the old Chera or Kerala country. We may add that the king Vishnuvardhana mentioned in the earlier part of the extract can be the prince Vishnuvardhana who founded, about A. D. 615, the line of the Eastern Chālukyas. Ānandapura the city I am unable to identify. ('iv) The eight forms of manifestation mentioned in ii. 278 are of course the same as the अष्टविधा तनु or nfa alluded to by Kalidāsa in the benedictory verse of the Sākuntala.

Notes to II. 280-281-(i) Dandin is now going to give in succession the illustrations for uaa, a separate one for each रस. (ii) Our Ms. N., in a different hand, gives the margi- nal note identifying अवन्ती with वासवदत्ता. Vasavadatta was an Avanti Princess; compare Svapnavāsavadattā V. 5. An interesting question is to determine whether Dandin is referring to Bhāsa. Definite indications are unfortunately lacking. The pretended burning of Vāsavadattā at Lāvāņaka is an old story not invented by Bhāsa. Many dramatists besides Bhāsa have work- ed on the theme. Tāpasavatsarāja is a play later than Ratnavali (see the account given by Hultsch in Nach. K. G. W. Gött., 1886). Abhinavagupta in his Nāțya- vedavivriti (Madras Ms., vol iii, p. 44) speaks of a play

179 | Notes [ii .- 286

of Subandhu dealing with the story of उदयन and वासवदत्ता His exact words are-तत्रास्य बहुतरख्यापिनो बहुगर्भस्वप्नाग्यिततुल्यस्य ना्यायितस्योदाहरणं महाकविसुबन्धुनिबद्धो वासवदत्तानाट्यधाराख्यः (?) समस्त एव प्रयोगः। तत्र हि बिन्दुस्वरः प्रयोज्यवस्तुत उदयनचरिते सामाजिकीकृतोप्युदयनो वासवदत्ताचेष्टिते ...... तत्र ह्यदयने सामाजिकीकृते सूत्रधारप्रयोग :- तव सुचरितैरेव जयतीति। तत उदयन :- कुतो मम सुचरितानीति सास्त्रं विलपति। From this it appears that this particular play made use of a play- within-the-play in the dénouement. There is also a newly discovered play called Vîņāvāsavadatta (?) affording analogy in construction with the Bhasa plays. Besides there are the आख्यायिकाs dealing with the story of Vāsavadattā which were probably known even to the author of Vyākaranamahābhāshya (see Kielhorn's ed., vol. ii, p. 284), which however could not have contsin- ed a verse like the one given by Dandin. Seeing that Bhāsa's Svapnavāsavadatțā does not contain the pre- sent verse, it is perhaps possible that Dandin is here alluding to the unknown play of Subandhu referred to by Abhinavagupta, or to some other unknown work. (iii) In the variants to ii.280 read-"'R, B., सैषा तन्वी P, Rn; " instead of "P, R, B;".

(iv) The following quotation from Abhinavagupta's Nāțyavedavivriti (Madras ms. p. 204) is worth noting- चिरंतनानां चायमेव पक्षः । तथाहि दण्डिना स्वा(रसा?)लंकारलक्षणेभ्यधायि- रतिः शङ्गारतां गता रूपवाहुल्ययोगेनेति। अधिर्ह्य परां कोटिं कोपो रौद्रात्मतां गत इत्यादि च।

Notes to II. 282-285-(i) The stanzas ii. 282, and ii. 284 are apparently of Dandin's own composition; and the same explanation might have been available in the case of ii. 280 also.

Notes to II. 286-(i) The stanza is undoubtedly reminis- cent of Raghuvamśa viii. 57- नवपल्लवसंस्तरेपि ते मृदु दूयेत यदङ्गमर्पितम्। तदिदं विषहिष्यते कर्थ वद वामोरु चिताधिरोहणम् ॥

ii. 287] Kāvyādarśa 180

Notes to II. 287-291 -- (i) It is difficult exactly to perceive the point of ii. 290. Possibly gui is not to be construed with नन्दनशाखिरनाम but rather refers to certain denizens of heaven that are the topic on hand. The poet is struck to find all their wants answered by a mere tree.

Notes to II. 292-(i) Having introduced ₹ as constitut- ing the essence of a variety of Alamkara as well as of guņa, Dandin guards against the possibility of every माधुर्यगुणवत् काव्य necessarily containing the रसवदलंकार, and vice versa. In माधुर्य the emphasis is primarily upon अग्राम्यता. (ii) Dandin apparently recognises only 8 ₹s, ignor- ing शान्ति, the ninth. This is in conformity with the older view; compare नाट्यशास्त्र vii. 98.

Notes to II. 293-294-(i) Udbhata thus defines ऊर्जस्विन् (p. 51)- अनौचित्यप्रवृत्तानां कामक्रोधादिकारणात्। भावानां च रसानां च बन्ध ऊर्जस्वि कथ्यते।।

A good example of it is Mālatīmādhava iii. 12- धत्ते चक्षुर्मकुलिनि रणत्कोकिले बालचूते मार्गे गात्रं क्षिपति बकुलामोदगर्भस्य वायोः। दाहप्रेम्णा सरसबिसिनीपत्रमात्रोत्तरीय- स्ताम्यन्मूर्तिः श्रयति बहुशो मृत्यवे चन्द्रपादान्॥ where Mädhava the desperate lover seeks the very objects that ordinarily lovers would carefully avoid, he being regardless of life and callous to all suffering.

Notes to II. 295-297-(i) Vamana is the only other writer besides भरत who does not recognise पर्यायोक्त. Bhoja and Rudrata designate it as simply पर्याय, a name which some writers reserve for a distinct alamkāra not re- cognised by Dandin. A few leading definitions are here assembled- Agnipurāņa (345.18) and Bhāmaha (iii. 8)- पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते।

181 ] Notes [-ii. 297

Udbhata (p. 51) adds the extra line- वाच्यवाचकृत्तिभ्यां शून्येनावगमात्मना।।

Rudrața (vii. 42) वरतु विवक्षितवस्तुप्रतिपादनशक्तमसदृरं तस्य। यदजनकमजन्यं वा तत्कथनं यत् स पर्यायः॥ Bhoja (iv. 80)- मिषं यदुक्तिभङ्गिर्यावसरो यः स सूरिभिः । निराकाङ्क्षोथ साकाङ्क्षः पर्याय इति गीयते॥

Ruyyaka (p. iii)- गम्यस्यापि भङ्गयन्तरेणाभिधानं पर्यायोक्तम्। Mammața (Ullāsa x. p. 828)- पर्यायोक्तं विना वाच्यवाचकत्वेन यद्वचः । Vāgbhața (iv. 108)- अतत्परतया यत्र कल्प्यमानेन वस्तुना। विवक्षितं प्रतीयेत पर्यायोक्तिरियं तथा॥

Vāgbhața (p. 36)- ध्वनिताभिधानं पर्यायोक्तिः ।

Hemachandra (p. 263)- व्यङ्गयस्योक्ति: पर्यायोक्त्तम्।

Pratāparudrīya (p. 446)- कारणं गभ्यते यत्र प्रस्तुतात् कार्यवर्णनात्। प्रस्तुतत्वेन संबद्धं तत् पर्यायोक्तमुच्यते॥ Ekāvali (viii. 29)- यत्र व्यङ्गयस्य सतो हेतोः कार्याभिधानभङ्गीभिः। स्यादभिधानं सुधियः पर्यायोक्तं विदुस्तदिदम्॥ Sāhityadarpaņa (x. 61)- पर्यायोक्तं यदा भङ्गया व्यङ््चमेवाभिधीयते। Kuvalayānanda (67)- पर्यायोक्तं तु गम्यस्य वचो भङ्गयन्तराश्रयम्। and Jagannātha (p. 409)- विवक्षितस्यार्थस्य भङ्गचन्तरेण प्रतिपादनम्।

ii. 297-] Kāvyādarśa [ 182

(ii) Most of the definitions (except those of Bhā- maha or Bhoja) contemplate the necessity of distin- guishing an ordinary case of व्यञ्जना from पर्यायोक्त. Thus गङ्गायां ग्राम: is a round about way of saying that the ग्राम is cool and holy; but it is a case of pure afa or sug- gestion, and not an instance of पर्यायोक्त. Why? Dandin, Bhamaha, and the earlier writers would answer that there is no poetic pretext (मिष, प्रकार) that makes the periphrasis peculiarly charming. Writers who adopted the ध्वनि theory would reply that if the sentence is uttered merely with the primary purpose of telling us just the location of the village, and consequently if the शैत्य and पावनत्व come in only by way of a back-door suggestion, then it is not पर्यायोक्त. If, however, the direct object of the speaker were to tell us that the yrH is शैत्यपावनविशिष्ट, and if the writer merely says गङ्गायां ग्राम: or even गङ्गातीरे ग्राम: with an emphasis on गङ्गा, the case does not differ from an ordinary पर्यायोक्त except that the instance is चमत्कृतिशून्य or unpoetic, perhaps. In other words in पर्यायोक्त the व्यङ्गयार्थ (शैत्यादि) is itself the वाच्यार्थ or primarily intended, though it is not conveyed as a वाच्यार्थ, but only प्रकारान्तरेण. Mammata means the same thing when he writes in his Vritti-यदेवोच्यते तदेव व्यङ्गयम् यथा तु व्यङ्गयं न तथोच्यते। Compare also the प्रदीप on the passage :- अत्र सन्नपि व्यङ्गयोर्थः अतिस्फुटतया न तथातिशेते यथा उक्तेवैचित्र्यमिति न ध्वनित्वम् नापि गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयत्वम्। (iii) Ruyyaka, Vidyānātha, and Vidyādhara go a step further. They not only require that the पर्यायोक्त should convey the गम्य or the व्यङ्गयं sense primarily; but also that the exact mode or yaK of conveying it be by describing the effects of it, or the cause of it, or by an analogue of it-the last two modes being re- cognised by Jagannātha. Compare the Rasagangā- dhara (p. 415)-अयं चालंकारः क्वचित् कारणेन वाच्येन कार्यस्य गम्यत्वे क्रचित् कार्येण कारणस्य क्वचिदुभयोदासीनेन संबन्धिमात्रेण संबन्धिमात्रस्य चेति विपुलविषयः। This last is a limitation of the sphere of the figure which is not generally recognised. (iv) Paryāyokta along with two or three other alamkāras has played in the hands of Bhāmaha and

183 ] Notes [ -ii. 299

others the same rôle that was subsequently assigned to fa. Jagannātha (p. 415) observes on the point as fol- lows-ध्वनिकारात् प्राचीनैर्भामहोद्द्टप्रभृतिभिः स्वग्रन्थेषु कुत्रापि ध्वनिगुणी- भूतव्यङ्गयादिशब्दा न प्रयुक्त्ता इत्येतावतैव तैधर्वन्यादयो न स्वीक्रियन्त इत्याधुनि- कानां वाचोयुक्तिरयुक्तैव यतः समासोक्तिव्याजस्तुत्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाद्यलंकारनिरूपणेन कियन्तोपि गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयभेदास्तैरपि निरूपिताः । अपरश्च सर्वोपि व्यङ्गयप्रपञ्चः पर्यायोक्तकुक्षी निक्षिप्तः। न ह्यनुभवसिद्धोर्थो बालेनाप्यपह्नोतुं शक्यते। ध्वन्यादि- शब्दै: परं व्यवहारो न कृतः। न ह्येतावतानङ्गीकारो भवति।

(v) The sense intended to be conveyed and the sense actually expressed by the words used in a Par- yāyokta (as Dandin understands the figure) are both of them yga but they are not therefore of co- ordinate or equal importance; and there is not be- tween the two any relation of सादृश्य etc, as there is in Samasokti (including under the figure अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा as defined by modern writers-see our Note (ii) to ii. 205). Hence समासोक्ति and पर्यायोक्त are adequately differentiated from one another.

(vi) Bhoja gives (p. 457)- मया विमुक्ता बहिरेव वल्लकी व्रजेदवश्यायकणैश्र सार्द्रताम्। द्रुतं तदेनां करवे निचोलके कयाचिदेवं मिषतो विनिर्यये । as an example of निराकाड्क्ष पर्यायोक्त, because there is the express statement that the friend left the room under the pretext of putting back the lute into its case. Our verse ii. 296 he quotes as an example of the साकाड्क्ष variety.

Notes to. II. 298-299-(i) See Note (ii) to ii. 235. Bha- rata, Agnipurāņa, Bhāmaha, Ubdhata, Rudrața and Hemachandra do not recognise the alamkāra at all. Ruyyaka, Mammata, Bhoja, Viśvanātha and Jagan- natha designate it as समाधि, making समाहित a रसालंकार, defined by Udbhata (p. 52) as- रसभावतदाभासवृत्तैः प्रशमबन्धनम्। अन्यानुभावनिःशून्यरूपं यत् तत् समाहितम्।। Bhämaha's illustration from Rājamitra (iii. 10) points to a similar conception of the alamkāra. Vāmāna

ii. 299-] Kāvyādarśa 184

makes समाहित a new category altogether in as much as he defines it (iv. 3. 29) as-यत्सादृश्यं तत्संपत्तिः समाहितम् illu- strating it by the verse तन्वी मेघजलारद्रपल्लवतया etc. from the Vikramorvaslya, Act iv, with the remark-अत्र पुरूरवसो लतायामुर्वश्याः सादृश्यं गृह्नतः सैव लतोर्वशी संपन्नेति। Ruyyaka de- fines the figure as-कारणान्तरयोगात् कार्थस्य सुकरत्वम् and quotes Dandin's example; and Mammata does the same thing. Finally Jagannātha gives the definition in these words-एककारणजन्यस्य कार्यस्याकस्मिककारणान्तरसमवधानाहित- सौकर्ये समाधिः। (ii) The figure-of-speech known as समुच्चय (not re- cognised by Dandin) involves also a number of co- operating causes, and the distinction between समुच्चय and समाधि (i. e. समाहित) is thus formulated in the Alam- karasarvasva (p.161)-[यत्र] ह्येकस्य कार्ये प्रति पूर्ण साधकत्वम् अन्यस्तु कार्याय काकतालीयेनापतति तत्र समाधिर्वक्ष्यते। यत्र तु खले कपोतिकया बहूनामवतारस्तत्रायं समुचयः। To the same effect also Jagan- natha (p. 490)-समाधौ हि एकेन कार्ये निष्पद्यमानेप्यन्येनाकस्मिकमापतता कारणेन सौकर्यादिरूपोतिशयो यत्र संपाद्यते स विषयः । अस्मिस्तु समुच्चयप्रभेदे यत्रैककार्ये संपादयितुं युगपदनेके खले कपोता इवाहमहमिकया संपतन्ति कार्यस्य च न काप्यतिशयः सः। (iii) Bhoja distinguishes between different varieties of this figure according as the सहायाप्ति is दैवकृता or अदैवकृता, and according further as each of these is आकस्मिकी or बुद्धिपूर्वा. Dandin's example he gives as आकस्मिकी दैवकृता सहायाप्तिः ।

Notes to II. 300-303-(i) Most writers who recognise उदात्त are agreed in giving two varicties of it similar to those of Dandin. For instance, Bhāmaha (iii. 11-13)- उदात्तं शक्तिमान् रामो गुरुवाक्यानुरोधगः। विहायोपवनं राज्यं यथा वनमुपागमत्।। एतदेवापरेन्येन व्याख्यानेनान्यथा विदुः। नानारत्नर्धियुक्तं यत् तत् किलोदात्तमुच्यते॥ Udbhața (p. 53)- उदात्तमृद्धिमद्वस्तु चरितं च महात्मनाम् । उपलक्षणतां प्राप्तं नेतिवृत्तित्वमाग तम् ॥

185 ] Notes [ -ii. 304

Ruyyaka (p. 183-184)- समृद्धिमद्वस्तुवर्णनमुदात्तम्। अङ्गभूतमहापुरुषचरितं च। Mammata (x. p. 831 ff.)- उदात्तं वस्तुनः संपन्महतां चोपलक्षणम्। Viśvanātha (x. 94 f.)- लोकातिशयसंपत्तिवर्णनोदात्तमुच्यते। यद्वापि प्रस्तुतस्याङ्गं महतां चरितं भवेत्॥ (ii) Some writers refuse to recognise the figure. Thus Hemachandra observes (p. 293)-उदात्तं तु ऋद्धिमद्वस्तु- लक्षणमतिशयोक्तर्जातेरवा न भिद्यते। महापुरुषवर्णनारूपं च यदि रसपरं तदा ध्वनेर्विषयः। It will be noted-and Udbhata lays it down as a distinct condition-that the महापुरुष चरित must be in- troduced only subordinately. As Pratihārendurāja ob- serves (p. 54)- न खल्वत्र महापुरुषचेष्टितं वाक्यतात्पर्यगोचरतामनुभवति। अर्थान्तरोपलक्षणपरत्वात्। यत्र च रसास्ताप्तर्येणावगम्यन्ते तत्र तेषां वाक्य- िश्रान्तिस्थानत्वेन चतुर्वर्गतदितर प्राप्तिपरिहारोपायभूतस्थायिभावपररिपोषात्मनास्वा द्यमानत्वाद्रसवदलंकारो भवति। This disposes of the second objection of Hemachandra and serves to distinguish उदात्त from रसवत्. (iii) The उदात्त which is विभूतिवर्णनपर is not mere स्वभावोक्ति; cp. Note (iii) to ii. 9-13. The Alamkārasarvasva also distinguishes उदात्त from भाविक (अतीतानागतयोः प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वम्) but this last is understood by Dandin in quite a dis- tinct sense (cp. ii. 364 ff.). The words of Ruyyaka are these (p.18?f)-स्वभावोक्तौ भाविके च यथावद्वस्तुवर्णनम्। तद्विपक्षत्वेन आरोपितिवस्त्वात्मन उदात्तस्यावसरः। तत्रासंभाव्यमानविभूतियु क्तस्य वस्तुनो वर्णनं कविप्रतिभोत्थापितमैश्वर्यलक्षणमुदात्तम्।

Notes to II. 304-(i) A few leading definitions of Apahnuti are given below- Agnipurāna (345. 18) same as Daņdin. Bhāmaha (iii. 20) and Udbhata (p. 59)- अपह्नतिरभीष्टा च किंचिदन्तर्गतोपमा। भूतार्थापह्नवादस्याः क्रियते चाभिधा यथा॥ [ निबन्धः क्रियते बुधैः ॥ Udbhata ]. 24 į Kāvyādarśa

ii. 304 -- ] Kāvyādarsa [ 186

Rudrața (viii. 57)- अतिसाम्यादुपमेयं यस्यामसदेव कथ्यते सदपि। उपमानमेव सदिति च विज्ञेयापह्नतिः सेयम् ॥ Vãmana (iv. 3.5)- समेन वस्तुनान्यापलापोपहुतिः। Bhoja (iv. 41)- अपह्नुतिरपह्वत्य किंचिदन्यार्थदर्शनम्। औपम्यवत्यनोपम्या चेति सा द्विविधोच्यते॥ Ruyyaka (p. 50)- विषयस्यापह्नवेपहवतिः । Mammața (x, p. 735)- प्रकृतं यन्निषिध्यान्यत् साध्यते सात्वपह्नतिः। Vāgbhața (p. 39)- प्रकृतस्य सदृशेनापलापोपह्वतिः। Vāgbhața (iv. 86)- नैतदेतदिद ह्येतदित्यपह्नवपूर्वकम्। उच्यते यत्र सादृश्यादपहुतिरियं यथा। Keśavamiśra (p. 34)- किंचिदपहुत्य यदन्यार्थ प्रदर्शनं सापहृतिः । Hemachandra (p. 281)- प्रकृताप्रकृताभ्यां प्रकृतापलापोपह्नुतिः। Vidyādhara (p. 380)- निषिध्य विषयं साम्यादन्यारोपे ह्यपहनुतिः । Viśvanātha (x. 38f.)- प्रकृतं प्रतिषिध्यान्यस्थापनं स्यादपह्नतिः । गोपनीयं कमप्यर्थे द्योतयित्वा कथंचन ॥। यदि श्लेषेणान्यथा वान्यथयेत् साप्यपह्नतिः । Jagannātha (p. 278)-

मपह्ृतिः । Viśveśvara (p, 235)- प्रकृतं निषिध्य भिन्नात्मतया प्रोक्तावपह्नतिः कार्थता। and Achutarāya (viii. 131)- विषयत्वनिषेधस्य सामानाधिकरण्यतः। आरोप्यमाणविषयितादात्म्यं स्यादपहुतिः।।

187 ] Notes [-ii. 305

(ii) It will be seen that while the majority of these definitions require that there should be a sort of a similarity between the thing negated and the thing asserted, Dandin does not admit that necessity. A सादृश्यमूलक अपह्वृति, according to Dandin, constitutes what he calles तत्त्वापह्ववरूपक (see Note (iii) to ii. 95). The Alam- kārakaustubha clearly states the position (p. 235)- अत्र केचित् सादृश्यस्थल एवापह्ृतिः। न पश्चेपुः स्मरस्तस्य सहस्रं पत्त्रिणां यतः- इत्यादौ तु नापहुतिः किंतु प्रकृतस्य यदन्यत्वम् इत्येवंरूपातिशयोक्तिरित्याहुः । अन्ये तु ... साहित्यदर्पणोक्तदिशा किंचिदपहुत्य कस्यचिद्दर्शनमपह्नुतिः ... इत्याहुः। Bhoja, as we have seen, admits both cases. (iii) For the distinction between अपह्ृति and भ्रान्तिमान् consult Note (ii) to ii. 66; and for that between अपह्नति and लेश (or व्याजोक्ति) our Note (ii) to ii. 265.

Notes to II. 305-308-(i) Dandin gives only two varieties of अपह्ृति, viz. विषयापहनुति and स्वरूपापहृति. Rasagangadhara gives the varieties सावयव and निरवयव which are based upon a different principle of division. So also are the divisions into शाब्दी where the negation is directly con- veyed and आर्थी where it is suggested by words like कपट, मिष, छल, छद्म, कैतव, व्याज, वपुः आत्मन्, परिणाम, etc. More im- portant is the six-fold division given by the Kuvalayā- nanda (stanzas 25-30), viz. शुद्ध, हेतु, पर्यस्त, भ्रान्त, छेक, and कैतव. Of these the first variety is a normal case of Apahnuti which can be made to include both the varieties recog- nised by Dandin, while the last is an आर्थी अपह्ृति. His other varieties with definitions and illustrations are as under- सयुक्तिके सदारोपे हेत्वपह्नुतिरुच्यते। नेदमिन्दुरनङ्गत्वात् किंत्विदं मुकुरो रतेः॥ पर्यस्तापह्नतिर्धर्मनिह्ववोन्यत्र सिद्धये। नायं सुधांशुः किं तर्हि सुधांशुः प्रेयसीमुखम्॥ भ्रान्तापह्नतिरन्यस्य शङ्कायां भ्रान्तिवारणे। तापं करोति सोत्कपं ज्वरः किं न सखित्र स्मरः॥ छेकापह्नतिरन्यस्य शङ्कातस्तथ्यनिह्नवे। प्रज्ल्पन् मत्पदे लग्नः कान्तः किंन हि नूपुरः ॥

il. 308- ] Kāvyādarsa [ 188

(ii) In the illustration in ii. 305 the real nature of 7 etc. is admitted as perceivable by others : it how- ever does not hold good in the case of the speaker himself. In ii. 306 the negated thing is declared to be entirely void of its very essence : is assigned an alto- gether contradictory nature, so that the moon can no longer be called moon (अमृतदीधिति=चन्द्र). In the example in ii. 304 only a part of the nature of the thing was negated, in ii. 305 even the negation of this part was tempered by limiting its faqu. In ii. 306 the negation is absolute as regards its contents and its range. Such seems to be the basis of Dandin's distinction.

Notes to II. 309-(i) Compare Note (íi) to ii. 94-95. As we saw there पूर्वम् can mean ii. 34 (प्रतिषेधोपमा), ii. 36 (तत्त्वाख्या- नोपमा), or ii. 95 (तत्त्वापह्ववरूपक). In view of the difference of view noted above, Note (ii) to ii. 304, the temptation to accept the last of these interpretations is very strong. For Dandin must have known the view which makes सादृश्य the sine qua non of अपह्ृति. Bhamaha in any case knows the view and even adopts it. Differing from . him Dandin considers सादृश्यमूलकापह्वति as a variety of रूपक. He consequently must have made a slip here or we can adopt the justification of Ca-उपमारूपकयोरनतिभेदात्। There is something fary whatever the view we finally adopt.

Notes to II. 310-(i) It is rather unfortunate that the same name (श्लेष or श्िलिष्ट) should signify both a Guna and an Alamkāra. For the nature of the guna see Note (iii) to i. 43. The alamkära has nothing to do with the guņa. (ii) That Slesha involves the use of paronomastic words, or words conveying more than one sense, is conceded by all. The main controversy is as to whether we should regard it as a शब्दालंकार only or an अर्थालंकार only or partly the one and partly the other. There are writers holding all these views with more or less show of reason. As so much depends in a Slesha upon the

189 J Notes [ -ii. 310

use of specific words it seems reasonable to treat it as a शब्दालंकार and to assign to it a lower place in criticism. At the same time it is necessary that we should under- stand the two-fold sense of the words in question: the words as words do not give us the pleasure of the figure as is done for instance by an alliteration. Hence it is equally plausible to regard the »q as exclusively an अर्थालंकार, as is done by Udbhata and Alamkarasarvasva- kāra. Jagannātha (p. 401-2) gives a clear exposition of these views in these words-सोयं श्लेषः सभङ्गोभङ्गश्चार्थालंकार एवेत्यौ-द्रटाः॥ उभावप्येतौ शब्दालंकारौ शब्दस्य परिवृत्त्यसहत्वादन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां तदाश्रितत्वावधारणात्। । इति मम्मटभट्याः॥ अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां हि हेतुत्वावगमो घटं प्रति दण्डादेरिवास्तु। न त्वाश्रयत्वावगमः । अन्यथा प्रत्यर्थ शब्दनिवेश इति नये पराभिमतोर्थश्ेषोपि शब्दालंकार एव स्यात्॥ A reasonable view to hold is that of Mammata (ix, p. 626), who observes-इह दोषगुणालंकाराणां शब्दार्थगतत्वेन यो विभाग: सोन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यामेव व्यवतिष्ठते। यत्र हि पर्यायान्तरपरिव्ृित्तिसहत्वं नास्ति तस्य शब्दगतत्वम् यत्र तु तत्सहत्वं तत्रार्थगतत्वमिति सिद्धान्तादिति भाव: -as a commentator explains it. (iii) Others try to get out of the difficulty by recog- nising a distinct variety of शब्दश्लेष and of अर्थश्लेष. Thus Bhoja gives six varieties of शब्दश्लेष (ii. 68ff) viz. प्रकृति, प्रत्यय, विभक्ति, वचन, पद, and भाषा. Mammata adds two more varieties to the list: वर्ण and लिङ्, while Bhoja includes the former under the qa variety and the latter under the प्रकृति variety. In these varieties the word-element is distinctly the all-in-all. For illustrations see, be- sides the two works in question, Sāhityadarpana pp. 457ff., and Alamkarakaustubba pp. 242ff .- The q on the other hand includes the cases where the use of the paronomastic words brings about prominently a comparison between the प्रकृत and the अप्रकृत statements. As we have a two-in-one statement in समासोक्ति so also we have it in अर्थश्लेष, only the method is different. Dandin does not bring out this point in his definition (and it is in this sense that we wish to have our remark on Slesha in Note (iii) to ii. 207 understood), but most other writers including even Bhāmaha (iii.14) use 34414 and y in tho very definitions of the figure .- Rudrata is so much impressed by the different uses to which

ii. 310- ] Kāvyādarša [ 190

paronomastic words can be put that he makes dq a basic principle of subdivision for alamkāras along with वास्तव, औषम्य, and अतिशय. He gives (x. 1 - 23) ten sorts of श्लेषमूलालंकारs, viz. अविशेष, विरोध, अधिक, वक्र, व्याज, उक्ति, असंभव, अवयव, तत्त्व, and विरोधाभास. For illustrations see the Kāvyālamkāra itself. (iv) For the distinction of this figure from Samāsokti see Note (ii) to ii. 207. Our remarks there apply to the developed conception of Slesha leading to आपम्य as it is found in other writers. Dandin's illustrations do in- deed suit the definitions of the later Ālamkārikas, but his definition is non-commital.

Notes to II. 311-(i) Bhoja quotes this illustation and thus comments upon it (p. 465)-अत्रायमुदीयमानश्चन्द्रमा लोकस्य हृदयं हरतीत्युक्तेर्युक्तिमाह-राजा अनुरक्तमण्डल उदयी मृदुकरः कान्तिमानिति। यो ह्येवंभूतो राजा सोवश्यं लोकस्य हृदयहारी भवति। अन्रापि च प्राकरणिकेर्थेप्राकरणिक उपश्लिष्यमाणः पदानामभेदेनाभिन्नपदश्लेषो भवति।

Notes to II. 312-(i) Bhoja's comment on the figure is as follows-अत्र प्रदोषो रात्रेः प्रथमयामः किमिति प्रियारहितं मां न बाधते इत्युक्तेर्युक्तिमाह-इत्थम् अनुभूयमानप्रकारेण राज्ञा संबध्नन्। कीदृशेन दोषाकरेण नक्षत्रपथवर्तिनेति। यो हि दोषाणामाकरेण राजमार्गातिगामिना च राज्ञा प्रकृष्टदोषः संबध्यते सोप्रियमवश्यं बाधत एव ! तदत्र पूर्वस्मिन् प्राकरणिकेर्थे द्वितीयोर्थो- प्राकरणिक: पदभेदेनोपश्लिष्यमाणो भिन्नपदश्लेषापदेशमासादयति।

Notes to II. 313-(i) Paronomasia constitutes the ingredi- ent of so many figures that a question has been started as to whether in these several cases the alamkāra is primarily Ślesha alone, or the other figure [3qHr (ii. 28), रूपक (ii. 87), आक्षेप (ii. 159), व्यतिरेक (ii. 185), etc.], or a संसृष्टि or mixture ?of both. The discussion is started by Udbhața's statement (p. 54)- अलंकारान्तरगतां प्रतिभां जनयत् पदैः। द्विविधैरर्थशब्दोक्तिविशिष्टं तत् (श्रिष्टं) प्रतीयताम्॥ Jagannātha (p. 393ff.) gives a résumé of it in these words-अयं चालंकारः प्रायेणालंकीरान्तरस्य विषयमभिनिविशते तत्र किमस्य

191] Notes l-ii. 316

बाधकत्वं स्यादाहोस्वित्संकीर्णत्वमुताहो बाध्यत्वमिति। अत्राहुरुद्वटाचार्या :- येन नाप्राप्ते य आरभ्यते स तस्य वाधक इति न्यायेनालंकारान्तरविषय एवायमारभ्य- माणोलंकारान्तरं बाधते। न चास्य विविक्तः कथ्विदस्ति विषयो यत्र सावकाशो नान्यं वाधेत। ... ... । तस्मादुपमादिप्रतिभो पत्तिहेतुः श्लेष एव स्वविषये सर्वत्रालंकारः ॥ एतच्चापरे न क्षमन्ते। तथा हि एवं च सावकाशत्वाच्छलेषस्यालंकारान्तरापवादकत्वं न युक्त्तम्। अत एवोपमादीनां प्रतिभानमात्रमिति यदुक्तं तदपि न संगतम् .. .. प्रत्युत श्लेपस्येव प्रतिभान- मात्रमिति वक्तं युक्तम्। तस्माच्छलेपस्य नापवादकत्वं संकीर्णत्वं तु स्यात् ॥ अन्ये तु-अलंकारा हि प्राधान्येन चमत्काराधायकाः स्वां स्वामाख्यां लभन्ते। त एव परोपकारकतया वर्तमानास्तां त्यजन्ति। ............ । एवं चालंकारान्तरोपस्कार- कतया स्थितः श्लेषः कथंकारं स्वगृहस्थ इव श्लेषालंकारव्यपदेशं वोदुमीष्टामिति बाध्यप्राय एव इत्यप्याहुः॥ The most reasonable view to hold is that it all depends upon the particular circumstances of the case, and these differ in different illustrations, so that no hard and fast rule of universal application can be laid down.

Notes to II. 314-315-(i) Dandin's classification is some- what peculiar. Bhoja gives the varieties भिन्नपद-अभिन्नपद, भिन्नक्रिय-अभिन्नक्रिय, भिन्नकारक-अभिन्नकारक. Bhamaha, after de- fining the figure (iii. 14) as- उपमानेन यत् तत्त्वमुपमेयस्य साध्यते। गुणक्रियाभ्यां नाम्ना च श्िलिष्टं तदभिधीयते॥ gives illustrations for 'ेषs involving सहोक्ति, उपमा, and हेतु respectively as under- छायावन्तो गतव्याला: स्वारोहा: फलदायिनः । मार्गद्रुमा महान्तश्र परेषामेव भूतये।। उन्नता लोकदयिता महान्तः प्राज्यवर्षिणः । शमयन्ति क्षितेस्तापं सुराजानो घना इव ॥ रत्नवत्त्वादगाधत्वात् स्वमर्यादाविलड्घनात्। बहुसत्त्वाश्रयत्वाच्च सदृशत्वमुदन्वता । It will be seen that the last example is शलेषमूलक हेतुपमा (ii. 50), the second, a regular शेषोपमा (ii. 28), while the first has greatest affinity with ii. 316.

Notes to II. 316-(i) Bhoja reads स्वभावमधुराः स्त्निग्वा: instead of वक्रा: स्वभावमधुराः। His comment is (p. 467)-अत्र कर्षन्ति इत्येतस्यां क्रियायां दृशां दूतीनां च श्िलिष्टपदत्वेनावेशादयमभिन्नक्रियो नाम श्लेषविशेषः ।

ii. 317- ] Kāvyādarsa [ 192

Notes to II. 317-(i) Bhoja (p. 466) explains the point thus- अत्र आकर्ण्यन्ते श्लिष्यन्ते च इति क्रियापदद्वितयस्य प्राधान्यतः समुच्चयेनोपात्तस्य मधुराः इत्यादिभिः श्िष्टपदैः कोकिलागिरः असितेक्षणाः इति वा विशेष्यैकपदवर्जे पर्यायतः संबन्धो भवति। तथथा-आकर्ण्यन्ते। काः । कोकिलागिरः । कीदृश्यः । मधुरा :.. ·। श्लिष्यन्ते च। काः। असितेक्षणाः हरिणचक्षुषः । किंभूताः मदकला :......... इति।

Notes to II. 318-(i) Here as also in ii. 322 below we have a combination of शलेषवैचित्रय with the वैचित्र्य of विरोध as exemplified in ii. 334. For the distinction of this from तुल्ययोगिता see Notes to ii. 330 below.

Notes to II. 319-320 -- Most writers with the exception of, besides Dandin, भामह, उद्भट, भोज, वामन, and र्य्यक,-to say nothing of भरत and अग्निपुराण,-admit a figure of speech called परिसंख्या which consists in a तादृगन्यव्यपोह An ex- ample will explain the nature of this figure- भक्तिर्भवे न विभवे व्यसनं शास्त्रे न युवतिकामास्त्रे। चिन्ता यशसि न वपुषि प्रायः परिदृश्यते महताम्॥ The Sāhityadarpaņa (p. 563) from which this illustra- tion is taken goes on to observe-शलेषमूलत्वे चास्य वैचित्र्यविशेषो यथा-यस्मिंश्च राजनि जितजगति पालयति महीं चित्रकर्मसु वर्णसंकराश्चापेषु गुण- च्छेदा: इत्यादि।

Notes to II. 321-322-(i) It is difficult to distinguish ii. 321 from ii. 87, the illustration of a श्लिष्टरूपक. All that we can say at the utmost is that in ii. 87 the identity with a lotus is given an exclusive prominence, while here the king receives at least as much prominence as or कार्तिकेय. It cannot at the same time be शलेषापमा illustrat- ed in ii. 28 because there is an absence of any उपमाप्रति- पादकशब्द. (ii) Compare Note (i) to ii. 87 and Note (i) to ii. 318 above.

Notes to II. 323-(i) Some distinctive definitions of Viśe- shokti are- Agnipurāņa, same as Dandin's definit

193 ] Notes : -ii 323

Bhāmaha (iii. 22)- एकदेशस्य विगमे या गुणान्तरसंस्थितिः । विशेषप्रथनायासौ विशेषोक्तिर्मता यथा॥ Udbhata (p. 58)- यत् सामग्रयेपि शक्तीनां फलानुत्पत्तिबन्धनम्। विशेषस्याभिधित्सातस्तद्विशेषोक्तिरुच्यते॥ दर्शितेन निमित्तेन निमित्तादर्शनेन च। तस्या बन्धो द्विधा लक्ष्ये दृश्यते ललितात्मकः॥ Vāmana (IV. iii. 23)- एकगुणहानिकल्पनायां साम्यदार्ढ्ये विशेषोक्तिः। Bhoja, same as Dandin. Ruyyaka (p. 126)- कारणसामग्रये कार्यानुत्पत्तिर्विशेषोक्तिः । Mammata (x. p. 800)- विशेषोक्तिरखण्डेषु कारणेषु फलावचः। and Jagannātha (p. 437)- प्रसिद्धकारणकलापसामान्याधिकरण्येन वर्ण्यमाना कार्यानुत्पत्तिर्विशे- lf: I-compare his definition of Vibhāvanā- कारणव्यतिरेकसामान्याधिकरण्येन प्रतिपाद्यमाना कार्योत्पत्तिर्विभावना। (ii) While Vāmana's definition of this figure (which he illustrates by द्यतं हि नाम पुरुषस्यासिंहासनं राज्यम्) is put down by later writers as a case of रूपक (as Jagannatha says :- अत्र हि द्यूते राज्यं तादात्म्येनारोप्यते। तत्र सिंहासनरहितं हि द्यूतं सिंहासनसहित- राज्यतादात्म्यं कथं वहेदित्यारोपोन्मूलकयुक्तिनिरासायारोप्यमाणे राज्येपि सिंहासन- राहित्यं कल्प्यते। तेन दृढारोपं रूपकमेवेदम्) it must be admitted that Dandin's conception of Viśeshokti, in as much as it does not bring the causal relation prominently to the fore, is a development from a root conception of the figure quite allied to that of Vāmana. It is rather difficult to accurately distinguish this figure from कारणाक्षेप (ii. 131), कार्याक्षेप (ii. 133), and विभावना (ii. 199). Compare Note (ii) to ii. 131-132, Note (i) to ii. 133-134, Notes (i) and (ii) to ii. 199, and Note (ii) to ii. 235. Keeping ourselves strictly to the conceptions of these figures as Dandin gives them, we can say that while in a normal case of cause producing effect we have the 25 [ Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 323- ] Kāvyādarśa { 194

presence of (i) principal cause, (ii) presence of acces- sory causes, (iii) presence of extraordinary circum- stances favouring the production of the cause, (iv) presence of agreeable natural conditions, and (v) absence of special hindrances,-all co-operating to produce the normal result,-we have-

IN कारणाक्षेप Principal cause absent * -Effect absent ; Accessory causes present IN कायाक्षेप Principal cause present

[ Extra circumstances lacking ?] -Effect absent; *

IN विभावना 1ST KIND Principal cause absent -Effect present; Extra circumstances inferrable * IN विभावना 2ND KIND Principal cause absent -Effect present ; Exceptional natural circum- stances inferrable *

IN विशेषोक्ति Principal cause present -Effect present through greatness but with special hindrances of cause ; *

IN अहेतु (Bhoja iii. 18) Principal cause present

[arg unpropitious?] -Effect absent .*

The point of the figure in each case is the item marked by an asterix (*).

Notes to II. 324-(i) Bhoja reads (p. 431) जितमेवाभूत् for जित- मेवासीत्. His comment on the stanza is-अत्र तीक्ष्णेनाकठोरेण चायुधेन पुष्पधन्वा त्रीणि जगन्ति विजयते इति तस्य प्रभावातिशयः प्रतीयते। सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुर्गुणवैकत्यवती विशेषोक्तिः ।

195 1 Notes [ -ii. 330

Notes to II. 325-(i) On this stanza Bhoja observes-अत्र देव- कन्यकात्वाभावेप्येषा वेधसोपि तपोभङ्गं विधातुमलामति वर्णनीयाया रूपातिशयः प्रतीयते। सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुर्जातिवकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः ।

Notes to II. 326-(i) Bhoja (p.432) explains the point thus- अत्र भ्रभक्कादेरभावेपि योयं द्विषतां जयस्तेन वर्णनीयस्य प्रतापातिशयः प्रतीयते। सेयं प्रतीयमानविशेषहेतुः क्रियावैकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः।

Notes to II. 327-(i) Bhoja remarks-अत्र रथादेरभावेपि जगत्त्रय- विजयहेतुः स्त्रीणामपाङ्गावलोकनमभिधीयते। सेयमभिधेयविशेषहे तुर्द्रव्यवैकल्यवती विशेषोक्तिः। Bhoja however is not correct in supposing that the हेतु is here expressed. The real हेतु is the मनोहारित्व of the glances which is to be understood, .

Notes to II. 328-329-(i) Bhoja reads जगत्त्रयम् for नभस्तलम्. His remarks are-अत्र रथादीनां द्रव्याणामेकचक्त्वादिभिर्वैकल्येपि यदेत- द्रगवतो भास्करस्य भुवनत्रयाक्रमणं तस्येह तेजस्विता हेतुरभिधीयते। सेयमभिधेय- विशेषहेतुवैकल्यवद्द्रव्या नामापरा विशेषोक्तिः ।

Notes to II. 330-332-(i) We have already given a few definitions of Tulyayogitã in our Notes (i) and (iii) to ii. 48-49. We make room here for a few more- Vāgbhața (iv. 88) -- उपमेयं समीकर्तुमुपमानेन योज्यते। तुल्यैककालक्रियया यत्र सा तुल्ययोगिता। Kuvalayānanda (43, 45, 46)- वर्ण्यानामितरेषां वा धर्मैक्यं तुल्ययोगिता।

हिताहिते वृत्तितौल्यमपरा तुल्ययोगिता।

गुणोत्कृष्टेः समीकृत्य वचोन्या तुल्ययोगिता॥ and Jagannātha (p. 317)- प्रकृतानामेवाप्रकृतानामेव वा गुणक्रियादिरूपैकधर्मान्वयस्तुल्ययोगिता। (ii) It will be noted that more than one conception of this figure is current amongst the Alamkārikas,

ii. 330- 1 Kāvyādarsa [ 196

Vāmana. Bhāmaha, Vāgbhața, Kuvalayānandakāra, Bhoja, and Dandin are all attempting, each in his own way, to define the figure in conformity with the etymology of its name. Under the circumstances we will have to keep close to our author's conception of the figure and try to distinguish it from प्रतिवस्तूपमा (ii. 46), तुल्ययोगोपमा (ii. 48), दीपक (ii. 97), समासोक्ति (ii. 205), स्टेष (ii. 310 ff.), अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (ii. 340), व्याजस्तुति (ii. 343) and निदर्शन (ii. 348). To begin with, in प्रतिवस्तूपमा (cp. the illustration in ii. 47) the उपमान is not intended to be extraordinarily superior to the उपमेय and the समीकरण be- tween them is not directly expressed, but is प्रतीत only; whereas in तुल्ययोगिता there are things decidedly sup- erior or गुणोत्कृष्ट with which an inferior thing is joined in an assertion. The समीकरण (not the साम्य) is direct, and not left to be suggested. Further, the intention in the present figure is either स्तुति or निन्दा, and this is absent in प्रतिवस्तूपमा.

(iii) In तुल्ययोगोपमा (ii. 48) we have the superior and inferior relation between the things and an attempt to equate them, as in तुल्ययोगिता. But while in the former उपमा is consciously sought to be expressed by reference to identical क्रिया (or गुण), in the latter the उपमा relation is subordinate and the point of it is not fully brought out. Further in तुल्ययोगिता the desire to praise or blame is prominently present, the same being absent in the उपमा variety.

(iv) Consider the दीपक illustrations in ii. 99, and ii. 100. In these there is अधिकहीन relation and no स्तुतिनिन्दा intended as a definite end. Further, the point of similarity is expressed with one statement and has to be supplied with the other. So the distinction of these varieties from तुल्ययोगिता is quite obvious. (v) In a समासोक्ति the two things are तुल्य, neither being by nature अधिक or हीन. Besides, only one of them (प्रकृत or अप्रकृत) is expressed directly, the other being प्रतीत only. Nor is there here any conscious de- sire to praise or blame. In तुल्ययोगिता, besides the अधिक-

197 ] Notes [-ii. 333

हीन relation and स्तुतिनिन्दाप्रयोजन, we are required to make an express mention of the two objects compared. (vi) Though the illustration of a श्लेष (ii. 310ff.) might offer points of comparison with तुल्ययोगिता, the figure y always turns upon an unmistakable peculiarily which is its sufficient distinctiveness. The parono- masia in ii. 332d is not intended or indispensable. (vii) Aprastutapraśamsā as Dadin conceives it in- volves स्तुति, if not स्तुति or निन्दा, but there is an absence of अधिकहीन relation, and an implication of प्रस्तुत through Ea statement, in place of the direct statement of the two found in a तुल्ययोगिता. (viii) Vyajastuti (ii. 343) involves स्तुति (or निन्दा) but it is feigned. And it is a Efa made of a certain thing which might not be joined with any thing else in simile. A तुल्ययोगिता is necessarily based upon a relation between at least two things.

(ix) In निदर्शन the साम्य between the two things is not a well-established fact so that we could know before hand which is गुणोत्कृष्ट or गुणनिकृष्ट. The साम्य is evolved just in the very act presented to our eyes.

Notes to II. 333-339-(i) All writers except Bharata ad- mit विरोध as a distinct figure. A few leading defini- tions are given below :- Agnipurāņa (344. 28)- संगतीकरणं युक्तया यदसंगच्छमानयोः। विरोधपूर्वकत्वेन तद्विरोध इति स्मृतम् ॥ Bhāmaha (iii. 24) and Udbhata (p. 59)- गुणस्य वा क्रियाया वा विरुद्धान्यक्रियाभिदा [v. 1. वच:]। या [v.1. यद्] विशेषाभिधानाय विरोधं तं विदुर्बुधा: [v.1 प्रचक्षते]॥ Rudrața (ix. 30)- यस्मिन् द्रव्यादीनां परस्परं सर्वथा विरुद्धानाम्। एकत्रावस्थानं समकालं भवति स विरोधः॥ Vāmana (IV. iii. 12) and Ruyyaka (p. 121)- विरुद्धाभासत्वं विरोधः ।

ii. 339- j Kāvyādarsa [ 198

Bhoja (iii. 24)- विरोधस्तु पदार्थानां परस्परमसंगतिः । असंगतिः प्रत्यनीकमधिकं विषमश्च सः॥ Mammața (X. p. 807)- विरोधः सोविरोधेपि विरुद्धत्वेन यद्च: Vāgbhața (iv. 121)- आपाते हि विरुद्धत्वं यत्र वाक्येन तत्त्वतः । शब्दार्थकृतमाभाति स विरोधः स्मृतो यथा॥ Vāgbhața (p. 38)- अविरोधेपि विरोधप्रतीतिर्विरोधः । साक्षाद्विरोधे तु काव्यत्वासंभवात्। Keśavamiśra (p. 35)- विरोधो द्विविधः। पारमार्थिकाविरोधेपि औचित्येन विरुद्धतया प्रतीयते यत्र। द्वितीयस्तु यथाश्रुते विरोध[?धा]संधानेपि यत्राभिप्रेतार्थमादाय विरोधः । अयमेव विरोधाभास इत्युच्यते। Hemachandra (p. 269)- अर्थानां विरोधाभासो विरोधः । Vidyādhara (viii. 33)- स्फुरति विरोधाभासे भवति विरोधाभिधो दशधा। Vidyānātha (p. 416)- आभासत्वे विरोधस्य विरोधालंकृतिर्मता। Viśvanātha (x. 68)- जातिश्वतुर्भिर्जात्यादैर्गुणो गुणादिभिस्त्रिमिः । क्रिया क्रियाद्रव्याभ्यां यद्द्रव्यं द्रव्येण वा मिथः ॥ विरुद्धमेव भासेत विरोधोसौ दशाकृतिः । Kuvalayānanda (st. 75)- आभासत्वे विरोधस्य विरोधाभास इष्यते। विनापि तन्वि हारेण वक्षोजौ तव हारिणौ।। Jagannātha (p. 427)- एकाधिकरणसंबद्धत्वेन प्रतिपादितयोरर्थयोर्भा समानैकाधिकरणसंबद्धत्व- मेकाधिकरणासंबद्धत्वभानं वा विरोधः । Viśveśvara (p. 321)- अविरोधेपि विरोधो यत्रोक्तः स्याद्विरोधः सः। Achyutarāya (viii. 202)- विरोधस्याल्पभासश्रेद्विरोधाभास उच्यते।

199 ] Notes l -ii. 339

(ii) The figure is said to be शाब्द when a word like अपि is used in the statement; otherwise it is आर्थ. This division is however disputed ( cp. Rasagangādhara p. 428 ). It is called शुद्ध when not based upon श्लेष or paronomasia. Dandin's last example (ii. 339) is श्लेषमूलक. The ten-fold division of the figure given by most writers is, like that of स्वभावोक्ति or दीपक, based upon the four-fold संकेत of words recognised by gram. marians. Jagannātha (p. 428) rightly calls this classi- fication अहृय Bhoja gives four kinds, viz. असंगति, प्रत्यनीक, अधिक, and विषम Rudrata gives 13 varieties, denying the validity of जातिद्रव्यविरोध, and adding 4 addi- tional varieties (cp. ix. 33, exemplified in ix. 41-44) not generally recognised by other ālamkārikas. Daņdin's classification is based on no definite principles. (iii) Virodha enters into the composion of a number of other figures such as उपमा (ii. 33), रूपक (ii. 84), दीपक (ii. 109), etc., while figures like विभावना or certain varie- ties of HT&9 are, on ultimate analysis, special kinds of विरोध only. Cp. the list of विरोधमूलक figures on p. 69 above, as also Note (iii) to ii. 199. Hemachandra in fact even observes (p. 272) - एवं च विभावनाविशेषोक्तयसंगति- विषमाधिकव्याघाततद्रुणाः पृथगलंकारत्वेन न वाच्याः । विरोध एवान्तर्भावात्। The Kāvyaprakāśakāra however takes a different view. These alarkaras, as being special cases of विरोध and having a distinct charm of their own, can be considered as independent figures. For he says (about असंगति, p. 871)-एषा च विरोधबाधिनी न विरोधः ... अपवादविषयपरिहारेणो- त्सर्गस्यावस्थितेः । (iv) Strictly speaking every poetical identification such as मुखं कमलम् involves an element of विरोध; but that has to be ignored. Jagannātha observes (p. 430)- इह हि अलंकारवर्गे यो यत्र सहृदयचमत्कृतिपथमवतरति स एव तत्रालंकार इति निर्विवादम्। एवं च रूपके ...... यद्यप्यस्ति विरोधस्तथापि न स तत्र प्रतिपिपाद- यिषितः । ......... । विरोधस्थले तु कुसुमानि शराः इत्यादौ ......... अभेदस्य ... विरोधोत्थापनार्थमुपात्तस्याचमत्कारित्वात् रूपकालंकारत्वमयुक्तम्। (v) Dandin and Bhamaha are alone in putting विशेष- दर्शन specially into the very definition of this figure. Other definitions imply this.

ii. 339- ] Kāvyādarśa [ 200

(vi) In ii. 339 the reading दुःशासनीयत्वं etc. for विश्वसनीयत्वं etc. is worth noting. It is a deliberate attempt to improve the original.

Notes to II. 340-342-(i) Dandin understands अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा in the literal sense of अप्रस्तुतस्य [प्रस्तुतनिन्दार्थे ] प्रशंसा, and so strictly limits the application of this figure to this case alone. Cp. note (ii) to ii. 205, where (p. 143 line 11 from bottom) read 'latter' for 'former' and 'former' for 'latter'. The definitions of other writers for this figure are- Bhāmaha (iii. 28)- अधिकारादपेतस्य वस्तुनोन्यस्य या स्तुतिः । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसेति सा चैवं कथ्यते यथा॥ Udbhata (p. 61) reads the second line thus- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसेयं प्रस्तुतार्थानुबन्धिनी॥ Vāmana (IV. iii. 4) and Vāgbhața (p. 36)- [उपमेयस्य] किंचिदुक्तौ [समानवस्तुन्यासः] अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा । Bhoja (iv. 52)- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा स्यादस्तोतव्यस्य या स्तुतिः । कुतोपि हेतोवाच्या च प्रत्येतव्या च सोच्यते॥ Ruyyaka (p. 104)- अप्रस्तुतात् सामान्यविशेषभावे कार्यकारणभावे सारूप्ये च प्रस्तुतप्रती- तावप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा। Mammața (x, p. 750)- अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा या सा सैव प्रस्तुताश्रया। कार्ये निमित्ते सामान्ये विशेषे प्रस्तुते सति॥ तदन्यस्य वचस्तुल्ये तुल्यस्येति च पञ्चधा॥ Vāgbhața (iv. 134)- प्रशंसा क्रियते यत्राप्रस्तुतस्यापि वस्तुनः । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसां तामाहुः कृतधियो यथा॥ स्वैरं विहरति स्वैरं शेते स्वैरं च जल्पति। भिक्षुरेक: सुखी लोके राजचौरभयोज्झितः ॥ Jagannātha (p. 402)- अप्रस्तुतेन व्यवहारेण सादृश्यादिवक्ष्यमाणप्रकारान्यतमप्रकारेण प्रस्तुत- व्यवहारो यत्र प्रशस्यते साप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, adding in explana- tion, प्रशंसनं च वर्णनमात्रम् न तु स्तुतिः ।

201 ] Notes 1-1i .. 342

(ii) It will be seen that while to later writers- अप्रस्तुतवर्णनेन प्रस्तुतवर्णनप्रतीतिः is अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ; to Dandin- अप्रस्सुतप्रशंसनेन प्रस्तुतनिन्दाप्रतीति: is अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. This has saved Dandin from the necessity (i) of dis- tinguishing this figure from समासोक्ति, अर्थान्तरन्यास, श्ेष, etc .; and (ii) of explaining the circumstances which make it possible for the अप्रस्तुत to suggest प्रस्तुत. These cir- oumstances give the several varieties of the figure as admitted by subsequent writers. In order to show how very complicated the whole business of classification has become at the hands of these later writers we give below a tabular statement based on the Kāvya- prakāša- (i) कार्ये प्रस्तुते कारणाभिधानम् (ii) कारणे प्रस्तुते कार्याभिधानम् अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा 1 (iii) सामान्ये प्रस्तुते विशेषाभिधानम् ! (iv) विशेषे प्रस्तुते सामान्याभिधानम् (v) तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्यान्तराभिधानम् Variety (v) further divided into

A. Use of शिष्ट B. Through व्यवहारारोप C. Through words for as in समासोक्ति (with simple विशेषण +विशेष्य विशेषण alone श्लिष्ट) सादृश्य

Or again, independently, into

A1. अनध्यारोपेण B1. अध्यारोपेण C1. अंशेष्वध्यारोपेण

(iii) Bhoja gives for अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा the twofold classifica- tion into वाच्या and प्रत्येतव्या, his instance for the latter being Dandin's illustration in ii. 341 paraphrased ; viz .- कामं वनेषु हरिणास्तृणानि खादन्त्ययत्नसुलभानि। विदधति धनिषु न दैन्यं ते किल पशवो क्यं सुधियः॥ 26 [ Kavyadaréa ]

ii. 342~] Kāvyādarsa [202;

The बाच्या variety he illustrates by- पङ्गो वन्दास्त्वमसि न गृहं यासि योर्थी परेषां धन्योन्ध त्वं धनमदवतां नेक्षसे यन्मुखानि। ल्लाध्यो मूक त्वमपि कृपणं स्तौषि नार्थाशया य: स्तोतव्यस्त्वं बधिर न गिरं यः खलानां शणोषि॥

Notes to II. 343-347- (i) A few representative definitions of this figure are- Bhāmaha (iii. 30)- दूराधिकगुणस्तोत्रव्यपदेशेन तुल्यताम्। किंचिद्विधित्सोर्या निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ यथा॥ Udbhata (p. 61)- शब्दशक्तिस्वभावेन यत्र निन्देव गम्यते। वस्तुतस्तु स्तुतिश्रेष्ठा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ मता॥ Rudrata (x. 11)- यस्मिन् निन्दा स्तुतितो निन्दाया वा स्तुतिः प्रतीयेत ।. अन्या विवक्षिताया व्याजश्लेषः स विज्ञेयः॥ Vāmana (IV. iii. 24) संभाव्यविशिष्टकर्माकरणान्निन्दा स्तोत्रार्था व्याजस्तुतिः। Bhoja (iv. 56)- दोषस्य यो गुणीभावो दोषीभावो गुणस्य यः। स लेशः स्यात्ततो नान्या व्याजस्तुतिरपीष्यते। Ruyyaka (p. 112)- स्तुतिनिन्दाभ्यां निन्दास्तुत्योगम्यत्वे व्याजस्तुतिः । Mammata (x, p. 815)- व्याजस्तुतिमुखे निन्दा स्तुतिवां रूढिरन्यथा। Hemachandra (p. 276)- स्तुतिनिन्दयोरन्यतरपरता व्याजस्तुतिः । Vidyādhara (viii. 30)- यत्र प्रक्रान्तायां स्तुतौ कथंचित् प्रतीयते निन्दा। निन्दायां स्तुतिरथवा सेयं व्याजस्तुतिर्द्विविधा।। Vidyānātha (p. 443)- निन्दया वाच्यया यत्र स्तुतिरेवावगम्यते i स्तुत्या वा गम्यते निन्दा व्याजस्तुतिरसौ मता॥ and Jagannātha (p. 416)- आमुखप्रतीताभ्यां निन्दास्तुतिभ्यां स्तुतिनिन्दयोः क्रमेण र्यवसान व्याजस्तुतिः ।

203 Notes [ -ii. 347

(ii) It will be noted that all writers except Dandin, Bhamaha, Udbhata, and Vamana consider both निन्दया स्तुतिः and स्तुत्या निन्दा as the legitimate spheres of this figure. It is not certain therefore whether Dandin really would permit the उपलक्षण which we have put upon the definition in our Sanskrit Commentary ii. 3437. Rudrața gives the figure as a variety of figures, and so requires that it be based necessarily upon paronomasia. Bhoja, finally, makes no distinc- tion between व्याजस्तुति and लेश defined as in Kavyadarsa ii. 268. (iii) According to Dandin's view it seems that Leśa No. 2 is distinguished by the presence of a subtle element in the praise or blame, while in a व्याजस्तुति no such subtle element is necessary. This is the only distinction between these two figures. Hence we must either suppose that Dandin did not intend to accept Leśa No. 2 without reserve, or that Bhoja is justified in making लेश = व्याजस्तुति. (iv) In an अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा there are two things: a प्रस्तुत and an अप्रस्तुत. Further the स्तुति of the अप्रस्तुत is real and not intended to be withdrawn. So also the निन्दा of the अप्रस्तुत. The स्तुति and निन्दा, it is also to be noted, is of two distinct things: it is not a case that the same thing is outwardly censured but really praised [and vice versa], as in a व्याजस्तुति. (v) Similarly, while in व्याजस्तुति the apparent निन्दा is to be ultimately set aside, and Fafd obtained by im- plication, the case is not one of simple ध्वनि, in as much as the arey is here entirely thrown overboard- a thing which does not necessarily happen in an ordinary ef. Cp. on the point Jagannātha (p. 416)- अत एव नास्या ध्वनित्वम्। ध्वनौ हि वाच्येनागूरणमहिम्नार्थान्तरमवगम्यते। न चैवं प्रकृते। (vi) Bhoja quotes both the examples given by Dandin and remarks (p. 410)-व्याजस्तु तिर्गुणदोषी भावलक्षणाल्लेशान्न पृथक्। (vii) In ii. 345c वंश्यस्य is a better reading thanवंशस्य, but we have no Ms. authority for adopting the im- proved reading.

ii. 348-] Kāvyādarša [204

Notes to II. 348-350-(i) A few representative definitions of निदर्शन or निदर्शना are here assembled. The figure is not recognised by भरत, अग्निपुराण, रुद्ट, हेमचन्द्र, केशवमिश्र, and both the वाग्भटs .-

Bhāmaha (iii. 32)- क्रिययैव विशिष्टस्य तदर्थस्योपदर्शनात्। ज्ञेया निदर्शना नाम यथेववतिभिर्विना।। Udbhața (p. 62)- अभवन्वस्तुसंबन्धो भवन् वा यत्र कल्पयेत्। उपमानोपमेयत्वं कथ्यते सा विदर्शना।। Vāmana (IV. iii. 20)- क्रिययैव स्वतदर्थान्वयख्यापनं निदर्शनम्। Bhoja (iii. 31)- दृष्टान्तः प्रोक्तसिध्धे यः सिद्धेर्थे तन्निदर्शनम्। पूर्वोत्तरसमत्वे तदजु वकं च कथ्यते।। Ruyyaka (p. 76)- संभवतासंभवता वा वस्तुसंबन्धेन गम्यमानं प्रतिबिम्बकरणं निद्शना ।

Mammata (x, p. 744 ff.)- [निदर्शना] अभवन् वस्तुसंबन्ध उपमापरिकल्पकः । स्वस्वहेत्वन्वयस्योक्ति: क्रिययैव च सापरा ॥ Vidyādhara (viii. 19)- प्रतिबिम्बनस्य करणं संभवता यत्र वस्तुयोगेन। गम्यमसंभवता वा निदर्शना सा द्विधाभिमता। Vidyānātha (p. 433)- असंभवद्धर्मयोगादुपमानोपमेययोः । प्रतिबिम्बक्रिया गम्या यत्र सा स्यान्निदर्शना। Viśvanātha (x. 51)- संभवन्वस्तुसंबन्धोसंभवन्वापि कुत्रचित्। यत्र बिम्बानुबिम्बत्वं बोधयेत् सा निदर्शना॥ Kuvalayānanda (st. 52 ff.)- वाक्यार्थयोः सदृशयोरक्यारोपो निदर्शना। यद्दातुः साम्यता सेयं पूर्णेन्दोरकलङ्कूता ॥ पदार्थवृत्तिमप्येके वदन्त्यन्यां निदर्शनाम्। त्वन्नेत्रयुगुलं धत्ते लीलां नीलाम्बुजन्मनः । अपरां बोधनं प्राहुः क्रिययासत्सदर्थयोः । नश्येद्राजविरोधीति क्षीणं चन्द्रोदये तमः ॥

205 ] Notes [ -ii. 350

Jagannātha (p. 339) -- उपात्तयोरर्थयोरार्थाभेद औपम्यपर्यवसायी निदर्शना। and Viśveśvara (p. 262)- उपमापर्यवसन्नो यत्रार्थोन्योन्यमन्वयानहः। यच्ब क्रियया कारणकार्यान्वयधीर्निंदर्शना सोक्ता।। (ii) It will be observed that Dandin, Bhāmaha, Vmana, and others admit what is known as the ea- निदर्शना as the only variety of the figure, while Mam- mata and most other writers admit an additional variety. Dandin's conception of this figure bas the advantage of keeping true to the etymologioal sense of the figure. (iii) This बोधननिदर्शना is the same as the संभवद्वस्तुनिदर्शना of Ruyyaka, Viśvanatha, and most later writers. As Appaya Dīkshita observes in his Chandrikā (p. 74)- स्वक्रियया परान् प्रति सदसदर्थबोधनं संभवदेव समतां गर्भीकरोति। To the same effect also Jagannātha (p. 345). The second, and with later writers, the more usual variety is असंभवद्वस्तुनि- दर्शना divided into वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना and पदार्थनिदर्शना, a good example of the former being Mudrārākshasa (vii. 6)- केनो त्तुङ्गशिखाकलापकपिलो बद्धः पटान्ते शिखी पाशै: केन सदागतेरगतिता सद्यः समापादिता। केनानेकपदानवासितसटः सिंहोर्पितः पअरे भमि: केन च नैकनक्रमकरो दोर्भ्यो प्रतीर्णोर्णवः॥। The qualification which requires a बिम्बप्रतिबिम्ब relation between the two statements is to be noted. This rela- tion has to be assumed in order to explain the prima facie impossiblility of the relation between the two statements, which is dogmatically asserted. As Dandin does not recognise this असंभवत् variety, we need not enter in details into the exact scope of the figure as also its distinction from EEr-a, which is another figure not recognised by our author. See on the point Alam- kārasarvasva (p. 77). (iv) Bhoja (p. 299ff.) introduces in Dandin's निदर्शना one or two minor principles of sub-division. The similarity is directly asserted in the statement or is left to be inferred. The former is y the latter,

ii. 350-] Kāvyādarśa [ 206

वक्. Further we have cases when there is a complete दृष्टान्त statement given at first, the दार्ष्टान्तिक statement being given almost as an after-thought; or the relation is the reverse of this; or the two state- ments are simultaneous. According to Bhoja, Dandin's first example (ii. 349) is पूर्वमृजु, his second (ii. 350), सममृजु. His comment on ii. 354 is-अत्र राजविरुद्धानामित्ति श्लिष्टपदेन दर्शयन्तीति वर्तमानकाललक्षणात् सद्य इति तद्धितेन च समकालमेव दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोः शब्दत ऋजूक्त्यैवोक्तत्वादिदमृजु समं च निदर्शनम्।

Notes to II. 351-354-(i) A few other definitions of this figure are- Agnipurāņa (344. 23)- सहोक्ति: सहभावेन कथनं तुल्यधर्मिणाम्। Bhāmaha (iii. 38) and Udbhata (p. 67)- तुल्यकाले करिये यत्र वस्तुद्वयसमाश्रये [समाश्रिते v. 1.]। पदेनैकेन कथ्येते सहोक्तिः सा मता यथा [सताम् v. 1.]।। Rudrața (viii. 99f)- सा हि सहोक्तिर्यस्यां प्रसिद्धदूराधिकक्रियो योर्थः । तस्य समानक्रिय इति कथ्येतान्यः समं तेन ॥ यत्रैककर्तृका स्यादनेककर्माश्रिता करिया तत्र। कथ्येतापरसहितं कमेकं सेयमन्या स्यात्।। Vāmana (iv. 3. 28)- वस्तुद्वयक्रिययोस्तुल्यकालयोरेकपदाभिधानं सहोक्तिः। Bhoja (iv. 57 ff.)- कत्रादीनां समावेशः सहान्यैर्यः क्रियादिषु। विवित्तश्वाविविक्तश्र सहोक्तिः सा निगद्यते॥ यत्रानेकोपि कर्त्रादिः प्रविविक्ततः क्रियादिभिः। विविक्तभावं लभते विविक्ता सापि कथ्यते॥ Ruyyaka (p. 81)- उपमानोपमेययोरेकस्य प्राधान्यनिर्देशेपरस्य सहार्थसंबन्धे सहोक्तिः। Mammața (x, p. 817)- सा सहोक्तिः सहार्थस्य बलादेकं द्विवाचकम्। . Vāgbhata (iv. 119)- सहोक्तिः सा भवेद्यत्र कार्यकारणयोः सह। समुत्पत्तिः कथाहेतोरवेक्तुं तज्जन्मशक्तिताम् ॥

2071 Notes [-ii. 354

Vāgbhața (p. 38)- सहभावकथनं सहोफ्तिः । Kesavamiśra (p. 36)- समानकालोकिति: सहोक्तिः। सा दयी-उदासीनयोस्त्वराप्रतिपत्तये कार्य- कारणयोरपि। Hemachandra (p. 273)- सहार्थबलाद्धर्मस्यान्वयः सहोक्तिः। Vidyānātha (p. 400)- सहार्थेनान्वयो यत्र भवेदतिशयोक्तितः । कल्पितौपम्यपर्यन्ता सा सहोक्तिरितीष्यते। Viśvanātha (x. 55)- सहार्थस्य बलादेकं यत्र स्याद्वाचकं द्वयोः । सा सहोक्तिर्मूलभूतातिशयोक्तिर्यदा भवेत्॥ and Jagannātha (p. 357)- गुण प्रधानभावावच्छिन्नसहार्थसंबन्धः सहोक्तिः ।

(ii) The statement of simultaneity between the qualities or actions of two objects, which constitutes the essence of this figure, is not a matter-of-fact de- scription as in पुत्रेण सहागतः पिता. It is अतिशयोक्तिमूलक. Ruy- yaka however goes further and says (p. 81)-तत्र नियमेना- तिशयोक्तिमूलत्वमस्याः । सा [अतिशयोक्तिः] च कार्यकारणप्रतिनियमविपर्ययरूपा अभेदाध्यवसायरूपा च। अभेदाध्यवसायश्च श्लेषभित्तिकोन्यथा वा। Ruyyaka thus recognises, amongst others, a variety of सहोक्ति based on कार्यकारणपौर्वापर्यविपर्यय, giving as an example- भवदपराधेः सार्धे संतापो वर्धतेतरामस्याः। Jagannatha refuses how- ever to recognise this variety. As Alamkārakaustubha (p. 331) observes-कार्यकारणयोः पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययात्मकातिशयोक्तिमूलभे- दस्तु प्राचीनोको न युक्तः। तत्रातिशयोक्तेरेवालंकारत्वसंभवात्। तव कोपोरिनाशश्च जायेते युगपन्नृप। इत्यतिशयोक्तथपेक्षया तव कोपोरिनाशश्च सहैव नृप जायते। इति सहोक्ौ विच्छित्ति[ =चमत्कार]विशेषाननुभवात्। The relation between the two objects brought together in a सहोक्ति shouldbe merely गुणप्रधानभाव (cp. Panini II. iii. 19, सहयुक्के- a). Dandin would endorse the view of Jagannatha

ti. 354-1 Kāvyādarsa İ 208

though his conception of अतिशयोक्ति, as we have soon (Notes, p. 146-47), is somewhat different. The हेत्वलंका illustrated by Dandin in ii. 256 would be considered by Ruyyaka as सहोक्ति; but the very fact that Dapdin regards it as a separate alamkāra proves his non- acceptance of पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययमूला सहोक्ति variety. In none of the examples given by Dandin for सहोक्ति is there in evidence a कार्यकारण relation, the real cause in ii. 353 and ii. 353 being प्रियजनविरह and in ii. 354, probably, प्रियजन संनिधान.

Notes to II. 355-356-(i) The figure is defined by Dandin in ii. 351, latter half. Other definitions for this figure are-

Bhāmaha (iii. 40)- विशिष्टस्य यदादानमन्यापोहेन वस्तुनः । अर्थान्तरन्यासवती परिव्ृत्तिरसौ यथा।। Udbhata (p. 69)- समन्यूनविशिष्टैस्तु कस्यचित् परिर्वतनम्। अर्थानर्थस्वभावं यत् परिवृत्तिरभाणि सा ॥ Rudrața (vii. 77)- युगपद्दानादाने अन्योन्यं वस्तुना: क्रियेते यत्। क्वचिदुपचर्येते वा प्रसिद्धितः सेति परिवृत्तिः॥ Vāmana (IV. iii. 16)- समविसदशाभ्यां परिवर्तनं परिवृत्तिः । Bhoja (iii. 29 f.)- व्यत्ययो वस्तुनो यस्तु यो वा विनिमयो मिथः। परिवृत्तिरिहोक्ता सा काव्यालंकारलक्षणे।। सा त्रिधा व्यत्ययवती तथा विनिमयात्मिका। तृतीया चोभयवती निर्दिष्टा काव्यसूरिभि:॥ Ruyyaka (p. 152)- समन्यूनाधिकानां समाधिकन्यूनैर्विनिमयः परिवृत्तिः। and Jagannātha (p. 481)- परकीययत्किंचिद्वस्त्वादानविशिष्टं परस्मै स्वकीययत्किंचिद्वस्तुसम .. परिवृत्तिः।

209 ] Notes [ -ii. 357

(ii) Two points deserve to be noted. The barter ought to be कविकल्पित and charming. An actual com- mercial transaction howsoever noteworthy cannot be an instance of this figure. Secondly, there ought to be a regular sales-agent in the transaction. Accord- ingly a case like-किमित्यपास्याभरणानि यौवने धृतं त्वया वार्धकशोभि वल्कलम् or किशोरभावं परिहाय रामा बभार कामानुगुणां प्रणालीम् where there is only a व्यत्यय or किंचित् त्यक्त्वा किंचिदादानमात्रम् cannot be a regular परिवृत्ति in the normal acceptance of the term विनिमय. Mammata and Jagannatha also are against admitting व्यत्यय, while वामन and रुय्यक admit it. Bhoja attempts to hold the balance evenly by recognising व्यत्यय as a sub-variety of Parivritti. His example (p. 297) is- जो तीअ अहराउ रत्ति उब्बासिओ पिअअमेण। सोच्चिअ दीसइ गोसे सवत्तिणअणेसु संकन्तो।। [यस्तस्या अधररागो रात्रावुद्वासितः प्रियतमेन। स एव दृश्यते प्रातः सपलीनयनेषु संक्रान्तः ॥] (iii) In the above example several things belong to or reside in one and the same object. Conversely we can have a case where one object resides in succession in several places. Both these are taken by Mammata and later writes to be instances of पर्याय (an alamkara not recognised by our author) which is thus defined by Jagannatha (p.478)- क्रमेणानेकाधिकरणकमेकमाधेयमेकः पर्यायः । क्रमेणानेकाधेयकमेकमधिकरणमपरः।

Notes to II. 357-(i) Vagbhata the author of the काव्यानुशासन is the only writer besides भामह and दण्डिन् to recognise 3TT₹i: as a figure of speech. Vāgbhata defines it as (p. 46)- इष्टार्थस्याशंसनम् while the definition of Bhamaha (iii. 54) is- आशीरपि च केषांचिदलंकारतया मता। सौहृदस्याविरोधोक्तौ प्रयोगोस्याश् तद्यथा॥ Hemachandra (p. 294) declares himself against the recognition of this figure in the words-आशीस्तु प्रियोक्तिमात्रं भावज्ञापनेन गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयस्य विषयः। See his commentary on the passage. 27 [ Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 357- ] Kāvyādarsa [ 210

(ii) At the same time it is necessary to point out that the 36 embellishments of speech involving specific emotional modes which are enumerated by Bharata at the beginning of the 16th Chapter of the Natyaśastra, and which occur also in Jayadeva's Chandrāloka, Mayūkha iii, include (along with such things as गुणकीतन, प्रोत्साहन, आक्रन्द, प्रतिषेध, परिदेवन, etc.) आशीः or bene- diction. Now it must be admitted that, in a given situation, benediction can become a very effective mode of expressing ore's thoughts; and a dramatur- gist has every right to collect all such effective modes of expression together. But why Dandin should have selected only one of them for inclusion amongst the regular adaRs cannot be determined. We may how- ever point out in passing that some others out of the 36 have been universally regarded as forming the basis of some of the regular figures. (ii) It is worth noting-as pointing to an indepen- dence of tradition and perhaps an absence of interde- pendence between Dandin and Bhāmaha-that Dandin takes GTRf: as a regular benediction. Bhāmaha gives two illustrations for the figure. In the first (see our Com. ii. 3578-11) two friends, who have been estrang- ed from one another by malicious and mendacious go- betweens, perceive their error, and one of them calls upon the other to join hands again. On this Hema- chandra remarks-तत्र च तस्य चेतोवृत्तिविशेषः स्नेहात्मा रतिभावविशेषरूप आशीर्द्वरिण प्रतीयत इति भावध्वनिरेवायम् ............ । अत्र आशास्यमानस्य मैत्री संबन्धस्योपनिबन्धो न त्वप्राप्तप्राप्तीच्छात्मिका आशिषः । in the second example also (see our Com. ii. 35712-13). Hemachan- d .dra points out that the hostile cities have already been vanquished. Hence, तथाविधानां शत्रुनगरीणां दर्शनमत्र प्राप्तकालत्या- भ्यनुज्ञायते। The illustration given by Dandin is of course अप्राप्तप्राप्तीच्छामिका आशीः। And the same is the case with Vāgbhața.

Notes to II. 358-359ab .- (i) Before winding up his treat- ment of the regular alamkāras and passing on to a consideration of the mixed alamkāras (ii. 360), Dandin

211 ] Notes l -ii. 358

vindicates the completeness of his list, by remarking that अनन्वय, ससंदेह, उपमारूपक, and उत्प्रेक्षावयव, which are normally given by Ālamkārikas as independent figures, have been-the first three-included by him as sub- varieties of regular figures, while the last, though not actually so included, can easily be subsumed under a regular figure. Compare also ii. 309. See note (ii) to ii. 37; Note (ii) to ii. 26 (where in the last line on p. 90 read 'Dandin' for 'Bhämaha'); and Note (iii) to ii. 88.

(ii) The alarnkaras अनन्वय and ससंदेह, though not sepa- rately given by Dandin, are treated as independent alamkāras by almost all other writers, including Bhamaha. The figures उपमारूपक and उत्प्रेक्षावयव are how- ever given by Bhāmaha alone amongst extant writers; and Dandin's specific rejection of them raises the ques- tion as to Dandin's chronological position with refer- ence to Bhämaha. In our notes to ii. 88-90 we have adduced reasons to show that Dandin's posteriority to Bhāmaha need not be regarded as an inevitable con- clusion so far as the treatment of उपमारूपक by these two writers is concerned. As to उत्प्रेक्षावयव, in as much as Dandin gives us no indication as to his own idea of the figure, the means for forming any opinion one way or the other are unfortunately lacking.

(iii) An उत्प्रेक्षावयव is-to judge from the illustration of it given by Bhāmaha (see our Com. ii. 3594-5) is a combination of उत्प्रेक्षावैचित्र्य with शलेषवैचित्र्य and रूपकवैचित्र्य, and as Dandin's sub-varieties often exhibit such com- bined afdI, Dandin is justified from his own point of view in regarding उत्प्रेक्षावयव as उत्प्रेक्षाभेद. Abhinavagupta in his ध्वन्यालोकलोचन (p. 41) discusses Bhamaha's illustra- tion for उत्प्रेक्षावयव and regards it as a regular variety of संकर.

(iii) That a very large number of alamkāras recog- nised by modern writers are absent in Dandin's book is no impeachment of it. Science must grow.

ii. 359- 1 Kāvyādarsa [ 212

Notes to II. 359cd to 360-(i) It will be remembered that in ii. 7 संसृष्टि was designated संकीर्ण. Later writers make a distinction between these terms, reserving संसृष्टि for co-ordinating or समकक्ष mixture and संकर for prepondera- ing mixture or mixture with the अङ्गाङ्गिभाव relation. Although Dandin is aware of this two-fold method of mixture he has not deemed it necessary to appropriate a distinct name for each. Bhāmaha, Rudrața, Vāmana, Bhoja, Hemachandra, and the two Vāgbhatas have likewise contented themselves with just one name : Bhamaha, Vamana, and Bhoja choosing संसृष्ि the others having fixed upon संकर. The later alarnkarikas including स्य्यक, मम्मट, विश्वनाथ, and others clearly dis- tinguish between संसृष्टि and संकर, some adding also a third category of संदेह or अनिश्चय. (ii) The more important statements of these Älam- kārikas are here assembled for easy reference-

Bhāmaha (iii. 48)- वरा विभूषा संसृष्टिबह्लंकारयोगतः। रचिता रत्नमालेव सा चैवमुदिता यथा॥

Vāmana (IV. iii. 30f.)- अलंकारस्यालंकारयोनित्वं संसृष्टिः। तद्द्ेदावुपमारूपकोत्प्रेक्षावयवौ। Rudrața (x. 25)- योगवशादेतेषां तिलतण्डलवच्च दुग्धजलवच्च। व्यक्ताव्यक्तांशत्वात् संकर उत्पद्यते द्वेधा।। Bhoja (iv. 88 ff.)- संसृष्टिरिति विज्ञेया नानालंकारसंकरः । सा तु व्यक्ता तथाव्यक्ता व्यक्ताव्यक्तेति च त्रेधा॥ तिलतण्डुलवद्यक्ता छायादर्शवदेव च। अव्यक्ता क्षीरजलवत् पांशुपानीयवच्च सा। व्यक्ताव्यक्ता च संसृष्टिर्नरसिंहवदिष्यते। चित्रवर्णवदन्यस्मिन् नानालंकारसंकरे।।

Hemachandra (p. 289)- स्वातन्त्र्याङ्गत्वसंशयैकपद्यैरेषामेकत्र स्थिति: संकरः। परस्परिरपेक्षत्वं स्वातन्त्र्यम्। उपकारत्वमङ्गत्वम्। एकस्य ग्रहेन्यस्य त्यागे साधकबाधक- प्रमाणाभावादनिणगः संशयः । एकस्मिन् पदेर्थाच्छब्दालंकारयोः समावेश ऐकपद्यम्।

213 ] Notes [-ii.360

Pratihārendurāja (p. 66)- अनेकालंकारविकल्पात् संदेहसंकरः। विभिन्नाधारत्वेन शब्दार्थवर्तिनोर- लंकारयोरवस्थानाद्यवस्थासमाश्रयः शब्दार्थवर्त्यलंकारसंकरः । एक- शब्दाभिधानसंकरे तु समुच्चयेनानेकोलंकार एकस्मिन् वाक्यांशे इवा- दावनुप्रविशति । अनुग्राह्यानुग्राह्यकसंकरे त्वनेकस्यालंकारस्याङ्गाङ्गि- भाव: । अतो विकल्पव्यवस्थासमुच्चयाङ्गाङ्गिभावसंश्रया एते चत्वारः संकरभेदाः Mammata (x, p. 915 ff.)- सेष्टा संसृष्टिरेतेषां भेदेन यदिह स्थिति: ॥ अविश्रान्तिजुषामात्मन्यङ्गाङ्गित्वं तु संकरः । एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्चयः॥ स्फुटमेकत्रविषये शब्दार्थालंकृतिद्वयम्। व्यवस्थितं च तेनासौ त्रिरूपः परिकीर्तितः॥ Viśvanātha (x. 98 f.)- मिथोनपेक्षयैतेषां स्थितिः संसृष्टिरुच्यते। अङ्गाङ्गित्वेलंकृतीनां तद्वदेकाश्रयस्थितौ। संदिग्धत्वे च भवति संकरस्त्रिविधः पुनः॥ (iii) It will be noticed that Dandin has not yet treated of the शब्दालंकारs, and although a mixture of शाब्द and आर्थ alamkaras is possible, Dandin is not primarily thinking of such a mixture but probably a mixture of two (or more) अर्थालंकारs, as the illustration given by him goes to prove. We have already seen that many a sub-division under the several alamkāras given by Dandin is based upon a combination of वचित्र्यs proceeding from more than one figure-of-speech. All the same of course we would be justified in extending the scope of Dandin's definition of संसृष्टि s0 as to include mixtures of शाद् and आर्थ alarkaras. (iv) Should we admit संसृष्टि or संकर as an independent figure-of-speech at all ? This question is analogous to the question in Indian Logic as to the recognition of of चित्ररूप or चित्रगन्ध. Ruyyaka (p. 193) gives his con- clusion on the point in these words-तत्र यथा बाह्यालंकाराणां सौवर्णमणिमयप्रभृतीनां पृथक्चारुत्वहेतुत्वेपि संघटनाकृतचारुत्वान्तरं जायते तद्वत् प्रकृतालंकाराणामपि संयोजने चारत्वान्तरमुपलभ्यते। तेन अलंकारान्तरप्रादुर्भावो न पृथक्पर्यवसानमिति निर्णयः । अलंकारान्तरत्वेपि च संयोगन्यायेन स्फुटावगमो भेदः। समवायन्यायेन वांस्फुटत्वावगम इति द्वैधम्। पूर्वत्र संसष्टिस्तरत्र संकरः ।

ii.361-] Kāvyādarša [ 214

Notes to II. 361-362-(i) In the first half of ii. 361 there is an उपमा statement which can stand by itself. The उपमा is thus the principal figure. The श्रुतानुपालिनी considers the figure in the first half to be उत्प्रेक्षा ; but आक्षिपति can be an उपमावाचकशब्द though not actually enumerated by Dandin. In the second half we have an अर्थान्तरन्यास based upon »y. The particular statement about the invasion of the beauty of the face by lotuses is corro- borated by the general fact that, given कोश and दण्ड, any body can invade. The awkwardness of the gen- eral statement containing a pronoun (uqi) referring to a noun in the particular statement can be got over by making एषाम्=एषां लोकानाम्. Nor is the difficulty so very serious at all. We need not accordingly make the figure a हेतु instead of an अर्थान्तरन्यास, as suggested by some commentators. (ii) Dandin has not apparently given an illustration for सर्वेषां समकक्षता. The stanza ii. 362 (cp. ii. 226ab) sup- plies the deficit. But it is omitted in most Mss. and Cb quotes the stanza with the remark -समकक्ष्यताया अप्युदाहरणमन्यत्र द्रष्टव्यम्। It may be added in passing that Bhoja gives as his example for this kind of quf2 (which he calls तिलतण्डुलसंसृष्टि) the extra stanza पिनष्टीव तरङ्गाम्र: etc. mentioned in the variants to ii. 226 above. Even the श्रुतानुपालिनी does not notice ii. 362; and surely it would have been possible for Dandin, without repeating him- self, to give another instance for समकक्षसंसृषि if he had thought it necessary. We should in this connection recall the fact that Dandin has not given illustrations for all the मध्यदीपक or the अन्त्यदीपक varieties. Compare our Commentary to ii. 104 ff.

Notes to II. 363 .- (i) Of the three figures-of-speech con- tained in ii. 361 the relation.between शेष and अर्थान्तरन्यास is perhaps much more immediate than that between अर्थान्तरन्यास and उपमा; but it would be incorrect to sug- gest that the former is अङ्गाङ्गिभाव and the latter समकक्षता. All the same, dy forms, as Dandin himself says ii. 313, the ingredient of quite a large number of figures, with

215 ] Notes [ -ii. 363

which it generally has an अङ्गाङ्गिभाव relation. Compare our Note to ii. 313 and the illustrations in ii. 28, ii. 87, ii. 159, ii. 185, etc. In fact there is no figure-of-speech the charm of which cannot be heightened by introduc- ing an element of q into it somewhere. Of course the charm resulting from paronomasia is artificial and so cannot be said to reflect accurately the charm of the original object in Na ture which the poem seeks to describe in the most effective and agreeable fashion. Paronomasia is like the frame of the picture. It can set off the beauty of the portrait: but the beauty of the portrait must be there. Svabhāvokti is the beauty of the portrait; Vakrokti is the contribution of the frame-maker.

(ii) It is thus evident that Vakrokti is Dandin's general name for any rhetorical device used to garnish or embellish some normal matter-of-fact description or narration. As the श्रुतानुपालिनी remarks-स्वभावोक्तिनाम यथा- वस्थितपदार्थरूपकथनम् वक्रोक्तिर्नाम यथावस्थितमन्यथीकृत्य। अत्र उपमादयः संकीर्णपर्यन्ता वक्रोक्तिषु पतिताः स्वभावोक्तिः पुनराद्यालंकार इति। We should in this connection recall Dandin's earlier assertion (ii. 13) about स्वभावोक्ति-शास्त्रेष्वस्यैव साम्राज्यं काव्येष्वप्येत- दीप्सितम्। Mahimabhatta in his Vyaktiviveka (Triv. Sans. Series ed. p. 28) is more precise on the point. Quoting the view, presumably, of Kuntaka the author of वक्ोक्तिजीवित ( a work which has been brought to light only a few months ago in a solitary and fragmentary ms. from the South ) he says-शास्त्रप्रसिद्धशब्दार्थोंपनिबन्धनव्यति- रेकि यद्वैचित्र्यं तन्मात्रलक्षणं वकत्वं नाम काव्यस्य जीवितमिति सहृदयमानिनः केचिदाचक्षते। The वैचित्र्य of a Sastra proceeds from its description of facts as facts. In a poem the वैचित्र्य is, in the words of Jayaratha (p.8), a कविप्रतिभानिर्वर्तित व्यापार, or as another puts it, a वैदग्व्यभङ्गीभणितिः । Compare also- प्रसिद्धं मार्गमुत्सृज्य यत्र वैचित्र्यसिद्धये। अन्यथैवोच्यते सोर्थः सा वक्रोक्तिरुदाहता ॥ (iii) Bhamaha's conception of वकोक्ति can be gathered from the following passages in his work-(i. 36)- वक्ाभिधेयशब्दोक्तिरिष्टा वाचामलंकृति :- where वक्रोक्ति is given as a part of his definition of alamkāra; (cp. Abhinava-

ii. 363-] Kāvyādarsa [216 gupta's comment-शब्दस्य हि वक्ता अभिधेयस्य च वक्रता लोकोत्तर्णणिन रूपेणावस्थानमित्ययमेवासावलंकारस्यालंकारान्तरभावः); (i. 30)-युक्तं वक्र- स्वभावोक्त्या सर्वमेवैतदिष्यते-where he tells us, like Dandin, that वक्रोक्ति and स्वभावोक्ति constitute the contents of all poetio writing; (ii. 34, 35)-where he intends to say that the वैदर्भी style, in spite of its प्रसाद, ऋजुता, or कोमलत्व, will be no better than a sweet choppy music, if devoid of पुष्टाथता and वक्रोक्ति; and that, per contra, Gaudiya poe- try with its many alamkāras, provided it is not vulgar or confusing and has some sense to convey, is also not unaeceptable; and lastly the oft-quoted verse (ii. 85)- सैषा सर्वैव (v.1. सर्वत्र) वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते। यत्नोस्यां कविना कार्य: कोलंकारोनया विना॥ which, coming as it does in connection with his treat- ment of अतिशयोक्ति, leads to the equation अतिशयोक्ति=वक्रोक्ति which Mammata (x. p. 906) and Hemachandra (p. 267) distinctly lay down-सर्वत्र विषयेतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणत्वेनावतिष्ठते। तां विना प्रायेणालंकारत्वायोगात्। Other testimony to this extended application of the term वकोक्ति is Alamkarasarvasva(p.8)- वक्रोक्तिजीवितकारः पुनर्वैदग्ध्यभङ्गीभणितिस्वभावां बहुविधां वक्रोक्तिमेव प्राधान्यात् काव्यजीवितमुक्तवान्। व्यापारस्य प्राधान्यं च काव्यस्य प्रतिपेदे। अभिधान- प्रकारविशेषा एव चालंकाराः। ......... । उपचारवक्रतादिभिः समस्तो ध्वनिप्रपश्चः स्वीकृतः। कैवलमुक्तिवैचित्र्यजीवितं काव्यं न व्यङ्गयार्थजीवितमिति तदीयं दर्शनं व्यवस्थितम्। And again (p. 177)-वक्रोक्तिशब्दश्चालंकार सामान्यवचनो- पीहालंकारविशेषे संज्ञितः । To the same effect also अभिनवगुप्त in his ध्वन्यालोकलोचन (p. 208)-यातिशयोक्तिर्लक्षिता सैव सर्वा वक्रोफ्कि: अलंकारप्रकारः सर्वः ।. .. । लोकोत्तरेण चैवातिशयः । तेनातिशयोक्तिः सर्वालंकारसामान्यम्। Compare also Kavyadarsa ii. 220. (iv) As against this earlier conception of वक्रोक्ति (or अतिशयोक्ति) given by Bhamaha, Dandin, Kuntaka and others, we have the subsequent restriction of it to a specific figure-of-speech defined by Ruyyaka (p. 175) as-अन्यथोक्तस्य वाक्यस्य काकुश्लेषाभ्यामन्यथा योजनम्। and illus- trated by- अहो केनेदशी बुद्धिर्दारुणा तव निर्मिता। त्रिगुणा श्रूयते बुद्धिर्न तु दारु्मयी क्वचित् ॥। Another illustration given by Kuvalayānanda (st. 158) is-मुख् मानं दिनं [मा]नन्दिनं] प्राप्तं नेह नन्दी हरान्तिके। Rudrata (ii. 14-17), Mammața (ix, p. 593), Hemachandra (p. 234),

217 ] Notes [-ii. 363

Vidyānātha (p, 410), and most later writers have the same limited conception of qnifin, which some go to the length of regarding as a शब्दलंकार only. Rudrata (x. 9) gives besides a variety of शेष called वक्रशलेप. (v) As coming between these two conceptions of lfr, though not therefore necessarily forming the transition between them, is Vämana's conception of वक्रोक्ति as (IV. iii. 8)-सादृश्याह्वक्षणा वकोक्तिः। A लक्षणा, the Kāmadhenu explains, is possible in five ways -. अभिधेयेन संबन्धात् e. g. द्विरेफ-भ्रमर-भृङ्ग; सादृश्यात् e.g. सिंहो माणवकः (a case of वकोक्ति); समवायतः e.g. गङ्गायां घोषः; वैपरीत्यात् e.g. बृहस्पतिरयं मूर्खः; and, क्रि्ियायोगात् e.g. महति समरे शत्रुघ्नस्त्वम्. Vakrokti is thus, according to Vāmana, a metaphori- cal mode of poetic expression, while Dandin regarded it as any striking mode of poetic expression. If we now recall that to Vamana all figures-of-speech are उपमाप्रपञ्च only, while they are वक्रोक्तिप्रपञ्च or अतिशयोक्तिप्रपश्च to the earlier school, it will be perhaps evident that between Vamana's conception of वकोक्ति and that of Dandin, Bhämaha, and others there is not that wide gulf that is sometimes made out. (vi) At the same time, comparing Kāvyādarśa ii. 93-94 with Vamana's example for वकाक्ति, viz .- उन्मिमील कमलं सरसीनां कैरवं च निमिमील मुहूर्तात् (अन्र नेत्रधर्मावुन्मीलन- निमीलने सादृश्याद्विकाससंकोचौ लक्षयतः) it is evident, as Jacobi has said (Z. D. M. G., vol. Ixiv, p. 130 ff.), that Vāmana has turned what was a गुण (समाधि in Dandin, प्रसाद in Bharata xvi, 95) into an अलंकार. Samadhi is declared, like वकोक्ति and अतिशयोक्ति, as the all-in-all (ii. 100) of poetry ; and it is difficult to talk of more than one thing in the superlative and yet maintain a distinction between them, especially if we remember that with Vāmana the boundary-line between Gunas and alam- karas was very vague indeed (cp. II. 3. 172-काव्यशोभायाः कर्तारो धर्मा गुणाः तदतिशयहेतवस्त्वलंकारा:). As far as the facts of the case go, we have no definite ground to regard Vamana's treatment of वकोक्ति as either a forerunner or 28 [Kāvyādarśa ]

ii. 363-] Kāvyādarśa [218

a subsequent development of Dandin's and Bhāmaha's conception of the same. Even if Udbhata, Bhāmaha's commentator, is to be regarded as a rival contempo- rary of Vāmana, yet Vāmana may have persisted in following his own indendent अलंकारसंप्रदाय. The chrono- logical relation between Dandin and Vāmana cannot be made to turn upon their account of q=Ifm. (vii) The ultimate conception of वक्राक्ति as a शन्दालंकार cannot be genetically connected with either Dandin's or Vämana's conception of the same. The art of speaking at cross purposes was regarded as an accom- plishment of a cultured beauty (महिलागुण), and it is conceivable that it was raised to the dignity of a re- gular alamkāra irrespective of what the Texts had already to say about the other वकोक्ति.

Notes to II. 364-366-(i) Compare Note (iii) to ii. 13 above. The normal conception of Bhāvika found in Ruyyaka (p. 178), Mammața (x, p. 822), and Viśvanātha (x. 93-94), and most later writers is contained in the fol- lowing definition of it in the Kavyaprakasa-प्रत्यक्षा इव यद्द्ावाः क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः । तद्भाविकम्. Some writers add to this the further condition that the object (wa) should be अत्यद्भुत, and should be expressed in vivid and non- confusing terms (वाचामनाकुल्येन). An example of a past incident revivified is Mrichchhakatika (iii. 6)- तं तस्य स्वरसंक्मं मृदुगिर: श्लिष्टं च तन्त्रीस्वनं वर्णानामपि मूर्छनान्तरगतं तारं विरामे मृदुम्। हेलासंयमितं पुनश्च ललितं रागद्विरुच्चारितं यत्सत्यं विरतेपि गीतसमये गच्छामि >ृण्वन्निव ॥ For a future incident anticipatorily glimpsed Ruy- yaka (p. 182) gives the instance- अनातपत्रोप्ययमत्र लक्ष्यते सितातपत्रैरिव सर्वतो वृतः । अचामरोप्येष सतेव वीज्यते विलासबालव्यजनेन कोप्ययम्॥ (ii) In accordance with this later conception of the figure its name is explained as-भावः कवेरभिप्रायोन्रास्तीति। or (अलं० स०, p.178)-कविगतो भाव आशयः श्रोतरि प्रतिबिम्बत्वेनास्तीति। भावो भावना वा पुनः पुनश्चेतसि निवेशनम् सोत्रास्तीति। This etymology

219 1 Notes [ -ii. 366

probably goes back to Kāvyādarśa ii. 364cd, where however Hra apparently is used in a rather peculiar sense. We would there translate it by Sustained Intuition especially as Dandin makes it a प्रबन्धविषयगुण. Bhamaha also calls it (ii. 52) a प्रबन्धविषयगुण laying down for it the four-fold requirement, viz .- चित्रोदात्ताद्भुतार्थत्वं कथाया: स्वभिनीयता। शब्दानाकुलता चेति तस्य हेतुं प्रचक्षते।। But Dandin's requirements for the figure as enume- rated in ii. 365-366 seem to be peculiar to him, as also his whole conception of the same, wherein he is probably following a tradition distinct from that of Bhāmaha. Bhoja's conception of Bhāvika (which he identifies with 24, iv. 85-86) is so very far removed from the two conceptions discussed hitherto that it need not be here taken into consideration at all.

(iii) The Bhävika of later writers is distinguishable from the गुण called प्रसाद, the रस named अद्भुत, and अलंकारS like स्वभावोक्ति or भ्रान्तिमान् or अतिशयोक्ति. Compare साहित्यदर्पण (x. p. 574f.)-न चायं प्रसादाख्यो गुणः भूतभाविनोः प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वे तस्या- हतुत्वात्। न चाद्भुतो रसः विस्मयं प्रत्यस्य हेतुत्वात्। न चातिशयोक्तिरलंकारः अध्यवसायाभावात् ।न च भ्रान्तिमान् भूतभाविनोर्भूतभावितयैव प्रकाशनात्। न चं स्वभावोक्तिः तस्या लौकिकवस्तुगतसूक्ष्मधर्मस्वभावस्यैव यथावद्वूर्णन रूपम अस्य तु वस्तुनः प्रत्यक्षायमाणत्वरूपो विच्छित्तिविशेषोस्तीति। Hemachan- dra however refuses to admit this figure. He says (p. 293)-भाविकं तु भूतभाविपदार्थप्रत्यक्षीकारात्मकमभिनेय प्रबन्ध एव भवति। यद्यपि मुक्तकादौ दृश्यते तथापि न तत् स्वदते।

(iv) Confining our attention to Dandin's own con- ception of भाविक it will be observed that Dandin's treatment of it is quite in place, coming as it does after his treatment of वकोक्ति; whereas, it is not quite clear why Bhamaha should have called his भाविक a प्रबन्धविषयगुण. Bhavika is the quality belonging to a poem taken as a whole, and it suggests the formula- tion of questions like,-Is there a meaning to the whole ? Is it consistently carried out ? Is there a harmony and proportion of parts ? Is it a clear and self-sufficient theme? These are questions of higher

ii. 367- ] Kāvyādar ša [ 220

criticism; and it is creditable.to Dandin that he has recognised their importance and made room for them in his treatment of poetry.

Notes to II. 367-368-(i) Having considered a poem from the point of view of higher criticism and constructive technique, Dandin is naturally led to think of the dramatic Nodes and their minor constituents, or the Rhetorical-modes and their further literary distribu- tion, these being respectively treated at length in the Nāțyaśāstra, Chapters xix and xx. Daņdin here per- mits the possibility of an application of similar critical canon to the appreciation of poetry. It is to be wished however that Dandin had made himself more explicit. For vrittis compare our Note (ii) to i. 40.

(ii) Here again, as at the end of the frst Parich- cheda, Dandin emphasises, for an aspiring poet, the necessity of constant practice. Repetitio mater studiorum.

PK 2931 Dandin

D25 Dandin's Kāvyādarsa .. 1920 V.2 PT.2 c.1 ROBA

PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE

CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET

UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY